Jump to content

Archived

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

Aarnikotka

[BOOK SPOILERS] Lady Talysa

Recommended Posts

I don't think Oona is a bad actress per se, I just think she was definitely not the right actress for the role. If you're going to deviate a lot and create new things, I think you really need to have a very strong and likable actor behind the part.

:agree:

That's my one and only problem with Oona. She doesn't really have that IMO. I think someone else who (like you said is strong and likeable) and someone who can make the acting good enough that the writing doesn't seem so bad. Oona can't do that IMO. I don't think she's a bad actress, she's just not good in this show because she was miscast and not right for the role she got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow so someone who reads the books can't have an opinion or show any criticism at the show. Wow. Okay.

Fuck sake, I accidentally pressed backspace and lost the entire post. I'll try again:

That is not even slightly what I said.

You said "I don't understand why people are so venomously defending a horribly written, acted, and very modern character."

That is not an expression of opinion as you made objective claims. Feel free to hold and express whatever opinion you like but you cannot get away with expressing them as objective fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Oona is a bad actress per se, I just think she was definitely not the right actress for the role. If you're going to deviate a lot and create new things, I think you really need to have a very strong and likable actor behind the part.

She isn't "bad", she just seems really, really miscast to me, I would never have liked the revised storyline much, but a different actress with a better chemistry w/Madden and some other type of screen presence may have carried it off more convincingly. As I've said before, I can't say for sure if its writing or acting or chemistry or all of the above combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck sake, I accidentally pressed backspace and lost the entire post. I'll try again:

That is not even slightly what I said.

You said "I don't understand why people are so venomously defending a horribly written, acted, and very modern character."

That is not an exp<b></b>ression of opinion as you made objective claims. Feel free to hold and express whatever opinion you like but you cannot get away with expressing them as objective fact.

I wasn't trying to imply they were a fact. But considering even the actress herself thinks the love story is modern, there's really no need to argue. It's quite obvious it is a modern love story. How anyone can argue differently about that is beyond me.

But whatever go ahead and like an unrealistic character. More power to you. I'd rather watch the not so annoying unrealistic characters. It's pretty sad I'd rather watch Joffrey, or Ramsay torturing Theon than her because the writers think people are so retarded they won't see the flaws and illogical aspects of this character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what? Who suggested that?

No one. The point being made was that its unrealistic that a woman would be able to travel around as a foreign nurse, alone, unescorted, unaffiliated with any Silent Sisters or any other known Westeros group, through a war zone and be safe, have money and get supplies for a prolonged period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She isn't "bad", she just seems really, really miscast to me, I would never have liked the revised storyline much, but a different actress with a better chemistry w/Madden and some other type of screen presence may have carried it off more convincingly. As I've said before, I can't say for sure if its writing or acting or chemistry or all of the above combined.

I think it's all three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's all three.

I do too. The storyline itself was ill conceived and very poorly executed, I will never be convinced otherwise. Having Robb marry for love could have worked, but not the way they chose to do it, and the random Volantis nurse concept I still think was ridiculous to begin with, what's the difference if she's a nurse whose at his camp or a Westerosi noblewoman at her own castle? They didn't use that many different locations for their love story as it progressed--battlefield, Robb's tent, walking in the woods. Why not Jeyne Westerling but make her holding down the fort at her own keep? That would actually give her a reason to be spunky...because Robb is the enemy. It's still a cliche, but in the context of the series its less jarring than a modern independent woman running around by herself during a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do too. The storyline itself was ill conceived and very poorly executed, I will never be convinced otherwise. Having Robb marry for love could have worked, but not the way they chose to do it, and the random Volantis nurse concept I still think was ridiculous to begin with, what's the difference if she's a nurse whose at his camp or a Westerosi noblewoman at her own castle? They didn't use that many different locations for their love story as it progressed--battlefield, Robb's tent, walking in the woods. Why not Jeyne Westerling but make her holding down the fort at her own keep? That would actually give her a reason to be spunky...because Robb is the enemy. It's still a cliche, but in the context of the series its less jarring than a modern independent woman running around by herself during a war.

