Jory

So many feels in so many different directions

Definitely a really boring episode

WTF

Kinslaying hasn't even been mentioned. I doubt it's as big a deal in the Showverse.

He knows it's true, we know it's true, this line of reasoning is just so strange to me. His right comes before Renly's, either way. Stannis had been loyal to his elder brother all his life. Renly couldn't even do that, even though Stannis was unlikely to ever have any more sons - which meant Renly would most definitely have succeeded him. It's bizarre how you attribute pride to Stannis and not Renly. How prideful to you have to be to name yourself king with no claim whatsoever, with people who only back you because you have a pretty face? No, Renly (in the books) was not - truly - qualified to rule. He was a fool, and he was surrounded by fools, and he thought the world of himself. No matter how you look at it, Renly was a traitor, and he died for it. By the way, his "failing and rotten moral character" was what led him to save the kingdom from the wildlings and try to rescue Arya.

Except using the Roman example as an argument is stupid because nothing like it exists - the closest the books come is when Stannis offers to name Renly his heir in place of Shireen, in fact. 1) The Night's Watch is made up of rapists and thieves. It's not the governing body of Westeros. 2) The Iron Islands haven't had "elections" for a thousand years, at least. The one time they tried it afterwards, the election gave them Euron. Great system? If, from your point of view, inheritance laws re: kingdoms are meaningless, then that's fine. Nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise, and the general lack of anything but constitutional monarchies would suggest that people generally think you're right. That has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with Westeros. You also made a ton of flat-out wrong points about Stannis in this thread, but I've already covered them fairly cohesively in countless other Stannis threads where you're quick to attack him, so I won't really bother. I know it must seem cool to have a man whose duty, honor, justice, etc., is "completely a fiction, conjured up by the reader and other characters" but unfortunately that just isn't the story you're reading.

You think so? One of the producers has outright said that Stannis would make a terrible king. I'm not so sure this is what they're doing. For all I know, Daenaerys will be the one who saves the Wall from the wildling attack, the way this plot is going.

Yep, it's this kind of "Well... why don't you like Renly? He's better than Stannis you idiot! Look, we even change how he reacts to your favorite character Robb's alliance proposal". We aren't meant to like Stannis in the series, and that's very clear. I don't like it when that sort of thing gets shoved in my face, either. I especially don't like how all of their changes so far have been, more or less, anti-Stannis, making him into a more villainous or at the least incompetent and "influenced" character. For instance: Stannis doesn't say he loves Renly, Renly says that about Stannis. Stannis doesn't get a cool zinger in against Renly, Renly gets a cool zinger in against Stannis. It makes no sense.

This cuts to the heart of the problem. This season just feels so much less professional than the last one. Is it the lack of Sean Bean? Is it the sudden shift of focus away from the Stark family? In the books, it happens almost without notice, but it's especially prominent in the series. Is it the weird, disjointed writing? Is it the "porn parody" feel? Margaery saying she would "bend over and pretend to be Loras" was something that seemed especially jarring. Is it the clear and blatant favoritism they show certain characters? Is it how they needlessly change minor details for no fucking reason just to be "different"? This show isn't an adaptation of GRRM's novels. It's not, and it will need to stop pretending it is once this season is done. Cutting certain characters? Makes plenty of sense. Aging them up? Sure. Shortening some of their scenes? Yep. Completely changing the fundamentals of the character? Don't get it. Don't get it at all.

Yeah... honestly, it's hard for me to like him in the series, either. In the books... I don't know, he was just different, especially in how he talks to Davos. His line about "grieving Renly" felt half-hearted and tossed in there when in the books, he has a few very heart-wrenching lines to Davos about it, and I earnestly believe he does not know that he killed Renly. The whole thing with Mel saying she'll give him a son and then him ordering Davos to go do the shadowbaby was very, very, very poorly written, there has to have been a cut scene somewhere between one and the other. I'm earnestly surprised there hasn't been much complaining about it, but I guess no one really likes Stannis like I do. The show writers certainly don't - Dan Weiss said that Stannis would make a terrible king and that he lacked humanity, which - forgive me if I'm making a broad assumption here - I don't think George R. R. Martin believes. In an interview, he had said that Stannis was "a righteous man, in spite of everything else". Meh... I'm depressed. Stephen Dillane has probably been doing a good job with what he's been given, but am I alone in thinking that the writing for Stannis' character so far has seemed very schizophrenic? Please tell me I'm not.

I liked it, don't like the obvious changes they made to Stannis' storyline, but oh well.

There was a lot I didn't like about it, but this was taken straight from the books :dunno:

One of the producers said "Stannis would make a terrible king". Oh hell no

Tywin married Joanna, his cousin. I don't think there's much of a stigma - certainly not the same as parent-child, uncle-niece or sibling-on-sibling.