Is There Anything On The Show That You Think Is Better Than The Books?

[Cron]

7 hours ago, Rhollo said:

But what ultimately made show!Bronn better (I'd partly disagree with that, but let's ignore that for the sake of the argument) is his expanded role.

To "breath life into" a character is pretty much just an actor's job description. And more importantly, a book simply has no such thing as actors, there is nothing to compare in that regard, so no version can be better or worse because of it. (Ignoring he possibility of horrible miscastings, which imho the show never had)

Mmmm...my recollection is that show-Bronn was quite popular BEFORE his role was expanded.  In Season One, Bronn's role is pretty much the same (nearly identical, in fact) to AGOT.  I guess only the show-runners can say for sure whether Bronn's role was always intended to be expanded, or not, but I DO have an opinion that the actor had already made show-Bronn more popular than book-Bronn before we actually saw the expanded role (indeed, Bronn's role was heavily expanded until Season 5, I'd say, when Jaime recruited him to go to Dorne.  Before that, I'd say show-Bronn's role was roughly the same as book-Bronn, maybe with a few extra scenes, but when Bronn started hanging out with Jaime, his role expanded dramatically, in Seasons 5 and 6, and I've always assumed that was cuz the show character was popular)

Sure, it's the job of every actor to breathe life into a character. But some do it a LOT better than others, and I think the actor who plays Bronn nailed the character down perfectly.

Finally:  I would say some of the characters have been miscast in the sense that they are VERY different from the books, but I can live with it, cuz I honestly believe that even in those cases the actor did a great job. (Best example, by far, is Yara.  Uh, Yara does not remotely resemble Asha Greyjoy, BUT, I honestly believe the actress did a tremendous job.  She IS  a warrior,, she talks like it, and she acts like it, so I am very satisfied with the work of that actress, even though, like I said, she does not remotely resemble Asha.  Indeed, even her name change is BIZARRE.  My understanding is they changed it cuz "Asha' is too close to "Osha," so...they changed it "Yara," which is a direct anagram of, and sounds very like, an even MORE major character, "Arya"??/ What???)  

[Cron]

5 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Well, it's what tthe actress herself says:

http://ew.com/article/2016/06/26/game-thrones-natalie-dormer-2/

VERY interesting.  Sounds like Margaery was NOT crossed off cuz the actress wanted out early, though.  Sounds like she asked to be released, they told her no, but as it turned out she was released not too long after that anyway (cuz Margaery was destined to die at the Green Trial)

Quote

 

I haven't seen the Tudors, other than a few episodes. When I saw Catalina of Aragon portrayed as a brunette, I lost interest, I confess.

Wow, you must be extremely well learned on that period!!  I'm impressed!!  Too bad you haven't watched it all, if you had it would have been great fun for me to watch it (maybe episode by episode) and discuss it with someone who knows that era so well, but oh well.

Quote

 

You're quite right- a good wholesome fun-loving person.

I'm intrigued by how her character develops in TWOW!

Hey, it warms my heart that there are more people out there than just me who do NOT view book-Margaery as some underdeveloped, hollow shell, which seems to be the prevailing view!!  I really don't understand why more people don't see her the way we do!!  

[CaptainTheo]

2 hours ago, Cron said:

She's 35???

Wow. Older than I realized.  I think should could pass for 10 years younger than that.

I thought she was LATE 20's,maybe a bit older, but I believe you.

In any event, I didn't assume show-Margaery was a teenager.  Like I said, the show characters have been aged up, I get that, so I assumed show-Margaery is early 20' (consistent with the aging up other characters, 4 or 5 years)s, portrayed by an actress maybe 7 or 8 years older.

But it sounds like we agree that, so far as we recall, show-Margaery's age is never given.

