"They need to make them more sympathetic in order for the ratings to be good""

[David Selig]

I see this statement made all the time when people defend changes in the characters made in the series. On the surface it makes sense. But lately I am starting to question it.

Maybe it's because I don't watch that much TV, but quite a few of those series I watch are quite lacking in conventionally sympathetic characters yet they are very successful.

Take Mad Men for example. The main character is a total jerk nearly all the time, his wife is a terrible mother and pretty bad person in her own right, and most of the other characters are just as bad or even worse. Yet it's a very successful show.

Boardwalk Empire also comes to mind. Everyone in the series is a big time scumbag except a few minor characters.

What do you think?

[Ran]

People are strange. Tony Soprano, Walter White, Don Draper, Al Swearengen, McNulty, Dexter -- you've got some thing to sympathize with in all these characters, but sympathy for them isn't really a major factor in why one is interested in them. They idea that some particular character has to be really sympathetic for people to watch flies in the face of where television is today.

[Pinkie Baelish]

It depends on the confidence of the writers, really. I don't think, at this point, Benioff and Weiss have the same confidence as say, Vince Gilligan, to unflinchingly make main characters less likable or sympathetic. I guess another reason they soften up a lot of the characters is because the show really does need to do great ratings to keep going, and they might be worried that if characters such as Tyrion are portrayed exactly as they are in the books, it might turn viewers away. I don't think every grey character needs to be sympathetic. Some do, like Theon, but others don't necessarily have to be.

I do know that I would still watch if Tyrion was portrayed in a less sympathetic manner than he is in the show. And I'm sure many others would as well.

[Reposado]

yeah, i don't think there's much validity to that. the two best shows on tv currently both feature a pair of leads that are firmy mired in grey. the most watched (serial) show on tv, walking dead, doesn't feature a single sympathetic characters.

what you need to have, is compelling characters, regardless of how sympathetic they are. or just lots of zombies.

[The hairy bear]

To be honest, I don't think that this particular accusation is fair to the GoT writers. If anything, I think they are making them less sympatetic: Jaime kills his own cousin, Robb marries Talisa for lust instead of honor, Catelyn releases Jaime for no good reason,...

[Independent George]

I'm going to need more specifics - I assume you're referring to Tywin and Cersei?

I think they made characters more sympathetic because people in general seem more sympathetic when make an honest effort to understand them. It doesn't justify the terrible things they do - just because you sympathize, doesn't mean it's right - but there's almost always another side to it.

Incidentally, the screen representation of Tywin is actually exactly how I pictured him. He is cruel and evil, but I never for a moment thought that he was only cruel and evil. Complete monsters don't generally make good leaders, and if nothing else, Tywin is a great leader. He could never have been Hand for twenty years if his only tools were threats and bribery.

I actually prefer Lena Headey's interpretation of Cersei than what I had in my head going into the series. Book Cersei is a borderline sociopath - her POV chapters actually made me like her even less. There had to be more to Cersei than what we saw in the books, but show! Cersei depicts it extremely well.

[jons nissa]

I see this statement made all the time when people defend changes in the characters made in the series. On the surface it makes sense. But lately I am starting to question it.

Maybe it's because I don't watch that much TV, but quite a few of those series I watch are quite lacking in conventionally sympathetic characters yet they are very successful.

Take Mad Men for example. The main character is a total jerk nearly all the time, his wife is a terrible mother and pretty bad person in her own right, and most of the other characters are just as bad or even worse. Yet it's a very successful show.

Boardwalk Empire also comes to mind. Everyone in the series is a big time scumbag except a few minor characters.

What do you think?

yes, but these characters are loved for being villains. in asoiaf there are no clear cut villains or heroes, with the exception of ramsey and ser gregor so it seems as if d&d are in favor of making their characters fall more clearly on one side of the "good" spectrum or the other. they may not be a solid villain but there is little confusion on the mind of viewers about who the good guys are and the bad guys as there is in the mind of readers.

the show is taking a very different approach from the books. and yes, i have had several non-readers argue with me that if the viewers hate all the characters at one time or another, nobody will watch the show. the show has created strong favorites and viewers love them. meanwhile, i've already posted there is no one character in the whole of asoiaf that is liked by the majority of readers. not one! although only a few readers complain about dolorous edd and hot pie.

eta: i forgot to say, i am very interested in seeing how they handle tyrion in later seasons though.

