[book spoilers] TV Margaery vs Book Margaery

[Ran]

Robert De Niro often plays gangsters, doesn't mean that he isn't brilliant in the Untouchables, Casino, Goodfellas and once Upon a Time in America.

Yeah, but each and every one of those roles, he was playing a different character. Similar occupations, perhaps, similar themes to the work... but different people. I mean, there's a pretty massive difference between Jimmy Conway and Noodles... But also, you know, Dormer is no De Niro. Maybe if she were, the fact that she brings so much of the same energy to this role as she did to Anne Boleyn would be acceptable to me. It's not.

I think they are pretty blatantly trying to play down Dormers age by like 10 years or so. She doesn't look much older than Sophie by any means.

Well, mileage varies. To me, but she doesn't look younger than Finn Jones, even, much less anywhere in the vicinity of Sophie Turner. Dormer has that sort of face, I think. She'll look perpetually 30 years old until she's approaching 50, I reckon. Sort of the female Jon Hamm, who says he's looked 35 since he was 21 (and still does).

Also, its not like there is much to Margaery in the books.

They take what's there and they've used it to some degree. The complaint isn't that they've added stuff, however. This is in theory fine. The problem is that I keep seeing Anne Boleyn every time we're supposed to be seeing Margaery. Sexually experienced noble woman tasked with seducing and controlling a king, with ambitions for her family and for herself, is in essence the exact same role. The only thing notably diffferent with her at this stage is that the king she's seducing isn't married to another woman, and that she seems to care more about the plight of the poor. Perhaps if they make more of that latter, she'll start to distinguish herself.

[Ravi Seaworth]

So, why should we, the majority, who haven't watched the Tudors, care about this "problem"? This is a TV Show, with a huge number of characters. We are not focusing on a handful of them, but tens of people with important roles. It would be too much to ask for multidimensional characters. It makes perfect sense to focus only on the main traits of each character that are essential to the plot and develop them in the best possible way. Of course, some characters were not accurately portrayed, but Margaery is certainly not one of them. I'm not talking about that specific dialogue she didn't have, but about her overall attitude. I think many book readers follow a bottom-up approach of starting from the books and then analyzing the show in terms of the exact changes made to the narrative. In my opinion, we should follow a top-down, of focusing only on the main events of the story and the role of each character in those events. By doing that, I think you reach the conclusion that the show doesn't deviate from the book that much, as some people claim it does.

[Ran]

So, why should we, the majority, who haven't watched the Tudors, care about this "problem"?

You don't have to. I was asked why I don't like her in the role. Is there some crime in my answering someone's questions?

[TFP]

I initially didn't like Dormer's age. It detracts a little from the book's cersei-margaery dynamic (or, more accurately, changes it). But to my mind it greatly enhances both the joff-m and sansa-m dynamics. It's almost scary watching trusting Sansa enjoying her friendship with the much older and wiser Margaery.

This said I think that an actress up to around 5 years younger might have been better. Margaery will be an important character for quite a few years - in say 2016, assuming that the series is still running then, I don't think she'll look quite as good in all those sleeveless dresses...

[Lady Sansa Stark]

If they only wanted her to appear as a nice girl, who does all these charitable things and is the Good made flesh, they shouldn't have casted Natalie Dormer. This kinda confirms (TO ME, not necessarily to some of you) that she's just as manipulative and scheming as the rest of her family, which the TVshow portrays quite well. I still don't know whom to root for; Margaery or Cersei. I rooted for Cersei in the books, I believe.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

I initially didn't like Dormer's age. It detracts a little from the book's cersei-margaery dynamic (or, more accurately, changes it). But to my mind it greatly enhances both the joff-m and sansa-m dynamics. It's almost scary watching trusting Sansa enjoying her friendship with the much older and wiser Margaery.

This said I think that an actress up to around 5 years younger might have been better. Margaery will be an important character for quite a few years - in say 2016, assuming that the series is still running then, I don't think she'll look quite as good in all those sleeveless dresses...

Nah, given that she's already 31 at the moment and still looks so stunning as Margaery, I don't think 3 years will do much harm. You can clearly see she's supposed to be older than Joffrey. but she doesn't appear to be that much older as she in reality is. Though, her interaction with Tommen... It was kinda creepy already in the books, I don't even want to think how that'll play out on screen.