Well technically Natalie Dormer was only 33 when filming finished for season #6, and 29 in her first appearance. Wikipedia, admittedly not an official source, referred to Margaery as being somewhere in her mid-to-late twenties. She could still be intended to be in her early twenties in season #2. After all, Dormer is four years older than the actors who play Dany, Jon and Robb, who in season 1 are 24-year-olds playing characters who are 16 or 17. Similarly the actresses playing Shae and Doreah in season #1 are 30-year-olds playing characters who are meant to be 23/24.

[Cron]

39 minutes ago, CaptainTheo said:

Well technically Natalie Dormer was only 33 when filming finished for season #6, and 29 in her first appearance. Wikipedia, admittedly not an official source, referred to Margaery as being somewhere in her mid-to-late twenties. She could still be intended to be in her early twenties in season #2. After all, Dormer is four years older than the actors who play Dany, Jon and Robb, who in season 1 are 24-year-olds playing characters who are 16 or 17. Similarly the actresses playing Shae and Doreah in season #1 are 30-year-olds playing characters who are meant to be 23/24.

Yeah, good stuff, you've given quite a few specific examples of what I alluded to generally, the fact that there are quite a few actors playing characters a good deal younger than the actor actually is.

Consequently, I don't think we can make almost any assumption about show-Margaery's age based on Natalie Dormer's age.

And while I appreciate you mentioning the tidbit from Wikipedia, and it's fine to talk about that..yeah, Wikipedia, in this discussion, means nothing more to me than just an unsourced opinion, possibly written by someone far less knowledgeable than you, me, and 9/10th of posters on these boards.  (Not that I'm generally knocking Wikipedia, though.  I actually DO think it's a good source for a general overview of a LOT of subjects.  For me, if I'm researching something, it's a good "first stop" to get an overview of what's going on, and then, if I want to get more specific, I'm likely to go to more technical and detailed sources)

[StepStark]

4 hours ago, Cron said:

Hey, it warms my heart that there are more people out there than just me who do NOT view book-Margaery as some underdeveloped, hollow shell, which seems to be the prevailing view!!  I really don't understand why more people don't see her the way we do!!  

Book Margaery is NOT underdeveloped. Saying that book Margaery is underdeveloped is just like saying that Steelshanks Walton or Chataya are underdeveloped: they are minor characters and they serve the story as minor characters. Of course unlike Walton and Chataya Margaery has a very high position in the realm, but so far her position is the entire reason she mattered in the story. The story so far didn't require her character to be developed or fleshed out. She could be in future books, and there is potential for that.

That misconception that book Margaery is underdeveloped was created only after the show "expanded" her role in the show and people started comparing the two versions and were like: "We don't know anything about book Margaery but we've seen a lot of show Margaery so it must be that book Margaery is underdeveloped". But that is not how you compare characters. I explained in many posts why I think that show Margaery is poorly written character but even if she isn't, even if she's a well written character, it still doesn't mean that book Margaery is underdeveloped. And it also doesn't mean that show Margaery was important in a way people seem to think she was. Just imagine if show Margaery was played by an actual 16 years old girl and portrayed as naive and innocent: nothing significant would've changed. Yes dialogue in her scenes would have to be adjusted, but not a single plot point would have to be changed because of her personality. And that means that her personality was written not for the sake of the story, but for something else (probably to cater the actress, as it's often the case with D&D).

If you change Ned's personality, his story has to change significantly. If you change Arya's personality, her story is going to change significantly. Same with Jaime and Tyrion and every other truly important character. But not with Margaery, whose role in the show was expanded and her character "developed" for no good reason. It just shows that D&D don't have any idea about what is important for the story and what isn't. Instead of developing really important characters like Catelyn or Stannis (they are underdeveloped in the show, really underdeveloped, and very much so), they wasted all those scenes on a "character" who at the end of the day served only the actress and nothing else.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

Show Margaery is a great character and blows away non-entity book Margaery.  Her rivalry with Cersei was one of the best aspects of the show. This is an obvious improvement the show made.  Kind of funny to see some fans argue vehemently and lengthily otherwise. D&D hatred is a powerful drug.

