Sophia Wilson17@yahoo.ca

why was Ladystoneheart cut out

1,319 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Feeling frustrated? I was just wandering when are you going to start with personal attacks. You show lovers never disappoint in that regard. And also, it's telling you couldn't even finish that sentence.

I'm not feeling frustrated at all, I was simply making an observation, which is backed up by your post, " I don't see how that's even possible."

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

FYI, I don't have a problem with differing opinions, I just don't see what qualifies as an opinion in your posts. 

The opinion was that I like Show Stannis more than Book Stannis. Apparently, you do have a problem with that since you said, "I don't see how that's even possible."

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Or what about Stannis! D&D themselves describe him as a power-obsessed ambition-driven man, and the actor who played him says he never understood nor cared for the character, and yet here you come and claim he was not only well written and well acted, but also better than in the books. You're bringing that "death of an author" idea to a whole new level, because you seem to know more about Show Stannis than even D&D, than even Dillane, than even what was actually shown on the screen. I don't know what that is, but it's certainly not an opinion. That's like saying that Mona Lisa is actually a dragon. Just because you see it that way, it doesn't make it an opinion.

I have an interpretation of the character based on what is presented in the show. In the show, I didn't see a man obsessed with power, I saw a man making a terrible choice in order to accomplish the greater good. I don't really care what D&D have to say. If they wanted to present Stannis as a power-obsessed ambition-driven man, then they failed miserably.

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

And you're seeing things that aren't there. For example, you're saying that Littlefinger manipulated Tywin into thinking Tyrion and Sansa poisoned Joffrey, but actually Littlefinger did nothing like that. Cersei jumped to accuse Tyrion right away, Littlefinger had nothing to do with that, either in books or the show.

Littlefinger, using Dontos, gave Sansa the poison without her realizing it, then has her spirited away from the scene, thus implicating her in Joffrey's death. It was also his idea to have the jousting dwarves, to make sure there is a conflict between Tyrion and Joffrey, making Tyrion a suspect.

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Your only answer to some of the questions is that Littlefinger makes people make stupid mistakes because he's a master manipulator. And then you're wandering why people think GOT is a stupid show?

Him being a master manipulator is simply his character. it also has been since the first book/season. He manipulated Joffrey, Ned, Cersei, Catelyn, Tywin, Lysa, the lords of the Vale, etc. So, no. If GOT is a stupid show because of this, then ASOIAF are stupid books.

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

I asked you what was Davos planning to do with Jon's body, and you replied that his plan was to get the wildlings to help. What kind of an answer is that? It certainly isn't the answer to my question.

They were biding time in that room, distracting Thorne, waiting for Edd to get back with the wildlings.

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

As I already said, why do you even bother? Why would anyone post things like that? Why waste time on it? Okay, you believe Mona Lisa is a dragon, and that 10 is bigger than 100, good for you, but do you really expect anyone to accept that as an opinion, let alone a legitimate one?

I'm here for the same reason as everyone. I came here to post my ideas and my interpretation, and get respectful feedback. 

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Just to compare, when we were discussing ADWD, if I were to act like you, I'd argue that the book has climaxes in Dany riding Drogon and Jon getting stabbed. But that wouldn't be an opinion worthy of posting. It wouldn't be a legitimate opinion. And yet, the way you're defending the show is even way lower than that, sorry to say.

But what's the falling action? What's the resolution? Both of these are also important. And D&D aren't entirely innocent in this regard. Season 5 had some of the similar problems as Books 4+5, but I'm glad to see them get back on track. Look at season 6, for example. For the Northern storyline, the climax was the Battle of the Bastards, the falling action was Sansa and Jon discussing their next move, and the resolution was Jon being declared King in the North. Say what you will about the two showrunners, season 5 excluded, they know how to tell a proper story. 

 

4 hours ago, StepStark said:

Let me just ask you this: do you have any complaint against D&D's writing? Any at all?

Of course I do. I didn't like Euron's part in the Kingsmoot all that much, I didn't like the gratuitous nudity in the first few seasons, I didn't like the Tower of Joy dialogue, and I didn't like Tyrion making dick jokes in Mereen. Those are just a few. I find flaws in all the shows I watch, because nothing is perfect. How I define quality is whether or not the flaws take away from my enjoyment of the story. In GOT's case, they do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havnen't watched it yet, but the reviews don't talk about her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 9, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

I beleive why the REAL reason why Ladystoneheart was cut out was they wanted Jon Snow's RETURN a REALLY BIG DEAL. If a other character does it first what the deal?

