Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

[The Coconut God]

@Le Cygne The problems you are listing are with the execution, not the actual decision to replace Jeyne Westerling with a character that is cheaper to introduce, or the decision to make it a romance.

A Volantene exile and medicine woman sassing Robb without getting raped and thrown in stockades is far more believable than Dany the Beggar Queen threatening the 13 at the gates of Qarth and actually having her way. After all, if there's one prince who wouldn't rape sassy peasant girls, it's gonna be Robb Stark.

I also think you've got a bit of a confirmation bias abut this. Just because book purists and critics panned it as a weaker story it doesn't mean it failed with the masses.

[Le Cygne]

No one cares about Robb and Talisa.

[StepStark]

9 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

In terms of quality, this was one of the most benign changes they made; it just caught a lot of flack because it was the most different from the book, down to the character name. But in reality, Robb's character is not as affected by this as everyone claims. He is still a tragic hero who loses everything because he does what he believes is right. In the books, that means protecting Jeyne's honor, in the show it means following his heart. But the punch of the Red Wedding is not diminished, and show Robb, even with his preference for anachronistic women, does not flip flop from scene to scene.

And, of course, unlike an ocean of others, there are arguments in favor of this change that are logical enough to win me over - you can go on insisting D&D didn't think of them, but I'm not defending D&D (they are beyond that anyway), I am defending the change itself, which worked out decently no matter what their reason was.

I think it's very important to make the difference between valid criticism and irrational nitpicking. And unfortunately because the criticism about Talisa was the latter, book purists lost much of their credibility early on and they got ignored when their voices could have made positive changes in future seasons.

Sorry but no. Talisa doesn't belong to ASOIAF in any shape or form, which Martin's quote provided by Le Cygne undoubtedly proves. And one would expect that therefore she'd have no place in what is an adaptation of ASOIAF. It was a not a tolerable change, at least not from the storytelling perspective. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about book purism here. If an adaptation introduces a character that belongs precisely to the type of characters that frustrate the original author, then it's well beyond book purity and it's actually about storytelling sanity.

Also your notion that Robb wasn't affected as a character doesn't stand either. I hope you realize that, if asked about why break a promise to Walder Frey, Robb from the show would give a completely different answer than Robb from the books. By very definition it means that Robb in the show was affected by Talisa. But even that aside, even if you were right - so what? Let's assume that yes, Robb wasn't affected by Talisa. It still speaks nothing of the change. Just think about this theoretical situation: just imagine that Talisa was written as a disguised White Walker and everything else remains the same (meaning, she does end up killed in the Red Wedding, so her secret is buried with her). The audience know her secret, but Robb doesn't. Would that change affect Robb as a character? By your standards, it wouldn't, right? But it would still be a completely ridiculous change, just like the actual change was.

And about your pragmatical explanation, that is something we can only speculate about because we don't have a direct knowledge about what was too costly and what wasn't. But I have to say that if they wanted to "flesh out" Robb's love story so desperately, it's hard to understand that they didn't have money for a few very minor roles. They cast the 13 of Qarth after all, to enable their ridiculous idea about the Qarth coup.

However, I do agree with you that the other guy's theory (about "actor pandering" as the ultimate explanation for everything) is not very convincing, and that demanding from other people to watch your endless videos just so they can speak with you is very strange, to say the least.

[StepStark]

10 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

He is still a tragic hero who loses everything because he does what he believes is right.

Sorry but I forgot to address this in my previous post and I think it's important for this discussion: yes, in both versions Robb does what he believes is right, or at the very least what he believes isn't wrong - but that means nothing. Joff also thought that cutting Ned's head is the right thing to do. Does that make him morally equal to Robb? Of course not. ASOIAF as a story is far deeper than that thankfully, and one's actions aren't evaluated only by the character's conviction. What we think is right, speaks a lot about us. Robb who thinks breaking the Frey promise to preserve Jeyne's honor is the right thing to do, is fundamentally different from Robb who thinks breaking the Frey promise to be with sexy Talisa is the right thing to do.

[The Coconut God]

@StepStark I'm not contesting that D&D ruined the medieval realism of the books, but this is a generalized issue, not something that's specifically wrong about Talisa. Most of the "good" characters are whitewashed and have more modern inclinations. People just single out Talisa because she's the most obvious change.

You can argue that this was done intentionally. After all, HBO already had a much better written, exquisitely shot, expensive series with gritty realism in Deadwood, and that failed to connect with audiences. To some level, making a few characters more appealing to modern values could be seen as a necessary sacrifice. Was it done too much? Maybe. Was it done poorly and inconsistently? Absolutely. And this is the core of the issue.

