why was Ladystoneheart cut out

[jbent87]

Lady Stoneheart ? I can do without. Same for the entireity of the Iron Islands.

They simply do not advance the story.

They are sideshow freaks.

So Catlyn's disdain for Jon Snow as a bastard this whole time isn't going to be relevant upon learning that Jon is in fact a Targaryen? You don't think that would tie into Stoneheart's character somehow? You don't think it'd be worth to see LSH's reaction upon hearing that Bran and Rickon are alive? You don't think Brienne leading Jaime to his pending doom at the hands of LSH is at all important?

To say Euron and LSH don't advance the story 5/7 of the way through when they are in direct contact with main characters (LSH/Jaime and Euron/Dany) is pretty ignorant and short sighted.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

I very much doubt that. I think he has his plan but the show is making such a mess of it that it reflects badly on ASOIAF. D&D's flailing attempts to inject their own vision on the story is causing the whole thing to unravel. GRRM's book vision is still in tact.

You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one gets filled first.

D&D know GRRM's vision. You do not.

I happen to think that the tv producers have successfully distilled a creative writer's ramblings into an exceptional tv show.

[Borodin]

You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one gets filled first. D&D know GRRM's vision. You do not. I happen to think that the tv producers have successfully distilled a creative writer's ramblings into an exceptional tv show.

First, for the second time, knowing the final act of a story doesn't stop you from ruining the arc.

Second, you are asserting that D&D have adapted the books well. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this is the case. A single example of merging two different characters in one suggests that it is not. Three or four examples of corner-cutting suggest that it is very bad.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

First, for the second time, knowing the final act of a story doesn't stop you from ruining the arc.

Second, you are asserting that D&D have adapted the books well. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this is the case. A single example of merging two different characters in one suggests that it is not. Three or four examples of corner-cutting suggest that it is very bad.

First, for the third time, GRRM appears to be jerking off into a sock with the whole Stoneheart arc.

Personal gratification. But little else.

Unless you think that Lady Stoneheart is gonna strangle Dany in the finale ?

I have my own opinions about how book character were cut out.

So far, I have successfully choked them back, because D&D are far better handlers of the story than you are.

[Joe Pesci]

First, for the second time, knowing the final act of a story doesn't stop you from ruining the arc.

Second, you are asserting that D&D have adapted the books well. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this is the case. A single example of merging two different characters in one suggests that it is not. Three or four examples of corner-cutting suggest that it is very bad.

Straight from the horses' mouth: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/31/game-thrones-lady-stoneheart

George R.R Martin points this out first: “My books have a cast of thousands, so for practical reasons they’ve had to cut or combine many characters,” he said.

[Borodin]

First, for the third time, GRRM appears to be jerking off into a sock with the whole Stoneheart arc. Personal gratification. But little else. Unless you think that Lady Stoneheart is gonna strangle Dany in the finale ? I have my own opinions about how book character were cut out. So far, I have successfully choked them back, because D&D are far better handlers of the story than you are.

So unless a character is directly linked to Dany's fate, they are expendable? Interesting. By that standard we could cut 3/4 of the cast. You should write D&D with your ideas.

BTW: Can you combine your sentences into paragraphs so I don't have to? Thanks.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

So unless a character is directly linked to Dany's fate, they are expendable? Interesting. By that standard we could cut 3/4 of the cast. You should write D&D with your ideas.

BTW: Can you combine your sentences into paragraphs so I don't have to? Thanks.

If you are gonna complain about four lines not being split into paragraphs, I'm afraid I cannot help you with that.

However, I can help you with your severe book fandom.

Your boy sold his soul to the Devil.

The Devil is in charge now, not him.

So just relax and let it happen...

[Borodin]

If you are gonna complain about four lines not being split into paragraphs, I'm afraid I cannot help you with that. However, I can help you with your severe book fandom. Your boy sold his soul to the Devil. The Devil is in charge now, not him. So just relax and let it happen...

I started this thread. Did you read the initial post? It was a critique of GRRM, not the show runners.

Edit: Sorry. The other thread we're exchanging on.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

I started this thread. Did you read the initial post? It was a critique of GRRM, not the show runners.

Edit: Sorry. The other thread we're exchanging on.

I beg to differ.

Your complaints here were about D&D, not GRRM.

I have many complaints about both.

As do you, apparently. :)

[Borodin]

Anyways, cutting Lady Stoneheart has resulted in the arcs of a number of characters flying off the rails into incomprehensibility. Catelyn Stark never turns into Lady Stoneheart, who never meets Brienne, so Brienne is never hanged by a zombie, but lives on to fight the Hound, who was travelling with Arya, who is now in Braavos having met Brienne, who has moved on to Winterfell where she is trying to protect Sansa, who shouldn't be in Winterfell but is, so there is no training in the arts of deception under Littlefinger, who has inexplicably outed Sansa to Cersei, who is in prison knowing that Sansa is in Winterfell, which she shouldn't be, and there is no Jeyne, and therefore no fake Arya to marry Ramsay, who will now head to fight Stannis while being married to Sansa, not Arya.

