Jump to content

Does Stannis still have your respect?


Recommended Posts

I agree, somewhat. I can't accept the Boltons in the books. Ser Jorah sells some men into slavery and Ned rides off to behead him yet Roose and Ramsay rape, flay, torture and kill their subjects, are known for it, yet Ned has no idea what his rival bannermen are up to? Makes no sense. The fact that Ser Rodrik keeps "Reek" alive to confess to Robb makes no sense.

Roose's rape of Ramsay's mother is definitely not known, that's why he takes Ramsay in because that lady wanted to turn him in. In the books, until the Hornwood Incident, no one knew about Ramsay. The minute the Starks find out about him, he's persona-non-grata and dead-to-rights and he had to hide as Reek. The complicated Hornwood situation meant that they had to work legally.

So the Starks aren't omniscient certainly but they do maintain justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no 'take backs', according to the Inside the Episode, once Stannis has made his mind he won't change it.

I do wonder why when Mel wanted to roast Shireen on ep 8 he told her to fuck off, and the next episode, there he is, changing his mind. :rolleyes:

Damn good point. He sure bucked on that didn't he. But come on his men were cold and they could only dine on horsemeat. Daughter gotsta go.

Honestly, I would have bent the fucking knee and had myself killed before my kid. Or maybe rub one out and give the remnants to Mel and said, "if king's blood is so powerful, what about king's seed?" Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think book Tywin is better than show Tywin? And book Cersie?

Joffrey???? How can anyone think Joffrey is better in the books. I loved to hate him in the show - he was one of the most annoying characters I'd seen or read anywhere - full kudos to his actor - he just made me want to slap him. Book Joffrey was a non-event.

Well... Charles Dance is fantastic, his portrayal of Tywin was great. I do think the show has made the character more sympathetic than his book counterpart, and I'm not necessarily happy about that.

At least in Dance's case he wasn't utterly wasted as were so many other equally fantastic actors. :)

As to Joffrey, I agree with what JCRB has said a few posts below yours. (#257)

And Cersei... Cersei's been too whitewashed for my taste. I do like her chapters very much, and I think those saying she's unidimensional may have missed quite a bit that goes on in her PoVs. I completely understand people liking/disliking different characters for different reasons, but to say book Cersei has no depth is not accurate imo. I really like Lena, and I would have liked to see her sink her teeth Into book Cersei. But show Cersei has been terribly whitewashed. Not quite as much as Tyrion, but still very whitewashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roose's rape of Ramsay's mother is definitely not known, that's why he takes Ramsay in because that lady wanted to turn him in. In the books, until the Hornwood Incident, no one knew about Ramsay. The minute the Starks find out about him, he's persona-non-grata and dead-to-rights and he had to hide as Reek. The complicated Hornwood situation meant that they had to work legally.

So the Starks aren't omniscient certainly but they do maintain justice.

It's not about being omniscient. It just doesn't make sense one man can do one bad thing and Ned immediately knows about it but a murderous family can commit crime after crime but Ned hears nothing about it.

There are survivors from Ramsay's hunts and "Reek" was caught in the act of his crime. If Rodrik executed him and Robb returned to ask why, he wouldn't doubt Rodrik's account. That's why he left Ser Rodrik in charge in he first place. To maintain law and order. There are times Martin dumbs down his characters so that their opposers can get over on them and this is definitely one of those times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Cersei... Cersei's been too whitewashed for my taste. I do like her chapters very much, and I think those saying she's unidimensional may have missed quite a bit that goes on in her PoVs. I completely understand people liking/disliking different characters for different reasons, but to say book Cersei has no depth is not accurate imo. I really like Lena, and I would have liked to see her sink her teeth Into book Cersei. But show Cersei has been terribly whitewashed. Not quite as much as Tyrion, but still very whitewashed.