Oh, and Talisa wasn't a peasant girl on the show, she was a noble. Landless and foreign, but still a noble, so that quote by Martin doesn't exactly apply... Sure, you can tell me in Westeros she's worth no more than a peasant, but to that I'll ask you to read Tyrion's last chapter in Dance and see how he speaks to the Second Sons. They may not be kings, but he's nothing but an escaped slave a long way from home, and George still allows him to be sassy.

 

As for Robb's character, the real question is: How much do these changes matter? What is important in his story? Do we actually learn something as modern readers or watchers from either book or show Robb that can be applied to out lives? Not really. Sure, his story touches upon the wider theme of honor vs pragmatism vs doing the right thing that is prevalent in the book and that can apply to the modern world, but he does it in the least relevant way, because with him it's all about marriage, and our culture is over both arranged marriages and the glorification of virginity.

So with Robb, it's really about packing the biggest emotional punch rather than a deep lesson for the viewer or reader. Sure, the character is more tragic in the book, and the whole situation is more complex. Given the time and resources, it could have been an interesting character study. But the risk was that the wider audiences (you know, the masses of idiots who actually made the show popular) would fail to connect with Robb if he was caught between two choices they can't resonate with. Add to that that it was going to cost more to do it like this, and the choice is understandable. As long as the adaptation still manages to pack an emotional punch with the Red Wedding, it's going to be at the very least passable.

[Le Cygne]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

Sorry but I forgot to address this in my previous post and I think it's important for this discussion: yes, in both versions Robb does what he believes is right, or at the very least what he believes isn't wrong - but that means nothing. Joff also thought that cutting Ned's head is the right thing to do. Does that make him morally equal to Robb? Of course not. ASOIAF as a story is far deeper than that thankfully, and one's actions aren't evaluated only by the character's conviction. What we think is right, speaks a lot about us. Robb who thinks breaking the Frey promise to preserve Jeyne's honor is the right thing to do, is fundamentally different from Robb who thinks breaking the Frey promise to be with sexy Talisa is the right thing to do.

And he brings her to the Red Wedding! The jokes pile on. The King of the North, after this deliberately hostile move, rubs Walder Frey's nose in it. And if he's so desperately in lurve with this spunky peasant who later reveals herself a surprise!noble (the absurdity piles on!), why does he endanger her this way? Robb in the show is old enough to know better, about all of these things, so where is that reflected in his characterization? Robb in the books is a far more sympathetic and compelling character. That's the really sad thing here, apart from the mess they made of the story, is the mess they made of Robb.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

Oh, and Talisa wasn't a peasant girl on the show, she was a noble. Landless and foreign, but still a noble, so that quote by Martin doesn't exactly apply... Sure, you can tell me in Westeros she's worth no more than a peasant, but to that I'll ask you to read Tyrion's last chapter in Dance and see how he speaks to the Second Sons. They may not be kings, but he's nothing but an escaped slave a long way from home, and George still allows him to be sassy.

This makes no sense, sorry to say. Precisely because she's noble, she'd be aware of social rules and norms Martin mentions and wouldn't dare to break them because she'd be aware of the consequences. But in the show, quite the contrary, nothing suggests that she ever has to consider any consequence for her behavior (not only to Robb, but to Roose also). And the comparison with ADWD Tyrion is another proof: Tyrion had to reveal his real identity in order not to be treated as a slave! And on top of that, he had to promise the Second Sons a palpable reward, he had to pen contracts with them, just so he can speak with them the way he does at the end. All of which means that Tyrion did everything opposite to Talisa. She's rude posing as a lowborn and without ever revealing her true identity, and on top of that her identity brings her no favor in Westeros at all, unlike Tyrion's which can bring to the Second Sons precisely what they're after.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

As for Robb's character, the real question is: How much do these changes matter? What is important in his story?

So, now we've suddenly moved from "Robb wasn't affected" to "Those changes don't really matter". Just to be clear.

1 hour ago, The Coconut God said:

So with Robb, it's really about packing the biggest emotional punch rather than a deep lesson for the viewer or reader.

I'm afraid that once again you're missing the whole point of ASOIAF. As Martin himself said in another quote, it never should be just about "shocking the audience", or as you might put it about "the biggest emotional punch". In a video format an emotional punch can be packed in a lot of ways, and the sad truth is that D&D opted for one of the cheaper ones in their treatment of Robb's love story. Or they didn't opt, maybe they just don't know better, which brings us back to the topic of their monument incompetence.

And please, don't compare GOT with Deadwood, but with Sopranos, the show D&D themselves were inspired by. Literally every of the love interests of Tony Soprano is written way more skillfully and intelligently than Talisa. Literally every of "romances" in Sopranos is endlessly more realistic and engaging than Robb-Talisa. And yet the masses loved and watched Sopranos. And HBO was happy. So no, "stupid masses" doesn't hold water, it's a rather weak excuse, especially when you're adapting something that was already a best-seller.

