How do D&D decide what to keep/cut..?

[StepStark]

4 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

I don't see any indication that Stannis is more important than Robb. Yes, he introduces us to the Lord of Light and the Azor Ahai prophecy, but I don't believe that prophecy applies to him, which makes him expendable. He's certainly not one of the most important characters. 

Expandable? I don't even know what you mean by that. But in any case, no, Stannis is not there just to introduce us to the Lord of Light and the Azor Ahai prophecy. He actually is much more important than Robb and it's pretty obvious by now. It wasn't obvious after the first two books, but now it definitely is. His impact to the story is far greater than Robb's. Not as big as Cat's, but certainly bigger than Robb's. It's not even about indications any more, it's very evident from the pure fact that Stannis' arc is still not over. And just think about this: Robb's death had an enormous emotional impact and because of that it was very justified in the narrative sense, but Stannis' death at the hands of Boltons wouldn't have anything even close to that impact. And that means that Stannis' endgame must have some other purpose. From the very start Stannis was created as a character who's not there for the readers to be emotionally attached to him, like Robb, but for some other purpose. I don't know what that purpose is going to be, but it will definitely have something to do with the burning of Shireen (now that we know that he is going to sacrifice her). But the burning of Shireen will definitely not be about defeating Boltons, because it's literally impossible for Stannis to let Melisandre burn his daughter when both Melisandre and Shireen are half the world away from him. So both in-story logic and literary logic lead to the conclusion that Stannis' defeat at the hands of Boltons is simply not an option.

I see that it's hard for you to accept that D&D don't follow logic, but it is true, they really don't. Stannis' arc in the show has no logic from any point of view. It is illogical by the in-story logic, and it is pointless from the point of narrative wisdom. If you stop trying to defend D&D at all costs and just think about Stannis in the show (regardless of do you like him as a character or not), you'll easily come to the conclusion that his closure in the show is totally ridiculous.

[StepStark]

4 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

but the show wanted to play with the viewer's feelings offering us, for the very first time, that he cared for his daughter (with the hug scene) and then he was qyickly persuaded to sacrifice her for the cause by Mel. He even lied to Shireen. They should have avoided the hug scene (it only caused confusion and also aMore cheap SHOKING moment as usual) or either make anyine else (Mel) burn her.

I agree that the burning of Shireen was wrong on many levels, but I don't think that even Stannis' scene where he hugs her is any different. I was turned off precisely by the blatant obviousness of their intention to suddenly portray Stannis as a loving father. Again, Martin did the same thing in a hugely better way, when in Theon's chapter in TWOW Stannis orders his knights to continue fighting even if he dies, because they'll have a duty to Shireen. With just one carefully placed sentence Martin accomplished more than D&D with that entire scene, because he showed that for Stannis the concept of duty is not something he associates only with his own personal needs. Compare that to the show and his stupid lines from there, like "I don't want to be a page in someone else's history book".

[Dragon in the North]

22 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Expandable? I don't even know what you mean by that. But in any case, no, Stannis is not there just to introduce us to the Lord of Light and the Azor Ahai prophecy. He actually is much more important than Robb and it's pretty obvious by now. It wasn't obvious after the first two books, but now it definitely is. His impact to the story is far greater than Robb's. Not as big as Cat's, but certainly bigger than Robb's. It's not even about indications any more, it's very evident from the pure fact that Stannis' arc is still not over. And just think about this: Robb's death had an enormous emotional impact and because of that it was very justified in the narrative sense, but Stannis' death at the hands of Boltons wouldn't have anything even close to that impact. And that means that Stannis' endgame must have some other purpose. From the very start Stannis was created as a character who's not there for the readers to be emotionally attached to him, like Robb, but for some other purpose. I don't know what that purpose is going to be, but it will definitely have something to do with the burning of Shireen (now that we know that he is going to sacrifice her). But the burning of Shireen will definitely not be about defeating Boltons, because it's literally impossible for Stannis to let Melisandre burn his daughter when both Melisandre and Shireen are half the world away from him. So both in-story logic and literary logic lead to the conclusion that Stannis' defeat at the hands of Boltons is simply not an option.

I see that it's hard for you to accept that D&D don't follow logic, but it is true, they really don't. Stannis' arc in the show has no logic from any point of view. It is illogical by the in-story logic, and it is pointless from the point of narrative wisdom. If you stop trying to defend D&D at all costs and just think about Stannis in the show (regardless of do you like him as a character or not), you'll easily come to the conclusion that his closure in the show is totally ridiculous.

By expendable, I mean his contribution to the story has come to an end. I fully admit that I may be wrong, but from my understanding of the text, there's nothing left for him to do.  Taking back Winterfell is a job for a Stark, so, narratively, Stannis's death will leave room for a Stark to be the liberator. Your claims that Stannis is important and that he still has a role to play has come without supporting evidence. 