 

 

 

 

BUT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beric Dondarrion was the first character to come back to life I guess D and D did not wanted too many characters coming back

 

I'd say his return was somewhat... Underwhelming.  Aside from a brief scene between him and Mel, it wasn't mentioned by anyone ever again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE ACTRESS THEY WANTED TO COME BACK IF THEY COULD

I can't believe it.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

THE ACTRESS THEY WANTED TO COME BACK IF THEY COULD

I can't believe it.....

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

THE ACTRESS THEY WANTED TO COME BACK IF THEY COULD

I can't believe it.....

 

and they couldn't because......... ? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cridefea said:

and they couldn't because......... ? <_<

Because her role in the story is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Cridefea said:

and they couldn't because......... ? <_<

Nobody understands that, it's a hypocritical statement.

17 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Because her role in the story is over.

Not really, she has a story when she returns from the dead as Lady Stoneheart and George said he considered she had an important role.

Better say: "Her role in the show story is over because they wanted to cut LSH"

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Not really, she has a story when she returns from the dead as Lady Stoneheart and George said he considered she had an important role.

Better say: "Her role in the show story is over because they wanted to cut LSH"

What's her story? Hanging a few red shirt Freys? Does that require bringing back a character from the dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

What's her story? Hanging a few red shirt Freys?

http://ew.com/article/2015/05/31/game-thrones-lady-stoneheart/

Until now we have seen her in asos taking her own vengeance and also in Feast, finding Brienne, hanging her, Ser Hyle and Podrick, and also saying she wants Jaime, and Brienne is bringing him to her........the rest:

“Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books,” Martin said. “Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in."

Quote

Does that require bringing back a character from the dead?

Does changing a hairstyle require bringing a character from the dead?:rolleyes:

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

http://ew.com/article/2015/05/31/game-thrones-lady-stoneheart/

Until now we have seen her in asos taking her own vengeance and also in Feast, finding Brienne, hanging her, Ser Hyle and Podrick, and also saying she wants Jaime, and Brienne is bringing him to her........the rest:

“Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books,” Martin said. “Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in."

Hanging people isn't really a story. Until we know the outcome of the LSH, Brienne, and Jaime encounter, I'll remain skeptical. And I don't trust Martin's judgment on what's important in his story anymore, after AFFC/ADWD.

 

4 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Does changing a hairstyle require bringing a character from the dead?:rolleyes:

No, but having him defeat the Boltons, be crowned King in the North, and take command of the army that will fight against the White Walkers is a good reason to bring a character back from the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Hanging people isn't really a story. Until we know the outcome of the LSH, Brienne, and Jaime encounter, I'll remain skeptical.

 

No, hanging people is not a story, is just filler. I suppose that cutting everyone's throats or

Spoiler

possible (not confirmed) spoiler for s7

Spoiler

posioning them

 

is a better one, because the outcome is different? Oh, no, it's actually the same, they are all dead.

Quote

 And I don't trust Martin's judgment on what's important in his story anymore, after AFFC/ADWD.

How can we trust George anymore? after all he is only the writer of the lstory and coproducer of the show..... :) Yeah, he must not know what he is creating..... 

Quote

No, but having him defeat the Boltons, be crowned King in the North, and take command of the army that will fight against the White Walkers is a good reason to bring a character back from the dead.

Yeah, except for the fact

1)he didn't defeat the Boltons, (LF saved the day)

2)he is crowned king in the same rrom as the trueborn sister and he has lost the battle 

I agree with the third one. Maybe not killin Jon would have had the same effect and he would be killing WWs as well. If you cut 60-80% of book material, you can also cut Jon's death.

PS: Not defending to cut Jon's death (in fact I like proper adaptations), but for what it served and how it was treated in the show, it wuld have made more sense. The author said:

“Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books,” Martin said. “Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in. One of the things I wanted to show with her is that the death she suffered changes you.”

Then changing the hairstyle (a manbun) is how a character changes....(ok, there are a couple of dialogues.....)but what's the purpose of it?

If, after all, It's only Beric's and Jon's story that matter....

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

No, hanging people is not a story, is just filler. I suppose that cutting everyone's throats or

  Reveal hidden contents

possible (not confirmed) spoiler for s7

  Hide contents

posioning them

 

is a better one, because the outcome is different? Oh, no, it's actually the same, they are all dead.

Arya's story is about identity, and revenge is a big part of who she is now, even though there's hope she's not too far gone. Besides, Arya wasn't brought back from the dead, so irrelevant to my point. You don't raise a character from the dead just to hang people. It's a waste.

16 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

How can we trust George anymore? after all he is only the writer of the lstory and coproducer of the show..... :) Yeah, he must not know what he is creating..... 

Writer of a story people are speculating he won't even finish and coproducer of a show he has nothing more to do with.

