(Spoilers for Non-Readers) Stoneheart S4

[HairGrowsBack]

Well, Caesar perpetrated a genocide of the Gauls and he is hardly considered (only) a villain. Harry Truman ordered nukes to be dropped on two unsuspecting cities. History is full of complex people who committed heinous atrocities as well as great deeds they'll be remembered for.

To reduce Tywin to a simple villain is doing neither the character nor the story any favours.

Don't really see what great deeds any of them made.

[sati]

Well, Caesar perpetrated a genocide of the Gauls and he is hardly considered (only) a villain. Harry Truman ordered nukes to be dropped on two unsuspecting cities. History is full of complex people who committed heinous atrocities as well as great deeds they'll be remembered for.

To reduce Tywin to a simple villain is doing neither the character nor the story any favours.

I'm not saying Tywin is just a villain, he is actually a very tragic figure but he deserves it - he wanted his house to be so powerful but he was too blind to actually recognize that the one child of his who didn't actively do things against it was Tyrion. He was also a cold, cruel and heartless man who ordered so many atrocities.

Saying he is NOT a villain is just awful. Yes Dance makes him very elegant and charismatic but...come on.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I think you can make a good argument that the show runners are far more nihilistic in their worldview and their presentation of Westeros than Martin himself.

[sati]

I think you can make a good argument that the show runners are far more nihilistic in their worldview and their presentation of Westeros than Martin himself.

Martin made some odd comments too, for example that Walter White is worse than everyone in Westeros.

[Mr Fixit]

Don't really see what great deeds any of them made.

Retort: does history consider Truman a villain?

[Mr Fixit]

I'm not saying Tywin is just a villain,

Saying he is NOT a villain is just awful.

But I think that the very word "villain" has come to represent, in modern usage at least, a singularly evil and antagonistic character. As ASOIAF is a supremely complex creation and world, I'd also hesitate to use such a loaded and borderline cartoonish term when it comes to Tywin. And yeah, I too think he's an SOB who deserves what he got.

[King Tommen]

But I think that the very word "villain" has come to represent, in modern usage at least, a singularly evil and antagonistic character. As ASOIAF is a supremely complex creation and world, I'd also hesitate to use such a loaded and borderline cartoonish term when it comes to Tywin. And yeah, I too think he's an SOB who deserves what he got.

In that same quote, they said that he is ruthless which is certainly a negative characteristic associated with not-nice people. You counteract this ruthlessness with his ability to keep the Seven Kingdoms in line much more efficiently than anyone else that's had a crack at running things in recent history and you can see how there would be two sides of the coin.

As a rule, going down the "semantics" road with a word one person uses to describe something is not a great practice. Everyone parses vocabulary differently and the emphasis isn't necessarily the same. I think, based on reading the entire quote, "villain" here refers to a one-dimensional cartoon depiction. Tywin's a more complicated character than applying that simplistic box for him.

[HairGrowsBack]

Retort: does history consider Truman a villain?

I never saw historians univocally agree on one single interpretation of an event. As it happens, whenever I studied WWII, his motivations, and the effectiveness of his decision have always been at least questioned

EDIT : now if you mean "villain" in a literary or fictional sense, then no, obviously, he was never considered that.

[Shpati]

I know in the books LSH doesn't speak, but the creators already changed a lot of things. I think they could change that.

[Clayton_Suggs]

The notion that paying Michelle Fairley to come back would somehow break the bank is ridiculous. It's a matter of priorities, not money. If D&D can afford to shoot "The Watchers on the Wall" and include endless, repetitive scenes of Dany conquering cities with CGI hordes and chain-hurling catapults, they can pay an actress to make a few appearances.

Michelle's a talented actress whose grown in profile since appearing on Game of Thrones, but she's not exactly Jennifer Lawrence. Her appearance would generate enormous hype that would expand viewership; more than worth the cost. If D&D don't want LSH in the show, it means they don't think she merits screentime. They've played favorites with characters before, so it's not implausible that they'd do it again. Yet, If we can spend big chunks of time with tertiary characters like Missandei and Gray Worm, it's tough to argue LSH is not sufficiently important, unless of course she's just a "zombie."

Every episode of this show is tremendously expensive, often for no reason other than to please Unsullied who expect a certain amount of action from a fantasy show. When it comes down to it, D&D can get away with no Stoneheart because the show-only watchers will not know what they're missing. They can't get away with cutting the CGI costs just a little bit to make room for a character that is, at least on an emotional and thematic level, vital to the story. Brienne's story will be boring enough without LSH to spice things up.

I don't mind changes from book to show; I'm sometimes even ok with major ones (Cersei telling Tywin about the twincest). But if the change significantly detracts from the story being told, I don't give D&D a pass just because they're the showrunners. Yes, it's their show and they can do what they want; for the most part I think they've done a good job. But since when is it unforgivable to criticize an adaptation of a book if the criticism is based on substance and not just a need for slavish adherence to a book? I reserve the right to bitch.

[Clayton_Suggs]

The notion that paying Michelle Fairley to come back would somehow break the bank is ridiculous. It's a matter of priorities, not money. If D&D can afford to shoot "The Watchers on the Wall" and include endless, repetitive scenes of Dany conquering cities with CGI hordes and chain-hurling catapults, they can pay an actress to make a few appearances.

