Discussing Season 4

[Colonel Green]

Since I was replying hastily earlier tonight, I misread one of your posts, in which you interpreted Marg's suggestion the same way I did, and I'm sorry for that. So no, she didn't suggest she'd have sex with Loras. But, what she did propose is also despicable (which is why I said it's a threesome "in effect"). Can you imagine, say, Robert suggesting anything like that to Cersei? "I know you have an affair with your brother, so if you can't get excited around myself, he can come in and help, because we have to put my baby inside your belly no matter what." That would be disgusting. What TV Marg proposed to Renly is not a bit less disgusting. If I had both a wife and a mistress, and my wife proposes to use my mistress for "getting me started", I'd immediately run away as far as possible from the bitch (the wife, of course, not the mistress).

Why is that despicable, exactly?

Marriage in Westeros is a political institution. Margaery is aware of that. She's not expecting Renly to love her romantically, and is tolerant and accepting that he's gay and in love with her brother. She's proposing a way to make it comfortable for him to sire an heir, which he both wants and needs to further his (and her) political goals.

As to your modern-day scenario, what you're describing is a polyamourous relationship. Between consenting adults, what's the issue?

[Miodrag]

Of course she's tolerant about his sexual orientation: she doesn't give a damn about him, so it's really not hard for her to be tolerant about anything connected to him. For all she cares, he could be the creature Tyrion was described as (with privates of both a girl and a boy), and she'd tolerate it. It's easy to be tolerant when you don't give a damn, right? And is there any sign at all that Margaery in any way actually cares about Renly? Not a single one. Not while he's alive, and not after his death. She only thinks about his child - though her logic there does escape me, which I already said, but you conveniently chose to ignore it. At the end, she was even tolerant/indifferent even to his untimely death. Yeah, such a kind person this TV Margaery.

You know, the more you defend her, the more disgusting she turns out.

[Colonel Green]

Of course she's tolerant about his sexual orientation: she doesn't give a damn about him, so it's really not hard for her to be tolerant about anything connected to him.

That doesn't really follow. Plenty of people don't give a damn about Renly (or any other gay person) and yet are intolerant of homosexuality.

And is there any sign at all that Margaery in any way actually cares about Renly? Not a single one. Not while he's alive, and not after his death. She only thinks about his child - though her logic there does escape me, which I already said, but you conveniently chose to ignore it. At the end, she was even tolerant/indifferent even to his untimely death. Yeah, such a kind person this TV Margaery.

You know, the more you defend her, the more disgusting she turns out.

Her logic is that people snicker about Renly's sexuality, so demonstrating his virility is a good way to fight back; and in general, it's sound dynastic politics to get the next generation sired sooner rather than later, particularly to project an image of stability.

I don't recall claiming this made her particularly kind, or that it was done out of caring for Renly. Nevertheless, it's a supportive attitude. It's fairly characteristic of the Tyrell style of politics: self-interested and pragmatic, but also personable as a default.

[Frey Pies]

Because your "interpretation" of her proposal is ridiculous, which you'll see as soon as I (or someone else) provide the exact wording of her two lines in question. And no, it is not "central" to my argument. I don't think I need a central thing for my argument why is TV Margaery one of the most poorly written characters in recent TV history. I don't know what about her fascinates some viewers, but if anyone in the writing room of The Wire or The Sopranos came up with a character like that, I'm pretty sure that would be the end of the career of the said "writer". Also, had one GRRM came up with a character as inconsistent, annoying and in contrast with the culture depicted in the story, I'm pretty sure I'd quit the books.

You're just arguing for the sake of doing so now. Calling Margaery "one of the most poorly written characters in recent TV history" is simply preposterous, and is an opinion that somehow only you seem to have. Most, including me, find her to be intriguing and delightful, and better than GRRM's version of the character. You're simply bashing her without giving any reasoning at all for why you hate her so much. From what I've seen of the character, she seems to fit the culture depicted perfectly, and calling someone annoying is very subjective, and does not interfere with the overall quality of the character (are you going to bash the way Skyler is written by calling her annoying too?).

I do not see how Margaery can be called despicable at all. Actually she is very emphatic with Renly, very kind and understanding.

She is aware how awkward the situation is. To us modern audience the whole idea of "consummation" as more or less forced to establish a marriage is tasteless, even disgusting but in Westerosi context it is kind of necessary for both Margaery and Renly to find a way. And Margaery tries her best to make the situation less humiliating for Renly, leaving every decision to him, recognizing that there is another lover he desires - who happens to be he brother.

I cannot see.

That's how we do it in India though- it's only tasteless and/or disgusting in the Western world. :)

[Juba]

You're simply bashing her without giving any reasoning at all for why you hate her so much

Really? He just spent three posts describing why--among countless other detailed posts. To accuse him of this is just silly.