I don't know why they couldn't have just fleshed out Jeyne more and ill never understand that. I think I might have warmed to the arc more if they had picked an actress that could have executed it better with her acting. The writings pretty bad, yes, but I think another actress may have been able to do it better. Even without considering the acting in general I feel her and Richard have no chemistry. So it's seriously hard for me to believe they're in love. All in all the writing was bad yes, but they're choice in the actress was probably in a way worse because Oona couldn't pull off the character in a believable way and there's no chemistry between her and Madden.

I don't blame Oona (even if I do think some facial exp<b></b>ressions she used were questionable and came off snob and uppity to me. ) I think she just doesn't have the personality that could pull it off and it didn't help the writing was bad or the way the director probably had her handle things. So I kind of put the blame on the writing, partly on the actress, lack of chemistry, and the way the director choose for Madden and Oona to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has. The Karstark execution was great. I also liked the scene where they spoke with the Freys. (Maybe part of that was because its one of the only times the northern camp is shown and Talisa isn't there lol.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always great to see a few people vehemently claim that "everyone" (even if they're exaggerating) shares their opinion, despite the fact that they're essentially having a conversation with one or two other people who basically share their point-of-view. If the only two places you visit for your Game of Thrones reactions is this website and TWoP (which, come on, it's no secret that their 'Unsullied' are hardly that - they're consistently being given information from people who have read the books but are pretending they haven't), then no wonder you're under the delusional assumption that she's considered "poorly written, acted, directed", etc. Try reading some professional television critic reviews; listening to podcasts centered around the show; or even just visiting websites that aren't solely dedicated to discussing this series, and you'll see that the general consensus is that, while it's not the most interesting plot line by any stretch, not many people would consider it objectively "horrible".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tywin Lannister, may have had her tongue cut out, or whipped her.

Though in the show, Tywin showed a fair bit of tolerance to a smart little serving-girl who wasn't as deferential as she might have been..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always great to see a few people vehemently claim that "everyone" (even if they're exaggerating) shares their opinion, despite the fact that they're essentially having a conversation with one or two other people who basically share their point-of-view. If the only two places you visit for your Game of Thrones reactions is this website and TWoP (which, come on, it's no secret that their 'Unsullied' are hardly that - they're consistently being given information from people who have read the books but are pretending they haven't), then no wonder you're under the delusional assumption that she's considered "poorly written, acted, directed", etc. Try reading some professional television critic reviews; listening to podcasts centered around the show; or even just visiting websites that aren't solely dedicated to discussing this series, and you'll see that the general consensus is that, while it's not the most interesting plot line by any stretch, not many people would consider it objectively "horrible".

The podcasts that I watch don't even talk about Talisa. I assume because she's not worth mentioning. And no my personal opinion without listening or reading anything else is that it's poorly written and acted arc. I talk to a few people who have only read the first book and still do not think Talisa is a great character. It wasn't even until afterwards that I slightly hinted it was a change from the books. So yeah, there are show only watchers (or show watchers who only read the first book) that don't care for this character. I'm pretty sure they changed the story so people would care about her and Robb's epic true love story. How can they achieve that if there are in fact show only watchers who don't like, or just generally don't care about, the character?

Casual viewers I agree won't care much about the illogical side of her and her story but there are smart show only viewers that with even a little bit of a brain can realize its just odd and unrealistic how they did the character.

And I think we have to agree to disagree. In a series like this where other plot lines are good, if they don't think her arc is interesting or even a little good that kind of makes it the worst in the show. Compared to the other great arcs it would fall in a 'horrible' sort of category.

It's so funny that only the show apologists seem to get so uppity when someone even makes a slight criticism. I've read numerous times on this site how people, including myself, say they like changes the show make. I like good changes. But this was not a good change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always great to see a few people vehemently claim that "everyone" (even if they're exaggerating) shares their opinion, despite the fact that they're essentially having a conversation with one or two other people who basically share their point-of-view. If the only two places you visit for your Game of Thrones reactions is this website and TWoP (which, come on, it's no secret that their 'Unsullied' are hardly that - they're consistently being given information from people who have read the books but are pretending they haven't), then no wonder you're under the delusional assumption that she's considered "poorly written, acted, directed", etc. Try reading some professional television critic reviews; listening to podcasts centered around the show; or even just visiting websites that aren't solely dedicated to discussing this series, and you'll see that the general consensus is that, while it's not the most interesting plot line by any stretch, not many people would consider it objectively "horrible".

