[Book/Show Spoilers] What will Stannis do next season?

[Huscarl]

We'll see how Stannis is depicted in Season 4. Remember, the episode commentary from Season 2 referred to Jaime as a "monster" when he killed his cousin Alton (something which didn't happen in the books). Now look at Jaime, he's starting to redeem himself and fans are starting to sympathize with him a little bit. Especially after saving Brienne from the bear pit.

Next year, we'll see Stannis and his army show up in the nick of time to save Jon and the Wall from the Wildlings. Hundreds will become his fans. No, thousands.

[RobertOfTheHouseBaratheon]

We'll see how Stannis is depicted in Season 4. Remember, the episode commentary from Season 2 referred to Jaime as a "monster" when he killed his cousin Alton (something which didn't happen in the books). Now look at Jaime, he's starting to redeem himself and fans are starting to sympathize with him a little bit. Especially after saving Brienne from the bear pit.

Next year, we'll see Stannis and his army show up in the nick of time to save Jon and the Wall from the Wildlings. Hundreds will become his fans. No, thousands.

Also even though D&D are recorded as saying how Renly would be a good king and Stannis wouldn't Jaime had that conversation with Brienne early on in S3 where he more or less told her Renly would have been a rubbish King. Either D&D's opinions have changed, they aren't in complete control of how characters are portrayed or they are trolling us with Stannis trying to make him seem terrible then make him great in the end as GRRM have told them he's pretty important at the end of it all?

[zaphodbrx]

D&D are lazy hack writers who have no understanding of what a redemption arc means. See, Jamie killing his cousin was just to show people -> Look, he's EVIL! In case you forgot. And then in season 3 he does good things -> Look he is GOOD! D&D have not managed to understand the fundamental concept of greyness in people and how events change the way they think or act. Every character of theirs is white or black. Sometimes black changes to white or the other way, which is quite jarring if you ask non book readers. You see, if they were actual good writers then Jamie killing his cousin would have consequences down the line. but since he is now GOOD, we won't hear anything about it , and it is easy to ignore since it isn't in the book. Convenient?

The writers genuinely DON'T have any sort of plan or vision. They just decide something randomly and go with it. The character of Roz is a perfect example. Initially she was just supposed to fulfill nudity quota, but then the writers liked her and then she stayed on doing a bunch of invented, improbable things, and finally got killed offscreen and was never mentioned again. This is not something that would happen if D&D had any long term plans.

And to mix it up there are a bunch of different writers who do their own thing. That's why you have such wildly varying characterization such as Ep. 8 Stannis vs Ep. 10 Stannis.

Besides, Stannis is not on a redemption arc. If they think he is, they've fundamentally misunderstood his character ( though that isn't really in doubt after this episode ).

[Areo Speedwagon]

D&D are lazy hack writers who have no understanding of what a redemption arc means. See, Jamie killing his cousin was just to show people -> Look, he's EVIL! In case you forgot. And then in season 3 he does good things -> Look he is GOOD! D&D have not managed to understand the fundamental concept of greyness in people and how events change the way they think or act. Every character of theirs is white or black. Sometimes black changes to white or the other way, which is quite jarring if you ask non book readers. You see, if they were actual good writers then Jamie killing his cousin would have consequences down the line. but since he is now GOOD, we won't hear anything about it , and it is easy to ignore since it isn't in the book. Convenient?

The writers genuinely DON'T have any sort of plan or vision. They just decide something randomly and go with it. The character of Roz is a perfect example. Initially she was just supposed to fulfill nudity quota, but then the writers liked her and then she stayed on doing a bunch of invented, improbable things, and finally got killed offscreen and was never mentioned again. This is not something that would happen if D&D had any long term plans.

And to mix it up there are a bunch of different writers who do their own thing. That's why you have such wildly varying characterization such as Ep. 8 Stannis vs Ep. 10 Stannis.

Besides, Stannis is not on a redemption arc. If they think he is, they've fundamentally misunderstood his character ( though that isn't really in doubt after this episode ).

This is absolutely hilarious. Zaphodbrx, where did the seemingly level headed commenter from page 7 go?

I'm not going rehash book vs. show because that's been done. The short sightedness of this post is what I would like to engage.

You claim that there is no reason for Jaime killing his cousin if it won't pay off "down the line." By the end of the series, there will probably be 70 - 90 episodes. But 13 is too far down the line for a payoff?

