why was Ladystoneheart cut out

[lakin1013]

We now know for certain that LS will not appear in the show (or with 6 eps left, it is highly unlikely) and we have been told by GRRM that she will have continued life in the books. IMHO, LS was a step too far in the supernatural category.  I loved her in the book but a tv show that already gives us dragons, and smoke babies, and magic, and warging - LS just takes it too far.  I can read about her in the books but not in the show.

[LadyNoOne]

On 4/9/2015 at 8:18 PM, Sophia [email protected] said:

I beleive why the REAL reason why Ladystoneheart was cut out was they wanted Jon Snow's RETURN a REALLY BIG DEAL. If a other character does it first what the deal?

Hi there,  I don't think it had anything to do with Robb.  Cat, in life, was hardly any fan of Jon... Additionally, I do not believe Robb would have wanted to come back without his pregnant wife, who he loved both so much.

Cheers

[Morgana Lannister]

On 4/26/2015 at 2:50 AM, Lord Foreshadow said:

People say the show creators didn't like the Stoneheart character, but the only person I've seen say anything negative about her was director Alex Graves, and he's not even associated with the series this season. Even then, he was only commenting about her potential appearance in season 4, though most people leave that part of his quote out when referencing it.

 

 

 

 

People say Michelle wouldn't want to play the character. In a BuzzFeed interview though, with Kate Arthur, Michelle says: "Of course. For an actor to play something like that, I think visually it would be incredible. How do you portray evil, vengeance, lust for revenge? What does that do physically to a human being, what do they end up looking like? How do they attain it? The embodiment of that is something that would be incredibly exciting. Even evil people are justified. If you’re playing a character like that, you have to find a way of liking them."

 

 

 

 

 

People say her storyline has nowhere to go. If we can't imagine an interesting outcome for Catelyn reanimated as the avatar of an ancient fire god, then that's just a failure of our imaginations. I don't think George dragged her corpse out of the river for nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

People say many things, but words are wind.

 

I have to agree that she has to have a purpose in the books. However, the purpose could simply be showing the human soul at the point of absolute or near despair.  For me, okay, we have seen two favourites of many readers/watchers (Arya and Tyrion) descend very many steps, but never going as far as being undead and stuck on vengeance.  

Whilst both Arya and Tyrion rant and in the former case (even pray in a fashion) for vengance even beyond what I think they truly intend or are capable of doing (not totally unjustified - the thirst for revenge- in either case) LSH goes a notch further.  She has lost her humanity, or almost... for she still cares for her children but her decisions aren't rational (unlike Tyrion's and Arya's) who still have self-preservation to consider and some kind of moral compass (damaged as it may be in both cases)

Stoneheart is dead, she has nothing to lose and she is giving it all to revenge and she is likely to be deposed by her own evenutally (my bet on Arya).  She has lost her ability to feel compassion or empathy.  Arya may rant about her list and kill people, Tyrion may say outloud that he wants to rape and kill his sister (which he won't do or even means to do, but needs to say so to get it out of his system) but they are kind to others even in their own depth of despair, even in their darkest moments... (Arya couldn't get herself to kill Sandor -although that can't be read the opposite way too - but she hasn't fully lost her ability for empathy and compassion - Tyrion knew if he left Jorah there in the books in the slave market he would be dead within days.  He did not particularly like the guy but still used his cunning to save him.  Yes, he is harsh with Penny at times but othertimes so soft that it would be better for her sake to have some sort of reality check brought up to her - like the fact that they were meant to be eaten by lions).  Stoneheart has not got that but she is dead.  Catelyn did have that, certainly in the show when she talks to Talisha about Jon.  She was mean to him but a jealous, insecure stepmother is not someone totally lacking empathy.  I think George wanted to show us a progression.  lol he got his two favourites (Tyrion and Arya) from being quite lovable to being rather ... well... debatable morally... but that wasn't enough to show the whole extend to what a soul could descend to.  I reckon that is why he created her and was annoyed she didn't make it to the show.

The thing is that that complexity works better in a book than with actors.  It's extremely hard to portray that extreme nothingness, coldness, just revenge nothing more... (LF for instance has a background that can make him playable, not sure about the UnMountain though) but I guess the Un-Gregor is truly playing a robot.  Stoneheart is not a robot at all though.  She gives commands rather than obey them... and she is followed not for what she has become but for whom she was daughter and wife of and because of the unjustice that took her and her family.  Still her leadership skills appear diabolically devoid of rationality, just a huge passion and I would not be surprised in the books if Thoros or someone put an end to her leadership.

