The Queen has been cast.

[About Yea High]

They're just demonizing dissent. Anybody who's been even slightly out of the "ZOMG perfect!" camp is clearly wrong and must be cast in the same light as the most irrational of naysayers.

I kind of agree. To be fair to the Headey doubters, they've pretty much summed up their thoughts rather succinctly. Their point is they believe she's either wrong physically (I disagree, but it's an opinion) or doesn't have the acting chops to pull it off. Even ThreepioCQH showed he could come around after his initial kneejerk against Tamzin Merchant.

I'm fine with it. Have an opinion, state it, and discuss differences. This has reached nowhere near the ferocity of the Winter Is Coming anti-Tamzin fest. Stinkin' trolls forced Halfhand to ban anonymous posters and forced me to get a freaking Blog account. Bastards!

[SergioCQH]

The most disappointing thing about AFFC was the dumbing down of Cersei Lannister. Where ASOS made Jaime a fan favorite, AFFC made Cersei a laughingstock. I really hope HBO turns Cersei into a much better villain than she is in the books.

Even ThreepioCQH showed he could come around after his initial kneejerk against Tamzin Merchant.

Excuse me? If you have something smart to say, why don't you just come out and say it?

[Trebla]

I really hope HBO doesn't change Cersei. We gave Cersei too much credit because we never saw her point of view. She lucked through AGoT thru ASoS. Even with Ned warning he would act, she did nothing until Sansa came whining to her. Tyrion is who saved KL from Stannis. Only Tywin's death prevented her from being shipped back to the Rock.

Again, I've always felt that in AGoT Cersei's role is to blind the readers as to who is really pulling the strings. By ACoK the cracks show with her misrule, her allowing Joffrey to do what he wants, her petty fighting with Tyrion while Stannis marches.

[The white rabbit]

She orchestrates many of the event that drive the first book, and does a very good job of working her way up the ladder of power, playing the Game.

I think that is just a surface. It looks like that to a reader at that stage of the story.

In fact she did nothing at all in the "fall" of Ned.

Sansa, Littlefinger, Joffrey and Ned himself have done all the job.

[SergioCQH]

But why cast someone like Lena Headey just to keep Cersei as the monotone idiot villain? I think they'll have to add more layers to Cersei, just because of the expanded role she seems to play.

[Gabriele]

But why cast someone like Lena Headey just to keep Cersei as the monotone idiot villain? I think they'll have to add more layers to Cersei, just because of the expanded role she seems to play.

Not so much idiot as self deluded. And she's that even more in Feast than in Game.

[Padraig]

Within the scope of Book I, though, I think she is an exceptional villain. Back in the start of Game of Thrones, when we all thought the books were largely going to be about Starks vs. Lannisters, she is a wonderful foil for Stark's straightforward, honorable approach, the one schemer in King's Landing who never bothers to pretend that she's on his side, even for an instant, and winds up eating him for breakfast anyway.

So if you know all this, how in the world are you arguing for a cute vulnerable Cersei? :stunned:

[alguien]

But why cast someone like Lena Headey just to keep Cersei as the monotone idiot villain? I think they'll have to add more layers to Cersei, just because of the expanded role she seems to play.

That wasn't why Headey was cast. Read GRRM's blog post about it. She was cast for her range. I think Lena Headey is someone who can play a villain with multiple layers. Upthread the criticism was that Cersei had to be cute and charming and that Headey was known for playing cunning bitchy characters. (which isn't all that true, but whatever) Then it was pointed out that Cersei is pretty much perceived as evil from the get-go, but with an ability to charm those who never run afoul of her schemes. Now all of sudden if she's played as cunning and bitchy, its one-dimensional?

I'm actually GLAD that when we read Cersei's POV, we finally had someone who we could pretty much universally dislike instead of sympathize with. But she was still complex, just very immoral and self-centered. Because there are people like that in the world.

[Ran]

Cersei was never monotone. I think it's absolutely right that her character has been pretty consistent through all four novels, and that people give her way too much credit -- putting one over on Ned Stark is not exactly the great feat of the world -- but at the same time there's more sides to her than just ruthless ambition. There's her protection of her children, there's her abusive relationship with Robert (her brief liason with Taena of Myr is surely one of the most pathetic and illuminating character moments in the series people who thought that was intended to be erotic have completely missed the boat), there's her fears for Jaime, and so on.

Plenty of material to stay true to the books, without making Cersei into some grand brilliant schemer or a sex-addled temptress.

[SergioCQH]

That wasn't why Headey was cast. Read GRRM's blog post about it. She was cast for her range. I think Lena Headey is someone who can play a villain with multiple layers. Upthread the criticism was that Cersei had to be cute and charming and that Headey was known for playing cunning bitchy characters. (which isn't all that true, but whatever) Then it was pointed out that Cersei is pretty much perceived as evil from the get-go, but with an ability to charm those who never run afoul of her schemes. Now all of sudden if she's played as cunning and bitchy, its one-dimensional?

I'm actually GLAD that when we read Cersei's POV, we finally had someone who we could pretty much universally dislike instead of sympathize with. But she was still complex, just very immoral and self-centered. Because there are people like that in the world.

The point of Trebla and others is that Cersei has the cunning of a louse, that she is in reality quite ineffective as a villain, and that she turns out to be a bumbling fool.

[Ser Greguh]

So if you know all this, how in the world are you arguing for a cute vulnerable Cersei? :stunned:

Read my long-ass post at the end of the previous page again. You don't cast a character based on their nature, you cast them based on their demeanor (sometimes they're the same, with Cersei in AGoT, they're definitely not). You don't cast a character like Cersei based on their ability to play the bitch, you cast them based on their ability to play the charmer and let their actions reveal them as a bitch.