As far as Roz is concerned, I won't deal in hypotheticals, what they "should have" done. Within the framework of the show, how else would we have learned Littlefinger and Varys are the huge players they are? Who else would know the inner workings of Littlefinger other than an employee without making Littlefinger seem completely incompetent (and I'll give you that he isn't nearly as competent in the show as he is in the book). Also, she came from the North as a prostitute. She could read and proved herself useful to Littlefinger, and later to Varys. "Prodigy's in rare places" as Varys says. But she wasn't Varys, she wasn't Littlefinger, others who came from nothing like her. She tried to use what she could to better her lot in life, but she wasn't good/smart enough. The fact that she dies in an episode titled "The Climb" is very telling.

Your assertion that "there are a bunch of different writers who do their own thing" is, a little ill informed. I work in television. Game of Thrones doesn't even have a writers room (in the traditional sense). It pretty much is D&D and Bryan Cogman. Cogman translates the chapters into one page synopses, and figures out the chronology, how everything is going to fit, he's the story editor. Then he and D&D come up with an outline for the season. A big corkboard filled with index cards; episode numbers on the X-axis, characters on the Y-axis, are linked with (I'm guessing here) string or yarn. The entire season is planned (for the most part, in broad strokes) before episode one is even written. Then D&D assign the writing of each episode, with them writing the most. Cogman gets one, Martin gets one, then they hire out the rest. But that writer gets the outline Cogman and D&D wrote for the episode which has pretty much every scene beated out, they literally just punch out the scenes. There is some freedom, but they can't change locations, cast, etc. for story budget reasons, cast contracts, etc. Most shows do all this in a writers room with a team, like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, so GoT is unorthodox in this regard.

As for the wildly varying characterization of Stannis, see above. It's not due to writer's doing their own thing. They're building a character and that takes time. I struggle to understand how you can loathe the creators of the show for giving us black and white characters, but claim to enjoy the scenes in eps 5 & 8 that gives us the most contrast to the hardened military man in league with a sorceress we've known so far. Isn't showing a man of consumate justice struggle with being met with joy by his zealot wife when he confesses his infidelity complicated? If Stannis was as black/white as you claim, why would he care or even admit to it in the first place? And saying "that's just episode 5 Stannis" is a cop out. There's no such thing. There's just Stannis.

I also struggle to understand how certain you can be of Stannis not having a redemption arc in a series of novels that hasn't yet ended.

[Miodrag]

You claim that there is no reason for Jaime killing his cousin if it won't pay off "down the line." By the end of the series, there will probably be 70 - 90 episodes. But 13 is too far down the line for a payoff?

Can't remember was it "zaphodbrx" or someone else who posted in some discussion that Jaime murdering Alton is actually a serious, probably too big a burden on Jaime's shoulders: everyone in North's army now knows Jaime killed a kin, and by cannon that is as big a sin as they come. So, they either have to downplay/ignore kinslaying as a sin, or hope people will forget the murder of Alton which will allow Jaime's road to redemption to be untouched by it; in either way, I think the story's going to be weaker than it would've been without the kinslaying of Alton, which didn't bring any quality to the show to begin with.

There's no such thing. There's just Stannis.

Since a significant portion of Stannis' military and political power comes from Mel (in the novels in TV both), his relationship with Mel is probably the crucial one for defining Stannis, along with his relationship with Davos. While his relationship with Davos is pretty skillfully adapted on TV, his relationship with Mel is changed in it's root: Stannis in the show doesn't seem able to resist Melisandre. Stannis in the books is nobody's bitch, not even Melisandre's. What's boggling, to me at least, is why didn't they included just a scene or two early on in Season 2 of Stannis talking to Davos about Mel, just like he did in the novels. That way, with a little bit of precious dialogue, the tone of Stannis' quest would be better set and everything Stannis did from that point would seem more logical to unsullied viewers, who, as of now, overwhelmingly think Stannis is Mel's bitch.

As far as Roz is concerned...

Even if she did have a purpose in fleshing out Petyr's and Varys' importance in The Game - which I don't think is the case, but leave that aside for now - majority of her scenes weren't with them. Just to make myself clear, none of her scenes troubled me much; I thought they were rather clumsy written, but they surely didn't hurt characters nor the story in the show universe; however, her scenes did cost screen-time, which could've been used wiser. For example, there was that endless scene with Pycelle in Season 1 finale, which was actually longer than King in the North scene. The cost of learning Pycelle is actually healthier than we knew was just too big, especially because we were going to learn the truth about Pycelle in early Season 2 anyhow (Tyrion and Bronn catch him with a whore in bed). Examples like this is why I view Roz as a poor trade - whatever we gained by her existence, we lost much more potentially.

(Hope it was OK to reply, even if it wasn't me you were addressing.)

[Ser Luke.]

I nominate Bryan Cogman to write every episode containing Stannis, even for only one scene.

