A comparison between two kings and their show arcs

[EruditeFool]

I was thinking about how D&D have handled certain storylines, and it became clear that they put time, planning, quality and effort into the ones they cared about. The others they threw out into the cold.

I would like to briefly pretend that we know nothing of the books when we compare how the show handled the downfall arcs of the two kings Robb Stark and Stannis Baratheon. Let's jusdge the show's approaches on their own terms.

Robb's arc starts with him winning battles and appearing unstoppable while being at a massive disadvantage. Season two opens with him possessing a large army (watch the scenes of his camp) and in a good position. As Season two progresses he is lovestruck by some girl and we see him devote less time to the war effort for her. Theon betrays him, he loses his brothers, his mother releases his hostage, and Lord Bolton - who seems to give sound advice - gains the king's trust but his advice is continually ignored. By the end of the season the viewer can get the definite impression that Robb is losing control and making a slew of bad decisions, the key one being his reneging his deal with Walder Frey.

Season 3 has everything crumble around Robb. His army appears smaller through continual attrition. He is losing his grip on his generals. He must cart his mother around as a prisoner. Worst of all, the Lannisters have beaten or outlasted their enemies and he isn't even winning battles anymore ("We need a fight!" he tells Bolton after taking Harrenhall). After a failed ploy (thanks to him not telling Edmure the plan), he comes crawling back to Walder Frey to patch up the broken alliance. We all know what happens next because when we look back on it, it was so obvious in retrospect.

My point? THe writers put serious thought into this arc to ensure it made sense, was well paced, and led to its logical conclusion.

Now let's compare how the show handled Stannis' arc.

We begin with Stannis burning unbelievers as evil music plays. This is alright in itself as D&D clearly set out to make Stannis a villain (REMEMBER, WE ARE DISREGARDING THE BOOKS HERE). We see that he is tapping into dark magic to try to take the throne that is his "by right" and is willing to use it against his own brother. We continually see Davos admiring him, but (as my show-only friends pointed out) we don't learn much of Stannis himself and chalk it up to him being under the control of the "Red Woman". We know what he wants and what he will do; but we don't know him. THis can be chalked up to the serious mistake of not having Selyse and Shireen in Season 2. Stannis comes across dehumanized as a result. On the positive side, his plot in Season 2 did what it needed to do and was well done. THere was just time lost with getting to know the character.

Season 3 (my favorite season of the show) handles Stannis woefully. The season plays catch-up by giving a belated introduction to Selyse and Shireen. They also give Stannis some characterization. Good stuff, but too late for the uninitiated audience to really care about Stannis. Plot-wise, he spends the season mostly staring angrily at a map and making no active moves. Mel comes and gets the leech-blood from Gendry and... that's pretty much it. We do get a good "They have made my kingdom bleed. I will not forget that. I will not forgive that." speech but little else besides the decision to head North.

Season 4 has Stannis finally moving and acting again, but we don't get any characterization. He gets a loan, an army, a navy, and shows up to wreck the Wildlings.

In Season 5 we finally get characterization. We see how much he loves Shireen and the lengths he will go to keep her safe, we see him meet other characters and interact with them (Mance, Jon, Sam) and a serious effort is made to give him depth. Then... that all disappears in episode 9 when he decides "I've been in hard conditions before and outlasted them, I have promised my daughter I would never let anything happen to her, I have never been as deep into the Red God stuff as my wife... Oh, some snow! Better go burn my daughter now! I love her so much."

The Shireen scene earlier in the season is what makes the burning scene make no sense. Had the scene happened back in Season 2 or 3, we might have written this off as Stannis snapping and finally being pushed to the limits. Instead we see a man who has come back from defeat suddenly doing an about face on his principles when pushed into the situation again. There is no progression because they neglected establishing early one and they completely reversed what little they had given him far too late.

As much as I enjoy the show, this is its main problem. The writers clearly have their pet stories and characters that they devote time to while not giving any thought to the others (such as the Greyjoys being put on a boat or Dorne being absent for 3 whole seasons before we get the first real indication it even exists?)

Essentially, D&D are fans. As fans their perception is clouded. The Star Trek films were at their best when Nicholas Meyer - who was not a fan - was in control, while avid fan John Logan's script for Nemesis starts out with good story elements but ignores them so he can fanboy with his Nosferatu aliens.

I think the show would have been better off if there was an outsider giving D&D some input.

