Jump to content

Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]


Little Scribe of Naath

Recommended Posts

On Invalid Date at 0:28 AM, CaptainTheo said:

I agree. It's biased and they don't care at all about the audience wants to see - they'll even bias events in favour of an actor or actress they like, then if the audience doesn't (Ellaria) or take characters that have plenty of support from the audience and completely screw them over because they don't like them (Stannis, Barristan, Mance, Doran). My biggest gripe was with Barristan because he was killed off just when his role was about to get important just so they could give us even more St Tyrion. Which brings me to...

 

Tyrion is a perfect example of this. He was by far my favourite character in the first 3-4 seasons but once his story diverged from the books and the writers had to write him themselves, I found him extremely boring. Aside from his dialogue, they made everything work out very well for him, which is for the most part the opposite of what happens to him in the books.

Tyrion has never been my favorite but I used to enjoy him as well......until season 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Yep. Show-Tyrion has become a kind of caricature of himself, which often happens in shows when the writers run out of ideas for a character's continuing development. I mean, a lot of people didn't like GRRM's ADWD storyline for Tyrion but at least he treated him like a real person, with real issues to overcome and a discernible thematic character arc happening.

yes. He used to be sarcastic and now his sarcasm is like a charicature of the old Tyrion. it's unbearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2017 at 9:59 PM, The Dragon Demands said:

A long-overdue report in full:

Why Jeyne Westerling was changed to Talisa:  The Honeypot Theory, Fully Solved (Parts 1 & 2)

Part 1:


Part 2:
 

Interested in everyone's thoughts on these.

I don't think stunt casting or favoring a good actor are inherently bad. You could say Fargo does stunt casting. Martin Freeman, Kirsten Dunst, Ewan McGregor and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are HUGE names, you're not going to put them in a TV show unless you want to turn heads.

And you know what show frequently changed the story to accommodate actors they liked? Breaking Bad. Jesse, Mike and Gus Fring were all supposed to have smaller roles, but the producers liked the excellent actors and the saw the potential in the characters they portrayed and gave them all bigger roles. They even gave Saul his own prequel.

Changing a story in order to adapt it for TV is also not inherently bad either. TV is a visual medium. You can't use the same techniques you use in a book. In a book it doesn't matter if the action takes place directly in the chapter, if someone thinks about it or if a character overhears two people talking about it, you are still able to visualize it in your head. In a TV show or movie, you have to show, not tell.

In order to make people care about Robb and build up to the Red Wedding, you have to focus on Robb as a character, you can't tell his story from Cat's point of view like the book did. I think even Martin would have focused on Robb in this situation, if it were his choice.

 

The problem with D&D is a lot simpler: bad writing. They are doing a very poor job at portraying characters believably and consistently, and they can't plot a character arc properly over more than a season (often not even that). This may be related to their lack of skill or their lack of time, considering they have a much smaller writing team than a show like Breaking Bad, for a much larger cast of characters, and they probably have to rush through it without much thought in order to crank the scripts and get the shooting done in time.

 

I think Talisa is a very interesting case. I know a lot of the book purists hate her, and I know Linda hates her a lot, but at a production level, this change appears to make a lot of sense. Think about it:

- Assuming you have to show, not tell, Robb's story, as per the rules of film, this is a much cheaper choice than having to find a location for Westerling Castle, make additional house heraldry, hire a couple of extra actors to play Jayne's family, and maybe even have a small battle scene to show Robb taking the castle and being wounded.

- It avoids confusion with other pretty white women on the show, like Sansa, Dany, Ygritte, Margery, Rose, Cersei, Melisandre. Oona looks strikingly different and has an exotic name, so average viewers are less likely to confuse her with other characters or ask themselves if she is a Lannister relative.

- Yes, stunt casting. Also chemistry with Robb.

- The story based on true love and defying medieval marriage customs is more likely to resonate with a modern audience than marrying a woman because you "dishonored" her. Show Robb is also a bit too mature to make that mistakes, so the story we have in the book for a 16 years old boy is not going to work as well with the character on screen. They really wanted the Red Wedding to be a shocking, effective moment in the series, and this required the modern audience to be on board with Robb's decision instead of thinking he is some idiotic prude who can't keep it in his pants (Also, the theme is not THAT unusual in the ASoIAF series, there are characters like the Prince of Dragonflies who marry for love).