[lannistergold]

In the books, we just get hints at Marg being a canny political player. In the show, it's right up-front. I'm keen to see some more psychological victories over Joffrey,

[TalalOfDorne]

I dont like both of them or any of the Tyrells

I still don't know whom to root for; Margaery or Cersei. I rooted for Cersei in the books, I believe.

Same here. Though I know how evil Cersei can be and disagree with a lot of her actions I still root for her over Margaery.

[The hairy bear]

It'd be impossible to have a woman that will marry 3 kings on tv without the audience understanding why, which doesnt come across in the books. Her appeal didnt translate other than bringing highgarden.

Why would a would be king care about anything else? Why do you need more appeal that an alliance with the most powerful house, and the second richest?

That's how marriages worked back in medieval times. It didn't matter whether the wife was beautiful, charming, clever or whatever. The lands, gold and swords that she brings with her is the significant factor. The books manage to get this point accros quite well: Renly didn't mind that she was a woman, Joffrey didn't mind that she may not be a virgin, and Tommen didn't mind the huge age difference. It was just a convenient, necessary match.

Somehow, I strongly dislike the idea of needing to make the character a manipulating ambitious clever girl in order to justify her marrying three kings. As if they were attracted to herself instead of her father's titles. That's a stereotypical Hollywood story, not the books I'm a fan of.

[Timotheus]

I wasn't a huge fan of Dormer in the 2nd season.. But this season she's been overwhelmingly good so far.

[boojam]

That's how marriages worked back in medieval times. It didn't matter whether the wife was beautiful, charming, clever or whatever. The lands, gold and swords that she brings with her is the significant factor. The books manage to get this point accros quite well: Renly didn't mind that she was a woman, Joffrey didn't mind that she may not be a virgin, and Tommen didn't mind the huge age difference. It was just a convenient, necessary match.

Is that ever true. Many, if not most of the time, marriage didn't even bring lands, gold or swords .... but it did buy political influence and defused a potential enemy. I particularly think of the powerful patrician family's of the Roman Empire.

One thing about Westeros and seemingly Essos , it's solid patriarchal. Are there any Queens (outside of Dany) who sit the throne anywhere in Martin World? I can't remember , but I don't think a sole queen has sat the Iron Throne?

It was rare in Europe, Elisabeth I was a true anomaly (in fact maybe the most politically clever monarch to sit the English throne). Historians think she never married since that would have demoted her to 'Queen'!

The number of sole ruler queens in history is rare. Catherine de Medici during the time she was queen regent was essentially the only sole female monarch France ever had until her sons pushed her aside. Catherine the Great is another anomaly.(I suppose one could count Victoria and Elisabeth II, but their political position were different.)

I can't remember other European sole ruler queens, even tho there were some.

Anyway if Dany succeeds in taking the Iron Throne wouldn't she be the first sole female ruler of Westeros , ever?

Of course in my imagination it is one of frozen shambling hamburgers from the North squatting there!

[Mulled Wino]

Why would a would be king care about anything else? Why do you need more appeal that an alliance with the most powerful house, and the second richest?

That's how marriages worked back in medieval times. It didn't matter whether the wife was beautiful, charming, clever or whatever. The lands, gold and swords that she brings with her is the significant factor. The books manage to get this point accros quite well: Renly didn't mind that she was a woman, Joffrey didn't mind that she may not be a virgin, and Tommen didn't mind the huge age difference. It was just a convenient, necessary match.

Somehow, I strongly dislike the idea of needing to make the character a manipulating ambitious clever girl in order to justify her marrying three kings. As if they were attracted to herself instead of her father's titles. That's a stereotypical Hollywood story, not the books I'm a fan of.

Wasnt there a big hoopla in the books regarding whether or not Margery was still a V? Not just with Joff but the faith and cersei? I think show Margery fills in some blanks for tv viewership.

Did Tommen really make his own decision?

[The hairy bear]

Wasnt there a big hoopla in the books regarding whether or not Margery was still a V? Not just with Joff but the faith and cersei?

But those rumours only surfaced when House Lannister wasn't in control. No one dared to defy a Lannister-Tyrell united alliance. Precisely, when they were in power, it didn't really matter whether Margaery was virgin. She assured she was, that was enough for anyone concerned.

It wasn't a match between Margaery and Joffrey/Tommen. It was a match between Mace and Tywin. Margaery could have been an ignorant illiterate with no brains and she would have married three kings all the same.

