Mister Stoneheart Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 In my own opinion, and this may not be a majority opinion, having weak actors play these 'empowered' women just mucks everything up even more. Sophie is lovely but really does not have the acting chops to dig into 'empowerment'. And don't get me started with the Shae actress who was god awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 15 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Lol at saying one dimensional characters are a good thing. Wiping tears from my eyes here. Defending Martin never got so gratuitous. As for Shae, seeing as how much of Tyrions story in the show is based on Shae's betrayal, it makes a lot of sense to not have her as some 'extra' background character who is nothing more than an obviously villainous cut out. Hence why they fleshed her out.. which was a good thing. Same with Cercei.. imagine how the WoS would have been if she'd just been the book villain? It was be completely flat.. everyone would be clapping their hands because the wicked witch got punished. Except that the show WoS was far more powerful because you have some empathy for Cercei, you have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Honestly the one reason I can never understand you guys is that you complain so much about the show you can't even separate out the stuff thats genuinely bad any more. Thats why these complaints are so continuously ridiculed. Maybe that's shocking to hear if you have no experience writing, but yes...one dimensional characters are not necessarily bad things. But you have fun writing your book where we get the backstory of every shopkeeper and bartender the protagonist meets. And yes, that's an extreme example, Shae is more important to the narrative than that. But the point is that different characters will be more fleshed out than others, and a lot of characters in a story need not be fleshed out a huge amount. If your protagonist is one dimensional that's a cardinal sin. But a smaller character being...well smaller, is not a bad thing and can even be a good thing because it tightens the narrative. The simpler book Shae makes Tyrion (the character we actually want to be fleshed out) a more complex character, because she highlights his flaws and misogyny. Though I'd argue strongly against Shae in the show being a complex character. She is on screen more. That doesn't mean she's more complex. She's a pretty pedestrian character archetype: the hooker with a heart of gold. What more to her is there? And yes, book Shae isn't very complex either. She's the gold digger archetype. But the difference is that Martin doesn't present her as much more than that. He gives us a simple but effective character archetype which helps make the characters which matter more complex. D+D take their cliched hooker with a heart of gold and present it as this great love story, front and centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mister Stoneheart said: In my own opinion, and this may not be a majority opinion, having weak actors play these 'empowered' women just mucks everything up even more. Sophie is lovely but really does not have the acting chops to dig into 'empowerment'. And don't get me started with the Shae actress who was god awful. I actually disagree that Sibel Kekili is a bad actress. Her character was awful because the writing was awful. I've seen two of her german movies and she was very good in both of them. The problem really is with the writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Even Meryl Streep and De Niro will struggle if they are given D&D's dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, protar said: Maybe that's shocking to hear if you have no experience writing, but yes...one dimensional characters are not necessarily bad things. But you have fun writing your book where we get the backstory of every shopkeeper and bartender the protagonist meets. And yes, that's an extreme example, Shae is more important to the narrative than that. But the point is that different characters will be more fleshed out than others, and a lot of characters in a story need not be fleshed out a huge amount. If your protagonist is one dimensional that's a cardinal sin. But a smaller character being...well smaller, is not a bad thing and can even be a good thing because it tightens the narrative. The simpler book Shae makes Tyrion (the character we actually want to be fleshed out) a more complex character, because she highlights his flaws and misogyny. Though I'd argue strongly against Shae in the show being a complex character. She is on screen more. That doesn't mean she's more complex. She's a pretty pedestrian character archetype: the hooker with a heart of gold. What more to her is there? And yes, book Shae isn't very complex either. She's the gold digger archetype. But the difference is that Martin doesn't present her as much more than that. He gives us a simple but effective character archetype which helps make the characters which matter more complex. D+D take their cliched hooker with a heart of gold and present it as this great love story, front and centre. The difference is between a one dimensional character and two dimensional characters. If you are going to have someone be a major part of your show they usually need to not be cardboard cut outs. You can see the problem with the Sandsnakes in that regard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The difference is between a one dimensional character and two dimensional characters. If you are going to have someone be a major part of your show they usually need to not be cardboard cut outs. You can see the problem with the Sandsnakes in that regard Why would Shae be "a major part of the show" in the first place though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The difference is between a one dimensional character and two dimensional characters. If you are going to have someone be a major part of your show they usually need to not be cardboard cut outs. You can see the problem with the Sandsnakes in that regard Yes but they chose to make Shae as big a part of the show as she was. They didn't have to do that. And it's not like her character was so brilliant anyway, and whatever depth there was to her was counteracted by the whitewashing of Tyrion that resulted from putting him in a loving healthy relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer 24 Posted May 19, 2016 Author Share Posted May 19, 2016 17 minutes ago, Mister Stoneheart said: In my own opinion, and this may not be a majority opinion, having weak actors play these 'empowered' women just mucks everything up even more. Sophie is lovely but really does not have the acting chops to dig into 'empowerment'. And don't get me started with the Shae actress who was god awful. Varma is great actress. Dormer has been brilliant. Headey and Clarke are Emmy nominees. Keisha Castle-Hughes is an Oscar nominee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Stoneheart Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: I actually disagree that Sibel Kekili is a bad actress. Her character was awful because the writing was awful. I've seen two of her german movies and she was very good in both of them. The problem really is with the writing. It could possibly be a language barrier/inflection thing, too. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: Why would Shae be "a major part of the show" in the first place though ? Because shes a major parts of the events of his trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer 24 Posted May 19, 2016 Author Share Posted May 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Mister Stoneheart said: It could possibly be a language barrier/inflection thing, too. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Two minutes ago she was "awful" and now you're giving her the benefit of the doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Stoneheart Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Just now, Jack Bauer 24 said: Two minutes ago she was "awful" and now you're giving her the benefit of the doubt? She was awful. But she may not have been able to have done anything about it--I agree with that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairGrowsBack Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Because shes a major parts of the events of his trial. Doesn't mean she needs to have more screentime than Catelyn. Shae's purpose is clear: to give us insight into Tyrion's personality, and testify at his trial. I don't need to know her childhood pet's name for that. Moreover, Tyrion was screwed no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Just now, HairGrowsBack said: Doesn't mean she needs to have more screentime than Catelyn. Shae's purpose is clear: to give us insight into Tyrion's personality, and testify at his trial. I don't need to know her childhood pet's name for that. Moreover, Tyrion was screwed no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Stoneheart Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, HairGrowsBack said: Doesn't mean she needs to have more screentime than Catelyn. Shae's purpose is clear: to give us insight into Tyrion's personality, and testify at his trial. I don't need to know her childhood pet's name for that. Moreover, Tyrion was screwed no matter what. Agreed. The showrunners' favorites getting bloated screentime ruins the storytelling. Cat should have had much much more in the third season. Puffing up Bronn and Shae and especially Ramsay's roles ruins the storytelling. It stagnates it. All 3 of those characters, in my opinion, are tedious as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said: Varma is great actress. Dormer has been brilliant. Headey and Clarke are Emmy nominees. Keisha Castle-Hughes is an Oscar nominee... I love Indira Varma, but her portrayal of Ellaria has been god-awful, and that accent is truly atrocious. Dormer is a very limited actor, with no range whatsoever. Love Headey, but her performances in the last couple of episodes was a bit off; I don't fault her but the awful writing and direction. Clarke is lovely, but her performances have not been brilliant since s 1; my first thought on this is she needs a lot more direction than she's getting, or she's not getting good direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Yes the writers should base their writing process not on writing a good story, but by dividing up available minutes and making sure your favourite characters get the most minutes. Because its a competition. Major eyeroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The difference is between a one dimensional character and two dimensional characters. If you are going to have someone be a major part of your show they usually need to not be cardboard cut outs. You can see the problem with the Sandsnakes in that regard She didn't have to be a major part of the show. ALL of those gazillion scenes of Shae and Tyrion saying the same thing each time with tiny tedious variations, did nothing for any character development or plot. What I thought would have been interesting was to make Shae's true feelings cloudy, the audience would not be sure if she was playing Tyrion or if her feelings were real, which is of course what some people said early on when people complained that she seeemed to have real feelings for him...and I was told at the time, that I didn't get it...she/Shae was just pretending...and then I said, that doesn't come through in the acting...and I was told I some other excuse...and then when it turned out she was truly in love with him all along...I was told how great that was. LMAO. An ambiguous Shae who got about 1/2 of the screen time would have been to me more interesting than a trite perky pretty woman prostitute makes good, then heartbreak, sad face, and then revenge. And lastly, it never made any sense why she doesn't speak to him except that the PLOT DEMANDED IT. The only way he could kill her in self defense without coming off like a total asshole is if she attacks him w/out provocation or rationality. No normal "two dimensional" character would have gone through all of that and then, just say awe, fuck it, ima stab him without a word. It was atrociously silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Stoneheart Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Yes the writers should base their writing process not on writing a good story, but by dividing up available minutes and making sure your favourite characters get the most minutes. Because its a competition. Major eyeroll I believe there is a good story that has been written. It's called ASOIAF and it's by GRR Martin. I don't believe it is called A Song of Ramsay and Shae and Bronn. Also, Catelyn has bazillions in the books. Wouldn't know it from the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Yes the writers should base their writing process not on writing a good story, but by dividing up available minutes and making sure your favourite characters get the most minutes. Because its a competition. Major eyeroll This is a pretty ironic post to make given that D+D blatantly play favourites at the expense of the narrative, Shae being a huge example of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.