[Areo Speedwagon]

(Hope it was OK to reply, even if it wasn't me you were addressing.)

NOOOOOO!!!!! Of course. Open discussion is certainly why I came here in the first place.

Even if she did have a purpose...

Very true about screen time. I think I posted before that I do have issues (at times, serious ones) with the show and Roz is in several of them. I'm not going to defend the Pycelle scene, but I think I get why they did it. I'm at work right now and can't really go to the episode, but I remember it being a sequence of three scenes that showed different chacters and how they 'survive,' what roles they all play to quote Varys. In that sequence you see that the characters at court aren't who they seem, back to back. I thought it was cinematic and I liked the overall effect, but yeah, all time on tv is borrowed from other characters.

Stannis' military and political power...

As for his power coming from Mel, I disagree. He did smash the Greyjoy fleet 17 years before he met Mel (right?). Not sure when they hooked up, so to speak. But yeah, I do wish they showed him as more skeptical. But I think they did adress it in their own way when he said in the dungeon to Davos "I saw a vision in the flames. A great battle in the snow. I saw it. And you saw whatever she gave birth to. I never believed. But when you see the truth, when it's right in front of you, as real as these iron bars, how can you deny her god is real?" I suppose he could repeat his doubts, but, I think that sheds light on why he's seems so convinced of her.

The issue with Jaime is a serious one. I have no idea how they're going to deal with/reconcile that. But again, as with Stannis, the showrunners have to play the long game. Maybe something is coming... (other than winter)

I realize this isn't a Roz thread, but the season is over and posts on this thread have slowed to a crawl as of late so maybe the mods won't hold it against me. I am really interested to hear your thoughts as to why you disagree. I'm not married to my thoughts on her and as I said above, I think we all came here seeking open discussion on a story we love.

[zaphodbrx]

Your assertion that "there are a bunch of different writers who do their own thing" is, a little ill informed. I work in television. Game of Thrones doesn't even have a writers room (in the traditional sense). It pretty much is D&D and Bryan Cogman. Cogman translates the chapters into one page synopses, and figures out the chronology, how everything is going to fit, he's the story editor. Then he and D&D come up with an outline for the season. A big corkboard filled with index cards; episode numbers on the X-axis, characters on the Y-axis, are linked with (I'm guessing here) string or yarn. The entire season is planned (for the most part, in broad strokes) before episode one is even written. Then D&D assign the writing of each episode, with them writing the most. Cogman gets one, Martin gets one, then they hire out the rest. But that writer gets the outline Cogman and D&D wrote for the episode which has pretty much every scene beated out, they literally just punch out the scenes. There is some freedom, but they can't change locations, cast, etc. for story budget reasons, cast contracts, etc. Most shows do all this in a writers room with a team, like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, so GoT is unorthodox in this regard.

I don't work in Television. And I don't know anything about it. But when I see a set of bad, disjointed scenes, I'll call it a set of bad, disjointed scenes. Because that's the truth.

A classic example is Sam and Gilly scenes. We end the episode with a cliffhanger, they are running away from ravens. Next episode? They are just fine, and no explanation is provided. Maybe the writers actually discuss things with each other, I don't know. What it feels like to me is that one writer thought it would be cool to end with a bunch of ravens chasing, and then the next writer came along and didn't know what to do so he just said F*k that, we'll just drop it and hope the audience doesn't notice. Cause they are stupid.

And this is hardly the only time they did it. So many, many times they start out with something and then don't have any payoff. The Jaime affair for instance. You see, Catelyn released Jaime mainly because the Karstark mob was threatening to kill him. You'd think she would at least explain this to Robb but no, she doesn't. They set up something and then didn't follow up. And don't get me started on that bullshit black screen at the beginning of this season. If time or budgets were a constraint, you should have thought of that when you ended the previous season on a cliffhanger. No explanation provided for how Sam managed to escape from zombies. Just.. f*k that. Hope the audience doesn't notice.

As for the wildly varying characterization of Stannis, see above. It's not due to writer's doing their own thing. They're building a character and that takes time. I struggle to understand how you can loathe the creators of the show for giving us black and white characters, but claim to enjoy the scenes in eps 5 & 8 that gives us the most contrast to the hardened military man in league with a sorceress we've known so far. Isn't showing a man of consumate justice struggle with being met with joy by his zealot wife when he confesses his infidelity complicated? If Stannis was as black/white as you claim, why would he care or even admit to it in the first place? And saying "that's just episode 5 Stannis" is a cop out. There's no such thing. There's just Stannis.

You can chalk that up to writers doing their own thing ( those episodes were written by Cogman and Martin ). I don't think there's any episode written by DnD where Stannis hasn't come off as a complete asshole.

