Is there any hope for the adaptation of Stannis in Season 4? (TV and Book Spoilers)

[Vympel]

I have also got the impression from a D&D interview that they dislike Stannis. Bryan Cogman seemed somewhat defensive about it - he's aware that many fans are not happy with how they've written the character.

There have been good scenes with show Stannis, but the thing they all have in common is that Melisandre is absent.

Where is this interview? Everyone talks about it but I've never seen it.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I like the adaptation of Cersei and can still see why she would lose it after seeing Joffrey killed in front of her eyes, but Tyrion killing his lover and father is completely out of character for him so far, so too to a lesser extent Stannis saving the realm. It's not enough to show a darker side and then just show a lighter side, there needs to be some consistency and continuity with more gradual change because otherwise the characterisation makes no sense. The de-greying (not 'whitewashing') looks to me like another aspect of the show's penchant for surprise, with surprising decisions made by characters that the audience does not expect at all.

I don't see why it's at all out of character for Stannis to want to save the realm in the show.

As for Tyrion, I'd imagine that being accused of murdering Joffrey - and the subsequent imprisonment, the betrayals from Shae & Bronn (among others), and the final revelation that Tywin is banging his 'lady' - might be provocation enough for Tyrion to lose his shit. Just an idea. There's plenty of time to build up to this, in any case. And his animosity with (and for) his father has been thoroughly developed, I'd say.

[Thelastactionhero]

From the scene between Stannis & Davos, in 3x08:

Davos: Your Grace!

Stannis: Are they feeding you enough?

Davos: Two meals a day; cold for breakfast, hot for supper. I cannot complain.

Stannis: You don't belong in a place like this.

Davos: Well, it's sad to say, but I've seen worse.

Stannis: Yeah... I'm sorry about your son. Didn't get a chance to tell you before. Good lad. Loyal lad. ...Melisandre's returned.

Davos: Didn't know she'd been gone.

Stannis: She came back with a bastard boy. Robert's bastard boy.

Davos: Why?

Stannis: She says there's power in king's blood.

Davos: She's going to kill him.

Stannis: Sacrifice him.

Davos: Forgive me Your Grace, I'm not a lettered man, but is there a difference between 'kill' and 'sacrifice'? The boy is your nephew.

Stannis: What of it? We're at war. Why should I spare the son of some tavern slut Robert bedded one drunken night?*

Davos: Because he has your blood in his veins.

Stannis: ...So did Renly...

Davos: Renly wronged you. Renly declared himself king when the throne belonged to you. He raised an army, stole your banner men - this boy has done you no harm. He's an innocent.

Stannis: How many boys live in Westeros? How many girls? How many men? How many women? "The darkness will devour them all", she says, "the night that never ends..." - unless I triumph. I never asked for this. No more than I asked to be king. We do not choose our destiny, but we must do our duty, no? Great or small, we must do our duty. What's one bastard boy against a kingdom?

Davos: Your Grace, why did you come to see me today?

Stannis: I came to free you... If you swear never to raise your hand to the lady Melisandre again.

Davos: I swear it. I can't swear never to speak against her.

Stannis: You have little regard for your own life.

Davos: Quite little, Your Grace. Verging on none. You could have freed me yesterday, or tomorrow. Yet you came to me now, before this boy is put to the knife, because you knew I'd counsel restraint. You came to hear me say it because you believe it yourself. You're not a man who slaughters innocents for gain or glory. When my son was five, he said to me; "I don't ever want to die." I wanted to say to him, you won't, child, you won't ever. I hated the idea of him lying awake in the dark; afraid. I think mothers and fathers made up the gods because they wanted their children to sleep through the night.

Stannis: 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 there in front of you, as real as these iron bars - how can you deny her god is real?

* One thing that isn't being mentioned is that, unlike Edric Storm, Stannis has no relationship whatsoever with Gendry. Just something to think about.

Already accounted for Episode 8 in my original post. Thanks though. Still doesn't outweigh the deviations from the text which leave him devoid of all agency and complexity. Before we even talk about Stannis saving the Wall being out of character, let's talk about how he doesn't make the decision for himself in the show. Melisandre all but makes it for him. Until she says otherwise, he's totally cool with executing Davos and saying fuck the realm. Explain to me how this makes for better television then him holding Lightbringer over Davos, and explain to me how leaving him without autonomy makes for a more compelling character arc.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Where is this interview? Everyone talks about it but I've never seen it.