And the last point, I believe, is the most interesting:

- Talisa's character was a clever way to introduce us to Volantis, and (before they decided to kill her off) a familiar character they could have used once Volantis became an active location for the show. Ignore the retrospect for a second and imagine you are plotting out the show's second season. Dance just came out, and you know Tyrion and Quentin will travel to Volantis, and in time Dany may end up conquering Volantis with the help of a faction of insiders. Would it have been that hard to believe that Talisa, disillusioned by the savagery of Westeros and hunted down by the Lannisters, would return to her home town to play the part of the aptly named Widow of the Waterfront?

I really wouldn't be surprised if this was actually George's idea, since D&D obviously don't think that far ahead (actually, I think the Red Wedding was the only plot they had that spanned over more than one season).

 

It's very hard to compare the Jeyne/Talisa change, where you actually had some financial, marketing and storytelling stakes (even though many book purists disagree with their worth) with this dumb scene that sets up Sam leaving for Oldtown. It's just the two of them talking in a room, but having Sam beg off from the Wall because he wants some tail and doesn't like to fight and Jon caving to his friend's request like a chump makes both characters look bad. There was no conceivable reason to have Sam initiate that decision instead of Jon. Nothing was gained and a little bit more was chipped away.

This is the difference between changes inherent to an adaptation and plain old inexcusable bad writing.With D&D, you can find an example of the latter in pretty much every episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

- They really wanted the Red Wedding to be a shocking, effective moment in the series, and this required the modern audience to be on board with Robb's decision instead of thinking he is some idiotic prude who can't keep it in his pants (Also, the theme is not THAT unusual in the ASoIAF series, there are characters like the Prince of Dragonflies who marry for love).

I think ramping up Robb's role was a good idea, but I also thought he came across as more stupid/selfish (as did the person who did the YouTube clips) in the TV show than in the books. In the books he puts Jeyne's honour ahead of his own, which yes, I still think was stupid because he was pledged to another (as do Jaime and Tyrion) but at least there was some honour involved. In the TV show it came across as him spitting on a holy vow and ignoring his mother's advice, out of pure selfishness. He even repeatedly went out of his way to get to know Talisa unlike in the books when he got caught in a weak moment.

That said, the Red Wedding was still shocking and effective in the TV series!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CaptainTheo said:

I think ramping up Robb's role was a good idea, but I also thought he came across as more stupid/selfish (as did the person who did the YouTube clips) in the TV show than in the books. In the books he puts Jeyne's honour ahead of his own, which yes, I still think was stupid because he was pledged to another (as do Jaime and Tyrion) but at least there was some honour involved. In the TV show it came across as him spitting on a holy vow and ignoring his mother's advice, out of pure selfishness. He even repeatedly went out of his way to get to know Talisa unlike in the books when he got caught in a weak moment.

That said, the Red Wedding was still shocking and effective in the TV series!

I agree with this as well, although the Talisa/Jeyne switch was not a major deal breaker for me. It's kind of like how I feel about Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequels- if he was the worst thing about those movies, I'd probably like them. But for Game of Thrones, more changes, more dropped plots and bad characterization, more more MORE.... it's a dog pile. 

 

5 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

It's very hard to compare the Jeyne/Talisa change, where you actually had some financial, marketing and storytelling stakes (even though many book purists disagree with their worth) with this dumb scene that sets up Sam leaving for Oldtown. It's just the two of them talking in a room, but having Sam beg off from the Wall because he wants some tail and doesn't like to fight and Jon caving to his friend's request like a chump makes both characters look bad. There was no conceivable reason to have Sam initiate that decision instead of Jon. Nothing was gained and a little bit more was chipped away.