[victim]

I don't think it applies to Game of Thrones. In all the examples that David and Ran mentioned, we're talking about the main characters of the show, characters that get WAY more screentime than any one character in Game of Thrones. They have more nuances, and more chance to gain the audiences credit and liking. For that reason, characters in GoT need to be a bit more sympathetic so people will like them, otherwise they'll never get the chance.

Look at it this way: if you took Don Draper out of an episode of Mad Men, it would be a catastrophe, and the same thing applies with Tony Soprano and Walter White. If you took Peter Dinklage out for an episode, some people may take notice but it's not really the end of the world. In a show where the story is spread across so many characters, having a character that isn't likeable makes it very difficult to cut away to them for a six minute scene and to do it often too. Ran mentioned McNulty, which is in a way comparable, because he disappeared for a fair portion of Season Four of The Wire, but at that point we'd built up such a liking for him because he was a very prominent character before that happened.

It's worth stating that I love unsympathetic characters as much as the next guy.

[boojam]

Well wasn't George's whole modus operandi was to hold the black and white at bay?

The HBO viewer , seems!, to be more sophisticated than the network viewer.

That said , some , around here, think of Tyrion as some kind of amoral monster.... and in the books George does not flesh him out that way. Peter has added more dimension to the character.

But the shades of gray are still there, for the most part.

For me one of the pluses of the show.

[Where Boars Glow]

I think the differences have less to do with making the characters more sympathetic and more to do with time. In a book you can really use subtile brush strokes to bring along character development and show the greyness in the characters. With a TV show you don't have the pages of dialog to portray important developments in a character to you beat the viewer over the head with fewer grand genstures rather then subtile ones.

I like the way they have made Cersi more sympathetic.

I didn't like this last episodes Cat portrayal just because I don't think it followed the shows own precidence from the first season....still maybe it will become important later.

[David Selig]

Look at it this way: if you took Don Draper out of an episode of Mad Men, it would be a catastrophe

Not for me. In fact he became after a few seasons one of the least interesting characters for me and I usually prefer the episodes where his role is minimal.

Anyway, I am not sure I agree that unsympathetic characters are OK only if they are the main character of the show. McNulty was no more the main character of the Wire than Tyrion is in GoT.

I'm going to need more specifics - I assume you're referring to Tywin and Cersei?

I wasn't thinking about any character specifically when I made the topic, but the most blatant case in the series for me is Tyrion He's totally whitewashed and it diminishes the character for me.

[Loras]

I don't think it applies to Game of Thrones. In all the examples that David and Ran mentioned, we're talking about the main characters of the show, characters that get WAY more screentime than any one character in Game of Thrones. They have more nuances, and more chance to gain the audiences credit and liking. For that reason, characters in GoT need to be a bit more sympathetic so people will like them, otherwise they'll never get the chance.

Look at it this way: if you took Don Draper out of an episode of Mad Men, it would be a catastrophe, and the same thing applies with Tony Soprano and Walter White. If you took Peter Dinklage out for an episode, some people may take notice but it's not really the end of the world. In a show where the story is spread across so many characters, having a character that isn't likeable makes it very difficult to cut away to them for a six minute scene and to do it often too. Ran mentioned McNulty, which is in a way comparable, because he disappeared for a fair portion of Season Four of The Wire, but at that point we'd built up such a liking for him because he was a very prominent character before that happened.

I think that this is spot on. It is all to do with time - the biggest constraint of the show. Sadly there is not an awful lot of time to delve too deeply into one character in any one episode without missing out another story.

The show writers clearly need to be able to get their point across to the viewer in as little time as possible. Arguably this is why I think the series works better when watched in one go.

And regarding The Walking Dead - you can hardly use that as an example of a show that does not contain sympathetic characters... season finale spoilers after the cut...

The writers felt the need to include a "meta" conversation between Andrea and dying Milton in the finale to gain sympathy for all of Andrea's actions this past season.