[shaggy_rick]

We begin with Stannis burning unbelievers as evil music plays. This is alright in itself as D&D clearly set out to make Stannis a villain

No. He is not burning people! He is burning wooden statues of false gods. Statues of the so called "Seven". While clearely this is not a sign of religious tolerance, he is not (yet) burning people alive. A shame that even D&D misremember their own work. If I had wooden statues of D&D here, I should burn them right now ;-)

[Lady Blackmont]

I personally think they made Robb look like a lovesick moron. Instead of having him run a devastating campaign in the Westerlands and only failing because of Edmure's mistake.

[robasp2]

It actually would have worked out easily if he was shown to be a stonehearted person who was obsessed with the throne.

Cut out the daddy bonding hug scene

And

"Nope Im not burning her. Get out!" dialogue

________________________

"You need to burn her"

"Is there no other way? Leeches"

"No"

"I cant do that.."

"You must.. I saw the bolton banners n shit"

(His face lights up)

Screen goes black

Now, that would have sovled the multiple inconsistencies.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Essentially, D&D are fans. As fans their perception is clouded.

^This. Especially Benioff which we saw in Troy were he showed a lot of love for the Trojans which made for weird story telling

[Hiram McDrogon]

Interesting post OP - there are some things I don't really agree with, but I'm glad to see any post that's putting a lot of thought in.

^This. Especially Benioff which we saw in Troy were he showed a lot of love for the Trojans which made for weird story telling

I may be misunderstanding your point here. It's not as if Homer made Achilles the clear hero and Hector the clear villain; I wouldn't consider it weird storytelling to show sympathetic characters on both sides.

For the OP, I don't agree that D&D set out to make Stannis a villain at the start. I encountered him in the show before I read the books, and I didn't see him as a villain. Selling his soul, absolutely, but doing so for something he partially convinced himself was just and/or the greater good).

To be honest I find Stannis's arc more satisfying than Robb's (leaving aside issues of plotting or pacing). Robb's mistake of going for "true love" seems so ... contemporary, I guess. Stannis's is much more in the epic/mythical tradition.

But in both stories the mechanics and logistics rear their head. The numbers around Robb's army had lots of problems, didn't they? I vaguely recall the Karstarcks taking half Robb's army with them, for example. While I like Stannis's arc, it's annoying that they needed to use Ramsey's superhuman arson skills to precipitate that final fall. Both stories have lots of details that just don't make sense if you think about them too closely.

I think by and large D&D are striking a fairly good balance as fans who love but also need to adapt the books. Now, they're sometimes messing things up, but on both sides: moving Sansa to Winterfell, and Jaime to Dorne, were potentially good changes, even if in some (many?) ways they didn't work out. On the other hand, I wish they'd had fewer cliffhangers in S05E10 - even if they had fewer than the books did, it was still too many and came across as cliched and hackneyed (and daytime soapy) in this era of TV. Ending with lots of things in suspense was absolutely matching the ends of Feast/Dragon (which also had more cliffhangers than the previous books), but in my opinion they were showing a little too much respect and loyalty to the books there.

[washmeplease]

In Season 5 we finally get characterization. We see how much he loves Shireen and the lengths he will go to keep her safe, we see him meet other characters and interact with them (Mance, Jon, Sam) and a serious effort is made to give him depth. Then... that all disappears in episode 9 when he decides "I've been in hard conditions before and outlasted them, I have promised my daughter I would never let anything happen to her, I have never been as deep into the Red God stuff as my wife... Oh, some snow **and twenty good men™**! Better go burn my daughter now! I love her so much."

[A Ghost of Someone]

^This. Especially Benioff which we saw in Troy were he showed a lot of love for the Trojans which made for weird story telling

Troy would have been so much better had they kept the storyline loyal. Oh, wait, he did it again. Pattern here.

[tseka]

Stannis never received any meaningful character development but then again he's not given a lot of direct attention in the books either.

Only 2nd hand references from Davos & co.

[Stag_legion]

One big issue I have with the show is the unnecessarily moralizing they do. Its like D&D think its not good to have grey morally complex characters and situations and instead they have to tell the audiences exact who to like and hate.

So all the morally complex , grey characters in the books get ruined in their show. Stannis being the biggest victim in the villianization department and Tyrion being the biggest victim in the whitewashing department.

It just makes the show less interesting and more hollywood bullcrap.

