The Problems With Season 4 (Show & Book Spoilers)

[Le Cygne]

Westeros.org reviews, talking about Darth Sansa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zgaSY3BV8 at 42:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4cL3hUYq8w at 53:30

[Colonel Green]

Which, again, has nothing to do with the discussion we were having about whether it was filler.

[Le Cygne]

Certainly doesn't sound like they are saying it's book Sansa.

[Konradsmith]

That Annara Snow and Colonel Green don't feel the same as you proves that even within the Sansa sub-fandom (is that what I should call it?) there is contention over this point. So really we should wait until her characterization is contextualized by a follow-up scene in s5 before we get too panicky...

[Colonel Green]

Certainly doesn't sound like they are saying it's book Sansa.

I'm not expecting Book Sansa to start walking around in a raven-feather dress either, but so what? That is, again, not the same thing as filler. It may be a departure from the (now unwritten) books, but that remains to be seen.

As for the "Evil Queen" stuff, it's funny, but there's really no basis for it in her actual one line of dialogue.

[Game of Thrones Reference]

Lady Stoneheart makes Catelyn the most tragic character in the entire story. She is not pointless.

Catelyn Stark was already a tragic character long before Lady Stoneheart came into the picture. We already have one Stark descending into the darkness (Arya).

I don't see the point of having another one.

[Konradsmith]

^Actually I think all of the surviving Starks will be going down dark roads. Showing Cat's just gives us a more complete picture of that. We shouldn't presume she's cut yet.

[Le Cygne]

Filler is things that are just filling in time with what they consider more interesting than the book story. Or just filling in time. The gaps are the journey from point to point (the main plot points). In other words, the gaps were not there, they created them.

[Colonel Green]

Filler is things that are just filling in time with what they consider more interesting than the book story.

No, that's not filler. Rewriting "the journey from point to point" is just that, a different telling of the story. Filler is material created merely to fill space, and which doesn't advance the story meaningfully. Craster's Keep, fundamentally, was filler, as it clearly existed mainly because the structure of the season left Jon and Bran with little to nothing to do until the very end if you were relying solely on the text.

Seeing as we have no real idea of what Sansa's story is, if they want to arrive at the same plot points with a different approach to her characterization, that's not filler.

[Le Cygne]

Well, I guess we disagree about what filler is, as with most things.

[Colonel Green]

By definition "filler" is that which fills space that would otherwise be unoccupied. It's not the same thing as rewriting.

[sj4iy]

No, that's not filler. Rewriting "the journey from point to point" is just that, a different telling of the story. Filler is material created merely to fill space, and which doesn't advance the story meaningfully. Craster's Keep, fundamentally, was filler, as it clearly existed mainly because the structure of the season left Jon and Bran with little to nothing to do until the very end if you were relying solely on the text.

Seeing as we have no real idea of what Sansa's story is, if they want to arrive at the same plot points with a different approach to her characterization, that's not filler.

I will totally admit that Craster's Keep was filler...but it was fun filler. And it was good filler in that it helped flesh out two of our main characters. So not all filler is a waste.

I still don't see how anyone could call Sansa's final scene 'filler', though. It was extremely necessary to wrap up her season 4 arc.

[Le Cygne]

Nope, disagree with your definition and disagree that much of this is not filler.

[Ingelheim]

Let's not forget filler can be really good, like Craster's Keep arc this season.

[Colonel Green]

Nope, disagree with your definition and disagree that much of this is not filler.

Then you disagree with the standard definition. That's why it's "fill"er. It fills gaps.

What you're describing is not filler, it's rewriting. You can have problems with that too (I have in many cases, God knows), but call it by its proper name.

[Le Cygne]

We could fill a whole page with this, but let's just say we did.

You are making this distinction between rewriting and filler that doesn't exist.

[Colonel Green]

You are making this distinction between rewriting and filler that doesn't exist.

Um, no. Filler is, by definition, rewriting (or, I guess, additional writing), but rewriting is not filler. What you're describing is not addition (filler), it's replacement. Redoing a story is not filler, as it's not filling a gap, it's filling the same space in a different way.

[Le Cygne]

Redoing a story is not filler, as it's not filling a gap, it's filling the same space in a different way.

And you just said it was filler.

[Colonel Green]

And you just said it was filler.

No, I didn't (though I expected after writing that that you would probably jump on it). "Filler" is that which fills a gap. There is no gap when it's a new story put in place of an old one. The amount of space taken up is the same, more or less. As such, it isn't filler, because its creation was not necessitated by a gap in the story, unlike Craster's (or much of the King's Landing material in season 3).

[Le Cygne]

If you cut the book story, there is a gap.