[Where Boars Glow]

_{I think Tyrion being more sympathetic and building up the "Love" between him and Shae is an effort to make that scene all the more powerful}

_{Now if they puss out and don't have him choke shae out with the hands.....then i will be pissed.}

_.

[victim]

Not for me. In fact he became after a few seasons one of the least interesting characters for me and I usually prefer the episodes where his role is minimal.

Anyway, I am not sure I agree that unsympathetic characters are OK only if they are the main character of the show. McNulty was no more the main character of the Wire than Tyrion is in GoT.

I was more or less pointing out the flawed characters can be a lot more likeable when they get more screen time - they don't necessarily have to be the main character as well. In GoT, no characters get the same amount of screen time as your Peggy Olsens and Betty Drapers (save S5 due to her pregnancy) or your Roger Sterlings and Pete Campbells.

I was also stating that McNulty is a fair comparison to Tyrion. That said, McNulty was the driving force of the show for much of the first three seasons, and the fifth as well, which Tyrion is not. He's more of a classical main character and definitely, without question, had more screen time in the Wire than Tyrion gets in GoT.

[Sun]

It's not sympathetic characters, it's empathetic characters. We don't necessarily need to sympathise with the character but we do most definitely need to empathise with him/her. Failing that, we fail to care.

Vilain or hero, we have to be able to understand the characters actions and the motivation spurring said actions. Al Swearengen is a perfect example. We don't agree with him but we understand him and even grow to like him because we understand him. Dexter & Don Draper also, fall into the empathetic character spectrum, although I would argue that the latter is also quite sympathetic.

I'll give examples from the show: Season 2 made Tywin somewhat sympathetic. The Catelyn monologue in "Dark Words" was the show's attempt to make the viewers empathise with Catelyn's grief - it worked on me, I cried watching her.

The major difference between all the other shows mentioned in this thread and GOT is time. We have the time to grow to intimately know the characters on those other shows, a luxury GOT does not have. So, the show writers feel they need to simplify motivations (Tywin S2, Cersie all through), or structure scenes to artificially graft an emotional reaction from the audience to them (see Catelyn & Robb). Unfortunately it hasn't always worked, and the result in terms of character loyalty from the audience (at least in my tiny circle, and what I see on twitter) reflects that fact.

[Daske]

Yes, time. To portray characters as 'grey' you need time to develop some complexity to their decisions and actions. Compared to the other shows mentioned the GoT characters have very little screen-time.

And it's doubly harder on screen as we can't see most of the internal struggles that the written word allows.

Sopranas don't forget, also had the added benefit of the out-loud counselling sessions which allowed us a peek into Tony's head. And Dexter has the voiceover - some of his actions would seem a lot worse without it.

I do worry a bit that some of the show's best characters will lose some sympathy. I don't think it will affect the viewing figures much but it may effect the flow of the show, and I don't think GoT will work so well if you don't have at least a few characters your audience will root for. They need to be careful they don't push it too far imo.

[Mammothsbane]

Sympathy isn't the only thing that compels people to watch a show or root for characters. The characters need to be interesting as well.

[Daske]

Just want to add that of my friends who watch GoT regularly if I combined their favourite characters are I believe these would be Arya, Danny and Tyrion - all 'good' characters (at least so far!). I bet that is fair reflection across the viewership.

[Sun]

Yes, time. To portray characters as 'grey' you need time to develop some complexity to their decisions and actions. Compared to the other shows mentioned the GoT characters have very little screen-time.

And it's doubly harder on screen as we can't see most of the internal struggles that the written word allows.

Sopranas don't forget, also had the added benefit of the out-loud counselling sessions which allowed us a peek into Tony's head. And Dexter has the voiceover - some of his actions would seem a lot worse without it.

I do worry a bit that some of the show's best characters will lose some sympathy. I don't think it will affect the viewing figures much but it may effect the flow of the show, and I don't think GoT will work so well if you don't have at least a few characters your audience will root for. They need to be careful they don't push it too far imo.

Yes. Al Swearengen had his lengthy monologues providing very useful insight into his soul and background.

[Where Boars Glow]

Yes. Al Swearengen had his lengthy monologues providing very useful insight into his soul and background.

He also is the Michelangelo of swearing