What a disaster, just because D&D wanted to impose their own vision on the story.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

Anyways, cutting Lady Stoneheart has resulted in the arcs of a number of characters flying off the rails into incomprehensibility. Catelyn Stark never turns into Lady Stoneheart, who never meets Brienne, so Brienne is never hanged by a zombie, but lives on to fight the Hound, who was travelling with Arya, who is now in Braavos having met Brienne, who has moved on to Winterfell where she is trying to protect Sansa, who shouldn't be in Winterfell but is, so there is no training in the arts of deception under Littlefinger, who has inexplicably outed Sansa to Cersei, who is in prison knowing that Sansa is in Winterfell, which she shouldn't be, and there is no Jeyne, and therefore no fake Arya to marry Ramsay, who will now head to fight Stannis while being married to Sansa, not Arya.

What a disaster, just because D&D wanted to impose their own vision on the story.

Lady Stoneheart sucks donkey balls to the overall telling of the story.

I would suggest that you write a letter to GRRM , protesting the exclusion of Lady Stoneheart.

Please post GRRM's answer here.

[Borodin]

Lady Stoneheart sucks donkey balls to the overall telling of the story.I would suggest that you write a letter to GRRM , protesting the exclusion of Lady Stoneheart. Please post GRRM's answer here.

More assertion without argument. Yawn.

[The Dames do Moan]

First, for the second time, knowing the final act of a story doesn't stop you from ruining the arc.

Second, you are asserting that D&D have adapted the books well. I have yet to see a convincing argument that this is the case. A single example of merging two different characters in one suggests that it is not. Three or four examples of corner-cutting suggest that it is very bad.

And there are many people, including myself, who have yet to see a convincing argument that they have not adapted it well.

Because it's completely an opinion either way. Either you think they have, you think they haven't, or you think they have done some things well and handled others poorly.

And arguments like below, where you say basically characters are doing pretty much the same thing as the books, or removed a minor character and gave it to a bigger character, but OMG they met another character they didn't meet in the books; that's probably not really gonna change people's minds. If you just feel like venting because you don't like it, that's fine too. But don't pretend that you know why D&D changed things cause you literally have no idea.

Anyways, cutting Lady Stoneheart has resulted in the arcs of a number of characters flying off the rails into incomprehensibility. Catelyn Stark never turns into Lady Stoneheart, who never meets Brienne, so Brienne is never hanged by a zombie, but lives on to fight the Hound, who was travelling with Arya, who is now in Braavos having met Brienne, who has moved on to Winterfell where she is trying to protect Sansa, who shouldn't be in Winterfell but is, so there is no training in the arts of deception under Littlefinger, who has inexplicably outed Sansa to Cersei, who is in prison knowing that Sansa is in Winterfell, which she shouldn't be, and there is no Jeyne, and therefore no fake Arya to marry Ramsay, who will now head to fight Stannis while being married to Sansa, not Arya.

What a disaster, just because D&D wanted to impose their own vision on the story.

[Borodin]

And there are many people, including myself, who have yet to see a convincing argument that they have not adapted it well. Because it's completely an opinion either way. Either you think they have, you think they haven't, or you think they have done some things well and handled others poorly.

A good screen adaptation retains the arcs and motivations of characters with minor revisions to deal with decriptive text that ponders over scenery and appearances. Cutting characters, merging characters, altering characters motivations, and inventing characters are the very definition of poor adaptation.

[The Dames do Moan]

A good screen adaptation retains the arcs and motivations of characters with minor revisions to deal with decriptive text that ponders over scenery and appearances. Cutting characters, merging characters, altering characters motivations, and inventing characters are the very definition of poor adaptation.

Thank you for the definition of a good screen adaptation, that's so helpful. And only changing characters motivations are the very definition of poor adaptation. The 3 other things you mentioned are necessary the majority of the time to be a good adaptation.

And either way, however you define a good adaptation, it's still 100% completely a matter of opinion if someone thinks a particular story was adapted well.

[Borodin]

And either way, however you define a good adaptation, it's still 100% completely a matter of opinion if someone thinks a particular story was adapted well.

You are right of course. But some opinions are backed by arguments that appeal to plot continuity, story-telling, character development, world-building, etc. Others are backed by nothing, or weak arguments like "Me like Zombie War!"

[Kyrion]

Obvious to me they decided to cut Stoneheart in Season 2, when they decided to give Sansa Jeynes storyline.

Lady Stoneheart believes Sansa and Arya is Dead. She is killing Freys in Revenge. If it was well known that Sansa atleast is alive and in Winterfell, Lady Stoneheart would then turn north, but the doesn't jive with the story of the north.

Basically, Stonheart makes no sense in the scenario the show runners created.

[Borodin]

Obvious to me they decided to cut Stoneheart in Season 2, when they decided to give Sansa Jeynes storyline. Lady Stoneheart believes Sansa and Arya is Dead. She is killing Freys in Revenge. If it was well known that Sansa atleast is alive and in Winterfell, Lady Stoneheart would then turn north, but the doesn't jive with the story of the north. Basically, Stonheart makes no sense in the scenario the show runners created.

Exactly. D&D have painted themselves in a corner where they are now faced with decisions between destroying GRRM characters in the service of their own plotlines, or destroying GRRM plots in the service of their own characters.

[lancerman]

That still doesn't make sense because in the books it's assumed that Arya is in Winterfell. Some people are privy to it, but not the vast majority of the realm. Which again would bring us to the same question of why isn't Lady Stoneheart in the North and still f'ing around in the Riverlands.

[Cas Stark]

That still doesn't make sense because in the books it's assumed that Arya is in Winterfell. Some people are privy to it, but not the vast majority of the realm. Which again would bring us to the same question of why isn't Lady Stoneheart in the North and still f'ing around in the Riverlands.

Stoneheart knows Arya is alive in the books.