Anyway even if you don't agree with that, the issue is a real lack of screentime. And no it's not a case of time or budget constraints. Stannis has less lines in this season than Shae the funny whore. The show is ridiculously favoured towards Lannisters even in a season where they do almost nothing but get drunk and bitch around. They treat Stannis as a minor character, at best. Stannis really isn't an incidental character. He's the last remaining Baratheon, with good qualities of his own, iron-willed, unyielding, just, anti-nepotism, willing to listen to advisors, etc. His teeth grinding and glumness indicate a man struggling with difficult choices, his nature is almost representative of the words 'ours is the fury'. Barely anything of this is actually transmitted onto the show. The story about proudwing and why he wanted Melisandre , a 'red hawk', is cut out, along with all other interactions with Davos and anyone else. He appears completely submissive in a 'Yes, master' kind of way, and my non-bookreader friends keep wondering why Davos is still sticking to that loser.

[Areo Speedwagon]

A classic example is Sam and Gilly scenes. We end the episode with a cliffhanger, they are running away from ravens. Next episode? They are just fine, and no explanation is provided.

Funny, I had issues with that scene, but for a different reason. You took issue with what came after, I had one with what came before. My complaint is a pretty minor one. I just felt that the Sam/Gilly scene was just kind of tacked on at the end because they wanted a beat of suspense (and to show the WWs aren't invincible) after they had been moving the pieces for two episodes leading to the RW. Sam/Gilly just show up and I was thought "oh yeah, these two are on the show." Now I don't mean to say my complaints are valid and yours aren't, but I don't understand your complaint. There was a WW, Sam kills WW, they run away. I don't get what more you needed to see. Emphasis on needed. Them running more? You mention poor usage of screentime, yet want to use some of what little there is following characters we already know to be safe? How much of their journey back to the wall did you want to see? How much did you see in the books? And you really can't see a reason for the writers to include a treeful of ravens knowing who we meet later on?

And this is hardly the only time they did it. So many, many times they start out with something and then don't have any payoff. The Jaime affair for instance. You see, Catelyn released Jaime mainly because the Karstark mob was threatening to kill him. You'd think she would at least explain this to Robb but no, she doesn't. They set up something and then didn't follow up.

From Episode 0208 The Prince of Winterfell -

Robb enters the tent after being told of what happened by a rider.

Robb: Tell me it isn't true.

Catelyn says nothing.

R: Why?

Catelyn: For the girls.

R: You betrayed me. You knew I wouldn't allow it and you did it anyway.

C: Bran and Rickon are captives in Winterfell. Sansa and Arya are captives in Kings Landing. I have 5 children and only one of them is free.

Karstark: I lost one son fighting by your sons side. I lost another to the kingslayer, strangled with his chain. You commit treason because your children are prisoners? I would carve out my heart and offer it to the father if it meant they would wake from their graves and step into a prison cell.

C: I grieve for your sons, my lo-

K: I don't want your grief, I want my vengeance. And you stole it from me.

C: Killing Jaime Lannister would not buy life for your children. But returning him to Kings Landing may buy life for mine.

Don't say she doesn't explain herself. Is it selfish? Yes. Is it true? Not entirely. But how often do people tell the full truth when they know they really really fucked up? Especially someone living under a feudal justice system, especially a second class citizen like a woman in a 'medieval' feudal system.

No explanation provided for how Sam managed to escape from zombies. Just.. f*k that.

I completely agree here. F*ck that.

I don't think there's any episode written by DnD where Stannis hasn't come off as a complete asshole.

But he kind of is an asshole. And I say that as a huge Stannis fan. He made Mathos strike the word 'beloved' from his brothers (basically) obituary. That's a total dick move. And when he's mentioned before we meet him, he's called insufferable. Doesn't Renly mention something about him not really smiling even as a kid? You know the books better than I do.

And no it's not a case of time or budget constraints.

You can not believe that, but it's reality. There's not much more I can say.

Anyway even if you don't agree with that, the issue is a real lack of screentime. And no it's not a case of time or budget constraints. Stannis has less lines in this season than Shae the funny whore.

That has been rather disappointing, but guess what? 99% Shae won't make it past next seaon. Varys' offer to her was foreshadowing of that. Guess who will be around for another maybe 5 seasons? Stannis. Roz is gone, the RW, the PW early next season, Shae and Tywin at the end of next. All the people with no link to the larger mythology will pretty much be gone. They had to set up the world before they could change it. That's what makes this series so great, at least to me. It hooks you in as a taught medieval political thriller with small instances of the supernatural, but morphs into this mythological epic with gods, dragons, and magic. We're on book 2.5 out of seven. Let's not fill our diapers just yet. The Shaes will go away, leaving time for more Stannis.