Show Bronn is very good, but so was book Bronn. We just get more of him in the show. Not sure that is an improvement, as Bronn's expanded show role is more about giving Jamie more screen time. But I won't complain. 

Queen of Thorns is better on the show, too. Hell, the Tyrells in general are better on the show, even Mace.

Speaking of Thorn(e)s, show Ser Alliser is better than book Ser Alliser. The show version seems like a more well-rounded, real character. We can hate him but still respect and understand him. Book Ser Alliser was just a dick.

[StepStark]

15 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

D&D hatred is a powerful drug.

Not nearly as powerful as D&D fanboyism, as you prove over and over again.

16 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Show Margaery is a great character and blows away non-entity book Margaery.

Why didn't you say so earlier? We wouldn't waste all this time on debating something that you clearly argue so expertly.

17 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Hell, the Tyrells in general are better on the show, even Mace.

Speaking of expert arguing...

18 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Her rivalry with Cersei was one of the best aspects of the show.

I don't think I ever said anything so cruel about the show. If that was one of the best aspects of the show, then average aspects have to be really terrible! Good to know! LOL!

[SecretWeapon]

Dude, your arguments are literally "dialogue sucks" and "i think x behavior" isn't coherent. I didn't stop arguing with you because "you won" or because you presented a better argument. I did because i couldn't be arsed to keep reading you write the same shit

D&D fanboyism my ass, like if i got paid for that shit. You apparently must be, in order to be so passionate lol

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

Dude, your arguments are literally "dialogue sucks" and "i think x behavior" isn't coherent. I didn't stop arguing with you because "you won" or because you presented a better argument. I did because i couldn't be arsed to keep reading you write the same shit

D&D fanboyism my ass, like if i got paid for that shit. You apparently must be, in order to be so passionate lol

You didn't stop arguing with me, because you never were arguing with me, because all you did was repeating how much you love show Margaery and how much you hate book Margaery. You clearly don't know how or don't want to present anything that even resembles an argument. This post of your just proves it again. I rest my case.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

5 hours ago, StepStark said:

Book Margaery is NOT underdeveloped. Saying that book Margaery is underdeveloped is just like saying that Steelshanks Walton or Chataya are underdeveloped: they are minor characters and they serve the story as minor characters. Of course unlike Walton and Chataya Margaery has a very high position in the realm, but so far her position is the entire reason she mattered in the story. The story so far didn't require her character to be developed or fleshed out. She could be in future books, and there is potential for that.

Who cares if she's a minor character?  She's not interesting at all in the books.  She's a non-entity.  And to compare her to Steelshanks Walton is ridiculous.  She's the queen, and her family is fighting for ultimate power.  Her and her family's story should be more interesting than it is in the book.  The show definitely improved over the books when it comes to Margaery and the Tyrells.  This is a pretty commonly held view.  You can disagree, sure, but..

...But not with Margaery, whose role in the show was expanded and her character "developed" for no good reason. It just shows that D&D don't have any idea about what is important for the story and what isn't. Instead of developing really important characters like Catelyn or Stannis (they are underdeveloped in the show, really underdeveloped, and very much so), they wasted all those scenes on a "character" who at the end of the day served only the actress and nothing else.

Say what???  This show is the Game of Thrones.  It's about the struggle for power and the different approaches to obtaining and keeping it.  Margaery is a character playing the game, striving for power.  And she does it very well.  Watching the dynamics of the struggle between her and Cersei is fascinating.  Saying she was developed "for no good reason" misses the point of the show.  You want people to "debate" with you or take your arguments seriously, but your arguments are weak.  You seem motivated mostly by hatred for D&D, which is what this forum is famous for, of course.  Sorry, that's the way I and numerous others here see it.

 

[Avnow]

1. Tyrion's arc post season 3 is massively improved (and sped up compared to the books)
2. Hardhome: Wasn't in the books at all. Completely outdid them. 
3. Sean Bean KILLED IT as Ned. 
4. Ros!

