Lady Blackmont Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Well, he ran out of food at Storms End too, and his allies were off fighting elsewhere. I guess the Stannis thing to do would a glorious last charge. The idea that he was a broken man doesn't make sense, he was making normal orders, preparing for a siege, he wasn't just going to mount a full scale assault on Winterfell. But whatever, fuck it, it seems we're going to die today, might as well drop your armor and swords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xarkar Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I feel like they rushed his story. The scene with him and Shireen, talking about greyscale was one of my favorite parts of this series. Then he just ups and Fing burns her. And for what, warm weather? It honestly seems like they had other plans for him ran out of screen time in S5 (maybe they planned for him to die in S5 and this just sped it up?). It was really poorly done IMO. If Shireen gets burned in the books, it will likely be at Mel's command which would make sense. Coming from stannis though? Sorry if you are going to burn your only living heir to change the weather, you dont deserve to be king. (And i think that is what Stannis finally realized as he lay there dying and why I suspect Brienne did not kill him) . Stannis living with what he has done is going to be a far worse punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredwin Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 As much as I hate Stannis being turned into a villain, like the OP and the majority of you, I am mostly concerned with how weakly he was portrayed in both story and character. It kind of reminded me of a Steven King novel, decent build-up, tension, and character-building all leading to one quick moment where everything unravels without much ado. True, Stannis was battling his demons, but do you honestly believe this man, the way they portrayed him to that point, would not send riders to hunt Mel down? Would not notice or be reported to that half his men are leaving during the night? Would not have scouts around Winterfell and the surrounding lands watching enemy troop movements? Would not do his best to win this fight strategically, sacrificing every man under his command because he could not bare to face his sins? Stannis is not shown to be a villain as much as he is shown to be weak. He is shown to be hypocritical and selfish, prone to being used, ineffective, apathetic, oblivious and worst of all... a coward. Why did we need Stannis to be a weakly coward? Where is the storytelling here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 For the OP, I don't agree that D&D set out to make Stannis a villain at the start. They did not. GRRM did. Stannis is very much a villain from ACOK on, although many fans misread him for whatever reasons. If anything, TV Stannis has been misrepresented as far more reasonable, honorable and sane than the book version, particularly in Season 4. I encountered him in the show before I read the books, and I didn't see him as a villain. Selling his soul, absolutely, but doing so for something he partially convinced himself was just and/or the greater good). That is the textbook definition of a villain, though. Ramsay, Littlefinger, Cersei and Tywin also believe themselves to be doing the greater good, for instance. The scene with him and Shireen, talking about greyscale was one of my favorite parts of this series. Then he just ups and Fing burns her. And for what, warm weather? For the weather he needed in order not to stop advancing. ADWD makes it a bit more clear, but Stannis had put himself in a situation where his army would die of hunger and cold unless he advanced quickly towards Winterfell. Stannis is consistently displayed, even in the series, as literally incapable of making concessions to reality. In his mind it just has to be all about him. Negotiating with Renly and/or Robb, offering actual evidence of his claims of being the successor to the throne, respecting the sovereignity and neutrality of the Night's Watch, that is all just too much to ask of him. So is dealing with the possibility of not having the proper conditions for marching against Winterfell. It honestly seems like they had other plans for him ran out of screen time in S5 (maybe they planned for him to die in S5 and this just sped it up?). It was really poorly done IMO. If Shireen gets burned in the books, it will likely be at Mel's command which would make sense. Coming from stannis though? Sorry if you are going to burn your only living heir to change the weather, you dont deserve to be king. I'm not sure what you mean here. The show made it clear enough that it was at Mel's demand that Shireen was burned. It just turns out that Stannis does not have it in him to refuse anything that would seem to sustain the hope for attaining the throne. And, of course, he never did deserve to be king. But we all knew that already. (And i think that is what Stannis finally realized as he lay there dying and why I suspect Brienne did not kill him) . Stannis living with what he has done is going to be a far worse punishment. I guess I am forgiving enough to hope that we do see Brienne decapitating him in TWOW. Besides, who knows. Maybe someone would still listen to the butcher if he were allowed to live. Stannis is not shown to be a villain as much as he is shown to be weak. He is shown to be hypocritical and selfish, prone to being used, ineffective, apathetic, oblivious and worst of all... a coward. Why did we need Stannis to be a weakly coward? Where is the storytelling here? Stannis has ever been such a character in the books, so yes, we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I remember watching the four first Seasons of GoT and liking Stannis. Then I remember Reading the prologue of aCoK and despising him from the very beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredwin Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Stannis has ever been such a character in the books, so yes, we did. I guess we'll have to disagree on this point because it is not what I took away from my reading. Flawed? Yes, obviously... but weak? Never. Stannis is more a lawful neutral character. His choices are quite often terrible, but they make sense looking at it from his point of view. He is strict, rigid, and unyielding, but he follows a code. He is the rule of law and a harbinger of justice(at least as he sees it). Look at the inspiration he's inspired in Davos. Was Stannis portrayed in the show as someone that could inspire anyone? Let alone someone whose hand he himself mutilated? Stannis know's that he can't trust Mel 100%, that's why Davos' advice is so important to him. He knows Davos will be honest and truthful at the risk of his own life. I've always got the distinct feeling that Stannis believes he is using Mel to his own ends even if it is the other way around. Ultimately, though. From the text, I never recall Stannis being a hypocrite, or oblivious, or any