[SerJeremiahLouistark]

Robb and Jaime are interesting to compare because while they are polar opposites, Robb naive, young and honorable and Jaime just a brash arrogant asshole who has grown up a lot in some ways....  both will ultimately meet their demise became they loved the wrong woman and they made bad choices based on love for a woman.  Hell Rhaegar too.   Their recklessness when it comes to love really kills thousands.  Interesting how this is a trait for those 3 completely different characters.  

[Meera of Tarth]

2 hours ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

Robb and Jaime are interesting to compare because while they are polar opposites, Robb naive, young and honorable and Jaime just a brash arrogant asshole who has grown up a lot in some ways....  both will ultimately meet their demise became they loved the wrong woman and they made bad choices based on love for a woman.  Hell Rhaegar too.   Their recklessness when it comes to love really kills thousands.  Interesting how this is a trait for those 3 completely different characters.  

Not sure why THat possible drmise of Jaime has to be connected to Cersei and how this is related to Robb.  Since Talisa is not a Cersei . And, very importantly, Looks like you are forgetting Brienne's part in his story.

[The Coconut God]

@StepStark Look, I don't like how I'm ending up defending stuff from the show on a Rant & Rave thread. I only meant to defend the concept, not D&D's execution. The conversation will spin out of control if we're gonna split every hair. There are answers to the things you posted; in Talisa's first scene you can see Silent Sisters everywhere tending to the wounded (rather than the dead), so you can argue in the show's canon they act like some sort of Red Cross whose neutrality the Westerosi respect, and Talisa is working with them and that's why she feels confident enough to talk back to Robb and Roose. But of course D&D didn't actually establish this as fact, and probably never showed any Silent Sisters again, so we wouldn't be getting anywhere.

 

I'd like you to put the actual scenes and the dialogue they wrote aside for a second, and try to weigh how important it is for the series as a whole and for the story of the Starks in particular whether Robb deflowers a girl in a moment of weakness and marries her the next morning to protect her honor or meets a woman he can truly love and respect and decides she is worth more to him than a vow.

Are these two scenarios so fundamentally different that the character can't be the same in other aspects of the story? Is the second Robb that selfish for giving his subjects a worthy queen? Is the first Robb so noble for thinking with his dick in the first place? Is it any less tragic when the harsh reality punishes him for his idealistic choice?

Yes, the scenario that unfolds in the books is more complex, but that largely has to do with politics and the higher number of characters involved. George never really did a character study with Robb like he did with, say, Jaime. A clever reader can get a few hints from off-hand comments and small gestures, but ultimately you don't know what's in his head.

So how much can you blame the show - on an entirely conceptual level, just imagine D&D didn't write it - given that it had to elaborate on Robb's story, for going with the second option? It was cheaper to shoot and it made more sense for the almost 10 years older Robb. For me, that justifies it... Too bad it wasn't written well, but then again many things weren't.

[Le Cygne]

54 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Not sure why THat possible drmise of Jaime has to be connected to Cersei and how this is related to Robb.  Since Talisa is not a Cersei . Looks like you are forgetting Brienne's part in his story.

Yeah you could extend that to everyone. If this person hadn't met that person and done that thing then this other thing wouldn't have happened.

[Darkstream]

40 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

just imagine D&D didn't write it -

You mean just like the premise that dominates my dreams every night? ...Oh if only!!!

[Le Cygne]

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

You mean just like the premise that dominates my dreams every night? ...Oh if only!!!

The whole show would be a good idea... if D&D didn't write it. Unfortunately they do.

(This reminds me of the lady who swallowed a fly song... I think at some point she swallowed a horse. Metaphor for the show.)

[Meera of Tarth]

7 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

You mean just like the premise that dominates my dreams every night? ...Oh if only!!!

This!!!!!!!

[Darkstream]

4 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

The whole show would be a good idea... if D&D didn't write it. Unfortunately they do.

For sure.

You know, I often contemplate, and drift off into my own little fantasy world imagining the show we would have to enjoy, if d&d weren't so fortunate as to have the internet, and sites like this to help them hoodwink GRRM, and get his question as to Jon's parentage correct.

Oh what could have been!

[Le Cygne]

I just listened to an interview where he assured the interviewer that he never has the show characters in mind when he's writing the books, thank goodness.

[Darkstream]

39 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

I just listened to an interview where he assured the interviewer that he never has the show characters in mind when he's writing the books, thank goodness.

It's funny - well not really - but d&d have the same mindset in regards to the book characters when writing the show - which is supposed to be an adaption of the books.

[Prince of the North]

56 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Oh what could have been!

This is my fundamental, bottom-line thought practically any time I think about GoT.

1 minute ago, Darkstream said:

It's funny - well not really - but d&d have the same mindset in regards to the book characters when writing the show - which is supposed to be an adaption of the books.