Michelle's a talented actress whose grown in profile since appearing on Game of Thrones, but she's not exactly Jennifer Lawrence. Her appearance would generate enormous hype that would expand viewership; more than worth the cost. If D&D don't want LSH in the show, it means they don't think she merits screentime. They've played favorites with characters before, so it's not implausible that they'd do it again. Yet, If we can spend big chunks of time with tertiary characters like Missandei and Gray Worm, it's tough to argue LSH is not sufficiently important, unless of course she's just a "zombie."

Every episode of this show is tremendously expensive, often for no reason other than to please Unsullied who expect a certain amount of action from a fantasy show. When it comes down to it, D&D can get away with no Stoneheart because the show-only watchers will not know what they're missing. They can't get away with cutting the CGI costs just a little bit to make room for a character that is, at least on an emotional and thematic level, vital to the story. Brienne's story will be boring enough without LSH to spice things up.

I don't mind changes from book to show; I'm sometimes even ok with major ones (Cersei telling Tywin about the twincest). But if the change significantly detracts from the story being told, I don't give D&D a pass just because they're the showrunners. Yes, it's their show and they can do what they want; for the most part I think they've done a good job. But since when is it unforgivable to criticize an adaptation of a book if the criticism is based on substance and not just a need for slavish adherence to a book? I reserve the right to bitch.

[Clayton_Suggs]

Sorry for double post. Maybe I'm blind as Maester Aemon or drunk as Ser Dontos, but I can't find the delete option.

[King Tommen]

I don't think anyone (from the show's perspective) has ever indicated that bringing Michelle Fairley back is a money issue. It's appears to be a storytelling issue in how they want their seasons and arcs structured. Bringing someone back as a guest star (which is what Fairley would be for LSH) is peanuts in terms of cost.

[wiffy]

she will be on the show how anyone can even question that now is ridiculous really. They already gave Brienne the storyline to meet her - Oathkeeper and Oath to Cat and for her to show up the group she leads - BWB,Thoros, Berics resurrection, sansa mentioning throat cut thrown into river.. Yeah they would not incude all that if LS is not on the show. Because then that would just not make any sense at all

Hell they could even have killed her in another way at RW if she was cut.

[PatrickStormborn]

Can anyone tell me why many love LS so much? I'm genuinely confused, because, for me, she always seemed to have taken away the significance of death in ASoIaF.

Characters have been resurrected since the prologue... death is going to become increasingly less significant as we go forward. That's kind of the point.

[acosta]

I'm kind of ambivalent about her character. I'm a little pissed that she basically ruined the Brotherhood without Banners because I thought they were a pretty good idea and had a pretty legitimate purpose when they were led by Lord Beric, and her appearance did somewhat cheapen the significance of death - and at this point, if Jon Snow comes back, the next time a major character eats it, I'm not even going to care and will just assume death is like going to the hospital for a week.

On the other hand, I'm completely down with stringing up every single Frey you can find and turning Riverrun into a massacre and returning it to Edmure. I didn't think ASOIAF was Kill Bill, but it's not like I didn't enjoy Kill Bill.

One way or another, she's a pretty important and pivotal character, unless we're all completely off about her giving Brienne the choice of Jaime's death or her own death and about the purpose of Tom O'Sevenstrings being in Riverrun pretending to work for the Lannisters.

[PrincePromise]

But I think that the very word "villain" has come to represent, in modern usage at least, a singularly evil and antagonistic character. As ASOIAF is a supremely complex creation and world, I'd also hesitate to use such a loaded and borderline cartoonish term when it comes to Tywin. And yeah, I too think he's an SOB who deserves what he got.

Absolutely. No one is suggesting that Tywin is a nice guy, or even necessarily that he has some redeemable qualities. He might be strong, charismatic, loyal to his family, and a good leader in the Machiavellian sense, but yes, he's also done a lot of pretty awful things. His "good" qualities don't redeem him in any way, or help to balance out the "evil" of his character.

Labelling him a villain is demeaning to the character that both GRRM and Charles Dance have brought to life, because he is so much more than a classic, two-dimensional villain. Sure, it's probably safe to say that he's not a good guy, but a villain? ASoIaF is a world where there are no villains and heroes. Isn't that the point?

I don't think people admire Tywin or wish they were like him, but they certainly respect him as a character. Definitely enough to not slot him into a box labeled villain.

The finale episode was the first time I actually felt sympathy for Tywin, entirely because of Dance's portrayal. When Cersei confronts him about her relationship with Jaime, the look on his face confirming how steeped in denial he actually is was incredible. I actually saw him as the sad old man he is on the inside, instead of the ruthless leader on the outside.

Martin made some odd comments too, for example that Walter White is worse than everyone in Westeros.

Was he entirely serious when he said that? I always interpreted it as hyperbole. And I assume he was talking more about Walter White's descent into Heisenberg. We don't have a character in ASoIaF who undergoes quite the same transformation. Towards evil, anyway. Although Dany and Arya are getting close...

[Viridiana]

She didn't, but lets hope for season 5... no way they'd leave her out there.. too much has happened.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

The idea that asoiaf has no heroes and villains is just another misread of the materials. There are plenty of heroes and villains in the story. It's just sometimes hard to identify which is which since, as GRRM himself said, everyone thinks they are the hero of their story.

[CROW'S 3YE]

not sure if you guys saw this.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/06/17/game-of-thrones-finale-why-that-character-didn-t-appear-1518706?lt_source=external,manual,manual,manual#!0KNkZ