[Areo Speedwagon]

He's the last remaining Baratheon, with good qualities of his own, iron-willed, unyielding, just, anti-nepotism, willing to listen to advisors, etc. His teeth grinding and glumness indicate a man struggling with difficult choices, his nature is almost representative of the words 'ours is the fury'. Barely anything of this is actually transmitted onto the show. The story about proudwing and why he wanted Melisandre , a 'red hawk', is cut out, along with all other interactions with Davos and anyone else. He appears completely submissive in a 'Yes, master' kind of way, and my non-bookreader friends keep wondering why Davos is still sticking to that loser.

He certainly is glum on the show. And he led the charge at Blackwater. He made a low born smuggler his Hand. And he does struggle with his choices. Watch his face as he confesses his infidelity to Selyse and his reaction to her response. Dillane crushed that scene. He isn't a man of faith, but, as he says in ep 308, "I never believed. But when you see the truth, when it's right in front of you, as real as these iron bars, how can you deny her god is real?" He is struggling. And we will get more. My friends who haven't read the books really like him for the reasons mentioned above and the story of he told in ep 209 of holding Storms End becuase, and I run the risk of sounding like an asshole here, but, they remember when characters say and do things.

[Miodrag]

@Areo Speedwagon

I'll try to address both Stannis and Roz situation, by focusing on sex scenes. I'm perfectly aware industry uses them to no end, but the sheer quantity of them doesn't make it easier to me. And the problem I have with that kind of scenes isn't puritanism, by no means. Please don't embarrass me by telling anyone, but there are some porn stars I'd marry. (I'm kidding; partially; at least, I hope so.) The reason is the uniqueness of that kind of scenes. They're stand-outs because they're inevitably more realistic than other scenes, and therefore they tend to put me out a little from the story. For example, real-life brother and sister performing a sex scene would be all kinds of wrong, while they'd have zero problem performing a violence. (Which is why I don't get people claiming it's a hypocrisy to object sex-scenes and not on-screen violence; those two are not a match in visual mediums; in books they are, cause describing a sexual act is no different than describing a violence; but on screen they aren't the same at all.) And because of that, sexual scenes tend to leave a bigger impression on viewers than great many other scenes, especially if sex is emphasized, as it is in GoT. That's why I find Stannis and Mel's sex scene very problematic. It was far too early on in Stannis' screen-life, and it couldn't help but leave the lasting impression on viewers. And the fact is that Stannis was submissive in that scene. That's why I'm not surprised viewers often don't see Stannis as anything other than Mel's bitch. And leaving out the hawk story surely didn't help, either.

As for Roz: because of the nature of sex scenes, I was rather interested to see the way she can solve the problem I have. I mean, if you restrict sex scenes to one character, and a prostitute one at that, well, I thought it just could be the way to make those scenes not stand-outs. But, for it to work, sex scenes without Roz should've been almost extinct and it wasn't the case. And, to be honest, I don't think they were addressing 'my problem' at all. Ultimately, seeing how she ended, I see no purpose for the Roz character that couldn't be achieved by other, already existing characters, and in a more intelligent manner. (Her scene in the pilot is a possible exception; yeah, it's a stretch to picture a whorehouse in Winterfell, but in the show universe it doesn't have to be problematic, and it did show important sides of both Tyrion and Jaime.)

[Areo Speedwagon]

@Areo Speedwagon

I'll try to address both Stannis and Roz situation, by focusing on sex scenes. I'm perfectly aware industry uses them to no end, but the sheer quantity of them doesn't make it easier to me. And the problem I have with that kind of scenes isn't puritanism, by no means. Please don't embarrass me by telling anyone, but there are some porn stars I'd marry. (I'm kidding; partially; at least, I hope so.) snip...

HA! This is amazing. And proper grammar in the parenthetical... bravo, sir.

You delve into some abstract concepts, so I'll start there. You say "sexual scenes tend to leave a bigger impression on viewers than great many other scenes, especially if the sex is emphasized." While I agree, I don't see that as something the showrunners have a large amount of control over. A lot of that I see is us bringing our cultural baggage to any viewing experience. I've recently been catching up on NBC's Hannibal (which keeps getting better and better. For a network drama I think it's one of the [if not the] best out there) , but I find it patently absurd that, at times, Hannibal on NBC can literally be more graphic than Game of Thrones in terms of gore. No one was appalled at a murdered infant hanging limp, lifeless, from its leg carried by a goldcloak (maybe they were, but not enough to come here and start a thread on it). No one started a thread about the drowning of a 10 year old boy or a helpless, wounded 12 year old getting stabbed in the throat by a 35 year old 'man.' Violence can be a part of a scene, in fact it can be the point of a scene and few think it's a distraction because 'it was in the books' or 'that's the way life was back then.'