 

17 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

1)he didn't defeat the Boltons, (LF saved the day)

2)he is crowned king in the same rrom as the trueborn sister and he has lost the battle 

I agree with the third one. Maybe not killin Jon would have had the same effect and he would be killing WWs as well. If you cut 60-80% of book material, you can also cut Jon's death.

1. Jon, Tormund and Wun Wun broke through the gate of Winterfell, and Jon captured Ramsay. Otherwise, there would have been a siege. 

2. Irrelevant to my point. Jon was still crowned king.

3. No argument here. I believe I've already told you how much I hate resurrections. But I would have been madder if Jon had stayed dead, since he hadn't actually accomplished anything yet.

21 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

PS: Not defending to cut Jon's death (in fact I like proper adaptations), but for what it served and how it was treated in the show, it wuld have made more sense. The author said:

“Lady Stoneheart does have a role in the books,” Martin said. “Whether it’s sufficient or interesting enough… I think it is, or I wouldn’t have put her in. One of the things I wanted to show with her is that the death she suffered changes you.”

Then changing the hairstyle (a manbun) is how a character changes....(ok, there are a couple of dialogues.....)but what's the purpose of it?

If, after all, It's only Beric's and Jon's story that matter....

Beric was resurrected six times, and he only lost pieces of his memory. He was still relatively the same person, fighting for what he believed in. The only reason LSH was different was because of the length and manner of her death. If Martin wants to remain consistent, Jon shouldn't change too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Arya's story is about identity, and revenge is a big part of who she is now, even though there's hope she's not too far gone. Besides, Arya wasn't brought back from the dead, so irrelevant to my point. You don't raise a character from the dead just to hang people. It's a waste.

 

Why is it any different? It's a fantasy series, if Beric resurrects to meet Arya and have a "non-important" plot, why can't LSH have her own plot? Why is it irrelvant because of the fact she is an undead character? The fact that Arya is alive when she does these things doesn't mean it's more meaningful. It's a fantasy series. They both suffered from that wedding. 

Quote

Writer of a story people are speculating he won't even finish and coproducer of a show he has nothing more to do with.

The show would not exist if it had not been written before. So how can the author's opinion of the importance of a character not be important in the adaptation of the show? What does it have to do with the fact the books that have not been published yet? Not published, doesn't meant not finished, at least the next book.

Nothing more to do with? He is still the coproducer, and we know they inform him of  what happens every season:dunno: If he says LSH is important in HIS story means that she is important. You can't say she is not important because you don't trust the author anymore, which is a subjective opinion.  LSH was cut and that is a fact, but that doesn't mean she is not important in the story. 

It's real. among the plots cut, Important ones are cut in the adaptation. 

Quote

1. Jon, Tormund and Wun Wun broke through the gate of Winterfell, and Jon captured Ramsay. Otherwise, there would have been a siege. 

2. Irrelevant to my point. Jon was still crowned king.

3. No argument here. I believe I've already told you how much I hate resurrections. But I would have been madder if Jon had stayed dead, since he hadn't actually accomplished anything yet.

1.  And That could not have happened if LF hadn't appeared=saved the day before because they were dying.

2. Ok, that's true, but he could have been crowned too if he hadn't died before without major changes, which was mine, in contrast to LSH, which you might not like and say it's irrelevant, but as a fantasy series with mystery "gods" and also relationships between characters (LSH-Brienne-Jaime...) might also be important (or as important) even if it's not a political event. We don't know if the result of using LSH as a "filler device" might led to Arya finally change, or Brienne to finally be with Jaime, or the contrary. //Yes, romance is also important in the series, cause love is the force that motivates the characters...not to mention that Jaime's possible demise would have serious consequences in the political plot.

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Why is it any different? It's a fantasy series, if Beric resurrects to meet Arya and have a "non-important" plot, why can't LSH have her own plot? Why is it irrelvant because of the fact she is an undead character? The fact that Arya is alive when she does these things doesn't mean it's more meaningful. It's a fantasy series. They both suffered from that wedding. 

It's different because an author shouldn't raise one of his characters from the dead unless they play an important role in the story. Resurrections are a cheap plot device that makes death meaningless in the story. The character playing an important role doesn't make it any less cheap, but it makes it somewhat forgivable in my eyes. 

Arya taking on the role is better because with LSH, we're missing the emotional component. I know many of her fans see her as a tragic figure, but I don't. I don't even see her as much of a character. She's the very definition of one-dimensional who only seems capable in expressing one emotion: rage. Bringing Michele Fairley back to play such a one-note character would have been a disservice to her talents.

2 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

The show would not exist if it had not been written before. So how can the author's opinion of the importance of a character not be important in the adaptation of the show? What does it have to do with the fact the books that have not been published yet? Not published, doesn't meant not finished, at least the next book.

