The Drunkard Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Thanks Ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingelheim Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Thanks Ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Thanks Ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Abominable SnowOther Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Thanks Ran. and also, https://i.imgur.com/k5mcSoO.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal-a-bunga Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 1. Unless they directly counter it, I think it's reasonable to say that locations of known Houses are the same. Otherwise, it gets more ridiculous. They change an entire House's location - and the politics of the Reach with the Florents having a better claim than the Tyrells - just to make Stannis more fanatical. What do the politics of the Reach, and the relationship between the Florent's and the Tyrell's have to do with the story line of the show? Nothing. That kind of tertiary information is totally irrelevant. I personally view it as the opposite: Unless the writers of the show make it explicit, it's something that can be viewed as more nebulous and malleable to their particular story-telling needs. 2. Common sense. He said "tore down" which imply permanent structures. So, not on his person. I'm kinda doubting that he had permanent structures in his quarters or ships. Fair enough. Stannis tells Davos that he asked him to 'tear down' his idols, and since Stannis isn't one to mince words, we'll just go ahead and assume that House Florent is in the same location as the books and that he had large idols to the Seven that Stannis ordered to be taken down. There's still no issue of logic here, since the timeline here isn't specified. Perhaps he ordered Axell to tear down his idols two weeks ago, and Selyse confirmed to Stannis that he had not done so. Doesn't strike me as something that took place over the course of an afternoon. D&D do a great job at translating the series from books to pages.... except for Stannis. They're pretty sloppy. Which brings up another WTF point..... I don't have a problem with how Stannis has been adapted, but then again, I was never huge on the guy until the latter parts of ASoS, anyway. My argument here isn't about the subjective quality of these scenes, but rather about the fact that there isn't any inconsistency created - within the world of the show - through these scenes. 3. Shireen is Stannis and Selyse's daughter. She is Stannis's only heir. It JUST occurred to them to introduce their daughter to the religion they are burning people alive for not following? Even if Stannis doesn't give a crap about R'Hollor, Selyse does. I mean, seriously?!?!?! Selyse doesn't seem to care much for Shireen (based on the two scenes we've seen with Selyse talking about her); Stannis seems to care very deeply about her (given their two scenes together, as well). Since Stannis seems more interested in the power of R'Hollor, and much less so in the ideology of this religion, it doesn't strike me as unusual that she wouldn't have been 'converted', or that this wouldn't even have been attempted. Again, if we just use the information provided in the show: Stannis barely sees Shireen, and is almost always in the company of Melisandre, whom he couldn't have met before leaving King's Landing (otherwise it's likely that Renly would have known about her). So there's no real inconsistency here, either, and I'm not sure I see the problem with this at all. Perhaps Selyse had tried to talk to her about it, but consider she's "sullen and stubborn"... Oh. I know Shireen's religious beliefs are never brought up in the book. That's fine. She doesn't have much screen time. I would be perfectly happy if she rejected R'Hollor. But I think it's reasonable to believe she has learned about R'Hollor. So, no. I'm not going to buy "well, they didn't show it the books, so anything is possible" argument here either because makes absolutely no sense that they would not bother teaching her even the basics like "how many gods there are in our new religion." Stannis and Selyse probably aren't the most involved parents, but they acknowledge her existence. And let's face it. The child and heir of the man you want to convert would be a high priority target if you were Mel. None of my arguments revolve around the idea that 'if it didn't happen in the books, anything is possible'. I try to separate the show and the novels, and allow for the fact that each telling of this story will have its own canon, so to speak. I can use my knowledge of the books to provide further background details, or to enhance my enjoyment of the show, but I make it a point not to get the two mixed up. It's when you try to square the books and the show on a 1:1 comparison where these issues of "logic" come up for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Ran, from what we have learned from episode 3 Davos (and Shireen) are trying to convince Stannis to use money from the Iron Bank to hire the Golden Company. The interesting thing now is: will that fail (because the Golden Company refuses/is unreachable) or will they just go along with it, canceling the whole Aegon plot line... I'd think (and root for) the former, of course. It would be a nice way to conclude Stannis' story pre-Wall at Braavos during the negotiations with the Iron Bank, giving the impression that they won't loan anything to Stannis (or that he is not able to transform the coin into a huge army). Then they could have him appear at the Wall with 1,000 or so sellswords he was able to hire in Braavos. With Olenna and Tywin discussing the Iron Bank in episode 2 it's also possible that Tywin will choose to ignore the demands of the Iron Bank in the wake of Joffrey's death because he preoccupied with the trial against Tyrion, Jaime's stubbornness, Cersei's increasingly erratic behavior, Oberyn's demands, and - most likely - Shae, leading to the Iron Bank's decision to back Stannis' claim in episode 6 or 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 From what I read Lord Varys (and Ran confirm this if you want to) Davos brings up the Golden Company to Stannis in the scene where both are talking and Stannis is against the idea of using sellswords. I think he does convince him about it but then the fact is they need gold. In a later scene when Davos is reading with Shireen again she mentions the Iron Bank casually or off-topic and a lighbulb dings above his head. The reason they've not mentioned the Wall is to create an ambiguity or uncertainty about how the Battle of the Wall will end. Maybe they'll play up the weakness of KL and have Team Dragonstone reconsider another attack there or something to misdirect us. They want his arrival to be more surprising and also to give them something to do before they show up. Naturally they had to go outside of book canon for material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The weakness angle in KL should really come up. Stannis will learn about Joff's death and Tyrion's arrest soon enough. They might decide that this is the opportune time to mount another attack, and they could hint that they are finally going to Braavos to get money to hire the Golden Company to attack KL - the Golden Company would most likely not be eager to travel to the Wall, even if they were offered a lot of gold - only to find that they can't hire the GC. Then Stannis suddenly pops up at the Wall and proves Jon's point that discipline always beats numbers... I'm pretty sure that the name-dropping of the Golden Company is all but a confirmation that we'll see Aegon and Connington next season. They only mention stuff if it's going to become