[Meera of Tarth]

10 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I agree that the burning of Shireen was wrong on many levels, but I don't think that even Stannis' scene where he hugs her is any different. I was turned off precisely by the blatant obviousness of their intention to suddenly portray Stannis as a loving father. Again, Martin did the same thing in a hugely better way, when in Theon's chapter in TWOW Stannis orders his knights to continue fighting even if he dies, because they'll have a duty to Shireen. With just one carefully placed sentence Martin accomplished more than D&D with that entire scene, because he showed that for Stannis the concept of duty is not something he associates only with his own personal needs. Compare that to the show and his stupid lines from there, like "I don't want to be a page in someone else's history book".

I've not read that tWOW sample chapter but I agree that it sounds more natural to the character. However, I liked that scene, even if he clearly was out of character, but IMHO SD played it so well with the lines he had. It sounded as someone who was distant but at the same time, that loved her, so to me it was compelling. But what they did after was very stupid. What annoys me is that they put that scene with Shireen just before in order to make the audience be more shocked and sad and whatever when he burns her, but to me it was like he was like Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde.

[Dragon in the North]

31 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I've not read that tWOW sample chapter but I agree that it sounds more natural to the character. However, I liked that scene, even if he clearly was out of character, but IMHO SD played it so well with the lines he had. It sounded as someone who was distant but at the same time, that loved her, so to me it was compelling. But what they did after was very stupid. What annoys me is that they put that scene with Shireen just before in order to make the audience be more shocked and sad and whatever when he burns her, but to me it was like he was like Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde.

The Stannis and Shireen scene was used to highlight their relationship and to show how hard of a decision burning her would be. It showed that Stannis truly cared about her, but his duty to the Realm required her sacrifice. Conversely, in TWOW chapter, Stannis didn't give off any emotion when he proclaimed his desire to sit Shireen on the Iron Throne in the event of his death. It seemed to me that he only cared about furthering his line.

[lancerman]

On 2/19/2017 at 5:18 AM, StepStark said:

Then why didn't they get rid of the Dorne portion? After all, it's not as if they know what to do with it.

Why didn't they get rid of the Daario portion, when he's clearly without any significance in their story?

Why didn't they remove Tyrells entirely, since it's obvious that in the show the entire family had no importance at all?

Bad examples. 

Dorne was necessary to end the Myrcella subplot that already started and to payoff the conflict between the Martell's and Lannister from season 4. It was easier to add Jamie to that, than to have him traveling on a whole separate single character set piece later. It also gave Dany her army. That and Dorne was  used in about two scenes last season and a handful the year before. And they introduced one of the main characters from that plot in season 4 (probably a big reason they cut a lot of Arianne's story). You were going to need to do a gutted Dorne story, or you might as well have cut Oberyn from season 4.

 

Darrio was one character who had virtually all of his scenes tied to Dany's plot. You were filming most of his scenes with or without him. One actor for one character for something mostly going on isn't a huge burden in cost or time. 

 

What do you mean the Tyrell's had no importance. They were so important that they had established the Renly and Loras relationship far earlier than the books did. They were still the army that resolved the primary plot of season 2.  Their entire existence was what drove the Cersie and King's Landing plot in season 5 and 6. And the death of the core members is what got the Queen of Thorns to have Highgarden join Dany's coalition. They are the most important House in the show outside of Stark, Targaryen, Lannister and Baratheon. And they've probably been more important than Baratheon since season 2.

[Meera of Tarth]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

The Stannis and Shireen scene was used to highlight their relationship and to show how hard of a decision burning her would be. It showed that Stannis truly cared about her, but his duty to the Realm required her sacrifice. Conversely, in TWOW chapter, Stannis didn't give off any emotion when he proclaimed his desire to sit Shireen on the Iron Throne in the event of his death. It seemed to me that he only cared about furthering his line.

Yeah, I know the purpose of the Shireen scene on the show, but I've already said why to me it didn't achieve that purpose and only made things worse.

As for TWOW chapter, I haven't read it so I can't address it, only read the comments from the posters.

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

By expendable, I mean his contribution to the story has come to an end. I fully admit that I may be wrong, but from my understanding of the text, there's nothing left for him to do.  Taking back Winterfell is a job for a Stark, so, narratively, Stannis's death will leave room for a Stark to be the liberator. Your claims that Stannis is important and that he still has a role to play has come without supporting evidence. 

Sorry but this makes no sense. The very fact that Stannis will sacrifice his daughter is the supporting evidence. If he is to sacrifice his daughter, he has to survive the coming battle against Boltons, and then to find himself in a situation which will require of him to sacrifice Shireen. Not like in the show, where the situation was ridiculous and unrealistic (practically, created only so Stannis can have 'reasons' to burn Shireen). Unless of course Martin loses his mind completely and starts writing random scenes and confusing arcs for his characters.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Stannis will sacrifice Shireen in the books?