Ultimately I think it is also a way for George to say "don't mess with the dead, let them rest."  Of course we don't know what he is going to do with Jon in the books but, I am sure, just like in the show, he is coming back but likely not so damaged...

So overally, I think she was cut off because she is too much of a story line for a story that has to be simplified for the show, because she will ultimately be killed for good.  She will impact on other characters, sure.  My bet on Arya killing her mercifully and her changing path and stopping worshipping revenge... mayhaps...  Still she is not going to make it till the end in the books (SH) and she was too complex to deal with.  Besides, they have other undeads they can bring the message "don't bring them back" home with...

[Morgana Lannister]

On 3/13/2017 at 1:54 PM, Meera of Tarth said:

I disagree with this. I don't think the importance of a character is what makes resurrection (or anything) more or less important. In fact, I truly hate that only important characters deserve all the benefits of magic, kingship, etc. It's too cliche. Making LSH appear makes Jon's case less unusual, and I prefer it this way.

Oh, I agree that I'd preferred that some of the secondary plots went somewhere. I think that due to the show we can assume that they go nowhere, but we can't discard it yet in the case of Dorne because the show is very different now

Have to disagree completely, but that is just my personal preference.  I loved the books and show until they got in my opinion "convoluted" especially the later books with characters whose tropes we already had and were more charming and charismatic.

Say Quentin, just like Tyrion and Sam, represent a son who had  father who is disappointed abouot them...  I can see his struggle but frankly we already have Tyrion and Sam for that, even Jon (in a different way).  He may be necessary to make Dorne ditch Danny but as a character for me the character was flatter than a pancake lol  Not to mention that he had to come with mates to create the scenes (and in my opinion his mates weren't that memorable either).

I am not a particularly low IQ type lol but I became a little saturated (although I keep re-reading and all and can't wait for the next book) with the amount of characters and sub-plots that just came out of nowhere where my investment as a reader was on the main ones.

Don't get me wrong, hypocritical that I am, I enjoyed some minor newcomers, like that Septa on the boat that flirted with Tyrion and Myranda Royce or even Genna Lannister but hey, that's because I can relate to them and that is just fluke lol (the fact I relate to some) but to be honest, although I love the books to death the amount of sub-plots introduced late in the story (FAegon anyone) and even much more minor with a very low chance of making a huge impact upon the ending did turn me off a bit...  Yes, the plot gets richer but at times almost hard to follow.

Again, each to their own with their preferences that thsi super population of characters that may move the plot alone a bit but not much, I find a bit overwhealming.  Now someone like Euron is different in that, although introduced late, it is clear he is going to play some big part.  Yes, a description of the people who serve him is necessary, or the family he betrays... but Victarion??? say, not sure.  Sure he will play a roll because he will cross Tyrion's path for one, not just his brother's but again another one I could do without frankly (Victarion) but then again a lot of this could be dictated just by the type of protagonist/villains and otherwise I like and not...

In answer to the post I quoted, I dislike most of the secondary plots but not all but I find it extremelly hard to get invested in new characters or old ones (like Rickon) we know virtually nothing about...  Aegon is a typical example for me... meaw!!! to me he is neither good, or bad or evil or in-between or nothing at all...  I can only put my heart into characters that are fleshed out, sorry...

[Meera of Tarth]

11 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Have to disagree completely, but that is just my personal preference.  I loved the books and show until they got in my opinion "convoluted" especially the later books with characters whose tropes we already had and were more charming and charismatic.

Say Quentin, just like Tyrion and Sam, represent a son who had  father who is disappointed abouot them...  I can see his struggle but frankly we already have Tyrion and Sam for that, even Jon (in a different way).  He may be necessary to make Dorne ditch Danny but as a character for me the character was flatter than a pancake lol  Not to mention that he had to come with mates to create the scenes (and in my opinion his mates weren't that memorable either).

I am not a particularly low IQ type lol but I became a little saturated (although I keep re-reading and all and can't wait for the next book) with the amount of characters and sub-plots that just came out of nowhere where my investment as a reader was on the main ones.

Don't get me wrong, hypocritical that I am, I enjoyed some minor newcomers, like that Septa on the boat that flirted with Tyrion and Myranda Royce or even Genna Lannister but hey, that's because I can relate to them and that is just fluke lol (the fact I relate to some) but to be honest, although I love the books to death the amount of sub-plots introduced late in the story (FAegon anyone) and even much more minor with a very low chance of making a huge impact upon the ending did turn me off a bit...  Yes, the plot gets richer but at times almost hard to follow.