[StepStark]

2 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Who cares if she's a minor character?  She's not interesting at all in the books.  She's a non-entity.  And to compare her to Steelshanks Walton is ridiculous.  She's the queen, and her family is fighting for ultimate power.  Her and her family's story should be more interesting than it is in the book.  The show definitely improved over the books when it comes to Margaery and the Tyrells.  This is a pretty commonly held view.  You can disagree, sure, but..

I'm not so sure that it's a "pretty commonly held view" as you say, but even if it is, why does it matter? Are commonly held views not to be doubted or challenged? Do we have to accept views when they're commonly held? What would be the purpose of debates in that case? "BUT IT'S A POPULAR OPINION" is a pretty weak argument in discussions.

And yes she is non-entity in the books (or almost non-entity), but so are Tommen and Myrcella. At this point they're just kids their families use in their power struggles and there wasn't any need to flesh them out. Story didn't suffer in any way because of that.

2 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Say what???  This show is the Game of Thrones.  It's about the struggle for power and the different approaches to obtaining and keeping it.

You actually phrased perfectly one of the biggest problems of this "adaptation". Sadly you are right, it is a show about the struggle for power, and very poorly written by the way. Every other layer of the original story is completely neglected. I just don't know why did they even bothered to keep The Night's Watch and The Others in the story.

2 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Margaery is a character playing the game, striving for power.  And she does it very well.  Watching the dynamics of the struggle between her and Cersei is fascinating.  Saying she was developed "for no good reason" misses the point of the show.  You want people to "debate" with you or take your arguments seriously, but your arguments are weak.

You completely missed points I made. When I said "for no good reason" it doesn't mean that there could never be a good reason for expanding Margaery's role. Of course it could because practically every minor character from ASOIAF can be expanded into protagonist of his own story, thanks to the detailed setting and well established character relations. Competent writer could make a pretty good and meaningful side story for Margaery. But that doesn't mean that D&D had a good reason for what they created, and after Margaery is finally gone I really can't see any good reason why her role was expanded, other than to cater the actress.

Scenes with two women exchanging semi-hidden insults may fascinate you, and that's okay. I'm not fascinated by that at all, partially because other shows did females struggling for power inside already powerful family much, much better - from dialogue, to acting (in Sopranos especially). To each his own, as they say. But you conveniently ignore two points I made which aren't about anyone's fascination, but about storytelling:

1) Margaery's personality which you say is well developed in the show didn't affect that struggle in any way. I don't even remember what moves in The Game she made, except seducing Joff and Tommen which doesn't count, not really. Literally everything in King's Landing would play out the same way if Margaery really was a naive innocent girl (which is her facade), because Cersei would again be jealous and paranoid (maybe even more so). So whatever D&D did with Margaery didn't have any significance for the overall story, even in their simplified "the struggle for power" version of the story.

2) Margaery's character wasn't really developed at all, at least not after season 2. Everything about Margaery as a character from seasons 3-6 was already established in season 2. She's ambitious, hungry for power, seducer, without scrupules... And that's it. All established in season 2. I didn't even like the usually inelegant way in which it was established, but at least it was established. But in the later four seasons not a single thing about Margaery was added or changed. Feel free to prove me wrong by naming one thing about Margaery that wasn't already there in season 2. And that's not even counting inconsistencies between seasons, for example her completely different reactions to the death of Renly and the death of Joff.

So all that extra screen time Margaery got in the show meant nothing for the overall story, and meant nothing for her as a character. Again, feel free to prove me wrong.

2 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

You seem motivated mostly by hatred for D&D, which is what this forum is famous for, of course.  Sorry, that's the way I and numerous others here see it.