of the things I previously mentioned in the last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackmont Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I remember watching the four first Seasons of GoT and liking Stannis. Then I remember Reading the prologue of aCoK and despising him from the very beginning. Said no one ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Said I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washmeplease Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Said I You're wrong! jk. I didn't like him either in that first chapter but the thing is it was through Maester Cressen's POV. Stannis is a pretty consistent character when rotating through diffent POVs but to me he is very different in that chapter. He was acting very bitchy and entitled but it makes sense considering Cressen was like a father too him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackmont Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Cressen's chapter made me feel pity for Stannis. It may have made him feel like an entitled and grouchy dick, but at least we have an idea as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Lovisa Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 One big issue I have with the show is the unnecessarily moralizing they do. Its like D&D think its not good to have grey morally complex characters and situations and instead they have to tell the audiences exact who to like and hate. So all the morally complex , grey characters in the books get ruined in their show. Stannis being the biggest victim in the villianization department and Tyrion being the biggest victim in the whitewashing department. It just makes the show less interesting and more hollywood bullcrap. I m gonna go play witcher 3, they don't treat their audiences like kids with their moralizing. :agree: this a thousand times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCasualObserver Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Stannis has ever been such a character in the books, so yes, we did. Oh boy. Them's fighting words! But seriously, is that how black and white you see Stannis? No nuance, no appeal to the social contract, just an unrelenting asshole? What's strange is that the show runners absolutely agree with you and are willing to throw out even his command capabilities if it means destroying his character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Why do you think stannis is a bad Commander in the show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCasualObserver Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Why do you think stannis is a bad Commander in the show? Because the plot needed him to be. If you spot an inconsistency in GOT, that is always the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 He is not a bad Commander in the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredwin Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Why do you think stannis is a bad Commander in the show? 1.) He rushes in with the front line to scale the Mud(?) Gate in King's Landing, inappropriately attired you might say. 2.) He couldn't keep his mercenaries from leaving. 3.) He waits until the weather is impossible to mount a siege. 4.) He doesn't order pickets constructed or apparently even basic scouting of the outlying area. 5.) He alienates half his force and probably demoralizes the other half by aligning completely with the Red God and killing his only daughter. 6.) When defeat is apparent his hubris allows him to sacrifice his entire force by marching into a mounted column, no orders given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredwin Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The most doubled of posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 1.) He rushes in with the front line to scale the Mud(?) Gate in King's Landing, inappropriately attired you might say. 2.) He couldn't keep his mercenaries from leaving. 3.) He waits until the weather is impossible to mount a siege. 4.) He doesn't order pickets constructed or apparently even basic scouting of the outlying area. 5.) He alienates half his force and probably demoralizes the other half by aligning completely with the Red God and killing his only daughter. 6.) When defeat is apparent his hubris allows him to sacrifice his entire force by marching into a mounted column, no orders given.1. There are teo types of commanmders. The ones remaining at the back (Tywin, book Stannis) and the ones letting their men see them fight (Robert, Robb) the TV show simply changed the way he commands. He is fighting without a helmet so the audience will recognice him every movie, tv-show does this. In the books he let an unexperienced Florent have the command an sailed his whole fleet past two watchtowers he knew was newly made. 2. In the books he cant keep his own bannermen from leaving either. That is not a fault from the tv-show. 3. He waited some weeks for the northern lords to rally he then left CB as fast as possible. His situation is the same as the books and show. 4. He was ordering trenches and defences to be made when the Boltons attacked and what do you know of hin scouting the area?5. Stannis was in a lose-lose situation. Either he could have let his whole army freeze and starve to death or he could burn his daughter. He chose the lesser of two weevils. 6. He didnt march into the column he stood still while they surrounded him. There was nothing he could do in the situation. This also adds to his decission: "its when the forces break and run the real slaughter begins" - Tywin Lannister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilspread Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The big problem with Stannis' arc for me (other than that it was different from the books, obviously) was that it wasn't interesting or challenging for the audience. At least with Robb's arc the audience are forced to face a conflict (love vs duty), in which we root for Robb to embrace a modern notion of marriage whilst having the counter desire of wanting him to maintain his war alliances. This makes for a more interesting plot development as we see the awful results of an act we sympathise with. For Stannis there was no interesting storyline. He burns his daughter (boo!) and is punished for it (yay! we were right to boo him!). If they were determined to burn Shireen it would have been much more interesting if we'd seen it cause Stannis to triumph and defeat the Boltons, forcing the audience to confront the moral complexities of sacrifice for the greater good. OR, they could have made us root for Stannis and have his situation get so dire that we actually want him to burn Shireen, so then when he does and nothing happens we are made to question our reasoning. Alas, as it played out, it was a waste of one of the most interesting characters in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettes Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 ^ I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.