[BOOK SPOILERS] Discussing Sansa XIX - The season with no reason

[voodooqueen126]

? I'm not talking about the actor, I'm talking about "fans" who go upshit crazy on actors, writers and such because of character actions or written scenes.

writers and actors are very different.

Actresses and actors are just paint: they are put where the writer and director puts them. They really aren't important or interesting.

Directors and writers are the artists, so if you see something ugly it's entirely on them.

It's also why little girls should be discourage from wanting to act, dance or be models, since they are aspiring to be paint that is used to send a man's message, in order to be liked. Rather they should be encouraged to be writers, directors and composers, so that they can shape the message and thus shape society.

[rosehustle1]

I bet that Sophie Turner would even have asked for a bit more action and drama instead of partying in The Vale.

I think actually having to play the bastard Alayne would have been interesting for her. The dual identity and trying to maintain that identity against her noble upbringing would have been an interesting conflict to see portrayed. They dyed her hair but let everyone recognize her anyway. Why not keep the Alayne persona? I would have loved to see maybe just two or three scenes all season from the Vale just showing Sansa learning more manipulation or figuring out some of what Littlefinger is scheming. I don't think she needed to be significantly a part of the season in order for them to give us an idea of her development in the Vale. 2-3 scenes maximum could have been used in that location if they didn't want to spend too much time in that storyline but still wanted to give the audience some idea of what Sansa is doing.

[voodooqueen126]

I think actually having to play the bastard Alayne would have been interesting for her. The dual identity and trying to maintain that identity against her noble upbringing would have been an interesting conflict to see portrayed. They dyed her hair but let everyone recognize her anyway. Why not keep the Alayne persona? I would have loved to see maybe just two or three scenes all season from the Vale just showing Sansa learning more manipulation or figuring out some of what Littlefinger is scheming. I don't think she needed to be significantly a part of the season in order for them to give us an idea of her development in the Vale. 2-3 scenes maximum could have been used in that location if they didn't want to spend too much time in that storyline but still wanted to give the audience some idea of what Sansa is doing.

I think playing a manipulative character would be incredibly interesting: the fact that your manipulation can't be obvious (I wouldn't trust Show!Margaery as far as I could throw her) but it has to be known by the audience that the character is manipulating... that scene with Baelish and the Lords of the Vale last season was some masterful acting, precisely because manipulation is so hard to portray on screen, you can't have the benefit of Sansa thinking "you're a tool but I am going to do this to achieve goal X" and then her dialogue be all friendly, you have to rely on dialogue alone.

If they didn't think they could do that subtly enough, they could've had the sort of investigation that we saw in the Korean serial, Dong Yi.

[rosehustle1]

writers and actors are very different.

Actresses and actors are just paint: they are put where the writer and director puts them. They really aren't important or interesting.

Directors and writers are the artists, so if you see something ugly it's entirely on them.

It's also why little girls should be discourage from wanting to act, dance or be models, since they are aspiring to be paint that is used to send a man's message, in order to be liked. Rather they should be encouraged to be writers, directors and composers, so that they can shape the message and thus shape society.

Well, the best directors will collaborate with their actors. Actors who have wide range and can improvise could be great at bringing source material to life. I think a give and take between the director, writer, and actors can create a much more cohesive and richly layered performance. Like I said, in another post, Richard Linklater does a great job of letting his actors do what comes natural and working with them in a collaborative manner. I am not certain, but I get the impression that the actors on this show aren't given that same kind of freedom to question things or introduce other ideas other than what D and D want. I think a balance is needed so that creatively things don't become so stagnant or in the case of the show focusing so much on shock moments instead of setting up a narrative that organically leads to the moment. A lot of things feel forced for the sake of a shocking moment. A lot things are becoming contrived because of this manner of story telling.