Wish I could remember specifically. It might have been the "behind the scenes" for the episode where Stannis and Renly have their parlay

[Khal-a-bunga]

I mean, feel however you want about it, I'm just pointing out that these lines and elements you say are missing, actually aren't missing. And I don't really consider this...

While there were a couple scenes that seem to indicate Stannis is more than just a villain, (Episode 5 and 8), for the most part, I feel it was quite clear that the producers have more or less stripped him of any autonomy in order to further position him as an antagonist.

...'accounting for' anything. You're trying to make a point by excluding these important scenes from the two episodes that focused on Dragonstone more than any other this season (other than the finale, that is), and I'm not sure how that really works in terms of making an accurate judgement. You mentioned yourself that you felt they did a good job with his material in season two, so it sounds like your main issue is with Stannis' willingness to sacrifice Gendry and his reliance on Melisandre. But there are some distinct differences between the situation with Gendry and the situation with Edric that I mentioned earlier (other than the fact that Edric is a child and Gendry is practically an adult); namely that Stannis has never met Gendry before, and didn't even know he existed until Melisandre arrived with him on Dragonstone. Stannis was ready to sacrifice Edric before Davos helped him to escape, so I see no reason why Stannis wouldn't have done the same in the situation presented in the show. These aren't just things that should be looked at as differences from the text, because these changes also have an effect on the context of these sequences. In other words, it's not a 1:1 comparison, so it shouldn't be treated as such.

Stannis has lost some of his agency in season three, sure, but perhaps that's because of the fact that he "suffered a stunning defeat" outside the gates of King's Landing. And Melisandre has made good on all of her promises thus far - she killed Renly and bolstered Stannis's forces; she showed him a true vision in the flames; and just days after declaring that all of the would-be kings will die, Robb Stark is murdered and the northern rebellion squashed...

Stannis: 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 there in front of you, as real as these iron bars - how can you deny her god is real?

Again, not really something you "accounted for" by essentially ignoring all of the events that happened in Kissed By Fire and Second Sons.

I don't think the character from the show is being portrayed as a villain, nonetheless, and don't agree that the show supports this view point, either. You say "he's totally cool" with executing Davos, but the look of doubt on his face after he makes the declaration says otherwise. Dillane often plays the part in a way that makes Stannis a bit impenetrable (in terms of understanding what's happening mentally), but there are subtle moments strewn throughout all of his scenes that can say just as much as the written words used to get these points across when we're reading the books.

As far as explaining what does and doesn't make for a compelling arc, all I can say is that having one at all is preferable to the alternative of not having a discernible arc. We'll just have to wait and see how they handle these characters going forward. The latter half of ASoS seems to be the point at which many of us started to appreciate Stannis more than we had been, and I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case going forward. Regardless, it hardly seems fair to judge four books worth of development for the character against the one and (roughly) a half books worth of material that has been adapted thus far.

[deziel_dalt]

I agree with some of this actually, and I think there is definitely a big progression throughout the series regarding his character. I'd say that you do seem to overlook the fact that he does reward loyalty, and he is for the most part fair when dishing out his brand of justice, however. You also seem to give him the full blame for all the burnings that occur on Dragonstone, which I think is a little unfair, though I won't excuse his complicity in these executions (bear in mind, these occured after Black Water Bay, and Alester Florent's death is at least understandable considering the circumstances with Shireen). When people bring up the whole: "He didn't do enough to help, Ned" point though, I guess slightly confused. He worked consciously with Jon Arryn to try and save Robert's life, and when he got assassinated Stannis knew he was next on the hit list. At that point I don't think he knew who he could trust, and he sure as hell knew Robert wasn't going to listen to his incest claims when it would place him directly in line to inherit the throne.

That being said I agree that the Stannis which has become so immensely popular with the fans doesn't fully emerge until the end of SoS and aDwD. The problem I have with your analysis, and those that think fans of the character have totally overreacted, is that we seem to disagree on the journey of how he becomes that King. It doesn't emerge out of thin air, and we see many glimmers of his redemptive qualities sprinkled in no small measure throughout A Clash of Kings and the Dragonstone arc. At this point it almost feels out of character for him to make this leap precisely because of the way they've portrayed him last season.