 

I very much dislike what they've done to Sam's character-  he abandons Jon at the Wall. In the books, he's terrified of becoming a Maester because no, you don't shake of years of abuse that easily, and he was the guy who inadvertently  got Jon the Lord Commander position in the first place. The books show off Sam's abilities well, whereas his TV counterpart just gets to make funny comments and earn "you, go, Sam!" points for scoring with Gilly.  

So, yes, switching Jeyne out for Talisa is probably minor considering what else they've done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CaptainTheo said:

I think ramping up Robb's role was a good idea, but I also thought he came across as more stupid/selfish (as did the person who did the YouTube clips) in the TV show than in the books. In the books he puts Jeyne's honour ahead of his own, which yes, I still think was stupid because he was pledged to another (as do Jaime and Tyrion) but at least there was some honour involved. In the TV show it came across as him spitting on a holy vow and ignoring his mother's advice, out of pure selfishness. He even repeatedly went out of his way to get to know Talisa unlike in the books when he got caught in a weak moment.

That is debatable. I think the modern viewer values freedom of choice more than honor, and they don't particularly hold arranged marriage in high regard, so they would have empathized with Robb's decision. You can also argue that it was honorable of Robb to marry Talisa when he could have kept her as a paramour (I do believe they slept together before they got married, but I might be wrong), something the Lannister antagonists would have done.

Ofc, it all becomes more complicated if you think of Robb's duty towards his men and his family and actually winning his war, but again, that's something the average viewer takes for granted. And you don't want to challenge them yet, you want them on board with the relationship so you can shock them later.

The point is, you can make a strong case at an executive level for turning that part of Robb's arc into a love story, and you can make a stronger case for switching Jeyne with Talisa. I think such changes are entirely acceptable for an adaptation. The real problem is the bad writing, which affects everything and makes changes seem worse than they really are because they force D&D to write their own dialogue and do their own plotting.

I'm pretty sure if Vince Gilligan, Peter Gould and their team would have done Sansa vs Ramsay and Dorne, it would have been fantastic television. Seriously, "you want the bad pussy" would have been the new "I am the one who knocks"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

That is debatable. I think the modern viewer values freedom of choice more than honor, and they don't particularly hold arranged marriage in high regard, so they would have empathized with Robb's decision. You can also argue that it was honorable of Robb to marry Talisa when he could have kept her as a paramour (I do believe they slept together before they got married, but I might be wrong), something the Lannister antagonists would have done.

Ofc, it all becomes more complicated if you think of Robb's duty towards his men and his family and actually winning his war, but again, that's something the average viewer takes for granted. And you don't want to challenge them yet, you want them on board with the relationship so you can shock them later.

The point is, you can make a strong case at an executive level for turning that part of Robb's arc into a love story, and you can make a stronger case for switching Jeyne with Talisa. I think such changes are entirely acceptable for an adaptation. The real problem is the bad writing, which affects everything and makes changes seem worse than they really are because they force D&D to write their own dialogue and do their own plotting.

I'm pretty sure if Vince Gilligan, Peter Gould and their team would have done Sansa vs Ramsay and Dorne, it would have been fantastic television. Seriously, "you want the bad pussy" would have been the new "I am the one who knocks"...

Which is all about idea vs. execution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was completely unspoled to the books when the Talisa story unfolded, and I assure you it came across as very anachronistic and ... just strange. I kept thinking that either she was a Lannister spy, or that after her death, her rich and influential Essos family would surely inquire/ exact revenge. (Maybe join Dany's course, volantis seemed to be an important city...) Then that love story would still have been strange, but at least there was a purpose to it (other than getting them killed and escalating the war fot the IT).

When I later posted about it (wondering why we didn't hear from them), I was accused of honeypotting!  So at least with me, it didn't work well.

As to Breaking Bad, I haven't watched it, but I agree that outstanding writers can get away with anything. Because they do it well. Mediocre authors should not try to accomodate actors or even characters they like by trying to fit the story to them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't find it anachronistic or strange. Relationships based on love or attraction are not unheard of in Martin's universe. We had Tyrion and Tysha, Lyanna and Rhaegar (presumably), Jenny of Oldstones and the Prince of Dragonflies, and I'm sure there were more (even Dany has to make a conscious effort to give up Daario). It's not that characters don't want to follow their hearts (or other pieces of their anatomy), but rather that medieval society doesn't support such relationships and they usually end up in tragedy - which is exactly what happened with Robb and Talisa.

