An Early Take on Season 3

[Jolene Brown]

A good example of a character telling a lengthy personal story in the series is when Tyrion tells the story of Tysha to Shae. At that time, I hadn't read the books, not much is going on visually - they are just sitting in a tent with Bronn - but I was very interested and it gave me an important insight into Tyrion's character. It also made me more invested in his relationships with Shae and Bronn (I'm pretty sure Bronn was there - wasn't it when they were playing that "I Never" type game?), as I remember it, because it was meaningful that he would tell them his story. It creates an interesting dynamic, because you sense that Tyrion is also already invested in his relationship with them, and that's why he tells them such an intensely personal story; however, you suspect/know that they are there more because he is rich and they want something from him, which contributes to the viewer's perception of Tyrion's vulnerability - part of what allows people to like him even though he is a Lannister and the Lannisters have largely been portrayed as the "bad guys" at this point.

ANY monologue from the book can be translated to screen this way, it is only a manner of the creativity of the writer and director. Mance's monologue is no different - some people in a tent, an interesting dynamic between him and Jon - both are outsiders; Jon is genuinely drawn to him a bit, I think. The Tyrion thing used the "I Never" gimmick to launch the story - here, you can have Mance playing as he talks to add a little extra dimension to things.

Does Tormund even have monologues? If you're talking about the story with the bear, that's not exactly that long and it could come up in a similar scenario to when Jaime/King Bob/Barry exchanged war stories. Have the wildlings talking about their sexual experiences around the fire or whatever. There is tension for a variety of reasons: 1) Jon has never been with a woman and he's embarrassed b/c he'll have nothing to say, 2) Jon DOES want to keep his Night's Watch vows and this is a reminder of the situation he's put himself in where he may face cultural expectations to do things that he doesn't want to do to fit in, 3) Ygritte will probably be present, and there will be sexual tension with her.

P.S. - I have been trying to criticize the show less, because it is so well-filmed and acted and I know they put a lot of work into it, or whatever, but the choice to get rid of Jon's lines about where they seated the "bastard" at the feast is unnecessary; they could easily have filmed it as it was in the book.

[Jory]

I agree with you, for what it's worth. I know there were several lines of Stannis' that were cut/outright changed from the novels (going from "I have missed you ser" to "Thought you were dead" is a pretty big tonal difference to me, no matter how minor) and I think the series would be infinitely better if we ever got to see the reason Davos actually follows Stannis, since at the moment it seems Davos is just a big deluded dumby for thinking Stannis is an honorable man (when GRRM himself thinks this!)

[DurararaFTW]

That's stacking the deck, the idea that Mance revealing he was at Winterfell would take 3-4 minutes. Of course it wouldn't. They bring Jon to the tent, it plays out much the same except he's just "this crow" and "boy", he kneels to Tormund, Tormund laughs and Mance steps up. Tormund then ask Jon's name -- and Mance says, "He's Jon Snow. The bastard of Winterfell." Confusion, Jon wonders how he knows, scene plays on, eventually Mance explains that when rumor arrived beyond the Wall of Robert coming to visit, he thought he should see his fellow king, and so he upped and scaled the Wall alone, etc., etc.

And then, hey, that leads to much the more emotionally weighty scene of Jon Snow talking about where he was seated.

The extra dialog might have taken a minute of time. But it would have made Mance more interesting, and would have given Jon's feelings more of a central position in that scene.

And then Mance corrects him, saying Jon wasn't sitting anywhere at all.

[Sun]

several posts

You have so far mentioned the audience being engaged either emotionally or visually. You forget that one other way to engage is intellectually. That's how most of Swearengen's monologues engaged. They were, in many cases, neither emotionally powerful, nor visually interesting, they were however intellectually fascinating, delivered within private scenes that helped us recognize the weight of info relayed -- only us and the whore know this about AL. They lent insight into his character that was not to be had from his other scenes. The man was a mass of contradictions, and each monologue he delivered helped us unravel him a little more. In this vein Mance's story of sneaking into Winterfell can be told.

Stories can also be made to engage the audience in the way they are told. it's the contextual framing as much as the info related that lends them their appeal. For instance, Ygritte's story can be delivered within a seductive context (no, I don't mean sexposition). Tormund's in a comical context. It's in how the story is written and how it is put forth and within what contextual frame that determines whether it works or not. Can you honestly say that Ygritte telling the story of a wilding king seducing and kidnapping a Stark girl as part of a seductive overture towards virginal Jon wouldn't engage the viewer?

No one is suggesting that these stories be delivered as abstract monologues. They would have to be framed and placed in a way that would render them interesting.

Will they work? Yes, but only if done well by all involved.

[markus85]

You have so far mentioned the audience being engaged either emotionally or visually. You forget that one other way to engage is intellectually. That's how most of Swearengen's monologues engaged. They were, in many cases, neither emotionally powerful, nor visually interesting, they were however intellectually fascinating, delivered within private scenes that helped us recognize the weight of info relayed -- only us and the whore know this about AL. They lent insight into his character that was not to be had from his other scenes. The man was a mass of contradictions, and each monologue he delivered helped us unravel him a little more. In this vein Mance's story of sneaking into Winterfell can be told.