Most agree that the Wall is a huge turning point for him, but do you see how the act which arguably redeems Stannis for his shortcomings as a King has been usurped in this adaptation? The decision seems to be largely made by Melisandre, and Stannis isn't even willing to spare Davos until after she tells him that he'll be needed later. Stannis spares Davos and saves the realm because he realizes its his duty as a King, not because his Red Priestess sees a vision in the fire. This is the part which bothers most of the fans so much. I can forgive many of the other scenes which make him darker, but I will not forgive this alteration, and I will not forget. ;)

Still, I do agree that those who think Stannis doesn't make his share of mistakes during this arc aren't paying attention.

Perhaps I do over-react, simply because I see a lot of "Mannis" posts here and there from people who want Stannis to be a total badass in every scene he's in. I don't blame him for the loss at Blackwater, which was due to a whole bunch of factors aligning against him - wildfire, the chain, the Tyrell-Lannister alliance, and I can understand why he makes the choices that he does. I don't expect him to be perfect - he is a human with strong traits and flaws. I do think the show has perhaps overlooked some of those flaws, but I guess my point is that, in my opinion, Stannis is fundamentally not a good leader early on in the series. At the very least, he isn't very good at feudal politics. Renly is often dismissed as being all show and no substance, but the fact is, the type of things that Renly did - attending tourneys, feasting with lords, etc - are the conventional methods of building power in a feudal system. They are different to, say, Littlefinger's methods, but they are just as effective - Renly was in the position to easily crown himself King. Of course, they often require a high birth. Anyways, that sort of stuff is important. Also, I just find it odd that Stannis abandoned any attempt to continue his investigation from afar. He knew Ned was the hand, he knew that Ned was an honorable man - though he had no love for Stark - and he knew that the King listened to Ned. I can see why Stannis didn't want to be in King's Landing, and I can see why he may distrust ravens. With so many people going into King's Landing for the Tourney, it would have been very easy to slip a guy in, someone loyal, to talk with Ned.

Anyways, I have confidence that the showrunners will handle Stannis's "turnaround". I really do hope they do. I like the Stannis who is about to go kill some Boltons.

[Zylathas]

Must say as a "stannist" I did like "what is one boy against a kingdom." I think they have made Stannis somewhat more of a realist. Like in the books where he doesn't burn down crakelaw point for aiding an other lord. I think Stannis is more on the grey-good side in the show and is always having the difficulty between choosing what is right and saving those who are innocent.

[Toxspecific]

Can you provide specific examples of how they've exaggerated the "brutal" side of Stannis? I'm drawing a complete blank...

Overly harsh in how he dealt with Davos, using words like 'tavern slut' and being so damn ready, almost happy, to burn Gendry. And his whole fervour for the Lord of Light; he's like an enthusiast in the show whereas in the books he seems rather distant about the whole red god thing.

[Pepi]

Until she says otherwise, he's totally cool with executing Davos and saying fuck the realm.

I disagree. He seemed "totally cool" with executing Davos (and even that seemed more like a result of the current frustration he had with him -- notice Stannis' relief, when Mel "saves" the Onion Knight?), I'll give you that, but there's no indication about the other part.

My interpretation of the scene, step by step; Stan sentances Davos -> Davos pops out the letter -> Stan reads it (despite Mel going against it ("My king ...")) -> gives the letter to Mel (for some sort of confirmation?) -> Mel confirms it -> Davos tries to convince Stannis he needs him for his quest -> Stannis tells Davos that the decision has been made and that he's still going to die (which is in line with his "a good deed doesn't wash out the bad and vice versa" mantra) -> Mel convinces Stannis that he will indeed need Davos -> Stannis gladly accepts the irony of it and spares the Onion knight.

I don't see what's wrong with this scene, tbh. Could be a few minutes longer (to have some extra bits in it), but that's it. I guess I'm one of the rare people who think TV Stannis portrayal generally really good -- admittedly that's largely due to mr. Dillane's performance.

[aware_of_thrones]

As for Tyrion, I'd imagine that being accused of murdering Joffrey - and the subsequent imprisonment, the betrayals from Shae & Bronn (among others), and the final revelation that Tywin is banging his 'lady' - might be provocation enough for Tyrion to lose his shit. Just an idea. There's plenty of time to build up to this, in any case. And his animosity with (and for) his father has been thoroughly developed, I'd say.

You really think that, given the absurd character development and attention and is being given to Shae, that the scene will go down the same way as in the books?

I actually agree when people say that Tywin will be the one to kill her and Tyrion killing Tywin as retaliation.

