Sophia Wilson17@yahoo.ca

why was Ladystoneheart cut out

1,319 posts in this topic

Because she isn't important to the main plot?



Also, resurrections are lame and lessen the threat of death to main characters, especially if you believe one of the other main characters is going to be going through it in the near future.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coldhands probably got cut because he and the Night's King is the same person. The show kind of spoiled the Night's King, so I am guessing Coldhands is the same person.

Uhm no... Coldhands is a meat suit for Bloodraven that why he was cut.... For those who are happy that LSH was cut, you have missed the point on why she is there.... LSH should not have been cut from the show....They set it up with the BWB and the Rat King story.... at this point those were both wasted screen time without LSH....

In the Books LSH represents the supernatural consequence for breaking Guest Right... It IS a fantasy setting with magic and dragons... for those who forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sellsword, you're right in that I didn't qualify the specific remarks you singled out especially well



It is bold and pretty gutsy, imo, to bring back a character we've got to know as an undead character; certainly it carries a risk of accusations of jumping the shark or that 'dead no longer means dead', etc. for a show that has built a reputation on shock & awe as far as character deaths are concerned.



So yes, that takes considerable nerve in a visual medium, imo: first in putting her on screen in a believable context that works (no doubt requiring flashbacks & direwolf sfx if it wasn't to rely too heavily on the mother of all info-dumps from Thoros) Secondly, for HBO in terms of maintaining the show's credulity.



Where it might be more straightforward, for example, to bring Sofia or Merle back briefly in The Walking Dead for all of 60 seconds in an emotive little montage before they're offed, it would be harder, I'd imagine, to have them interacting as sentient beings week-in-week out with other characters or leading a faction of rebels in an organised uprising. And this is still a mute dead woman. Riiiiight ...



My feeling, as I said, is that the show paradoxically lacks the confidence with supernatural aspects it does not in its emphasis on betrayal, trial by combat or the high drama & intrigue of political power-brokering, which is invariably expertly done.



So much is bold and daring about Game of Thrones except the more overtly supernatural, and I've always found that curious in what is still a fantasy show. Some of that is down to budgetary considerations, no question. The rest I'm not so sure. If every supernatural moment was handled as brilliantly as the white walker delivering the baby to the Night's King in season 4 this argument would be null & void, but sadly that scene was the exception not the rule.



Whether or not they ultimately shied away from Stoneheart because of the visual and pacing/plotting challenge she represents with most of her story still left hanging ( :ack: sorry ...) or it was just a matter of a cleaner, tidy edit to accelerate & dovetail Northern plotlines in the show, is not, as I already said, a question I can answer. I can guess why they passed up a cracking horror opportunity with the potential for some real emotional heft behind it. I can never know.



As for excising the Riverlands, I personally found Jaime's threats to Edmure about his child in the catapult pretty chilling ... the seemingly genuine love that developed between Edmure & Roslin Frey despite horrendous odds genuinely moving ... the random Freys becoming hanging corpses decorating belts of misty woodland with salt stuffed in their mouths a bona fide nightmare. But that's just me.



All I've seen of Dorne so far is weak sauce and bad acting by comparison.


Edited by Damorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've seen two minutes and twenty-five seconds of Dorne, for the record.


Look, it's fair enough to lament the omissions that the adaptation is making. There's a ton of great material in the books that hasn't and won't make it to the show. Considering that Game of Thrones has ~70 hours to tell a story that GRRM will be devoting ~7000 pages to, it's a safe bet that there's plenty more of what you're complaining about coming your way.


My problem is that you go beyond objecting to the changes and cuts and draw weird and specific conclusions about the showrunners' mindset in deciding them. Seriously, you just ascribed cowardice to these guys as the reason they didn't include a character your liked. You realize that makes you sound a bit loony, right?


There's a couple of valid interpretations for why Stoneheart was deemed expendable, or for why the show is diminishing the role of resurrection that the novel features more rampantly. I don't know that fear is really one of these despite your assertions to the contrary. What baffles me is you admit you don't know the real answer yet you repeatedly, confidently throw out adjectives like "daring," "bold," "risky" etc. that sure suggests you're certain about it.