[StepStark]

41 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Bad examples. 

Dorne was necessary to end the Myrcella subplot that already started and to payoff the conflict between the Martell's and Lannister from season 4. It was easier to add Jamie to that, than to have him traveling on a whole separate single character set piece later. It also gave Dany her army. That and Dorne was  used in about two scenes last season and a handful the year before. And they introduced one of the main characters from that plot in season 4 (probably a big reason they cut a lot of Arianne's story). You were going to need to do a gutted Dorne story, or you might as well have cut Oberyn from season 4.

 

Darrio was one character who had virtually all of his scenes tied to Dany's plot. You were filming most of his scenes with or without him. One actor for one character for something mostly going on isn't a huge burden in cost or time. 

 

What do you mean the Tyrell's had no importance. They were so important that they had established the Renly and Loras relationship far earlier than the books did. They were still the army that resolved the primary plot of season 2.  Their entire existence was what drove the Cersie and King's Landing plot in season 5 and 6. And the death of the core members is what got the Queen of Thorns to have Highgarden join Dany's coalition. They are the most important House in the show outside of Stark, Targaryen, Lannister and Baratheon. And they've probably been more important than Baratheon since season 2.

You're barking at the wrong tree. It's not me who's saying that Tyrells are unimportant. They aren't important by your logic. Just to remind you, you said that Aegon is probably not important and that he's just an obstacle for Dany. I don't know how did you came to that conclusion, but if that's what you're thinking, then you also must think that Tyrells were just an obstacle for Cersei to take the throne. Because, the story could come to the exact same spot without Tyrells. Even the resolution of what you call the primary plot in season 2 could have been achieved without Tyrells, because in D&D's universe, where numbers don't add up anyway, Tywin's army could have been strong enough to crush Stannis' army on its own.

The same goes for Dorne and Daario too. And a lot of other characters. LOL, by your logic even Boltons were just an obstacle for Jon to reclaim Winterfell, so they could have been merged with Freys which would definitely save money and time.

All in all, I'm talking about the lack of a criteria, because eventually one can either have criteria or defend D&D.

[teej6]

3 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

By expendable, I mean his contribution to the story has come to an end. I fully admit that I may be wrong, but from my understanding of the text, there's nothing left for him to do.  Taking back Winterfell is a job for a Stark, so, narratively, Stannis's death will leave room for a Stark to be the liberator. Your claims that Stannis is important and that he still has a role to play has come without supporting evidence. 

And your claim that Stannis' story has come to an end and that a Stark will take back Winterfell is also not supported with any textual evidence. 

[teej6]

15 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Sorry but this makes no sense. The very fact that Stannis will sacrifice his daughter is the supporting evidence. If he is to sacrifice his daughter, he has to survive the coming battle against Boltons, and then to find himself in a situation which will require of him to sacrifice Shireen. Not like in the show, where the situation was ridiculous and unrealistic (practically, created only so Stannis can have 'reasons' to burn Shireen). Unless of course Martin loses his mind completely and starts writing random scenes and confusing arcs for his characters.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Stannis will sacrifice Shireen in the books?

Yeah considering they are miles apart in the books, I don't see how Stannis is going to sacrifice Shireen in the near future. If you believe D&D and GRRM did tell them that Stannis would sacrifice Shireen, then it goes to show that Stannis will defeat the Boltons and take back Winterfell and will have Selyse and Shireen come to Winterfell and will end up sacrificing Shireen for another more greater cause than for better weather. 

[StepStark]

6 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Yeah considering they are miles apart in the books, I don't see how Stannis is going to sacrifice Shireen in the near future. If you believe D&D and GRRM did tell them that Stannis would sacrifice Shireen, then it goes to show that Stannis will defeat the Boltons and take back Winterfell and will have Selyse and Shireen come to Winterfell and will end up sacrificing Shireen for another more greater cause than for better weather. 

Exactly. Not only that the entire concept of sacrificing your own child because of a blizzard is totally absurd in ASOIAF universe, but on top of that D&D made a version that is literally impossible in the books. For a different example: if you haven't read the last two books, you'd still think Sansa marrying Ramsay is absurd, but it wouldn't look physically impossible to you. But Shireen's death as in the show is physically impossible in the books. And show lovers still take the show version as evidence that Stannis is over and done in the books too. Odd, really.

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

The Stannis and Shireen scene was used to highlight their relationship and to show how hard of a decision burning her would be. It showed that Stannis truly cared about her, but his duty to the Realm required her sacrifice. Conversely, in TWOW chapter, Stannis didn't give off any emotion when he proclaimed his desire to sit Shireen on the Iron Throne in the event of his death. It seemed to me that he only cared about furthering his line.