Funny because after all this posts and all this discussion, I don't see any real argument made by you Margaery-lovers. If you enjoy seeing Natalie Dormer on screen regardless of what she actually does and even if she actually does anything at all, good for you, but that's not an argument. My "hatred for D&D" has nothing to do with those points that I made. You and other Margaery-lovers didn't do anything to refute any of those points or to offer any counterarguments, all you do is repeating that Margaery was "improved" but everything you said boils down to more screen time and the fact that you all seem to like watching Natalie Dormer, but neither is argument really. And just remember how this discussion started: with claim that it's "a fact" that Margaery is "better" in the show. What kind of a fact is that, when after days of discussion you can't offer a single argument to support that "fact"?

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

8 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Funny because after all this posts and all this discussion, I don't see any real argument made by you Margaery-lovers. If you enjoy seeing Natalie Dormer on screen regardless of what she actually does and even if she actually does anything at all, good for you, but that's not an argument.

I enjoy watching the dynamics of the struggle for power in King's Landing. That is the core of Game of Thrones to me. Watching Cersei vs the High Sparrow vs the Tyrells in seasons 5 and 6 was great and very well done. This power struggle on the show was presented in a much more compelling and interesting way than in the books, where Margaery and the High Sparrow are barely characters at all, and their motivations and struggles are not explored in depth. The show made these major players into real understandable characters with whom we can empathize. 

Book Margaery is probably more just a pawn of her father and brothers and their ambitions, but her father and brothers aren't really explored much in the books, either.  In the books the Tyrells are just kind of there.  In the show they are brought to the forefront, and their ambitions are embodied via the character of Margaery, coached by Olenna.  It's the game of thrones.  What more can you want?

[StepStark]

2 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

I enjoy watching the dynamics of the struggle for power in King's Landing. That is the core of Game of Thrones to me. Watching Cersei vs the High Sparrow vs the Tyrells in seasons 5 and 6 was great and very well done. This power struggle on the show was presented in a much more compelling and interesting way than in the books, where Margaery and the High Sparrow are barely characters at all, and their motivations and struggles are not explored in depth. The show made these major players into real understandable characters with whom we can empathize. 

Book Margaery is probably more just a pawn of her father and brothers and their ambitions, but her father and brothers aren't really explored much in the books, either.  In the books the Tyrells are just kind of there.  In the show they are brought to the forefront, and their ambitions are embodied via the character of Margaery, coached by Olenna.  It's the game of thrones.  What more can you want?

You're highly subjective again (nothing wrong with that, as long as we're all aware what is subjective and what is objective), and I really disagree with everything you said. But what is important is to compare Cersei vs HS with Cerei vs Margaery in the show. I dislike either but there is a big difference between the two, because HS in the show is making all kinds of moves and everything he does is in line with his personality as presented in the show. But with Margaery that is not the case at all. She does nothing besides seducing Joff and Tommen (which is a given, she's their wife after all) and exchanging semi-hidden insults with Cersei.

So while I dislike HS vs Cersei too, I don't think it was poorly written. Compared to the books it was simplified and pointed, but on its own it wasn't poorly written. But Margaery vs Cersei is. At the very least it's a complete waste of time - compared to HS vs Cersei in the show.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

You're highly subjective again (nothing wrong with that, as long as we're all aware what is subjective and what is objective), and I really disagree with everything you said. But what is important is to compare Cersei vs HS with Cerei vs Margaery in the show. I dislike either but there is a big difference between the two, because HS in the show is making all kinds of moves and everything he does is in line with his personality as presented in the show. But with Margaery that is not the case at all. She does nothing besides seducing Joff and Tommen (which is a given, she's their wife after all) and exchanging semi-hidden insults with Cersei.

So while I dislike HS vs Cersei too, I don't think it was poorly written. Compared to the books it was simplified and pointed, but on its own it wasn't poorly written. But Margaery vs Cersei is. At the very least it's a complete waste of time - compared to HS vs Cersei in the show.