Again, each to their own with their preferences that thsi super population of characters that may move the plot alone a bit but not much, I find a bit overwhealming.  Now someone like Euron is different in that, although introduced late, it is clear he is going to play some big part.  Yes, a description of the people who serve him is necessary, or the family he betrays... but Victarion??? say, not sure.  Sure he will play a roll because he will cross Tyrion's path for one, not just his brother's but again another one I could do without frankly (Victarion) but then again a lot of this could be dictated just by the type of protagonist/villains and otherwise I like and not...

In answer to the post I quoted, I dislike most of the secondary plots but not all but I find it extremelly hard to get invested in new characters or old ones (like Rickon) we know virtually nothing about...  Aegon is a typical example for me... meaw!!! to me he is neither good, or bad or evil or in-between or nothing at all...  I can only put my heart into characters that are fleshed out, sorry...

well, since this is from last year, I don't remember much what I was saying, but I think I didn't mention that "the adaptation" should have all the secondary plots of the books.

But that doesn't mean that the resurrection of Jon meant something in the show in terms of character development..... it was nothing apart from it being "shocking", ....or that the characters that have not been cut out are behaving logically in terms of script nowadays despite of the fact that they benefit from having more screen time due to cutting out others.

So maybe not cutting LSH out would have meant that the story would have had another character that was not necessary, and that it could also have been "cheap", and "shocking"....but at least it would have made Jon's resurrection automatically less important, focusing on the repercussions in the whole story rather than in a shocking resurrection of a main character himself, you know....  just because he's the main one and they had to kill him because it is shocking and later we'll resurrect him...

I think that this theme of repercussions of magic in the story as a whole would have  been slightly deeper than what we got, and that was basically my point . Again, they could have cut LSH and still made Jon's case a thing in terms of his character, but they just didn't...

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

well, since this is from last year, I don't remember much what I was saying, but I think I didn't mention that "the adaptation" should have all the secondary plots of the books.

But that doesn't mean that the resurrection of Jon meant something in the show in terms of character development..... it was nothing apart from it being "shocking", ....or that the characters that have not been cut out are behaving logically in terms of script nowadays despite of the fact that they benefit from having more screen time due to cutting out others.

So maybe not cutting LSH out would have meant that the story would have had another character that was not necessary, and that it could also have been "cheap", and "shocking"....but at least it would have made Jon's resurrection automatically less important, focusing on the repercussions in the whole story rather than in a shocking resurrection of a main character himself, you know....  just because he's the main one and they had to kill him because it is shocking and later we'll resurrect him...

I think that this theme of repercussions of magic in the story as a whole would have  been slightly deeper than what we got, and that was basically my point . Again, they could have cut LSH and still made Jon's case a thing in terms of his character, but they just didn't...

I don’t understand. You use the word “shocking” as an insult, but then you defend Lady Stoneheart, who is the very definition of shock value. In two books, she’s appeared in 5 pages, maybe less. Resurrections should be used sparingly, or else death becomes meaningless. Jon was the much better candidate, because unlike Lady Stoneheart, he actually has a role to play. I also don’t understand why you expected Jon’s character to change. Beric didn’t, and he’s been resurrected six times. Changing Jon’s character would have been  shock for the sake of shock, which I thought you hated.

[Meera of Tarth]

40 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

I don’t understand. You use the word “shocking” as an insult, but then you defend Lady Stoneheart, who is the very definition of shock value. In two books, she’s appeared in 5 pages, maybe less. Resurrections should be used sparingly, or else death becomes meaningless. Jon was the much better candidate, because unlike Lady Stoneheart, he actually has a role to play. I also don’t understand why you expected Jon’s character to change. Beric didn’t, and he’s been resurrected six times. Changing Jon’s character would have been  shock for the sake of shock, which I thought you hated.

Not exactly, I defend her in comparison to what we got in GOT. I also used the words shocking and cheap for her as you can read above.

Order:

LSH+impact of magic in Westeros OR Jon's resurrection with real character development>>>>>>What we had to see

I'd expect that killing and resurrecting a main character would be something more than simple shock value.

[Dragon in the North]

27 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

Not exactly, I defend her in comparison to what we got in GOT. I also used the words shocking and cheap for her as you can read above.

Order:

LSH+impact of magic in Westeros OR Jon's resurrection with real character development>>>>>>What we had to see

I'd expect that killing and resurrecting a main character would be something more than simple shock value.

