Stannis the character was ruined for me

[Stag_legion]

Stannis is a way more interesting character for me than Jon, Dany or tyrion, when it comes to feudal politics and hard choices related to governing. Mind you the rest are still interesting in a more personal level, but when it comes to a game of thrones I m more interested in stannis.

 

So I think either the books or the show losing stannis would make things way less interesting.

just think about it, is it more interesting to see stannis struggle to gain the alliance of the north, where he doesn't really know who is loyal and whats next vs the north chanting "the north remembers" and bending the knee to Jon Snow? Ww already had that with Robb stark.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Even if Stannis is indeed going to burn Shireen, it won't happen in the rushed forced idiotic way as happened in the books. First, Stannis is waaaay to far away from Shireen. He would need to send a raven with the orders. And I don't see him doing that, specially because he also happens to have another kid with King's Blood, one that Jon is unable to protect because he's "dead".

The only way I see for this to happen is if Stannis actually orders to burn Monster, but the wildlings rebel and they instead burn Shireen. It would still be a consequence of Stannis' orders, although not directly by his hand. Maybe Selyse also dies trying to save her daughter.

The problem the show is having so far is that they indeed do scenes from the books, but they care little for the context that took characters to those situations. Both Jons end up stabbed at the end of their current plots, but bookJon isn't stabbed because he betrayed some kid's feelings. So, it's the same with Stannis: he probably does end up being the cause of Shireen's dead. D&d simply decided to simplify the storyline and they suck at it because they suck at doing this adaptation and kill the three Baratheons just because Martin told them "the three of them die".  

 

 

[Lautrec]

Even if Stannis is indeed going to burn Shireen, it won't happen in the rushed forced idiotic way as happened in the books. First, Stannis is waaaay to far away from Shireen. He would need to send a raven with the orders. And I don't see him doing that, specially because he also happens to have another kid with King's Blood, one that Jon is unable to protect because he's "dead".

The only way I see for this to happen is if Stannis actually orders to burn Monster, but the wildlings rebel and they instead burn Shireen. It would still be a consequence of Stannis' orders, although not directly by his hand. Maybe Selyse also dies trying to save her daughter.

The problem the show is having so far is that they indeed do scenes from the books, but they care little for the context that took characters to those situations. Both Jons end up stabbed at the end of their current plots, but bookJon isn't stabbed because he betrayed some kid's feelings. So, it's the same with Stannis: he probably does end up being the cause of Shireen's dead. D&d simply decided to simplify the storyline and they suck at it because they suck at doing this adaptation and kill the three Baratheons just because Martin told them "the three of them die".  

 

 

That is true, but D&D also don't have the luxury of dragging out their story forever. If they followed Martin's pace we'd be on ASoS still. I'd rather have a good story with some problems that actually ends then a great story (which frankly, AFfC and ADwD weren't) which stretches on into forever. 

Season 5 is definitely the worst season of the show so far, but at its core it's still good, and the improvements could have been largely only cosmetic. Splitting up the characters, or giving the two monstrosities a season each (or God forbid more than that) would have been even worse. It really is not a coincidence that the worst part of the show follows the worst part of the book series.

[StepStark]

That is true, but D&D also don't have the luxury of dragging out their story forever. If they followed Martin's pace we'd be on ASoS still.

Well, D&D obviously aren't capable of creating their own original story that is decent at least, so they've decided to adapt other people's stories. In this case they're adapting Martin's story. Since that's the case, they might as well follow his pace as closely as possible.

I'd rather have a good story with some problems that actually ends then a great story (which frankly, AFfC and ADwD weren't) which stretches on into forever.

I'd rather have a great story (which frankly AFFC and ADWD were) with some parts that some readers deem slower, than a moronic story that lacks basic logic in every turn and always ends in juvenile, hysterical resolutions (which, most frankly, GOT has always been).

Season 5 is definitely the worst season of the show so far, but at its core it's still good, and the improvements could have been largely only cosmetic. Splitting up the characters, or giving the two monstrosities a season each (or God forbid more than that) would have been even worse. It really is not a coincidence that the worst part of the show follows the worst part of the book series.

Season 5 of GOT followed some book series? What a strange idea!