It's icredible that when there is a one-dimensional character, like Shae or Ros, they somehow have to give them more depth, but when Stannis comes along, who plays an important role throughout and has an infinite amount of layers and character complexity they just go ''Screw it, he's just a bad guy plain and simple so let's focus on minor and useless characters that don't exist or are going to die soon''

[Thaune]

Christ, the Stannis crybabies have become annoying.

Stannis, whether you like it or not, had his brother killed and wanted to sacrifice a boy who he knew rather well (his kin) in the books.

It took 3 kings to die.

He threatens Davos with death.

He has people burned alive.

He is socially awkward and completely incapable of adjusting to anything outside of his own vision of what is right.

Stannis, in the show, had his brother killed and wanted to sacrifice a boy he never met before.

It took 1 king to die.

He threatens Davos with death.

He is socially awkward and completely incapable of adjusting to anything outside of his own vision of what is right.

TV show Stannis is Stannis as YOU see it and as he acts, not as Davos sees him through his sweetheart eyes.

Outside of a few loud Stannis fans, the book fans have been generally pleased with his portrayal.

(same goes for Robb Stark... go back to seasons 1 and 2 and re-watch all the Robb and Stannis scenes...

you'll realize both have a lot of "badass" scenes, but when you're seeing them as characters on a show, instead of a POV

from someone who loves them, you're bound to get some scenes portraying their immaturity (Robb) or being broken after a massive defeat (Stannis))

[Khal-a-bunga]

@ aware_of_thrones

Yes, I'd almost guarantee that Tyrion is going to kill both Tywin & Shae on the show. Did the "character development and attention" stop them from killing Ned? Or Khal Drogo? Does the fact that Shae loves Tyrion come into play when she's being told to testify against him or she'll lose her life? Maybe it does, but maybe her jealousy and anger towards Tyrion pushes her to betray him... Point is, her story to date is easily reconcilable with the same end result as the books, despite the differences between the characters, as long as her reasoning is portrayed either explicitly or through implication next season.

[Vympel]

Christ, the Stannis crybabies have become annoying.

Stannis, whether you like it or not, had his brother killed and wanted to sacrifice a boy who he knew rather well (his kin) in the books.

It took 3 kings to die.

He threatens Davos with death.

He has people burned alive.

He is socially awkward and completely incapable of adjusting to anything outside of his own vision of what is right.

Stannis, in the show, had his brother killed and wanted to sacrifice a boy he never met before.

It took 1 king to die.

He threatens Davos with death.

He is socially awkward and completely incapable of adjusting to anything outside of his own vision of what is right.

TV show Stannis is Stannis as YOU see it and as he acts, not as Davos sees him through his sweetheart eyes.

Outside of a few loud Stannis fans, the book fans have been generally pleased with his portrayal.

(same goes for Robb Stark... go back to seasons 1 and 2 and re-watch all the Robb and Stannis scenes...

you'll realize both have a lot of "badass" scenes, but when you're seeing them as characters on a show, instead of a POV

from someone who loves them, you're bound to get some scenes portraying their immaturity (Robb) or being broken after a massive defeat (Stannis))

I love it how each and every well-reasoned and structured series of points is how the Stannis of the shows doesn't match the Stannis of the books in some respects is dismissed without meaningful response by stuff like the above. :)

Does *anyone* apologising for the show in the above manner (as distinct from interpreting the scene in a different fashion) ever plan on addressing how Melisandre robs him of agency in the finale? Anyone at all? Because you're certaily not. You're ignoring it completely.

[aware_of_thrones]

TV show Stannis is Stannis as YOU see it and as he acts, not as Davos sees him through his sweetheart eyes.

Outside of a few loud Stannis fans, the book fans have been generally pleased with his portrayal.

This has about as much relevance as saying that outside of a few Renly fans that the book fans are generally pelased with that portrayal.

Even those who dislike Stannis agree that he is being severely misportrayed.

Book Stannis: Pragmatic Atheist who acts upon the best intel and heeds those who produce results or provide sound justification.

Show Stannis: Religious fanatic who serves as lapdog to Melisandre.

I admit that there are some scenes where we get to apreciate a more complete Stannis and glimpse to his dilemas and moral conflicts, but there is a line to be drawn when you turn a guy who only agrees to reluclantly sacrifice his nephew after giving his own blood to test magic, threatens to kill Melisandre in case of faliure and doesn't need her orders to go to the wall to a guy who is a clear religious fanatic, who tests out the magic with his nephew's blood instead of his own, agrees to kill him after just one kill and only spares Davos not because he sees the merit in his actions and counsel but because Melisandre said so.