Excellent point, she was much more interesting in the books. She's not even approximating a real person on the show. Then again, few characters are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV Cersei is extremely inconsistent. I once enjoyed how the show humanized her but her motives vary depending on the needs of the plot. It's vexing because Book Cersei is pretty much as you say: one dimensional, evil for the sake of being evil. Even as a kid, she was the same. Insisting she loves her children doesn't do much to give her depth. Cersei is just Cersei.

I think show Cersie is far more self aware than book Cersie. Book Cersie is deluded, she thinks she is ruling well when she is being a cluster-fuck.

Cersei has some serious psychological problems. She isn't a one dimensional evil person - neither in the books nor in the show. She is extremly paranoid and seems to have some mental disorders. And being an alcoholic doesn't help with that. At the end of book 5, I almost felt sorry for Cersei, because I don't think, that anyone can help her. They toned taht down a bit in the show, but I think, it's there too. And we will probably see more of that next season.

It's not about being omniscient. It just doesn't make sense one man can do one bad thing and Ned immediately knows about it but a murderous family can commit crime after crime but Ned hears nothing about i

I don't think, that Ned knew from the start, what Jorah was doing. As I recall from the books, Jorah was selling slaves a long time, before Ned caught him. If Ned were still alive, he probably would have know about Ramsay by now. And as far as I recall, Roose didn't commit many crimes during Neds time as Lord of Winterfell. And he is, of course, more discreet than his son. And as much as I like Jorah, I don't think, he has Rosse's cunning and experience in deceiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was shocked that Stannis went ahead with what he did, but felt for him in the finale - I think he very quickly realizes that he's put so much faith into the Lord of Light, that there's just no turning back now. He's someone who had noble intentions, but went about them in a terrible way. Which, in an odd way, is understandable - he was seduced by the Red God's powers and abilities, having seen first hand just what they can do.







This is not Stannis, not book Stannis.





Yep, big differences from book and show Stannis.



The books really emphasize Stannis as being a great military commander, which was at complete odds with his show decision to attack Winterfell despite being significantly under-manned, and without horses, in winter-y conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ironic thing for me is that despite season 5 Stannis causing so much fuss with readers I actually felt the character was superior this time round to what we'd seen previously finally living up to the promise of that great scene with Mel at the end of season 2.



Previously Stannis tended to feel like he was playing second fiddle to other characters to me. He was a ruthless warlord because that's what was needed to get the audience behind Tyrion in season 2, then in seasons 3-4 he tended to be the demanding master to Davos who the latter was constantly trying to save from Mel's influence.



This season though it finally felt like Stannis was a central focus, most of what we see from him builds to the climaxs at the end of the season and I would say Dilane also gets to play the character in a more subtle fashion(he's always been a great physical actor) and IMHO gives one of the best performances on the show thus far. I would say its also a performance that really merits rewatching, GoT is afterall despite the quality of its acting a show with a good deal of scenery chewing and its easy for Dilane's more subtle facial expressions to pass you by on first viewing.



As far as the decision itself goes I felt the show got it right in not taking Stannis too far down the path of being a believer. Most obviously he clearly doesn't put much stock in Mel's moral judgements even if he does believe her predictions. The latter with reguard to Stannis "saving the world" isn't played up as his only motivation either even if it is clearly part of it. If either of these had been all of Stannis's motivation would it have been as interesting? certainly killing his daughter would be a horrible thing to have to do but it would have been more a cruel twist of fate, a decision that really had to be made for the greater good.



The show makes sure though that a lot of the motivation is also down to Stannis's going after the kingship but what it manages to do for me is have this portrayed in for the want of a better world dignified fashion. Unlike earlier in the show Stannis to me doesn't really come across as driven by petty egotism and previous rejections, he comes across as someone who's convinced himself that there is incredibly moral weight in going after his "destiny"(perhaps driven partly by how much its already cost) to the degree he sets aside what might otherwise be his personal happiness.



I'm not sure "respect" is the right word but I do think it creates a very effective tragic character, a man with many commendable aspects to him who ultimately loses everything due to focusing on a morally questionable philosophy.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...