But a few sex scenes and we (the royal, not you) feel it's a distraction. Even though that scene may have been in the books. Even when sex isn't the point of the scene. Even though sex is the way life is. Let me be clear. In no way do I think you're a prude for bringing this up. And I know these forums are international, but I'm an American. In my home state of Michigan, a female legislator was banned from speaking on the house floor for using the word 'vagina' in a debate about women's contraception. I wish I was kidding, I'm not. John Ashcroft covered up this partially nude statue in the Justice Department building while he was there. We as a culture we hyper sexualize women, then freak out about it. It's insane. And we all grew up in it (I think it's fairly safe to say Americanism has been sucessfully exported around the globe). Susan Griffin, in her book Pornography and Silence, argues (among other things) that fundamentalist Christianity and pornography are complementary, each turning women into either virgins or whores, with fundalmentalism wanting the soul and not the body, and pornography wanting the body and not the soul. In either case the woman is cut in two. This culture devalues life; and women, as the ones who bring life into the world pay the price for this. As for why, that's a whooooooole nother can of worms for a different thread, not on these forums.

Where are we? Oh yeah, Stannis. Whoa. Remember that in the scene where they have sex in season two, it isn't just fucking. Mel tells Stannis he can give him a son. *See above regarding women being devalued. As for the scene happening too soon, perhaps, but it fit. That whole episdoe is about the lines of power running through men. Cersei talks about Jaime not caring about kingly power, Balon tells Theon Yara is his heir (which is clearly crazy), Craster has daughter-wives and gives up his sons, Gendry finds out Arya's a Lady, the Khals don't accept Dany leading a khalasar because she's a woman, and lastly, Stannis' claim to the throne would be improved if he had a son and heir. Stannis being enthralled with the prospect of having a son fits in the theme of the episode. Game of Thrones is sprawling, with dozens of characters that have no link to each other whatsoever (yet). So in order to make cohesive episodes that aren't just collections of scenes, the showrunners link their characters thematically. Admittedly, they do this far better in some episodes than in others. He transgresses his wife in 0202, when thematically appropriate, then confesses in ep 0305 when the thematic link in the episode is, basically, 'what makes someone a good ruler?' Stannis confesses and is willing to accept the consequences, a mark of a good ruler, and person in my opinion.

The only way I see around this obstacle is to do character-centric episodes. But I think the pace of storytelling would suffer as a result. We never would have had an episode like "now his watch has ended" or "Kissed by Fire" with centric episodes. It's a trade off. it suffers in some areas, but I think, in the end, it's the right call.

In 0303, when Mel leaves and Stannis wants her again, he doesn't just want to fuck, he wants another 'son' to kill Joffrey.

As for Roz, if the showrunners were to restrict the sex scenes only to prostitutes, what would that say about the world at large? Sex is a part of life, it creates life. And it can be a beautiful thing. And it can be a horrible thing. Limiting all sex on a show, or in a story, to an exploitative, economic exchange is, well, inhuman and inhumane.

If there's anything you felt I didn't address, let me know. I just dont want to stare at a screen anymore.

And what's the hawk story? I don't even remember that.

[zaphodbrx]

Now I don't mean to say my complaints are valid and yours aren't, but I don't understand your complaint. There was a WW, Sam kills WW, they run away. I don't get what more you needed to see. Emphasis on needed. Them running more? You mention poor usage of screentime, yet want to use some of what little there is following characters we already know to be safe? How much of their journey back to the wall did you want to see? How much did you see in the books? And you really can't see a reason for the writers to include a treeful of ravens knowing who we meet later on?

There is simply a clear disconnect here. One moment they are running from ravens, and the next moment they are fine with no explanation provided. That's just jarring. It doesn't matter to me whether it's in the book or not, if they had screen time issues maybe they should have left out the whole ravens thing. You see.. you can pretend that the writers know what they are doing, but the evidence suggest otherwise. And there are any number of examples in this season alone, such as the Yunkai mess.

The hawk story and Maester Cressen's interactions with Stannis in the beginning of ACOK ( which are all cut out in the show ) are actually integral to the understanding of Stannis' personality and his reasons for doing things. I really suggest reading them again.