Fair enough. I’m not the biggest fan of resurrection, so I wished the show had gone a different path. I am glad that the show kept their resurrections consistent. I hope Martin does the same and doesn’t resort to Deus Ex Machina to bring him back, or change his character without providing a good reason for the change, like he did with Stoneheart. As much as I despise the character, I understand how she turned out the way she did.

[Morgana Lannister]

8 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

well, since this is from last year, I don't remember much what I was saying, but I think I didn't mention that "the adaptation" should have all the secondary plots of the books.

But that doesn't mean that the resurrection of Jon meant something in the show in terms of character development..... it was nothing apart from it being "shocking", ....or that the characters that have not been cut out are behaving logically in terms of script nowadays despite of the fact that they benefit from having more screen time due to cutting out others.

So maybe not cutting LSH out would have meant that the story would have had another character that was not necessary, and that it could also have been "cheap", and "shocking"....but at least it would have made Jon's resurrection automatically less important, focusing on the repercussions in the whole story rather than in a shocking resurrection of a main character himself, you know....  just because he's the main one and they had to kill him because it is shocking and later we'll resurrect him...

I think that this theme of repercussions of magic in the story as a whole would have  been slightly deeper than what we got, and that was basically my point . Again, they could have cut LSH and still made Jon's case a thing in terms of his character, but they just didn't...

Yes, this thread is old indeed and I started reading it from the beginning and commenting as I went along (although it is totally likely that I commented more at the time and I have forgotten) lol.  It was never meant as an attack in favour of the adaptation against you or in fact anyone's opinion at this stage.

Yes, I agree and you make good points and yes the resurrection theme is a big one in the books for sure.  I guess I just have issues relating to characters that haven't been very exposed, for I cannot like them or dislike them without more exposure (a failure on my part I am sure).  Now, with the resurrections I am very interested to see what happens in the books because although all appear inadvisable some more so than others.  There is a difference between Beric, say and Sir Gregor and I would like to see how that theme goes, even ColdHands they are all a little different and have been resurrected by different powers... very curious there.

As for who I would allocate the screen time mainly, well you have my answer, mainly (unless they are adding something pretty huge) to the ones who have been there from the onset or since shortly afterwards (regardless of my like or dislike for them).  To me there is a difference between a "side-kick" and a "minor character" or even an underexposed character with some plot potential (Aegon, say).  Sam and Bronn are side-kicks for instant and they are necessary.  Okay, a bit hypocritical of me here because I enjoy Tormund for instance, wouldn't have minded Val or Genna or Myranda Royce and this is purely based on personal rapport with the characters, but Quentin and his mates for instance were terribly boring to me and they would have taken yet more screen time that I want for the likes of yes, the main six or probably 10 or 12.  I don't mind a large cast but I prefer them hugely memorable.  I mean the Karkstarks etc I enjoyed, people like Lord Manderly too fat to sit a horse etc.  Lady Stoneheart is memorable for sure, so I am probably contradicting myself and should have been included.  I guess for me is too painful to see Cat like that...

But at the end of the day, the show couldn't include everything and if I had been in charge, for good or not, I would have concentrated on main characters (unless some new comers were really needed for some twist) and the most memorable ones but this is me derailing this thread a bit (unintentionally).  My apologies for ranting about huge cast with some characters I find totally not-memorable.

[Meera of Tarth]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:37 PM, Morgana Lannister said:

Yes, this thread is old indeed and I started reading it from the beginning and commenting as I went along (although it is totally likely that I commented more at the time and I have forgotten) lol.  It was never meant as an attack in favour of the adaptation against you or in fact anyone's opinion at this stage.

Oh I know, it's just that I felt confused since I didn't know what the topic was about bc it was from a long time ago 

On 6/15/2018 at 10:37 PM, Morgana Lannister said:

Yes, I agree and you make good points and yes the resurrection theme is a big one in the books for sure.  I guess I just have issues relating to characters that haven't been very exposed, for I cannot like them or dislike them without more exposure (a failure on my part I am sure).  Now, with the resurrections I am very interested to see what happens in the books because although all appear inadvisable some more so than others.  There is a difference between Beric, say and Sir Gregor and I would like to see how that theme goes, even ColdHands they are all a little different and have been resurrected by different powers... very curious there.