[TheCasualObserver]

Well, the best directors will collaborate with their actors. Actors who have wide range and can improvise could be great at bringing source material to life. I think a give and take between the director, writer, and actors can create a much more cohesive and richly layered performance. Like I said, in another post, Richard Linklater does a great job of letting his actors do what comes natural and working with them in a collaborative manner. I am not certain, but I get the impression that the actors on this show aren't given that same kind of freedom to question things or introduce other ideas other than what D and D want. I think a balance is needed so that creatively things don't become so stagnant or in the case of the show focusing so much on shock moments instead of setting up a narrative that organically leads to the moment. A lot of things feel forced for the sake of a shocking moment. A lot things are becoming contrived because of this manner of story telling.

The presence of nudity and non nudiity contracts for the female cast members basically confirms this. The moment Emilia Clarke got out of her nudity contract, she stopped doing nudity altogether, so it's quite clear that she did it in the early season because she wanted the part and renegotiated as soon as she had become too big to fire. Nothing about that suggests that Emilia was convinced to do nudity because it made sense for the character, but rather because this is HBO and they have a quota to fill.

And even in a positive interview about "that scene", Sophie Turner admits that her first reaction was "why are you doing this to me?" Presumably because this is just a continuation of Sansa's misery rather than actual development for the character.

[Woman of War]

writers and actors are very different.

Actresses and actors are just paint: they are put where the writer and director puts them. They really aren't important or interesting.

I disagree. Acting is a creative profession, or can be.

Directors and writers are the artists, so f you see somthing ugly it's entirely on them

Or they simply have an artistic interpretation different from yours.

It's also why little girls should be discourage from wanting to act, dance or be models, since they are aspiring to be paint that is used to send a man's message, in order to be liked. Rather they should be encouraged to be writers, directors and composers, so that they can shape the message and thus shape society.

I refuse to see dancers and actors on the same level as models. To me, dancers and actors are fellow artists just like directors and writers. Yes, of course I would discourage little girls from being models, if at all only to finance their studies. More female artists everywhere.

[voodooqueen126]

Well, the best directors will collaborate with their actors. Actors who have wide range and can improvise could be great at bringing source material to life. I think a give and take between the director, writer, and actors can create a much more cohesive and richly layered performance. Like I said, in another post, Richard Linklater does a great job of letting his actors do what comes natural and working with them in a collaborative manner. I am not certain, but I get the impression that the actors on this show aren't given that same kind of freedom to question things or introduce other ideas other than what D and D want. I think a balance is needed so that creatively things don't become so stagnant or in the case of the show focusing so much on shock moments instead of setting up a narrative that organically leads to the moment. A lot of things feel forced for the sake of a shocking moment. A lot things are becoming contrived because of this manner of story telling.

yeah but i am pretty sure Emilia Clarke understands Daenerys-having read the books, but because of the writers/directors view of the character, it doesn't matter, because if she played Daenerys as the vulnerable, self reflective person she was, she wouldn't be badass enough for the writers and directors.

[Grail King]

writers and actors are very different.

Actresses and actors are just paint: they are put where the writer and director puts them. They really aren't important or interesting.

Directors and writers are the artists, so if you see something ugly it's entirely on them.

It's also why little girls should be discourage from wanting to act, dance or be models, since they are aspiring to be paint that is used to send a man's message, in order to be liked. Rather they should be encouraged to be writers, directors and composers, so that they can shape the message and thus shape society.

Oh I disagree, the actors are the actual people bringing a story to life, they can either save a badly written story or kill a good one, they can make you laugh or cry ( writers can too if we're talking books ), they can make you love a character or despise one, and if they are truly good actually make you hate the actor playing their character ( Jack Gleason, Charles Dance ) yeah they’re much more than paint.

No one goes to a movie or watch a tv show to watch paint, and it's the actors who bring in the audience.