Stannis as a character is NOT easy to like. You need to re read the books multiple times before you can start understanding the nuances of the character. DnD have only read the books once ( I think ) and they either don't care about the character or are just biased against him for who knows what reason. They took the easy way out and made Stannis a slave of Melisandre and his wife a crazy person who keeps babies in jars. The writing for episode 10 was just awful in every way.

[Miodrag]

I'll start with the hawk story, cause that's the key to understanding Stannis in my humble opinion. In Davos I in ACOK, Stannis tells Davos about a hawk he had once. Wiki summaries the bird better than I would:

Proudwing is the name of an injured goshawk found by Stannis Baratheon. He nursed it back to health, but it never flew higher than the treetops thereafter. His older brother Robert Baratheon nicknamed it Weakwing. Stannis' great-uncle, Ser Harbert convinced him to abandon Proudwing, which he did.

Stannis explains how difficult for him was to abandon Proudwing, but ultimately he did it. And then he makes the point (paraphrasing): "Maybe I need to change the hawk once again. Maybe it's time to take the red one." He's metaphorically speaking of Mel and The Red God. Now, this detail, placed at the very beginning of Stannis' arc, shows us that it's he who chooses which god to use as he finds fit. Not the other way around, as Mel probably believes: she thinks Stannis is "The Chosen One", while from Stannis' perspective The Red God is the chosen one. So, two of them have the same goal, but from the opposite starting points. And just add all that into a traditional definition of a monarch (someone who's appointed by the divine authority), and you'll see why Stannis may be quite the revolutionist. It's not that he doesn't believe in gods. In fact, he's among those who directly witnessed the power of Red God (in ACOK prologue). He's not an atheist. But, he's aware gods have no duties, and therefore he isn't interested in them. Stannis is, the way I see him, only interested in entities that are subject to duties, and gods don't fit the description. So, at the end of the day, he's following his own will, and not that of the gods. He just happened to find a god who's will seems to be in agreement with his (Stannis') own, but that's it. And he pretty much stays that way, through ADWD at least.

Now, instead of the hawk story, which colored Stannis for good in my eyes (and probably not only in mine), we got his and Mel's sex on the table. If that was the trade, I'd say we were shortchanged in the show. I'll address the rest of your post in the next one, cause I'm trying to learn to write shorter posts.

[Miodrag]

But a few sex scenes and we (the royal, not you) feel it's a distraction....

Maybe we misunderstood each other (it's not unheard of, in my case especially, cause English isn't my first language and, at 39 and being what you might call 'an old school', I'm fairly new to forums culture), but the reason why sex scenes stand out to me is something I believe you didn't address. (Not that you have to, of course; I'd just like to hear your opinion on the matter.) Sex scenes are always less acted and more real than other scenes. There's a reason why Sophie Turner may be filmed as taking a devastating punch in the face by Maryn's gloved fist, but, on the other hand, it would be all kinds of wrong to film her being stripped naked in front of the court (or being rapped by the mob, in a hypothetical situation that she was rapped indeed). There's a reason why no actor would ever perform a sex scene with his/her sibling or parent. Sex scenes simply don't carry the same amount of cinematic credibility as other scenes. They're inevitably 'more credible', because, hey, the actors don't act their naked bodies are all over each other - their naked bodies actually are all over each other. And I don't place nudity in the same category. Nudity isn't more credible or less credible at all, because it just can't be acted. I see no problem with nude scenes, only with sex scenes.

So, this is not an objection to GoT, but to the cinematic industry in general. On the paper, sex scenes aren't stand-outs at all. In a visual medium, they are, whether the audience realizes it conscientiously or not. The very nature of them I'm talking about - 'more credible' nature - makes them so appealing to audience in the first place. There's something to be said about the fact that the majority of films that are considered classics, even the most recent ones, don't have explicit sex-scenes in them. There are possible exceptions, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Now, TV may be somewhat different than cinema, because of the more intimate nature of the medium (TV characters are in our house already, maybe nothing's wrong if they make themselves comfortable, I guess). And "The Sopranos" and "The Wire" used sex-scenes very smartly in my eyes, by connecting them closely to plot or character development. GoT wasn't that successful in that, I'm afraid, and, after Neil Marshal's famous interview about filming Bronn-and-a-whore scene in "Blackwater" episode, I don't think they ever had some bigger purpose for sex scenes they added to the show. Anyway, D&D have the ultimate control over it. They could simply not film Stannis-Mel sex, for example. (Martin decided to go very subtle on the matter, precisely because he didn't want neither of them to be defined by it.) Or, they could've film it less explicitly, by, you know, cutting the scene right after Mel disrobes herself. I'd still see no point in the scene, but it wouldn't bother me at all. And if they left the hawk story in, like, in the first Strannis' episode, I'd have no complaint whatsoever.