Nothing more to do with? He is still the coproducer, and we know they inform him of  what happens every season:dunno: If he says LSH is important in HIS story means that she is important. You can't say she is not important because you don't trust the author anymore, which is a subjective opinion.  LSH was cut and that is a fact, but that doesn't mean she is not important in the story. 

It's real. among the plots cut, Important ones are cut in the adaptation. 

I will always be grateful to Martin for introducing me to his world and characters, even though I do a very poor job of showing it sometimes. I was just let down by his last two books, and the wait for Winds isn't really helping matters.

I'm sure he thought Quentyn would be important too, and look how that turned out. The Queenmaker plot and Jaime's Riverland arc also went nowhere. He's developing a bad history of creating subplots that don't go anywhere and fail to move the plot forward. In two books, LSH's appeared in like 2-3 pages, maybe even less. That doesn't help my confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

 if he says LSH is important in HIS story means that she is important.

Eh.... I like to take everything GRRM says about his story (rather than inside his story) with a grain of salt (or a whole salt shaker). He also has said stuff about how "important" Willas and Garlan will apparently be in WoW, how there's no good and evil in Westeros (while also creating stuff like the Ghiskari, Gregor and Ramsay) and that the Children of the Forest, who obviously are elves, are somehow "not elves."

Of course for an author each thing they put into their story will be important.

Frankly I stopped listening once he made negative comments about Tolkien. And WoW better has an appendix that's a detailed account about the new King/Queen's tax and spelling reforms because otherwise "good and wise and ruled for many years, what does that even mean?" :rolleyes:

9 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

1)It's different because an author shouldn't raise one of his characters from the dead unless they play an important role in the story. Resurrections are a cheap plot device that makes death meaningless in the story. The character playing an important role doesn't make it any less cheap, but it makes it somewhat forgivable in my eyes.

2)I will always be grateful to Martin for introducing me to his world and characters, even though I do a very poor job of showing it sometimes. I was just let down by his last two books, and the wait for Winds isn't really helping matters.

3)I'm sure he thought Quentyn would be important too, and look how that turned out. The Queenmaker plot and Jaime's Riverland arc also went nowhere. He's developing a bad history of creating subplots that don't go anywhere and fail to move the plot forward. In two books, LSH's appeared in like 2-3 pages, maybe even less. That doesn't help my confidence.

1) I'd say death still has meaning because, as you say, the resurrection turned Catelyn Stark into a one-dimensional, mute zombie lady. That's not really being alive, she is more of a revenant driven by vengeance and as far as we can tell there is little/nothing left of who Cat once was.

2) That's the thing, we like the story, but that doesn't mean we have to adore everything about it or take everything Martin says as gospel or genius. Because it's not. The guy isn't Jesus or something.

3) Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

It's different because an author shouldn't raise one of his characters from the dead unless they play an important role in the story. Resurrections are a cheap plot device that makes death meaningless in the story. The character playing an important role doesn't make it any less cheap, but it makes it somewhat forgivable in my eyes. 

I disagree with this. I don't think the importance of a character is what makes resurrection (or anything) more or less important. In fact, I truly hate that only important characters deserve all the benefits of magic, kingship, etc. It's too cliche. Making LSH appear makes Jon's case less unusual, and I prefer it this way.

Quote

I will always be grateful to Martin for introducing me to his world and characters, even though I do a very poor job of showing it sometimes. I was just let down by his last two books, and the wait for Winds isn't really helping matters.

I'm sure he thought Quentyn would be important too, and look how that turned out. The Queenmaker plot and Jaime's Riverland arc also went nowhere. He's developing a bad history of creating subplots that don't go anywhere and fail to move the plot forward. In two books, LSH's appeared in like 2-3 pages, maybe even less. That doesn't help my confidence.

Oh, I agree that I'd preferred that some of the secondary plots went somewhere. I think that due to the show we can assume that they go nowhere, but we can't discard it yet in the case of Dorne because the show is very different now

Edited by Meera of Tarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

Arya taking on the role is better because with LSH, we're missing the emotional component. I know many of her fans see her as a tragic figure, but I don't. I don't even see her as much of a character. She's the very definition of one-dimensional who only seems capable in expressing one emotion: rage. Bringing Michele Fairley back to play such a one-note character would have been a disservice to her talents.

But by doing that Arya's character is now corrupted, and instead of LSH it the show's version of her that only seems capable of a single emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I disagree with this. I don't think the importance of a character is what makes resurrection (or anything) more or less important. In fact, I truly hate that only important characters deserve all the benefits of magic, kingship, etc. It's too cliche. Making LSH appear makes Jon's case less unusual, and I prefer it this way.

I'm the opposite. If resurrections need to happen, I wish they would reduce the resurrections only to those who will make a big impact on the story. 

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