[Colonel Green]

Well, the best directors will collaborate with their actors. Actors who have wide range and can improvise could be great at bringing source material to life. I think a give and take between the director, writer, and actors can create a much more cohesive and richly layered performance. Like I said, in another post, Richard Linklater does a great job of letting his actors do what comes natural and working with them in a collaborative manner. I am not certain, but I get the impression that the actors on this show aren't given that same kind of freedom to question things or introduce other ideas other than what D and D want. I think a balance is needed so that creatively things don't become so stagnant or in the case of the show focusing so much on shock moments instead of setting up a narrative that organically leads to the moment. A lot of things feel forced for the sake of a shocking moment. A lot things are becoming contrived because of this manner of story telling.

I don't think you can really compare the approach of directors like Linklater or Mike Leigh to the needs of this show. Linklater and Leigh tend to start with a very loose concept and then collaboratively flesh it out. Game of Thrones has a very well-defined plot skeleton, a predetermined set of character beats that need to be hit, and an exhaustively complex production schedule. There's not really much room for actor input there.

[rosehustle1]

I don't think you can really compare the approach of directors like Linklater or Mike Leigh to the needs of this show. Linklater and Leigh tend to start with a very loose concept and then collaboratively flesh it out. Game of Thrones has a very well-defined plot skeleton, a predetermined set of character beats that need to be hit, and an exhaustively complex production schedule. There's not really much room for actor input there.

You make a good point. I do think that there is a middle ground that can be met where there is some collaboration between the director, actor, and even writer of the episode. Like i said, I'm not certain of the work environment but based on some things that have gone down with certain actors it doesn't seem like there is any kind of creative collaboration at all. I think with anything, having some different perspectives could create better understanding of what works and what doesn't. D and D don't even try to talk with critics or investigate more into the reasons certain subjects are not being received well by the viewing audience. I don't like that show Girls but I will say that Lena Dunham had enough humility to at least look more closely at the criticism that she was only featuring African American characters in service roles on her show in the first season. She actually talked with critics and then put Donald Glover on her show in the second season with a real role in the story. I don't think D and D would ever do this. Frank Miller hired feminist Eve Ensler to give him better understanding of rape and how to treat the subject matter in a way that wasn't exploitative. Collaboration and consulting with others who may know more could have really fleshed out these story lines and allowed characters like Sansa to maintain her agency.

[Colonel Green]

Frank Miller hired feminist Eve Ensler to give him better understanding of rape and how to treat the subject matter in a way that wasn't exploitative.

Ahem, George Miller. I doubt Frank Miller would ever have much interest in discussing sensitive portrayal of gender and violence issues. ;)

[rosehustle1]

Ahem, George Miller. I doubt Frank Miller would ever have much interest in discussing sensitive portrayal of gender and violence issues. ;)

Oh. I had a feeling that didn't sound right. LOL.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Heck here's an idea for the Sansa plotline. It's episode 7 after Sansa been raped by Ramsey she is all abused and alone because Theon is still all "Im reek not Theon". So there is a feast in WF for the newly weds were Wyman Manderly comes in with these 3 meat pies for Ramsey, Roose, and all the Boltens. Sansa goes to eat a piece but Wyman then mentioned to Roose that he was under the impression more people would be at the wedding feast and that's when Roose mentions Walder Frey had sent 3 sons up but they have gone missing and Wyman is all like "Oh what a pity I will have my men look into that". An that's when Sansa sees red dripping out of the corner of Ramsey's mouth and puts together what is going on. So in messed up GOT fashion the Frey pies are used to insure Sansa she still has a friend in WF

[A Ghost of Someone]

Heck here's an idea for the Sansa plotline. It's episode 7 after Sansa been raped by Ramsey she is all abused and alone because Theon is still all "Im reek not Theon". So there is a feast in WF for the newly weds were Wyman Manderly comes in with these 3 meat pies for Ramsey, Roose, and all the Boltens. Sansa goes to eat a piece but Wyman then mentioned to Roose that he was under the impression more people would be at the wedding feast and that's when Roose mentions Walder Frey had sent 3 sons up but they have gone missing and Wyman is all like "Oh what a pity I will have my men look into that". An that's when Sansa sees red dripping out of the corner of Ramsey's mouth and puts together what is going on. So in messed up GOT fashion the Frey pies are used to insure Sansa she still has a friend in WF

Not bad. Anything would have been better than the constant anxiety of her situation once she entered "that room".