[SeanF]

Margaery in the books is studious, cunning, and ruthless, and very much her grandmother-in-training. We don't get any sense of her using sexual allure to manipulate either Joffrey and Tommen.

In the TV series, both Joffrey and Margaery are aged up. As neither is a POV in the books,they need to have scenes created for them. Margaery is clearly sexually experienced, and is able to manipulate Joffrey accordingly, and her ambition is made very obvious.

[Tywin's bastard]

Much as I said earlier, they've basically given her the role of Anne Boleyn from The Tudors and transplanted it to Westeros. It's unfortunate, but the similarities make it all rather boring. I'm sure she's a fine actress, but based on these two roles alone, I'd think she has a limited range and the writers are just writing to that. That bothers me, since it doesn't really do her a service, and given the tawdriness and shallowness of The Tudors, I don't think it's something they want to bring to mind.

I can see how it's a source of annoyance but I feel that it would be clearer if you explained what it is in her previous character that doesn't fit, especially when you put it up in a general analysis that's quite guaranteed to include people that didn't watch The Tudors (I'm one of those myself). I don't really find acting range relevant in itself when analyzing a single role as long as it encompasses the character she's currently playing.

That's of course unless the only problem is that she's played a similar role before. As said I can get that, although I also think it falls somewhat on the demands on viewer immersion.

[boojam]

It wasn't a match between Margaery and Joffrey/Tommen. It was a match between Mace and Tywin. Margaery could have been an ignorant illiterate with no brains and she would have married three kings all the same.

Of course it just mirrors how history of this alternate universe we live in worked, works?

In history when it came to political power did not make any difference if she was not a virgin or was a snuggled toothed hag.

Usually it was a capable woman who married a blithering idiot, as Catherine the Great did.

[SeanF]

It of course, makes me wonder what they're going to have happen to her in order to change their minds to make the PW happen.

Any thoughts?

Sansa's already told her and her grandmother that Joffrey's a monster (something which I'm sure they can see for themselves). I could imagine Joffrey asking her to do something really perverted, like sexually torturing a maidservant, that would act as a trigger for the plot.

[Ser Cookie Monster]

I guess I'm the minority here, but I actually prefer Book!Margaery.

I always thought that Margaery was playing the game in the books. But we didn't know how well she could play. We didn't know how much was Cersei's imagination and how much was real. I often found myself questioning her actions. I would ask myself "Why is she riding horses so often and so long?" "Does she really care about Sansa or the orphans?" "Is she really a virgin?" "Is she fucking Loras? I guess Loras had something with Renly, but could it be?" I don't know maybe Cersei's paranoia is contagious, but there was this compelling mistery about Margaery.

However, in the show it is too obvious that she is and excellent player. I don't like it. That's something that I don't like about the show, everything is too obvious. I don't find Show Margaery interesting. I think she is too old and that the actress is not as good as everybody thinks. I think the actress is a little bit better when she plays the dark side of Margaery, but I don't buy her "inocent" face (and looking inocent is pretty much what Margaery is about). Also, and this may sound too extreme, but some of her faces annoy me, something that she does with her nose. I've never seen her acting anywhere else. I never watched The Tudors. So I don't know if she would be better playing a different role.

[insertname]

TV Margaery, definitely...book Margaery has always been a bit bland to me, very likely because she didn't have her own POV

[Warhawk137]

I like TV!Margaery for essentially the same reason I like Talisa, oddly enough.

The problem adapting a book to television or film is that the storytelling mechanism is different. GRRM, in writing the books, particularly using the rotating POV format, is perfectly able to include characters who, on one hand, are important to the plot, but on the other, still remain in the background and aren't heavily developed, because the plot-important stuff can easily get across via another character POV.

Can't really do that in a medium like television or film. In this medium, a plot-important character is generally going to need scenes where they take the spotlight to get across that importance, and thus a direct transferral of that character from book to screen isn't going to work. You just can't get away with putting a character who's basically a blank slate in the books onto the screen as-is. Obviously the response to the changes in regards to Margaery have been better received, but in regards to Talisa, while I understand why some people just don't care much for her character in general, I have to ask - what was so captivating about Jeyne Westerling that makes the change so undesirable? There are inanimate objects in the books that get more characterization than Jeyne Westerling.

But I digress. I like the changes to Margaery, but more than that, I absolutely love how Dormer is pulling off the character as that character has been adapted for television. She's hit all the right notes, it's the perfect role for her.