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

The problem the show is having so far is that they indeed do scenes from the books, but they care little for the context that took characters to those situations. Both Jons end up stabbed at the end of their current plots, but bookJon isn't stabbed because he betrayed some kid's feelings. So, it's the same with Stannis: he probably does end up being the cause of Shireen's dead. D&d simply decided to simplify the storyline and they suck at it because they suck at doing this adaptation and kill the three Baratheons just because Martin told them "the three of them die".  

At some point the realisation has to come that the shows are not the books, that they will attempt to tell roughly the same story, but they will never have the level of detail or complexity that the books have. Its been like that since day 1, to expect anything else is cloud cookoo land. 

Yes they take scenes from the books, and the meaning isn't the same as the books, or they take lines and transplant them elsewhere and give them new meanings. That isn't a crime, its adaptation. They simplify things and reduce stories down and characters become less complex and rounded. Its to be expected, I don't understand why that sort of thing is brought up as criticism as it just comes across as Puritanical Book Fanaticism as opposed to insightful criticism.

The Jon example is a good one, of course the reason for his stabbing is a lot more simplistic on the show. Its a one issue deal, the Wildlings. There would never have been the time or space to include all of the variety of issues surrounded his stabbing in the book, or his many many chapters of CB admin. To say its cos he betrayed a kids feeling is churlish. 

Adaptation isn't about putting the book onscreen, its about using a source material to create a filmic product. 

That is true, but D&D also don't have the luxury of dragging out their story forever. If they followed Martin's pace we'd be on ASoS still. I'd rather have a good story with some problems that actually ends then a great story (which frankly, AFfC and ADwD weren't) which stretches on into forever. 

Season 5 is definitely the worst season of the show so far, but at its core it's still good, and the improvements could have been largely only cosmetic. Splitting up the characters, or giving the two monstrosities a season each (or God forbid more than that) would have been even worse. It really is not a coincidence that the worst part of the show follows the worst part of the book series.

• 
  

 Yeah I totally agree with all this. It gets a lot of flak this season, but it was still good on the whole. I too don't think its a coincidence that the two worst books were the source for the worst season. Having to make so many changes when you've had it easy so far has obviously caused a lot of problems. 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Season 5 of GOT followed some book series? What a strange idea!

in a way, they did. Mostly of the characters are now in the exact point as their book counterparts are. Geographically and narratively. The problem me and many have is that they were sent there without any kind of development. That's why the Season is so bad: is a show about people doing required stuff without further exploration or explanation.

[Rhaeguardiandroid]

The Maniss lives on! Im pretty sure that he will convince Brienne to side with him in removing the Boltons but will die in the attempt, leaving Jon and the Wildling army to tale back Winterfell.

Show Stannis wasn't utilized enough as Dillane was one of the better actors but Douche and Douche have no clue whatsoever

[Rhaeguardiandroid]

The Maniss lives on! Im pretty sure that he will convince Brienne to side with him in removing the Boltons but will die in the attempt, leaving Jon and the Wildling army to tale back Winterfell.

Show Stannis wasn't utilized enough as Dillane was one of the better actors but Douche and Douche have no clue whatsoever

[Lautrec]

Well, D&D obviously aren't capable of creating their own original story that is decent at least, so they've decided to adapt other people's stories. In this case they're adapting Martin's story. Since that's the case, they might as well follow his pace as closely as possible.

I'd rather have a great story (which frankly AFFC and ADWD were) with some parts that some readers deem slower, than a moronic story that lacks basic logic in every turn and always ends in juvenile, hysterical resolutions (which, most frankly, GOT has always been).

Season 5 of GOT followed some book series? What a strange idea!

Aren't they both novelists? No need to insult.

Martin's fault as a writer is that he can't pace well (only my opinion, of course). I really appreciate elegance in writing, being able to tell as much in as few words as possible. There are some painful examples, particularly in AFFC and ADWD, where he simply wastes page after page for no purpose. I see no reason why he couldn't have written the fourth book in the style of the first three. Adding more clutter in the fashion of Dorne and the Ironborn and fAegon and Quentyn and Lady Stoneheart and all of the fake killings and the minor PoVs and unnecessary travelogues was simply not as good as what came before. If I recall, in the foreword for AFFC he says that he didn't want to tell half the story for all of the characters, but would rather tell the full story for half of them. What? That makes sense if its a stand-alone novel split in half, not for a gigantic book series, where the full story isn't told regardless (not to mention we didn't get the actual ending of ADWD). Following his pace would be catastrophic for a TV show. Looking at the examples of The Lions of al-Rassan (half the size of ASOS) and The Lord of the Rings (the size of ASOS), you can have great world-building and plotting and characters without all of the amorphous mess. 