Why does what show Margaery does invalidate her character or make her uninteresting? It's a valid approach to the struggle for power. Besides, she does more than seduce Tommen and insult Cersei. She subtly and cleverly manipulates Joffrey by playing to his ego and showing him how to win over the people. She manipulates the people and wins their support with insincere charity. She manipulates Sansa with fake friendship. She even manipulates the viewers into thinking she is a "good guy". (She is not.) She does a lot. She is a great player of the game. That is subjective? What is objective - just saying D&D are lousy writers?

[StepStark]

15 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Book Margaery is probably more just a pawn of her father and brothers and their ambitions, but her father and brothers aren't really explored much in the books, either.  In the books the Tyrells are just kind of there.  In the show they are brought to the forefront, and their ambitions are embodied via the character of Margaery, coached by Olenna.  It's the game of thrones.  What more can you want?

And please, are you really saying that Mace and Loras are more explored in the show? Seriously? Mace is nothing but a buffoon in the show. Please name me one scene in which he isn't just a buffoon. And Loras is just gay in the show. Do you really want to compare that to Loras in the books, where each of his scenes gives more about his character than the show in its entirety? Especially his arguments with Jaime and Brienne in ASOS, and his sacrifice in AFFC.

[A Bong of Ice and Fire]

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And please, are you really saying that Mace and Loras are more explored in the show? Seriously? Mace is nothing but a buffoon in the show. Please name me one scene in which he isn't just a buffoon. And Loras is just gay in the show. Do you really want to compare that to Loras in the books, where each of his scenes gives more about his character than the show in its entirety? Especially his arguments with Jaime and Brienne in ASOS, and his sacrifice in AFFC.

No, I'm saying that the Tyrells and their ambitions as a whole are pretty much consolidated into Margaery and Olenna on the show. Mace is comic relief, and Loras is a plot device on the show. I agree about that.

[StepStark]

17 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Why does what show Margaery does invalidate her character or make her uninteresting? It's a valid approach to the struggle for power. Besides, she does more than seduce Tommen and insult Cersei. She subtly and cleverly manipulates Joffrey by playing to his ego and showing him how to win over the people.

But she doesn't. Joff doesn't become less cruel because of her. Of course there wasn't time for that because he was killed soon (which makes you wonder why did D&D even bother with that), but let's not praise Margaery for something she could've done.

Quote

She manipulates the people and wins their support with insincere charity.

Tyrells and Margaery do the same in the books. But that's just a facade. It's not a character development. We saw her facade in season 2 already.

Quote

She manipulates Sansa with fake friendship.

Really? Why do you think that she wasn't sincere with Sansa? Maybe she genuinely liked Sansa. We just don't know because that one scene didn't lead anywhere really. It could have, but like with Joff there was no time and Sansa was out of KL soon. You can read into that one scene as much as you want, and who knows, maybe D&D wanted to show something with it, but eventually they didn't.

Quote

She even manipulates the viewers into thinking she is a "good guy". (She is not.) She does a lot. She is a great player of the game. That is subjective? What is objective - just saying D&D are lousy writers?

Again, you're just reading into her scenes something that isn't necessarily there. When you say that HS is a great player, it is a fact because he accomplished a lot with his scheming. But what did Margaery accomplished? Nothing really, except that in the season 2 it is implied that she was the one who made the deal with Littlefinger (which makes her shock at Joff's murder only more absurd). Everything after season 2 is accomplished by Olenna, or not accomplished at all.

[Cron]

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

Book Margaery is NOT underdeveloped. Saying that book Margaery is underdeveloped is just like saying that Steelshanks Walton or Chataya are underdeveloped: they are minor characters and they serve the story as minor characters. Of course unlike Walton and Chataya Margaery has a very high position in the realm, but so far her position is the entire reason she mattered in the story. The story so far didn't require her character to be developed or fleshed out. She could be in future books, and there is potential for that.

Mmmm...maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't view Margaery as a "minor" character in the books or show.  To me, we have primary, secondary, and tertiary characters, and I consider the tertiary characters "minor."  To me, Margaery is a secondary character, in books and show.  I get the impression you believe the show expanded her role from a tertiary character to a primary character, but that's not how I see it.