It's just as easy for me to describe the character as "superfluous," "cheap" and "hollow," for example. I'd also point out that "gutsy" is not in and of itself a good thing. It would be gutsy if the show ended with Obama dropping a nuke on Westeros. That wouldn't make it good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, behold the rampant arrogance in my subjective opinions not expressed (or suggested) as fact:

“It is bold and pretty gutsy, imo – ”

"I can guess why they passed up a cracking horror opportunity with the potential for some real emotional heft behind it. I can never know."

All conjecture, all opinion.

What baffles me is you admit you don't know the real answer yet you repeatedly, confidently throw out adjectives like "daring," "bold," "risky" etc. that sure suggests you're certain about it.

Hardly baffling when in this case I was talking about what was GOOD about the show ... >>>

So much is bold and daring about Game of Thrones except the more overtly supernatural, and I've always found that curious in what is still a fantasy show. Some of that is down to budgetary considerations, no question. The rest I'm not so sure.

The supernatural stuff often seems brushed over or dealt with much less confidently than the political machinations. What's remotely confusing about that? Like ... at all?

I don’t even think there’s anything especially cowardly about fearing a supernatural/esoteric jumping the shark moment – it’s a pretty potent, healthy instinct a showrunner might have a keener awareness of these days that’s arguably killed big moments in other big profile shows, e.g: Lost, or the God revelations in BSG unpopular with so many.

I did strongly imply the guys MIGHT have erred on the side of caution and gotten cold feet about that character – guilty. But as for ‘specific conclusions about their mindset’, I also made it clear I couldn’t possibly know that. D&D are grafters and anyone would be blind not to see that.

Funny that in your summation of ascribing ME my motivation you should conveniently choose to ignore me saying (in both posts) that I have nothing but respect for all the great stuff they’ve put into the show. Does that mean I have to agree with EVERY creative/editorial decision they make and not think they screwed up this one time? Erm … no.

It’s a wonderful little quirk we have at our disposal called democracy. I express my opinions emphatically and don't sit on the fence. Just so happens I think they fucked up spectacularly on this point, but reeeeaaaaally hope to be proven wrong. If that makes me sound ‘loony’ to you, or ‘weird’ it doesn’t bother me too much. You’re the one dishing out the personal labels.

Edited by Damorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with the recent interview coming out that they planned this new seasons diversion for Sansa since season 2, that they had no intention of having LS in the storyline. It would conflict with the storyline they were creating.



If Sansa comes out openly, that means Stoneheart would actually seek her, as opposed to just trying to kill Jaime and more Freys. They also planned Jaime to never go to the riverlands, so they knew all along that Stoneheart was never going to be in. And it has nothing to do with Jon.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we stop using arguments like ''LSH was cut because she was not important to the plot''? There have been plenty of wasted scenes on the show that don't contribute to plot. Grey Worm/Missandei being the prime example. Not to mention that LSH's story still hasn't finished yet. Nobody knows how important she will be.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that LSH's story still hasn't finished yet. Nobody knows how important she will be.

Except potentially D&D. I think that's why people assume she's not crucial to the plot - the showrunners know more than we do about what's coming next, so it's a safer assumption that these decisions they're making are informed.

When the show's over and the dust settles and we've got the whole tapestry, one might very well still disagree with their decision to strike Stoneheart, but until then we kinda have to defer to the folks who know more than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she's cut...



But I think someone like the Blackfish will take her place.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time they interacted, he had been a prisoner for months and she was the mother of the King in the North. But since then Jaime lost his hand, Joffrey was killed, Tyrion killed Tywin, and he's rejected Cersei; meanwhile Catelyn was literally killed, revived, and took up leadership of the Brotherhood without Banners, all whilst leading a guerrilla war against the Lannister/Tyrell/Bolton/Frey alliance and looking for her children.

But who cares about all that lol sending Jaime to Dorne is much more fun amirite?

Yes.

Edited by Khal Porno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she's cut...

But I think someone like the Blackfish will take her place.