You may try to use "wit" to bolster your argument but in this case it doesn't really work without providing some examples. In what way is GOT a moronic story that lacks basic logic and always ends in juvenile, hysterical resolutions? Looking at other literary-to-TV adaptations, GOT follows the books quite closely.

[Dolorous Gabe]

At some point the realisation has to come that the shows are not the books, that they will attempt to tell roughly the same story, but they will never have the level of detail or complexity that the books have. Its been like that since day 1, to expect anything else is cloud cookoo land. 

Yes they take scenes from the books, and the meaning isn't the same as the books, or they take lines and transplant them elsewhere and give them new meanings. That isn't a crime, its adaptation. They simplify things and reduce stories down and characters become less complex and rounded. Its to be expected, I don't understand why that sort of thing is brought up as criticism as it just comes across as Puritanical Book Fanaticism as opposed to insightful criticism.

The Jon example is a good one, of course the reason for his stabbing is a lot more simplistic on the show. Its a one issue deal, the Wildlings. There would never have been the time or space to include all of the variety of issues surrounded his stabbing in the book, or his many many chapters of CB admin. To say its cos he betrayed a kids feeling is churlish. 

Adaptation isn't about putting the book onscreen, its about using a source material to create a filmic product. 

 Yeah I totally agree with all this. It gets a lot of flak this season, but it was still good on the whole. I too don't think its a coincidence that the two worst books were the source for the worst season. Having to make so many changes when you've had it easy so far has obviously caused a lot of problems. 

To the two bolded statements, you cannot have it both ways. You can't part the two media and then lump them together when it suits. If you want to compare the events adapted from Feast and Dance into the show, however bad you think those books are the show's version of those events are inferior in the extreme. If you don't want to compare the books with the show, don't blame the books when the show-runners make crappy adaptational choices.

There is no singular way to adapt a written story into a visual one. The adaptors makes choices not only based on the source material but also based on what story they want to tell. What D&D prove time and time again is that they do not consider the logical effects of their changes. I have no problem with them changing things, it's when those changes make no sense in terms of character and plot progression that I have a problem.

[John Doe]

At some point the realisation has to come that the shows are not the books, that they will attempt to tell roughly the same story, but they will never have the level of detail or complexity that the books have. Its been like that since day 1, to expect anything else is cloud cookoo land. 

Yes they take scenes from the books, and the meaning isn't the same as the books, or they take lines and transplant them elsewhere and give them new meanings. That isn't a crime, its adaptation. They simplify things and reduce stories down and characters become less complex and rounded. Its to be expected, I don't understand why that sort of thing is brought up as criticism as it just comes across as Puritanical Book Fanaticism as opposed to insightful criticism.

The Jon example is a good one, of course the reason for his stabbing is a lot more simplistic on the show. Its a one issue deal, the Wildlings. There would never have been the time or space to include all of the variety of issues surrounded his stabbing in the book, or his many many chapters of CB admin. To say its cos he betrayed a kids feeling is churlish. 

Adaptation isn't about putting the book onscreen, its about using a source material to create a filmic product. 

 Yeah I totally agree with all this. It gets a lot of flak this season, but it was still good on the whole. I too don't think its a coincidence that the two worst books were the source for the worst season. Having to make so many changes when you've had it easy so far has obviously caused a lot of problems. 

The reason the "not enough time" excuse doesn't work is because they edit some unnecessary stuff in (for example Missandei/Grey Worm shipping or Meryn Trant/abused children shipping) and execute some storylines, especially those not taken  from the books, poorly (Jaime in Dorne). People are not just complaining about changes, it's when the changes aren't doing the story any justice.