[Stannis is the man....nis]

LF magically shows up in scene 1, ep 1.

All boltons die at end of ep 1.

Sansa sends Brienne/Davos to find Rickon.

LF apologises to her , she accepts.

Theon finally learns his name. Bonds with Sansa.

They fly the Stark flag over WF.

Audience is happy.

Eh you would be surprised go on Youtube and search Stannis death or the Battle of WF and both have huge dislike counts and the cs are filled with hate and even unsullied calling bs on how it went down so if LF saves the day it would probably be dumb enough to get both book and nonbook readers upset

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Very easily.

LF magically shows up in scene 1, ep 1.

All boltons die at end of ep 1.

Sansa sends Brienne/Davos to find Rickon.

LF apologises to her , she accepts.

Theon finally learns his name. Bonds with Sansa.

They fly the Stark flag over WF.

Audience is happy.

So, ignoring logic again. Sansa's journey in the books has much to do with the fact that she's isolated from any possible allies. This is the opposite on the show. She has Brienne/Pod/Theon/Davos/The Northern Lords that want to declare her Queen or Wardeness/ Rickon. I don't think Rickon will end in power, if only because I find that too easy for George, but he's alive in theory.

[Woman of War]

Actually I think that Rickon is only in the story to be heir of Winterfell when all is said and done.

His fate is to be a mystery until the last chapters. But maybe Osha will get more impact in the books than Martin originally intended since the actress, Natalia Tena, has impressed him. The show will follow of course, the actress is an asset. And with her the part of Rickon might be enlarged. Apart from that Davos is one of the best characters and the young actor playing Rickon is really good.

[TheCasualObserver]

So, ignoring logic again. Sansa's journey in the books has much to do with the fact that she's isolated from any possible allies. This is the opposite on the show. She has Brienne/Pod/Theon/Davos/The Northern Lords that want to declare her Queen or Wardeness/ Rickon. I don't think Rickon will end in power, if only because I find that too easy for George, but he's alive in theory.

I'll agree with you there, but all of this was a function of plot. Brienne and Pod were needed to kill off Stannis (and quite literally nothing else all season) Theon needs to have his big moment (but a moment that can only arrive at the climax of the story, leaving him nothing else to do before hand) and the Northern Lords can't exist yet, simply because they would remove any need for Theon to help save Sansa. It doesn't matter that their absence doesn't make sense from the Bolton perspective, the writers had character beats they were going to hit, logic be damned.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Actually I think that Rickon is only in the story to be heir of Winterfell when all is said and done.

His fate is to be a mystery until the last chapters. But maybe Osha will get more impact in the books than Martin originally intended since the actress, Natalia Tena, has impressed him. The show will follow of course, the actress is an asset. And with her the part of Rickon might be enlarged. Apart from that Davos is one of the best characters and the young actor playing Rickon is really good.

I'm doubting Rickon ending in power because it's just too neat. I'm still betting on him as Heir by the end, with Sansa as his regent (I think the show has played more with that possibility), but it's just too neat.

There's a lot of support nonetheless for Sansa, and not much to make the idea that she'll forgive LF logical. Then again, the show doesn't care about logic.

[Woman of War]

Rickon ending in power as heir to the North too neat??? He has the direwolf after all!

This is the only reason the character of Rickon has ever been invented by Martin!

Sansa as Rickon's warden for a few years and then retiring to being Auntie Sansa would be rather anticlimactic. Apart from that she would be just as clueless in her job as Secretary of Commerce, Finance and Agriculture as little Rickon. If the situation were only remotely realistic the people in the North could only hope that some adult takes over to prevent starvation after that global ecological catastrophe. And not two kids.

And Martin really seems to care for the Rickon mystery. Show Osha is great, Davos is even better, so the show would take Rickon's storyline even more seriously than the books.