Look, if you truly find this inconsistent version of the character utterly 'delightful,' and 'better than GRRM's version,' more power to you. That doesn't mean anyone else does or should.

Characters should not be malleable to the plot--they should make decisions and act in a way that makes sense within the world that's depicted. The reason many have been so critical in this regard is because when D+D make changes to personality and motivation, they then later choose to ignore these very same changes--which are variations they needn't have implemented in the first place!

For example, Margery going from know-it-all political schemer to moron granddaughter who needs every obvious detail spelled out for her, depending on what D+D want from the scene. Which Margery will show up next? Who knows? They do this throughout the series with numerous characters. And as others have pointed out ad naseum--it's not the changes that truly piss 'book loyalists' off, it's the vapid and inconsistent characterization that gets under the skin.

It's frustrating, sloppy, and simply not good storytelling, regardless of medium.

But quite honestly, if you truly believe that D+D are 'improving on the books', then nothing I'm going to say will ever convince you of anything.

[Frey Pies]

Really? He just spent three posts describing why--among countless other detailed posts. To accuse him of this is just silly.

Look, if you truly find this inconsistent version of the character utterly 'delightful,' and 'better than GRRM's version,' more power to you. That doesn't mean anyone else does or should.

Characters should not be malleable to the plot--in other words, they should make decisions and act in a way that makes sense within the world that's depicted. The reason many have been so critical in this regard is because when D+D make changes to personality and motivation, they later choose to ignore these same changes they needn't have implemented in the first place.

For example, Margery going from know-it-all political schemer to moron granddaughter depending on what D+D want from the scene. They do this throughout the series with numerous characters. And as others have pointed out ad naseum--it's not the changes that truly piss 'book loyalists' off, it's the vapid and inconsistent characterization that gets under the skin.

It's frustrating, sloppy, and simply not good storytelling, regardless of medium.

But quite honestly, if you truly believe that D+D are 'improving on the books', then nothing I'm going to say will ever convince you of anything.

Calm down man, I never said anyone should. There's no need to be so passionate. Miodrag simply used his own ideas of what's "despicable" to hate on Margaery; I just mentioned that in my post.

By calling her a moron granddaughter, I think you're referring to her not knowing that it was Olenna who poisoned Joffrey. I really don't think that being a moron is the same as being unaware of something, which she was. If Olenna didn't tell her, she didn't, simple as that. In fact, that scene served to give us a great demonstration of Margaery's gentle yet manipulative nature, as, as soon as she knew what was coming, she immediately started influencing Tommen. I don't see how there was any inconsistent characterisation concerning Margaery.

And don't put words in my mouth. I simply said that D&D have improved Margaery, not the entire story as a whole. I believe that there have been some things they have improved upon and some they haven't been as proficient at, and both mediums are doing/have done a great job. But yes, if Season 5 is able to maintain the quality of previous seasons (which AFFC and ADWD were unable to in comparison to the first three books), then I will truly believe that the show has exceeded the books.

[Konradsmith]

If anything Marge's behaviour around Kings has been very consistent with the parallel scenes she's had with Renly, Joff and now Tommy Boy. She's played them all in very different ways and appealed to different aspects of their character, but it speaks to the same intuition and tact that she's characterized by in the show. In the books she's mostly and off-screen character and much younger, so it's hard to even compare them, since they're so different. GrrM did say however, that Natalie Dormer's Marge is what his Marge would be like in ten years.

Remember all though, this thread is meant to be much broader in scope than just a Marge thread. Any of you could start one of those and take some of your more specific back and forth to where it is better-suited...

[Frey Pies]

Remember all though, this thread is meant to be much broader in scope than just a Marge thread. Any of you could start one of those and take some of your more specific back and forth to where it is better-suited...

It's just so hard to start a thread here though :frown5:

But yes, I agree.

[Woman of War]

Why would you care for my pompous opinion about Margaery? Most probably, Natalie Dormer is my "sore grapes" this time around.

I see that you have taken the the debate to a whole new level.

"sore grapes" - will enrich my English vocabulary.

Why is that despicable, exactly?

Marriage in Westeros is a political institution. Margaery is aware of that. She's not expecting Renly to love her romantically, and is tolerant and accepting that he's gay and in love with her brother. She's proposing a way to make it comfortable for him to sire an heir, which he both wants and needs to further his (and her) political goals.

As to your modern-day scenario, what you're describing is a polyamourous relationship. Between consenting adults, what's the issue?

Exactly

[sj4iy]

Other than Marg, what character can reasonably claim to be better fleshed out on the show?

Tywin Lannister

Oberyn Martell

Queen of Thorns

Cersei Lannister

Just to name a few, all of these characters have been praised as being better than their book counterparts.