[The Mondrian Oak]

I have been wondering for days: Stannis's fandom declares that him sentencing Davos to death was completely out of character. But didn't book Stannis draw his sword right before Davos read the letter? Doesn't that mean he was ready to execute him already, hadn't Davos been convincing enough?

[Thaune]

I love it how each and every well-reasoned and structured series of points is how the Stannis of the shows doesn't match the Stannis of the books in some respects is dismissed without meaningful response by stuff like the above. :)

Does *anyone* apologising for the show in the above manner (as distinct from interpreting the scene in a different fashion) ever plan on addressing how Melisandre robs him of agency in the finale? Anyone at all? Because you're certaily not. You're ignoring it completely.

I'm not "apologising" for the show, I accept the fact the show is to be viewed as a show and has no chance of portraying the number and complexity of all the characters in ASOAIF.

Appart from Jaime and Ned, nearly all the characters have been portrayed much more straight forward than in the books, because it makes for better TV.

Deal with it.

Stannis has been shown in battle, giving orders, remembering Storm's End siege, pushing Mel away, he left her home for Blackwater.

He's been shown as broken, angry, etc. Human..

I do agree that Mel seems to have a bit more of an influence on him than in the books, but in the end, his actions are the same.

Either way, while there was certainly room for improvement in the adaption, it's far from "destroyed" and rubbish like that you keep hearing from Stannis fanboys.

[Khal-a-bunga]

@ The Mondarion Oak

He must have just been joking around. Because a guy who will chop off the top halves of your fingers from one hand - after you've saved his life, and the lives of everyone else in the castle (including his wife) - certainly would never execute someone who could reasonably be considered an out-and-out traitor...

I get that he also made Davos a knight, but he had to be punished for his crimes as a smuggler, nonetheless. Why would it have played out any differently, had Davos not produced the letter from Maester Aemon? I don't think it would have, so yes, I believe he meant to do it. Perhaps there is something from the text that would indicate it was just a bluff, but I obviously missed it if there was.

[Vympel]

I'm not "apologising" for the show, I accept the fact the show is to be viewed as a show and has no chance of portraying the number and complexity of all the characters in ASOAIF.

Appart from Jaime and Ned, nearly all the characters have been portrayed much more straight forward than in the books, because it makes for better TV.

Deal with it.

How does for all intents and purposes taking the decision to save Davos away from Stannis "make for better TV"? You can't just assert such a thing as fact, it has to be justified.

Stannis has been shown in battle, giving orders, remembering Storm's End siege, pushing Mel away, he left her home for Blackwater.

He's been shown as broken, angry, etc. Human..

None of which I have a problem with.

I do agree that Mel seems to have a bit more of an influence on him than in the books, but in the end, his actions are the same.

In fact, I'd say the change in the S3 finale does violence to *both* Stannis and Davos and their relationship. The fact is that there is zero recognition of the fact that Stannis went to the Wall *to save the kingdom* as Davos suggested, to prove himself a worthy king. Actions aren't all there is to it - motivations matter. When you change the motivation, you change the character, and that's bothersome.

Either way, while there was certainly room for improvement in the adaption, it's far from "destroyed" and rubbish like that you keep hearing from Stannis fanboys.

Like I said earlier, I hardly thing the damage is irreperable - but its an issue that should be addressed next season. I can handle deferment.

[Toxspecific]

It has become beyond idiotic how people keep mentioning Stannis killed Renly. He effing had to. Why do you all ignore the fact that Renly already planned on killing Stannis on the morrow? Why? Just to further your own ridiculous points or what?

People who defend Stan aren't being crybabies just because they object to horrid ridiculous reasoning. Stannis had to have Renly killed, else Renly would kill him. It baffles me how this argument even exists.

[zaphodbrx]

Well imagine if they had done it this way.

In season 1, they remove the hunting party. Instead, Ned stabs Robert in the throne room when no one is looking.

So you have

TV:

Robert is dying.

Ned is the acting hand.

Novels

Robert is dying

Ned is the acting hand.

Damn! There's no difference! Would the cry babies shut up already?

Edit: Actually the same goes for Robb Stark. The whole King in the North story was butchered from day one. Still atleast they did the Red Wedding okay and I don't need to deal with them any more.