Take for example the short scene in which Jon and Sam are discussing his mission at Oldtown: In the book, Jon suggests Sam should go there, which shows how his duties as lord commander are more important to him than having his friends around. In the show, it's Sam who wants to go south, which doesn't mark any character growth at all especially since his proposal seems very self-serving. I'm assuming the show runners wanted to let Sam take the initiative to show him becoming less dependent on Jon, but we had the election and his adventures north of the Wall, and still have the whole Oldtown storyline for that. Meanwhile, nobody complained when Roose was switched for Tywin at Harrenhal, because that gave viewers some good scenes despite of not being in the books.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

To the two bolded statements, you cannot have it both ways. You can't part the two media and then lump them together when it suits. If you want to compare the events adapted from Feast and Dance into the show, however bad you think those books are the show's version of those events are inferior in the extreme. If you don't want to compare the books with the show, don't blame the books when the show-runners make crappy adaptational choices.

There is no singular way to adapt a written story into a visual one. The adaptors makes choices not only based on the source material but also based on what story they want to tell. What D&D prove time and time again is that they do not consider the logical effects of their changes. I have no problem with them changing things, it's when those changes make no sense in terms of character and plot progression that I have a problem.

I disagree with that, I think they are just different, the mediums are different and need different treatments. The show has to be more plot driven and pacey and will consequently have less indepth character study. Many of its changes to the book make perfect sense, and if they hadn't been made you'd end up with a far worse version of the tv show than you have now. Who wants to see Sam on board a ship for an entire season being sick, Brienne wandering aimlessly around the countryside meeting extras, Tyrion sat on a boat playing boardgames.. I didn't even want to read about these things but I was forced to. 

I also completely disagree that D&D aren't considering the consequences of their changes, its obvious that they are, as many of their changes are clearly designed to affect other interacting storylines. Sansa's major changes was clearly designed with one eye on its knock on effects on Briennes and Stannis' plot. You might not like the changes, but its clear that they were made for a reason to condense the hefty book material into a way that works for tv. 

Of course the story D&D want to tell won't be exactly the same as the one in the books, it will focus on some elements and cut out others.. why expect anything else.
 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

People can't say fans are mad at the changes, because, for the 929028092840924th time, the scenes from the books ARE in the show. That's not the problem.

We're not stupid: we know changes are needed and required. Very few books are adapted 100% like they are. It's like people believe we've never watch tv or movies before.

The problem is (among others), that D&d adapt the books in the way they perceive the books, and their perception is wrong. They use a very b/w vision of the story: Jon = good, Stannis = bad, Cersei = victim, Jaime = bad, Tyrion = good, Sansa = victim. They don't do shades, they don't know how to. And that's what ASOIAF is about: characters walking between good and bad, being gray.

In the specific case of Stannis (the subject of this thread), they already doomed him when they mentioned he wasn't fit for a King. They could think so, but they can't let their bias to get on the way. Because this is not 100% stated in books, that's why we have endless discussions about Stannis being fit or not. It's open for interpretation. D&d don't want to let things open for interpretation, they already decided how they want people to perceive Stannis, as a bad amoral person.

Contrast their treatment of Stannis with how they have chosen to present Tywin and then, tell me how they aren't biased, for god's sake

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

The problem is (among others), that D&d adapt the books in the way they perceive the books, and their perception is wrong. They use a very b/w vision of the story: Jon = good, Stannis = bad, Cersei = victim, Jaime = bad, Tyrion = good, Sansa = victim. They don't do shades, they don't know how to. And that's what ASOIAF is about: characters walking between good and bad, being gray.

 Actually this is just your perception of the characters on the show. I'd disagree with every single one of those descriptions.

 

[Lautrec]

People can't say fans are mad at the changes, because, for the 929028092840924th time, the scenes from the books ARE in the show. That's not the problem.

We're not stupid: we know changes are needed and required. Very few books are adapted 100% like they are. It's like people believe we've never watch tv or movies before.

The problem is (among others), that D&d adapt the books in the way they perceive the books, and their perception is wrong. They use a very b/w vision of the story: Jon = good, Stannis = bad, Cersei = victim, Jaime = bad, Tyrion = good, Sansa = victim. They don't do shades, they don't know how to. And that's what ASOIAF is about: characters walking between good and bad, being gray.

In the specific case of Stannis (the subject of this thread), they already doomed him when they mentioned he wasn't fit for a King. They could think so, but they can't let their bias to get on the way. Because this is not 100% stated in books, that's why we have endless discussions about Stannis being fit or not. It's open for interpretation. D&d don't want to let things open for interpretation, they already decided how they want people to perceive Stannis, as a bad amoral person.