I think part of what makes Margaery interesting to me is the mystery surrounding her, in certain ways.  She behaves one way a lot of the time (a very prim and proper lady), but we are regularly given reasons to believe that behind the scenes she goes much deeper than that (without necessarily contradicting who she is at other times;  for example, I think Margaery is fundamentally good, in books and show, in public and private.  It's just that, in private, she's got a wild side that most people would never suspect.  Privately, she's a plotting, scheming party girl, but still fundamentally good)

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

That misconception that book Margaery is underdeveloped was created only after the show "expanded" her role in the show and people started comparing the two versions and were like: "We don't know anything about book Margaery but we've seen a lot of show Margaery so it must be that book Margaery is underdeveloped". But that is not how you compare characters. I explained in many posts why I think that show Margaery is poorly written character but even if she isn't, even if she's a well written character, it still doesn't mean that book Margaery is underdeveloped. And it also doesn't mean that show Margaery was important in a way people seem to think she was. Just imagine if show Margaery was played by an actual 16 years old girl and portrayed as naive and innocent: nothing significant would've changed. Yes dialogue in her scenes would have to be adjusted, but not a single plot point would have to be changed because of her personality. And that means that her personality was written not for the sake of the story, but for something else (probably to cater the actress, as it's often the case with D&D).

Seems like we agree about some things, and it's not clear to me whether we agree about other things.

I'll say this, though:  IF you believe book-Margaery is "naive and innocent," then I strongly disagree.  I believe that in both the books and the show, it's like I said above:  Publicly, she is a prim and proper lady, privately she's a plotting, scheming, wild party girl, but fundamentally GOOD publicly and privately in the books and show.   There is much evidence for this.

8 hours ago, StepStark said:

If you change Ned's personality, his story has to change significantly. If you change Arya's personality, her story is going to change significantly. Same with Jaime and Tyrion and every other truly important character. But not with Margaery, whose role in the show was expanded and her character "developed" for no good reason. It just shows that D&D don't have any idea about what is important for the story and what isn't. Instead of developing really important characters like Catelyn or Stannis (they are underdeveloped in the show, really underdeveloped, and very much so), they wasted all those scenes on a "character" who at the end of the day served only the actress and nothing else.

Hmm.  I think it's a big leap to say anyone's personality could be changed without changing their story.  Seems to me that there are many possibilities on this subject, and many different types and degrees of "change."  You might be right under some circumstances, maybe not right under others

Having said that, do you believe Cat and Stannis were neglected in the show?  Cuz I sure don't.  There are lists available that give "total screen time" for all characters.  I've seen them, but I don't have one handy.  Maybe someone reading this does have one handy, though.  If so, I'd be interested to see how many minutes of screen time Cat, Stannis and Margaery have all had, and of course we have to be careful to weight it according to how many seasons each of them have appeared in.

Good conversation, by the way, thanks for contributing to this topic, here and above.

[Cron]

25 minutes ago, A Bong of Ice and Fire said:

Why does what show Margaery does invalidate her character or make her uninteresting? It's a valid approach to the struggle for power. Besides, she does more than seduce Tommen and insult Cersei. She subtly and cleverly manipulates Joffrey by playing to his ego and showing him how to win over the people. She manipulates the people and wins their support with insincere charity. She manipulates Sansa with fake friendship. She even manipulates the viewers into thinking she is a "good guy". (She is not.) She does a lot. She is a great player of the game. That is subjective? What is objective - just saying D&D are lousy writers?

Hmmm.  I agree with some of what you're saying, but not other parts of what you are saying.

I have no reason to believe Margaery's charity was "insincere." None.

And I have no reason to believe her friendship with Sansa was "fake."  None.

As I've been saying, I believe Margaery is fundamentally good, publicly and privately, in the books and the show.