I don't know where you are getting this notion that Book Stannis is robotic with no emotions and Show Stannis is the epitome of a caring and loving father. Book Stannis is rigid when it comes to rules but he cares -- he cared about Maester Cressen in his own way, he cares about Shireen, and for crying out loud, we see him care about Renly even. Book Stannis suffers from middle child syndrome and from a sense of being neglected and not been given his dues. I would classify that as a man who cares and feels, not a robot. Show Stannis, on the other hand, is all over the place. His character is so inconsistent. D&D really disliked the character of Stannis or perhaps they didn't understand the character, whichever way they ruined Stannis. Book Stannis is nuanced and complex and eventually the reader (perhaps not all) begins to sympathize and understand the character and his motives.

As for the Theon chapter from TWOW, it just goes to show that Stannis cares about his child and her rights. And as I stated earlier, if Stannis has to sacrifice Shireen (as D&D said GRRM told them he would), it's not going to happen anytime soon as Stannis and Shireen are miles apart. And if this has to happen, Stannis will have to win his battle with the Boltons for Selyse and Shireen to join him. And according to you that's not going to happen, right?

[Dragon in the North]

33 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Sorry but this makes no sense. The very fact that Stannis will sacrifice his daughter is the supporting evidence. If he is to sacrifice his daughter, he has to survive the coming battle against Boltons, and then to find himself in a situation which will require of him to sacrifice Shireen. Not like in the show, where the situation was ridiculous and unrealistic (practically, created only so Stannis can have 'reasons' to burn Shireen). Unless of course Martin loses his mind completely and starts writing random scenes and confusing arcs for his characters.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Stannis will sacrifice Shireen in the books?

I don't think he'll sacrifice her. I think Melisandre will do it on her own.

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

I don't think he'll sacrifice her. I think Melisandre will do it on her own.

Not according to D&D

[Dragon in the North]

20 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And your claim that Stannis' story has come to an end and that a Stark will take back Winterfell is also not supported with any textual evidence. 

You're right. It's what I predict is going to happen, but Martin may have bigger plans for Stannis that I realize. But Stannis losing to the Boltons and a Stark taking his place as the North's liberator is not outside the realm of possibility, like many of you seem to believe.

[teej6]

1 minute ago, Dragon in the North said:

You're right. It's what I predict is going to happen, but Martin may have bigger plans for Stannis that I realize. But Stannis losing to the Boltons and a Stark taking his place as the North's liberator is not outside the realm of possibility, like many of you seem to believe.

I didn't say that Stannis defeat at the hands of the Boltons is not a possibility. It may very well happen. I just couldn't understand why you were so sure that Stannis' story had come to an end and that he was expendable. 

[Dragon in the North]

3 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I don't know where you are getting this notion that Book Stannis is robotic with no emotions and Show Stannis is the epitome of a caring and loving father. Book Stannis is rigid when it comes to rules but he cares -- he cared about Maester Cressen in his own way, he cares about Shireen, and for crying out loud, we see him care about Renly even. Book Stannis suffers from middle child syndrome and from a sense of being neglected and not been given his dues. I would classify that as a man who cares and feels, not a robot. Show Stannis, on the other hand, is all over the place. His character is so inconsistent. D&D really disliked the character of Stannis or perhaps they didn't understand the character, whichever way they ruined Stannis. Book Stannis is nuanced and complex and eventually the reader (perhaps not all) begins to sympathize and understand the character and his motives.

That's not how I interpreted his character. In the prologue chapter, I remember him being a jerk to Cressen and completely brushing off his death. He barely has any scenes with Shireen, and I don't remember a single one with him acting as a caring father. As for Renly, on the surface, he seemed to brush off his death, too. I know there were long silences between him talking about his brother, which one could interpret as remorse, but all I'll say is that there such a thing as too subtle. In the show, Stannis was horrified at how he murdered his brother in the season 2 finale. Show Stannis shows a lot more emotion than Book Stannis, and I, therefore, find him to be more human.

I understand Stannis's motives perfectly in the show and didn't find him to be inconsistent at all. In fact, I found him to be a very tragic figure.

 

[Dragon in the North]

5 minutes ago, teej6 said:

I didn't say that Stannis defeat at the hands of the Boltons is not a possibility. It may very well happen. I just couldn't understand why you were so sure that Stannis' story had come to an end and that he was expendable. 

I've said multiple times that I may be wrong. Just because I don't see where his story can go from here doesn't mean his story is over. That's why Martin is the author and I am the reader. 

[Dragon in the North]

10 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Not according to D&D

They may have been referring to Shireen's burning in general. It may happen differently in the books.