important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khal-a-bunga Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Or maybe the Iron Bank will proposition Stannis to attack King's Landing...? Would make sense, considering Tyrion has already mentioned how the Iron Bank would fund the enemies of the throne should the various loans default. Maybe the scene with Tycho will be framed in such a way that it ends ambiguously, and we don't know which path Stannis will choose (until he shows up at the Wall, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ^I think they'll go that route. We'll get Stan next episode, maybe in four or five, then ep. six and not again until they save the day in ep. nine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The reason they've not mentioned the Wall is to create an ambiguity or uncertainty about how the Battle of the Wall will end. Maybe they'll play up the weakness of KL and have Team Dragonstone reconsider another attack there or something to misdirect us. They want his arrival to be more surprising and also to give them something to do before they show up. Naturally they had to go outside of book canon for material. Yes i agree with this... they have to make the audience forget about the end of last season with the talk of the Wall, and the flame vision of a battle in the snow in S2. i was wondering how they would pad it out, with an obligation of keeping the DS characters on the screen for a while. And agreed with the other post, it does seem they'll have to take our eye off Stannis for just a few episodes to make the arrival pack a punch. It's a difficult balancing act, but they usually deliver the great moments very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 And to all of you StanStans, maybe they'll play the King's Arrival theme as he rides in. Wouldn't you all just love that! Off topic but yolkboy, I love your theories, and I complimented you earlier on wicnet. Sadly though, I have to inform you that Marge didn't do the poisoning because Natalie Dormer says in the "anatomy of a scene" feature that Marge was genuinely surprised by Joff choking. Also in the preview for the next episode she badgers Olenna as if she hadn't been in the know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan the Man Baratheon Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 @Konrad,I have said it before and i will say it again, so long as we get "Stannis, Stannis, STANNIS!" chant, I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Well, they've been short on chants thus far in the show, but from what we've seen of the charge in trailers and whatnot it looks epic. Perhaps amongst the adulation of his victory someone will yell his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelastactionhero Posted April 18, 2014 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 You know, I rewatched the episode a third time today. I'm still not pleased with it, and I don't think that our frustration at the textual deviations is unwarranted, but I've just decided I'm not going to be angry about it anymore. It's pointless, since we can't change the direction they're taking him, and it's effecting my ability to enjoy the show as a whole. The acting is still pretty fucking good, and I don't think they'd be playing up his concern for Shireen so much if their plan was to strip him of all the character traits fans of the character love. The fact is that some of these scenes with Davos look promising, and I'm excited to see their interactions. The Book!Stannis ship has sailed guys. The chips fell, and not in our favor. I'll say this though, Stephen Dillane's acting might be enough to give us some of what want, so long as we get at least a partial redemption arc (which I think we almost have to, because of how substantial his actions at the Wall are). I don't think D&D appreciate the nuance of his character the way us book readers do, but whatever. We can still vent our frustrations and all that shit, and I'm not going to make apologies for how much has been lost in the character, but sometimes I think we need to remember that in the grand scheme of adaptations, Stannis hasn't turned out nearly as bad as some others. Think about Denethor in Lord of the Rings. Now that was a case where every redeeming quality a character had was stripped away so that the films could have a cookie cutter antagonist. Let's wait and see how this season goes and try to enjoy the show for what it is. If he starts murdering innocent wildling children and condoning rape though, you can expect to see me on the front lines with my pitchfork. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I read t hat the word "infidel" really got people mad. I understand that. But... it wouldn't the first time that Stannis says something in order to convince HIMSELF that what he's doing is right. Like the whole "I have to kill my nephew for the greater good!" while he kept delaying the burning and inside, he was practically grateful that Davos saved the kid. While Stannis is not a religious believing person, this follows a pattern that we saw start after Blackwater. He lost and got desperate. Then, Melisandre offered another option, killing three of his enemies. One is already dead and he's about to find out a second one is gone. If we recall the tale of proudwing, he's simply reminding that this God is effective but he's also saying he doesn't like it. What else could he do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Desmond Wine's Bane Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 They may not do it at the charge due to the logistics or whatnot... but if it is done at the moment of victory by the troops as they surround Stannis, then I will be very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjaario Starkharis Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I don't like what they are doing with Stannis, but I recently watched the latest "Inside the Episode" video, where D&D discuss how Stannis is obsessed with his birthright. At first that made me mad, because they were apparently trying to make him like another power mad tyrant, however, after giving it some thought, I think they are setting him up for his famous line of Davos reminding him of his duties when all he could think was his birthrights. I think they are making him darker and more unlikeable to make his character development deeper, from a douche claimant to a tyrant warlord to a badass king. I hope I'm not fooling myself, but I believe that by the end of this season we are getting the Mannis back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konradsmith Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The Stan and Dave conversation next episode looks promising. And remember that the summary for episode six says "Stannis and Davos set sail", so either without Mel or with her but presence is less important than Dave's. I think they'll have Davey speak some more "hard truths" and Stan scowl and brood and reveal more hidden depths. A la their scene in ep 205. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard of the Rainking Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The Stan and Dave conversation next episode looks promising. And remember that the summary for episode six says "Stannis and Davos set sail", so either without Mel or with her but presence is less important than Dave's. I think they'll have Davey speak some more "hard truths" and Stan scowl and brood and reveal more hidden depths. A la their scene in ep 205. Since Melisandre was the one that convinced Stannis to go to the Wall and to let Davos live the writers might be trying to make up for it by making Davos convince Stannis to go to Braavos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.