[Konradsmith]

I think its pretty hard to dispute that Charles Dance and the show's writing made show Tywin WAY MORE interesting than book Tywin. In the show, he's still a sour patrician type like in the books but there was also a real canniness to him and a charm that made a lot of people like them in spite of their better judgment. I feel that was a more interesting approach to a guy who was in effect "the big bad" (to use TV tropes terms) for the first half of the series. That said, I think the show would have prospered from more of the Tytos backstory and some of his words of wisdom like "no man is truly free" and "some wars are won with...."

I think Roose Bolton has been improved a lot too, by toning down his vampiric attributes and making his villainy a slow build rather than a "why the hell does Robb trust this guy?" character as I felt he was in AGOT, ACOK and ASOS. That said, I love book Roose and miss some of his lines that didn't make it.

I agree with sj4iy about Oberyn too. I'm more up in the air about the QoT and Cersei because of how changed they are between the mediums. I'm glad they toned down some of Cersei's vampiness, but then leaving that out might give them narrative problems next season, given that there's really not that much adultery to charge her with. It wouldn't really fit either if they suddenly revealed her to be sleeping with non-Lannisters, especially grubby sorts like the Kettleblacks.

[ambi76]

I don't really get Miodrag's utter offence at that Renly/Margaery scene either, but I'll give him that I too think D&D don't really know what to do with Margaery's character except "OMG have you seen Natalie Dormer's boobs/cleavage?"

They don't seem to know what to do with any of the Tyrell's even, which is on the one hand explainable by the lack of Tyrell POV in the novels (readers are also rather confused by them, something GRRM said is on purpose) on the other hand leaves me puzzled about what additional info GRRM did or did not give them here. Very confusing remarks from both sides too. D&D called show Marg a "slightly nicer Cersei" (do we really need two of them, even if marginally different?) GRRM said he can see his Marg being like that in ten years or so but for now she's just a "sweet little girl", which I find rather contradicting.

GRRM nonplussed by D&D omitting Willas and Garlan. Confusion about Loras, is he still Loras on the show or is he a "proper" Willas stand-in now? The Loras - Kingsguard storyarc seems to be cut, but if it's the latter why is he still in KL (tune in for season 5, I guess)? Show Olenna is hilarious but not quite as nasty as the book counterpart. Show Mace is a bit too oafish as Bryan Cogman conceded but they find it all just so funny. IIRC they even intended that Renly/Marg scene as a joke scene (with the gay character going "Eww boobs!") and were kind of puzzled by the actors playing it serious (sometimes those dudes are really twelve).

[Konradsmith]

^Bryan Cogman wrote that scene, so I'm not sure you do remember correctly. There was humour in that scene of course but it wasn't meant to be funny throughout. Marge kissing Renly while he droned on about "the beauty concealed" was a comedic beat (as well as her "like this" or "like this?" striptease), but the end with Marge's "you are a king" spiel was a pretty important moment that was not meant to be light-hearted. Whereas the tourney earlier in 203 was her official intro, this was the intro to what she's actually like and what she's actually capable of.

Of course depending on what happens to the Tyrells in TWOW and ADOS, it may have been pointless to build Marge up so much. I suspect that they aren`t long for this world, and if I`m right, it may have been wrong-footed to dwell on them as much as they did. Apparently they gave Dormer certain assurances that they`d try and make Marge less Boleyn like, seeing as she`d already played that part in the Tudors. I wonder if that means altering her book fate. We shall see.

[ambi76]

You think Marg will lose her head in the books? Possibly, but I still think/hope the Tyrells will just get the hell out of doge/KL. Finally! No doubt though, that they'll be in for a hell of pain in TWoW, but dying is not dead.

GRRM said they are his favorites besides the Starks after all, oh wait... :ack:

[Kyoshi]

I hoped, I really, foolishly hoped this would be a discussion about season 4... :frown5: I've always been a child of summer, and winter has come... :frown5:

[Konradsmith]

^You mean you spoiled something? Because the above discussion is only speculation.

If you're complaining about this thread being off-topic, then I have to agree.

[Kyoshi]

No, the discussion about speeding up a scene in season 1, and talentless hacks, and Margaery the most despicable and worst written character in show history, all that...should be in a different thread, no?

[Konradsmith]

^Yeah, it really should be. The outrage and negativity, whether or not y'all think it's warranted, really goes beyond "discussing" the show. If it would stay on threads like this though, I wouldn't care so much, but when it bleeds into spec. threads it grinds my gears. It'll stop when there's more production news thankfully... I mean people will still be pissed off about every single detail of casting and so on, but at least we'll be building towards something.

[Mr Fixit]

No, the discussion about speeding up a scene in season 1, and talentless hacks, and Margaery the most despicable and worst written character in show history, all that...should be in a different thread, no?

Thing is, there is no "different thread" here. Every thread is about hating pretty much everything.

[Konradsmith]

I wouldn't say that. It can go that way sometimes (and often) but I think this forum is better at show spec. than any other. Wicnet is too disorganized and glitch and imdb is troll city.