Yeah the show definitely has opportunities for one or more Northern Vengeance characters that could serve a similar function to Stoneheart. It's looking like Sansa might even be one of them. (Considering how things are playing out on the show thus far, it wouldn't surprise me if she becomes as much a replacement for Wyman Manderly and Lady Dustin as she is for Jeyne Poole.)

The finale of Season 3 makes too big of a point of Roose and Walder acknowledging the Blackfish's escape for nothing to come of that. Even more interestingly, the show specifically has Bran namecheck Greatjon Umber as a person Osha/Rickon might find refuge with. I realize that the real reason Umber disappeared from Season 2 and 3 was because of actor availability, but even if it wasn't what was originally planned, Bryan Cogman has acknowledged that Umber's absence from the Red Wedding means he is still alive in show canon. I see that dialog from Bran (pointedly not in the books) as the writers at least keeping the door open for the Greatjon's return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit slow on the uptake here, but over on WinterisComing.net, a poster called BericD has put up a supposed deleted tweet (in the thread entitled "The Dead Casting Rumour That Will Not Die") from the actor playing Black Walder, last November, when a secret scene in Northern Ireland was purportedly being filmed.

And here's the thing ... it mentions Michelle Fairley.

BericD

Okay, it is finally 100% confirmed, here’s why:
According to the link regarding that secret scene, it was shot in November.
Now check this out: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=365598426941691&set=p.365598426941691&type=1&theater

Also November!

That’s it! s05ep10 prepare yourselves!!!!

Am now officially preparing to get a massive plate and put my words on it, frankly.

Looks like D&D, rather than cutting out a scene & character with huge dramatic/horror potential, may well have been playing the long game here after all, hoodwinking book-readers in the process, and deserving an apology. Because if this ISN'T an elaborate hoax, the original Lady Stoneheart, as played by Michelle Fairley and not Oona Chaplin, Sophie Turner or Lena Headey's instagram now looks likely to be happening!

Again. Or not. You pays your money, you takes your choice. :ack:

Edited by Damorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she's cut, it's likely because she amounts to very little in the end game.

I've never liked this argument. Why don't we just have E6 have a Star Wars style header that says "We cut all the unimportant stuff. Dany wins!"? What does "important" and "end-game" even mean?

In any case, LSH is critical to the characters development of Brienne and Jaime. This has to be replicated somehow on TV, and if it is not then D&D have lied when they claimed that the show was "going to the same place" as the books. The details do not need to be the same, but the overall arc of Jaime choosing Brienne over Cersei and by doing so walking into a likely death trap IS a major part of their story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that's true. But at this point, I'm afraid to be hopeful that she'll show up and have my hopes dashed upon the rocks again.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why they chose to cut her, but I think the decision makes sense because of the time difference in experiencing the show vs. the books. In the books, we have to wait so long (because the books are so long, and the stories follow a truer Medieval sense of time) that we need some kind of Stark vengeance to keep us going for the final payoff. Lady Stoneheart gives us those tiny payoffs while we're waiting for the big ones (deaths of Tywin, Boltons, Walder Frey, and Littlefinger.) The show moves faster. If they gave us Lady Stoneheart, we might not crave the final vengeance as much.



That said, I was sooo disappointed when she didn't show up at the end of season 3 or 4. I guess I'm over it now.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was too early for Lady Stoneheart to show up at the end of season 3 or 4. What could she have done? Killing people in every scene? In the books she was only mentioned once or twice and that ended with a cliffhanger which is gonna be resolved in book 6. So the end of season 5 or season 6 is the right moment to introduce her.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would definitely be too late to introduce her now, it'd feel too much like a retcon especially when it's not been foreshadowed in any way (?) for almost 2 years.



I can imagine how the plotlines in WoW and ADoS might work out so that in the show, it'd be more convenient to delay her introduction so far, but it's been so long that I think the show would have to pull off something very clever and creative in order to reveal her after all this time and not have it feel like a weird afterthought.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damorian, the "deleted twitter post" was fake, confirmed by the amount of posts the person had after the tweet was allegedly removed. It had the same amount as in the image but even if you delete a post in twitter it doesn't reduce your post count so if there was a deleted tweet he should have had one more tweet than the page lists. Sorry.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now