Roz: I expressed badly, I meant to say - if they restricted all the added sex scenes (you know, the ones that weren't in the source material) to one character, maybe it would've been better. And I'm strictly speaking in terms of "in my eyes", cause an unsullied viewer would have no idea which scenes were added and which weren't. It would've been a rather interesting viewing experiment for me, with the 'problem' I see in sex scenes in general.

[Miodrag]

The hawk story and Maester Cressen's interactions with Stannis in the beginning of ACOK ( which are all cut out in the show ) are actually integral to the understanding of Stannis' personality and his reasons for doing things.

This. So much. There are some Cressen's inner thoughts that are precious, and, since they're inner thought, they'd have to be worked around in a visual medium (though, that's one of the instances in which I do miss voice-overs). But, even without it, with nothing but dialogues from those two chapters, TV Stannis would've been an infinitely deeper character.

[Mr Fixit]

So, this is not an objection to GoT, but to the cinematic industry in general. On the paper, sex scenes aren't stand-outs at all. In a visual medium, they are, whether the audience realizes it conscientiously or not.

While I understand what you're saying, I must express my disagreement, especially with your last sentence. Nudity and sex are held to a different standard because of (perceived) audience sensibilities. There's nothing inherently different in those scenes compared to any others. We, due to cultural taboos, imbue them with all sorts of meanings.

If anything, it is a signal of how perverted we are if naked bodies disturb us more than slit throats.

(...) Stannis-Mel sex, for example. (Martin decided to go very subtle on the matter, precisely because he didn't want neither of them to be defined by it.)

We are all tempted to read the source material the way that best suits the position we are trying to convey. In this case, there is zero evidence to say that was Martin's authorial intent. A much simpler answer would be that neither Stannis nor Melisandre are PoV characters.

I am really confused by the "sex card" that gets thrown around so much. In the books there are many, many, MANY more instances of sex and nudity. I'd think the portrayal of a 14 year-old girl masturbating is a pretty graphic image in this day and age.

And, yes, I am aware that the scene can be construed as having character-building value. With which I agree, sort of. As everything, truth lies in the eye of the beholder. The same would be true for show-nudity scenes. Where one sees gratuitousness (is that a even a word? :bang: ), another can just as validly see added character and plot value. No need to (disingenuously) hold the two media to different standards and then engage in some backwards rationalisation.

[TheRealPrinceThatsPromised]

Next season i think they will show him episode 1 or 2 setting off for the wall

Episode 3-4 - show them arriving at Eastwatch by the Sea

Episode 5-6 - he rescues Jon from the wildling attacks

Episode 7-8 - give Jon the option of being legitimized if he supports him and tells him about the death of Robb

Episode 9-10 - Jon gets selected Lord Commander and he talks to Stannis about other lord who might give him support in the north.

[Miodrag]

While I understand what you're saying, I must express my disagreement, especially with your last sentence. Nudity and sex are held to a different standard because of (perceived) audience sensibilities. There's nothing inherently different in those scenes compared to any others. We, due to cultural taboos, imbue them with all sorts of meanings.

If anything, it is a signal of how perverted we are if naked bodies disturb us more than slit throats.

In my post you quoted, I made a distinction between nude scenes and sex scenes. Hence, it's not both nudity and sex that I hold for a different standards. Only sex scenes. And I hold them because I actually find them inherently different compared to any others. Allow me to be blatant on this one: would you act in a sex scene with your sister? I wouldn't. Ever. For the life of me. I'm not an actor, but, truth be told, I can picture myself in a sex scene or two. Only, never with a relative of mine of any sort. And I'm pretty sure no normal person would perform it with own sister/brother (by normal, I mean not into incest), just as I can't think of any such an example in the cinema history that is full of sex scenes. Every other scene, no matter how violence, I'd perform with my sister with zero problem. But, anything explicitly sexual (including something as benign as a kiss) - no, thank you very much.

That difference alone is enough to show why I do consider sex scenes a special case. Obviously, many actors are fairly comfortable in engaging that kind of scenes, and I'm not into judging them at all. But, I see no hypocrisy or puritanism in my stance. It has nothing to do with how much we're disturbed by naked body or by a slit throat. Personally, in motion pictures I'm not disturbed by any; only the context those are used in suits me or doesn't.

(By the way, I'm not sure 'disingenuously' isn't an offensive word, nor that it wasn't directed at me in your post. However, if not repeated, I see no reason to respond to it.)

[Joyful Union]

I nominate Bryan Cogman to write every episode containing Stannis, even for only one scene.

Bryan Cogman is the one who came up with Stannis's arc for this season though.