[SergioCQH]

Cersei was never monotone. I think it's absolutely right that her character has been pretty consistent through all four novels, and that people give her way too much credit -- putting one over on Ned Stark is not exactly the great feat of the world -- but at the same time there's more sides to her than just ruthless ambition. There's her protection of her children, there's her abusive relationship with Robert (her brief liason with Taena of Myr is surely one of the most pathetic and illuminating character moments in the series people who thought that was intended to be erotic have completely missed the boat), there's her fears for Jaime, and so on.

Plenty of material to stay true to the books, without making Cersei into some grand brilliant schemer or a sex-addled temptress.

Yes, there are other aspects to her, but as a villain, she turned out to be very disappointing. As a villain, she is monotone. I found that very disappointing.

[alguien]

Cersei was never monotone. I think it's absolutely right that her character has been pretty consistent through all four novels, and that people give her way too much credit -- putting one over on Ned Stark is not exactly the great feat of the world -- but at the same time there's more sides to her than just ruthless ambition. There's her protection of her children, there's her abusive relationship with Robert, there's her fears for Jaime, and so on.

Plenty of material to stay true to the books, without making Cersei into some grand brilliant schemer or a sex-addled temptress.

Exactly. When I read about her childhood infatuation with Rhaegar and how it was one of the reasons she hated Robert, or when Tywin told her to "Never speak of it child" then gave her a secret smile that only she ever saw (brilliant!), I really was immersed in her story. She became real to me.

I liked it because these revelations brought about twinges of sympathy and character interest, showing that, as in real life, even awful people can have nice moments, but you can still dislike them overall.

I remember thinking as I read them, "What kind of person would Cersei have turned out to be had she married Rhaegar Targaryen?"

Anyway, I think Headey is more than up the challenge of portraying her.

[alguien]

The point of Trebla and others is that Cersei has the cunning of a louse, that she is in reality quite ineffective as a villain, and that she turns out to be a bumbling fool.

I think their point was that Cersei wasn't cute or vulnerable as had been posed upthread, that while she has a certain low cunning, she wasn't brilliant. That doesn't make her one-dimensional. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Ran]

Ah, well. Yes, I suppose this is true if you've read Cersei quite differently from what GRRM made more explicit in AFfC.

In the past I made a post going point by point through a number of significant decisions or actions by Cersei in the series, and the number which manage only because her opposition is dumber than she is (Ned) or because someone else is guiding her along (Tyrion, Littlefinger) is sizable.

[SergioCQH]

I think their point was that Cersei wasn't cute or vulnerable as had been posed upthread, that while she has a certain low cunning, she wasn't brilliant. That doesn't make her one-dimensional. Quite the opposite, actually.

What certain low cunning are you talking about? Are we talking about the kind of "low cunning" ascribed to George W. Bush that turned out to be Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?

After reading A Game of Thrones, we did not have a clear view of who pulled the strings behind the scenes. Hence the failed theories like the GUCT. Cersei could have been made into a more likable villain. Instead, GRRM turned her into a lunatic with borderline personality disorder. The level of her delusion and ineptitude in AFFC made her earlier successes seem implausible, despite how stupid her opposition was.

[Gabriele]

Ah, well. Yes, I suppose this is true if you've read Cersei quite differently from what GRRM made more explicit in AFfC.

In the past I made a post going point by point through a number of significant decisions or actions by Cersei in the series, and the number which manage only because her opposition is dumber than she is (Ned) or because someone else is guiding her along (Tyrion, Littlefinger) is sizable.

Yeah, she thinks she's good at the game of thrones, but she'saverage at best, and after the death of her son and Jaime's emancipation, she begins to lose it. She makes some decisions Jaime tells her are bad but doesn't listen, she can't get a capable Hand because capable men don't want to be thrown into the looming decline, she makes too much of those prophesies, and in the end weaves a web that catches the spider together with the fly.;)

[Padraig]

Read my long-ass post at the end of the previous page again. You don't cast a character based on their nature, you cast them based on their demeanor (sometimes they're the same, with Cersei in AGoT, they're definitely not). You don't cast a character like Cersei based on their ability to play the bitch, you cast them based on their ability to play the charmer and let their actions reveal them as a bitch.

Yes, I read that post originally but I thought other people had explained the flaw in that argument.

The problem with your interpretation is that Cersei is introduced as a bitch. :P Her demeanor is bitchy. (Not that Headey is unable to charm anyhow). Do you want the pilot to be untrue to the books?

You gave some examples of where Cersei was charming but they weren't in aGoT. And its only a minor part of her character.

Your argument is very bemusing...first person to argue passionately for the pilot to be different from the books. :)

[SergioCQH]

All I'm saying is, if GRRM wants Lena Headey to play the Queen we all love to hate, don't let her character turn into the nutcase we can't help but pity.

[Padraig]

The level of her delusion and ineptitude in AFFC made her earlier successes seem implausible, despite how stupid her opposition was.

I don't agree with this either. LF or Tyrion wasn't going to ler her fail in the first 2 books. In aFfC she doesn't have that help.

I did expect her to do better because one doesn't expect the POV of an incompetent but looking back, how she ended up in aFfC is quite logical. Its still a very interesting take because of that. :)

GRRM said that it might have worked even better if we saw how Dany acted in a similar position. We could compare and contrast.

Edited to add: And its way too early to worry about Cersei in Season 4!