The character switch and the idea of turning their arc into a love story is something that happened very early on, before they started working on the scripts. Everything else comes from D&D's awkward execution, including the notion that she could be a Lannister spy (which they reinforced, perhaps unwittingly, by having the characters joke about it in one of Talisa's earlier scenes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

I didn't find it anachronistic or strange. Relationships based on love or attraction are not unheard of in Martin's universe. We had Tyrion and Tysha, Lyanna and Rhaegar (presumably), Jenny of Oldstones and the Prince of Dragonflies, and I'm sure there were more (even Dany has to make a conscious effort to give up Daario). It's not that characters don't want to follow their hearts (or other pieces of their anatomy), but rather that medieval society doesn't support such relationships and they usually end up in tragedy - which is exactly what happened with Robb and Talisa.

The character switch and the idea of turning their arc into a love story is something that happened very early on, before they started working on the scripts. Everything else comes from D&D's awkward execution, including the notion that she could be a Lannister spy (which they reinforced, perhaps unwittingly, by having the characters joke about it in one of Talisa's earlier scenes).

"Talisa" was a modern character, with modern attitudes about women, sex, marriage, work, thrown into a middle ages setting.  Also, a king marrying purely for love in that time period was deeply selfish.

 I understood why they changed the story from the books, but I thought the changes were pretty bad, poorly executed and not too fond of Chapin's acting either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

"Talisa" was a modern character, with modern attitudes about women, sex, marriage, work, thrown into a middle ages setting.  Also, a king marrying purely for love in that time period was deeply selfish.

Her different world views were explained by the fact that she was a foreigner, and at least in theory served a purpose: making her and Robb more sympathetic to the average viewer (which isn't necessarily a book reader or an expert in medieval culture). As for Robb's selfishness, that's true, but a character doesn't have to be perfect to be good, and very often certain flaws can make them more sympathetic or appealing, if the viewer even acknowledges them as flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Coconut God said:

Her different world views were explained by the fact that she was a foreigner, and at least in theory served a purpose: making her and Robb more sympathetic to the average viewer (which isn't necessarily a book reader or an expert in medieval culture). As for Robb's selfishness, that's true, but a character doesn't have to be perfect to be good, and very often certain flaws can make them more sympathetic or appealing, if the viewer even acknowledges them as flaws.

Well, not really, I mean she came from a slave holding culture where noble women didn't work....so her super modern view is just that....modern....it sure as hell didn't come from her Volantis background, or from Westeros, so I have say she was an anachronistic character.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurker here, posting for the first time in a while ...

Based on these leaks, there are a couple implications that have me concerned.

Jon and Dany - while I do like the idea of them aligning or even in a relationship in the books (because I know it'll play out differently in the books), I'm worried. What if D&D think to bring back Melisandre and Lightbringer? They've merged the prophecy of The Prince that was Promised and the legend of Azor Ahai. (Which is sad because they're supposed to be separate cultural references to the same person). Since that's the case, what if Melisandre gets a bug up her ass about really creating Lightbringer this time? Things might not go well for Dany and that would just be shit writing. Suppose I shouldn't expect better at this point.

Bran - Bran's back in Winterfell. We don't have Robb's will possibly legitimizing Jon, right? Unless that magically resurfaces, Bran's technically the Lord of Winterfell. If that doesn't get called out, I'll be furious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Well, not really, I mean she came from a slave holding culture where noble women didn't work....so her super modern view is just that....modern....it sure as hell didn't come from her Volantis background, or from Westeros, so I have say she was an anachronistic character.  

Her attitude towards work is reactionary to her culture, and she explains this. The way she views women, sex and marriage could be typical for Volantene nobility (as far as the viewer is concerned at least).

Anyway, dissecting their relationship wasn't really the point. The point was that it's one of the least offensive changes when weighed against potential benefits at an executive level (cheaper to film, appealing to a wider audience, the marketability of the stunt casting, easier to tell the character apart from other female leads, opportunity to introduce a future location early on).