Stories can also be made to engage the audience in the way they are told. it's the contextual framing as much as the info related that lends them their appeal. For instance, Ygritte's story can be delivered within a seductive context (no, I don't mean sexposition). Tormund's in a comical context. It's in how the story is written and how it is put forth and within what contextual frame that determines whether it works or not. Can you honestly say that Ygritte telling the story of a wilding king seducing and kidnapping a Stark girl as part of a seductive overture towards virginal Jon wouldn't engage the viewer?

No one is suggesting that these stories be delivered as abstract monologues. They would have to be framed and placed in a way that would render them interesting.

Will they work? Yes, but only if done well by all involved.

God knows if they can be done, but I dont recall Al's monologues ever beeing about some past we never seen but always something that was going on in him right there at the moment even if the subject was something entirely else.

Someone mentioned Tyrion's Talysa story which was very much all about the context of what was happening on screen, that was also a deeply emotional scene that deepens maybe Shae's sympathy for Tyrion. I really am not a big fan of that scene mostly because I dont think the actress playing Shae (and maybe her written dialog) was on par to what Dinklage was doing, anyway it partly worked and is overall a good scene that does not bore people.

One slight critisism I might give George RR Martin is that he sometimes gives away what a character is all about right in the first scene we have with him, we knew Mance and Tormund from top to toe from the moment they appeared. In series like Breaking bad or Deadwood we learn slowly who Gus is and who Al is, like with people we get to know in real life. Now, in a work with so many characters like in Song of ice and fire I understand George RR Martin doesnt have that luxury of time to present for example wildling characters, maybe the show want to keep some mysticism around Mance, all nonbook readers I know was intrigued and want to know more about him from that one scene.

[Sun]

God knows if they can be done, but I dont recall Al's monologues ever beeing about some past we never seen but always something that was going on in him right there at the moment even if the subject was something entirely else.

Oh some of them were. He told us about his own past. About the brothel owner who raised him, about how he first into whoring, about his mother, about the first man he killed. He told us quite a few stories. It's how we came to know him, and like him. His transformation from villain the first season to antihero in the 3rd came in no small part via his monologues.

Whether your a fan of any particular scene or not is besides the point. We are discussing if they can be done and done effectively. The answer to that question is they most certainly can. Whether they'll meet your particular liking, or mine for that matter, is subjective, and bears very little relation to the objective quality of the scene.

[Mrs.Grumpy]

What about Melisandre ? I think there's a lot of changes about her storyline in this season.

[Rabid Grunt]

I agree with you, for what it's worth. I know there were several lines of Stannis' that were cut/outright changed from the novels (going from "I have missed you ser" to "Thought you were dead" is a pretty big tonal difference to me, no matter how minor) and I think the series would be infinitely better if we ever got to see the reason Davos actually follows Stannis, since at the moment it seems Davos is just a big deluded dumby for thinking Stannis is an honorable man (when GRRM himself thinks this!)

I imagine this will happen later in the series. Like with most Stannis scenes in the books, the series (hopefully) will start out with us thinking (this guys a douche", and then thinking "actually, he's a lad".

[WTFSalami]

P.S. - I have been trying to criticize the show less, because it is so well-filmed and acted and I know they put a lot of work into it, or whatever, but the choice to get rid of Jon's lines about where they seated the "bastard" at the feast and replace it with the most boring Screenwriting 101 I want to fight the bad guys motivation is a fucking abomination, I am sorry. And it's so unnecessary; they could easily have filmed it as it was in the book.

This x1000.

God that was terrible. What is the point of even changing that? Why wouldn't you have Mance say he was at the King's feast in Winterfell? They're leaving out some of the coolest little nuances of the story and it's terribly frustrating.

[Joyful Union]

This x1000.

God that was terrible. What is the point of even changing that? Why wouldn't you have Mance say he was at the King's feast in Winterfell? They're leaving out some of the coolest little nuances of the story and it's terribly frustrating.

Maybe because people are starting to get sick of the "Im a bastard so no-one likes me" whining. Also, the Wall accepts bastards, allows them to rise through the ranks, so that reason was a bit flimsy too.

[Pinkie Baelish]

Eh, Jon's reason to switch sides in the show was fine, it's just that the books did it much better. Calling it an abomination is a bit of an exaggeration. It's not as if people instantly turned off their televisions due to that one line.

[ladyinblack]

That's stacking the deck, the idea that Mance revealing he was at Winterfell would take 3-4 minutes. Of course it wouldn't. They bring Jon to the tent, it plays out much the same except he's just "this crow" and "boy", he kneels to Tormund, Tormund laughs and Mance steps up. Tormund then ask Jon's name -- and Mance says, "He's Jon Snow. The bastard of Winterfell." Confusion, Jon wonders how he knows, scene plays on, eventually Mance explains that when rumor arrived beyond the Wall of Robert coming to visit, he thought he should see his fellow king, and so he upped and scaled the Wall alone, etc., etc.

And then, hey, that leads to much the more emotionally weighty scene of Jon Snow talking about where he was seated.

The extra dialog might have taken a minute of time. But it would have made Mance more interesting, and would have given Jon's feelings more of a central position in that scene.

agree

[Dragonstoned]

Less annoyed about Jon's reason than about not hearing Mance's story of how he's already seen Jon twice (not just at the feast, but also when he was escorting Waymar Royce to join the NW and Jon & Robb were tipping snow).

Suppose we can get it later but the effect is halved if he's not introduced with it.