As for who I would allocate the screen time mainly, well you have my answer, mainly (unless they are adding something pretty huge) to the ones who have been there from the onset or since shortly afterwards (regardless of my like or dislike for them).  To me there is a difference between a "side-kick" and a "minor character" or even an underexposed character with some plot potential (Aegon, say).  Sam and Bronn are side-kicks for instant and they are necessary.  Okay, a bit hypocritical of me here because I enjoy Tormund for instance, wouldn't have minded Val or Genna or Myranda Royce and this is purely based on personal rapport with the characters, but Quentin and his mates for instance were terribly boring to me and they would have taken yet more screen time that I want for the likes of yes, the main six or probably 10 or 12.  I don't mind a large cast but I prefer them hugely memorable.  I mean the Karkstarks etc I enjoyed, people like Lord Manderly too fat to sit a horse etc.  Lady Stoneheart is memorable for sure, so I am probably contradicting myself and should have been included.  I guess for me is too painful to see Cat like that...

But at the end of the day, the show couldn't include everything and if I had been in charge, for good or not, I would have concentrated on main characters (unless some new comers were really needed for some twist) and the most memorable ones but this is me derailing this thread a bit (unintentionally).  My apologies for ranting about huge cast with some characters I find totally not-memorable.

Well, having contradictions it's not weird. I have some of them as well! And I for one I am more into secondary characters for some reason (Bran and Arya aside bc they are my favoruite ones).

Although I have to disagree with Sam's importance, I think he has a bigger role to play than Bronn, he is a POV character after all.

 

[Morgana Lannister]

On 6/17/2018 at 2:36 PM, Meera of Tarth said:

Oh I know, it's just that I felt confused since I didn't know what the topic was about bc it was from a long time ago 

Well, having contradictions it's not weird. I have some of them as well! And I for one I am more into secondary characters for some reason (Bran and Arya aside bc they are my favoruite ones).

Although I have to disagree with Sam's importance, I think he has a bigger role to play than Bronn, he is a POV character after all.

 

Oh, in my humble prediction he si guaranteed to survive (Sam) and be the top doctor in the reconstruction! $100 on that seriously!

Now. lol Arya, possibly Gendry (romance or not) and Bran are guaranteed for me, could be wrong.  Sorry, may have come up in a different direction, but those two Arya and Bran are super major, possibly above Dany and Jon... surviving one of the golden ones will go in both books and show, me thinks, not sure if Dany or Jon, one or the other and many middle of the road such as Jaime... I think... but my bet is Bran is the key to the whole thing and of course survives, as a human capable of marriage etc (never believed what Ned thought, for he thought the worse - if she gets atop I don't see why not, broken back or not) but his capacity of being a human being after being what he is (a human archieve and beyond!).  I want Tyrion alive and Davos and some others but those are just my preferences lol  It could well be that the sacrifice with Bran has to be such (like with Dan's dragons) that he doesn't make it but doubt it.  He  has the duty to tell the new lords and peasants how the new pact works.  And okay, on a minority here but I don't think even the super lovely team we have in the show (which I love as a team) can defeat Ice, frankly!  In that team, which I believe will get close to in the books, there are a number or warriors and diplomats, but that is all they are!  I also believe WF has "diplomatic immunity" as castles go from the Others but I think this is when Bran will have to step in, for a pact, not a victory...

[Morgana Lannister]

On 6/17/2018 at 2:36 PM, Meera of Tarth said:

Oh I know, it's just that I felt confused since I didn't know what the topic was about bc it was from a long time ago 

Well, having contradictions it's not weird. I have some of them as well! And I for one I am more into secondary characters for some reason (Bran and Arya aside bc they are my favoruite ones).

Although I have to disagree with Sam's importance, I think he has a bigger role to play than Bronn, he is a POV character after all.

 

lol thank you but Bran and Arya are major characters as major goes lol

I called them "side kicks" not minor.  To me Aegon and his side-kicks are minor characters...

 

[Angel Eyes]

Here’s why she was cut... because right now, Lady Stoneheart’s as useful as nipples on a breastplate. All she’s doing right now is rampaging through the Riverlands hanging any Frey or boy she can find. 

[Rhodan]

7 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Here’s why she was cut... because right now, Lady Stoneheart’s as useful as nipples on a breastplate. All she’s doing right now is rampaging through the Riverlands hanging any Frey or boy she can find. 

Kidnapping Jaime and Brienne is actually much more interesting, that´s for sure.

[Morgana Lannister]

On 6/24/2018 at 10:08 AM, Rhodan said:

Kidnapping Jaime and Brienne is actually much more interesting, that´s for sure.

This is the cliffhanger I look forward most in the next book; tried to create in my mind fanfic predictions and nothing I come up with explains it lol, not saying I am great at this sort of prediction but this one is effing hard! lol