There are many, many changes in the later seasons, both big and small, that are a lot dumber and a lot harder to justify. I gave that scene with Sam and Jon as an example, but it's just one scene among dozens (if not hundreds) that screw up the character and story with NO benefits or logic whatsoever. I believe these are the real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alleira said:

Bran - Bran's back in Winterfell. We don't have Robb's will possibly legitimizing Jon, right? Unless that magically resurfaces, Bran's technically the Lord of Winterfell. If that doesn't get called out, I'll be furious.

He is the rightful heir, indeed. I don't know if they will address it, they made it so clear in the first seasons he was the heir (see my signature), but at that time they were following the books. They make it very clear that Edmure is the rightful Lord in contrast to the Blackfish, etc. So if they don't talk about this, I'll second that.

Even ignoring Bran as the rightful heir.....Jon was named King in front of Sansa, who comes first than Jon. So it goes that way:

Bran->Sansa-->Arya-->Jon.

But let's ignore it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Liver and Onions said:

I very much dislike what they've done to Sam's character-  he abandons Jon at the Wall. In the books, he's terrified of becoming a Maester because no, you don't shake of years of abuse that easily, and he was the guy who inadvertently  got Jon the Lord Commander position in the first place. The books show off Sam's abilities well, whereas his TV counterpart just gets to make funny comments and earn "you, go, Sam!" points for scoring with Gilly. 

I agree. I was never that fond of book Sam but still found him much more likeable than show Sam, who also seems to get worse over time. At the end of season #3, Aemon reminds Sam of his vows, and Sam (truthfully) points out that he never broke them with Gilly. Two seasons later, Sam the dishonourable doesn't give a rat's about any vows whether he's a Maester or a member of the Night's Watch, and doesn't feel the slightest bit guilty about breaking them. (He also steals his father's sword even though it's useless to him, and useful to his father and brother. Oh and he also grabs Gilly while he's at it without telling anyone, even though women are not supposed to be at the Citadel.)

I thought the Gilly/Sam sex scene in the book, while somewhat disturbing, was much better and more original than on TV, where (in the books) Sam is arguably raped by Gilly, feels very guilty about the incident, and does his best to avoid being alone with Gilly after that, from memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Coconut God said:

Anyway, dissecting their relationship wasn't really the point. The point was that it's one of the least offensive changes when weighed against potential benefits at an executive level (cheaper to film, appealing to a wider audience, the marketability of the stunt casting, easier to tell the character apart from other female leads, opportunity to introduce a future location early on).

There are many, many changes in the later seasons, both big and small, that are a lot dumber and a lot harder to justify. I gave that scene with Sam and Jon as an example, but it's just one scene among dozens (if not hundreds) that screw up the character and story with NO benefits or logic whatsoever. I believe these are the real problem.

I agree that although I preferred the book version, this change did not bother me much, especially compared to changes in seasons 4-6; the changes seemed to become increasingly bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SecretWeapon said:

Leaks do address the Bran thing. He doesnt want to rule, his return is probably secret-ish and Jon names sansa LoW while he is away

I don't remember reading that Bran is offered to rule and he refuses it due to that "he doesn't want" (which would be a way to "address it", just reading an alleged leak saying that he is "behaving in an odd way" it's not a leak that suggests that the issue is fully addressed).

By the way it's interesting how Jon is King without wanting to rule. There is an scene with him and Sansa about this just before the KITN scene. He does his duty. Well.....his duty should be to say that Sansa should be Queen instead of him but that's too much for the show I suppose.....but well....let's say he doesn't complain. Bran "complaining" about not wanting to rule as a way of addressing it would be totally out of character and even laughable. Better not do anything instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they could just say:

Sansa.

"now that you have returned, we should tell Jon"

and Bran and Sansa ruling together meantime.

or Bran saying "I will do my duty, but now I should develop my knowledge so as to help with the WWs issue".

Sansa:

"we are all a family Bran". We are Starks. And you are the rightful heir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...