I m gonna go play witcher 3, they don't treat their audiences like kids with their moralizing.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

I may be misunderstanding your point here. It's not as if Homer made Achilles the clear hero and Hector the clear villain; I wouldn't consider it weird storytelling to show sympathetic characters on both sides.

Im talking more about Paris and Menelaus were in the movie Paris while a complete pussy who starts a war that destroys his city is still portrayed as a hero over Menelaus who has ever right to be furious but is portrayed as a villainous heavy drinking hotheaded

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

No. He is not burning people! He is burning wooden statues of false gods. Statues of the so called "Seven". While clearely this is not a sign of religious tolerance, he is not (yet) burning people alive. A shame that even D&D misremember their own work. If I had wooden statues of D&D here, I should burn them right now ;-)

I'm suddenly reminded of Patton Oswalt's "Physics for poets" routine.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

^This. Especially Benioff which we saw in Troy were he showed a lot of love for the Trojans which made for weird story telling

That was the less of the problems of the movie (not that I have a problem with it myself). He made a love story with Achilles and Briseis. And Patroclus was Achilles's "cousin" for Zeus's sake...

[Baron Bazunor the Twisted]

I enjoyed both arcs, I know why people are super angry over them but they were fine. It could have been a lot worse, this is hollywood shit afterall. I expected much less from the show years ago when it was announced.

And he wasn't burning people until after his loss in Blackwater. Davos was shocked and disgusted when Salladoor told him about it. They paced that well.

I understand why they killed him off early, no room in Season 6 and 7 since he clearly ultimately doesn't matter. But damn, wish he would have made it into Season 6 and died by the Vale's army or something, or better yet by the White Walkers. Or at least don't have his military finesse questioned with the stupid decisions he made in S5E10.

[ummester]

Just as GRRM says that being a popular writer gives him less control than what you would expect, I suspect D&D being the show runners, or directors gives them less control then what people suppose.

GoTs is a franchise now, a massive money making machine owned by HBO. Profit trumps narrative cohesion, always. I suspect the HBO execs assume profit is based on bewbs, blood unexpected death of major characters and a dwarf that has become a massive celebrity - and they are not entirely wrong. En masse' people are simple, stupid almost - en masse' the intelligence of individual humans always deteriorates and the species gravitates towards controversy, sex and violence, villains to hate and relatable every-men to cheer for.

BTW, I don't think Stannis dead, more and more I'm thinking he will end up on the IT in season 6.

[Balerion06]

Robb's arc wasn't handled with care. The only reason it received so much attention was because they made it into a twu wuv story, which (they assumed at least) would sell well to the general audience.

[Ludo Kressh]

Robb's arc wasn't handled with care. The only reason it received so much attention was because they made it into a twu wuv story, which (they assumed at least) would sell well to the general audience.

Yeah, it was more complex in the books, but even then it kind of made Robb look dumb: marrying the daughter of your enemy's bannerman when you made a marriage pact with an ally? He seemed blinded by love there too.

[Lady Blackmont]

Well, he banged her, so honor dictated that he must marry her. Not stupidity, just Ned honor syndrome. If you receive symptoms of this, expect death. In fact, without his perspective, we don't even know if he had feelings for Jeyne. I believe he did , but it isn't necessarily true.

[Hiram McDrogon]

That was the less of the problems of the movie (not that I have a problem with it myself). He made a love story with Achilles and Briseis. And Patroclus was Achilles's "cousin" for Zeus's sake...

Part of me thinks "Wow, I've forgotten so much about Troy - maybe I should watch it again." Then I realize, no, that's not necessary at all.

Yeah, that whole "But he was my cousin!" part, as if killing someone's cousin during a war is the most reprehensible act imaginable, was weird.

I think what I like about both Robb and Stannis is that they're two of the few completed arcs in the show - we see their rise, fall, and (presumably) death. It's nice to get some closure, once in a while, in this series.

[Oberyion Martennister]

I don't understand how people bring up Stannis' rep for being an excellent commander when dealing with how he died. He was left with half his army and no horse, his wife just hanged herself, and he burned his only heir at the stake. Yes, he knew he was outnumbered and knew he was walking into a losing battle but what more for him was there to do? What did he have to run back to? He chose to die fighting for what he believed was his.

"This is Stannis Baratheon we're talking about..the man will fight to the bitter end and then some."