TRUTH!  Characterization?  Motivation?  Setting?  Context?  Uh...what's that?!!!

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

@StepStark Look, I don't like how I'm ending up defending stuff from the show on a Rant & Rave thread. I only meant to defend the concept, not D&D's execution. The conversation will spin out of control if we're gonna split every hair. There are answers to the things you posted; in Talisa's first scene you can see Silent Sisters everywhere tending to the wounded (rather than the dead), so you can argue in the show's canon they act like some sort of Red Cross whose neutrality the Westerosi respect, and Talisa is working with them and that's why she feels confident enough to talk back to Robb and Roose. But of course D&D didn't actually establish this as fact, and probably never showed any Silent Sisters again, so we wouldn't be getting anywhere.

 

I'd like you to put the actual scenes and the dialogue they wrote aside for a second, and try to weigh how important it is for the series as a whole and for the story of the Starks in particular whether Robb deflowers a girl in a moment of weakness and marries her the next morning to protect her honor or meets a woman he can truly love and respect and decides she is worth more to him than a vow.

Are these two scenarios so fundamentally different that the character can't be the same in other aspects of the story? Is the second Robb that selfish for giving his subjects a worthy queen? Is the first Robb so noble for thinking with his dick in the first place? Is it any less tragic when the harsh reality punishes him for his idealistic choice?

Yes, the scenario that unfolds in the books is more complex, but that largely has to do with politics and the higher number of characters involved. George never really did a character study with Robb like he did with, say, Jaime. A clever reader can get a few hints from off-hand comments and small gestures, but ultimately you don't know what's in his head.

So how much can you blame the show - on an entirely conceptual level, just imagine D&D didn't write it - given that it had to elaborate on Robb's story, for going with the second option? It was cheaper to shoot and it made more sense for the almost 10 years older Robb. For me, that justifies it... Too bad it wasn't written well, but then again many things weren't.

I don't know why are you so hell bent on defending the concept of not-Jeyne, when in truth nobody here seems to be attacking the concept. In fact, nobody here seems to be interested in discussing it and there is good reason for that: because as subject it is too speculative. Because in hands of a skilled writer almost any concept can work. I'm sure that Martin could've written ASOIAF again with a completely different female as Robb's love interest, and it would probably work (not the least because he'd definitely be careful about social structures). But the thing is, what's the point of that mental gymnastics? What is the purpose of coming to the conclusion that yes D&D's idea could've worked only if some actually good writers executed it instead of D&D?

In fact, here's what I think would've happened if actually good writers were adapting Robb's love story: they wouldn't change it. And yes, they'd kept it at minimum, because a lot of much more important stuff is happening at the moment that needs attention more than Robb falling for a wrong girl. Because, there is no need for every single character to be "fleshed out" all the time. There is a thing called focus and sorry but Robb is not in focus in the second part of Martin's story. If you bring him into focus, especially in a limited timeline of TV season, you're going to neglect other storylines, which is exactly what D&D "accomplished" with their "fleshing out" of Robb's "romance". Honestly, I think it's completely ridiculous to waste time on Robb's "romance" (be it Jeyne or Talisa or whoever) when you have War of the Five Kings raging in full force and one Stannis Baratheon taking Lannisters to the task as nobody before him did.

But they did the same thing with Jon too. Speaking of concepts, that was identical situation: they "fleshed out" Jon and Ygritte at the expense of Qhorin Halfhand (one of my favorite minor character who'd probably be memorable on screen if he was adapted properly). And the result was catastrophic, just like with Robb and Talisa. So D&D managed to screw things twice with the same concept. So maybe the concept wasn't such a good idea after all.

And again, I'll repeat, in hands of good writers even a highborn immigrant from Volantis could work as Robb's love interest, so in that way you're not wrong. But on the other hand, good writers wouldn't need to focus on Robb's "romance". Good writers would be able to keep the audience interested and invested by sticking to storylines that matter not a bit less than Robb's "romance", and in fact matter more at the time: Stannis against Renly, living hell in Harrenhall, political tensions and social unrest in King's Landing and so on. You know, all those storylines that were shorthanded because "the audience would run away if we don't give them a season of romance". After all, book readers didn't loose interest because Robb was almost entirely absent from ACOK.

[Darkstream]

41 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

TRUTH!  Characterization?  Motivation?  Setting?  Context?  Uh...what's that?!!!

Yup, and let's not forget about common sense and logic...what in Seven Hells is that?

Or how about their sense of social awareness and responsibility, for two individuals in such an influential position. What's their response to the criticism of their depiction of women, and the glorification of violence and revenge? They have a bunch of scantily dressed hotties with bad pussy murder their own family in the name of revenge, for... get this...the murder of members of their family. Yay!! Go girl power and equality.