Contrast their treatment of Stannis with how they have chosen to present Tywin and then, tell me how they aren't biased, for god's sake

Even though Jon tried to desert and executed Janos Slint, and Stannis saved the Night's Watch and freed Davos, and Jaime saved Brienne and told her to find Sansa and Arya and went to Dorne to save his daughter, and Cersei who has more agency then practically all characters (and at least they didn't pull out of their ass some dumb prophecy to use as some sort of an excuse to justify her hatred of Tyrion), and Tyrion who murdered his father and girlfriend, and Sansa who saved Baelish and fled Winterfell? Sounds more like your perception of them then theirs. If anything, simply through the act of being portrayed by actors and not being letters on a page, some characters come across as even more nuanced. Ramsay, Shae, Daario, for example. 

Do you seriously think they portrayed Tywin as a better person then Stannis?

[Le Cygne]

The problem is (among others), that D&d adapt the books in the way they perceive the books, and their perception is wrong. They use a very b/w vision of the story: Jon = good, Stannis = bad, Cersei = victim, Jaime = bad, Tyrion = good, Sansa = victim. They don't do shades, they don't know how to. And that's what ASOIAF is about: characters walking between good and bad, being gray.

True. And then there's the superheroes: Tywin = super, Ramsay = super, LF = super, ... soon to be Euron = super, no doubt.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Do you seriously think they portrayed Tywin as a better person then Stannis?

Well, who was the rational calm guy who bonded with a strange peasant girl and who was the crazy idiot who burnt his own daughter because 20 Good Men raided his camp

[Dolorous Gabe]

I disagree with that, I think they are just different, the mediums are different and need different treatments. The show has to be more plot driven and pacey and will consequently have less indepth character study. Many of its changes to the book make perfect sense, and if they hadn't been made you'd end up with a far worse version of the tv show than you have now. Who wants to see Sam on board a ship for an entire season being sick, Brienne wandering aimlessly around the countryside meeting extras, Tyrion sat on a boat playing boardgames.. I didn't even want to read about these things but I was forced to. 
I also completely disagree that D&D aren't considering the consequences of their changes, its obvious that they are, as many of their changes are clearly designed to affect other interacting storylines. Sansa's major changes was clearly designed with one eye on its knock on effects on Briennes and Stannis' plot. You might not like the changes, but its clear that they were made for a reason to condense the hefty book material into a way that works for tv. 

Of course the story D&D want to tell won't be exactly the same as the one in the books, it will focus on some elements and cut out others.. why expect anything else.
 

"...but the game ain't gotta be played like that, yo"

The truth is that the show can treat its material any way it wants to. The show-runners made choices for it to be this way. I go back to my point that there is no one singular way to adapt written story into a visual one. It doesn't have to be this way for the purposes of TV at all. It is a merely one choice of many.

Nobody is denying that there are reasons behind the changes but that says nothing to the question of whether those changes worked well or not. The whole condensing/streamlining argument just doesn't work as a valid defence for how bad much of season 5 was though.

I see very little regard for the natural consequences of these changes on the story as a whole. I hate going back to this but the following is the example that first made me strongly question the show-runners' sense of action-consequence and character: I initially liked that they made Shae into a genuinely caring person, but I spent a long time wondering how they would adapt the story at the end of ASoS, assuming that they would make changes accordingly. And it could have worked to turn her into Tyrion's Tysha, given that they cut the revelation regarding her from Jaime, by having Tywin hang her as he said he would. Instead they concocted a ludicrous "woman scorned" soap opera routine to have her condemn two people she had been shown to clearly care about to a death warrant, just so it could play out the same way as in the books. There are many other examples similar to this kind of disregard for character consistency and arcs.

[John Doe]

Well, who was the rational calm guy who bonded with a strange peasant girl and who was the crazy idiot who burnt his own daughter because 20 Good Men raided his camp

We don't know how book Tywin would react to Arya in this scenario, so that doesn't really show bias.

[El Guapo]

Well, who was the rational calm guy who bonded with a strange peasant girl and who was the crazy idiot who burnt his own daughter because 20 Good Men raided his camp

And then the "rational calm" guy left the strange peasant girl in the tender loving care of a seven foot tall rapist murderer.  Just sayin'