I agree with this. I read this thread because I'm interested in people's opinions on the way the show has gone with this character. However, after looking at the posts, I see a lot of people more interested in having an argument about it than have a discussion. A lot of the opinions on here (not all, granted) seem to be of the mindset of "well, the character is awful no matter what other people think" when it is really a relative subject, and while a book-reader can have a great opinion on the show they cannot speak to how the general mass of people who haven't read the books feel, especially when sites like this are your source. For that reason and for the childish back-and-forth I've seen, I doubt I'll continue to keep going on this particular thread. However, I do have my own opinions about the character and will post them at least once for the people who come here genuinely interested in different/similar perspectives on the character.

This is how I feel. I can understand that maybe they want to put more of a face to the girl who Robb fell for, to make it seem more believable that he broke his vows. To be honest, there are scenes that I've very much enjoyed Oona as Talisa. However, I also feel that the way they've changed the role is not yet justified by the show, by quality or by plot development. I'm anxious to see how they handle the whole pregnant/RW/later events thing, but as of now I don't see why they've made the change other than the small and obvious reasoning I posted above. I think that they may have a plan for her that will redeem the changes and admittedly at times the poor characterization, but as of now I don't see it. The character is hardly horrible/amazing, though. The unsullied I know have had absolutely no issues with her, and I do really believe that it's way more common that book readers dislike her than the unsullied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oona is barely mentioned in anyone's reviews, and when she is, its in the context of the changes from the books--whether Talisa is a spy or whether Talisa being pregnant means Jeyne is pregnant in GRRM series. She is not interviewed to the extent of Sophie Turner or Kit Harrington....which, by inference, would lead me to conclude the reason why is because the public is not much interested in her or her character.

I'm sure some people like the change, nobody said otherwise. What I don't see and don't believe is there is any burgeoning Talisa fan club out there who are going to be devasted when her character is killed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I would infer from the fact that Oona Chaplin isn't interviewed as much as Sophie Turner or Kit Harrington are? That's she's part of the supporting cast and not the main one. And I believe....let me check...yep...my inference is correct. I am one hell of an inferrer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if the two of you have ever watched anything else on television or film, because you two seem to be awfully hung up on how "unrealistic" Talisa being there in the aftermath of that battle is, and nothing else. Have you ever questioned why so many characters seem to end up in the right place at the right time (or vice versa), or why things always seem to happen in the nick of time?

For the most part, your criticism has focused on that introductory scene, and not a single scene that has followed. Sure, you've given vague and unspecific answers to why you don't like the character or that segment of Robb's story line - "poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed" - but you don't actually go into any kind of critical details as to why you feel that way. Specific examples, and reasoning as to why it's not any good would go a long way towards you two seeing that we're not trying to be "apologists" or "uppity", but that seems to be too much to ask. And again, I'm referring to any scene other than her first scene with Robb.

But, since I just re-watched that scene myself, what are your thoughts on the guy who was traveling with Talisa when we first met her? The person who was leading the horse pulling the wagon? What of him? His presence would seem to indicate that she was, in fact, not traveling there by herself, would it not? And then a good portion of your argument falls apart. We could discuss that, but I'm sure we won't. Because all those of you who are so passionately against her want to do is repeat the same thing ad nauseum, instead of having an actual discussion. And also because you'd likely label it a "plot hole" when it's abundantly clear that you don't understand what a plot hole is...

And after that initial scene, what is it about Talisa that makes her writing so terrible, or her (Oona Chaplin's) acting so awful? You're purposely ignoring any actual criticism, so you can continue to do that, and so you can just continue to call those of us willing to discuss this character and plot line "uppity", and label us as "apologists" instead of having any critical discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I would infer from the fact that Oona Chaplin isn't interviewed as much as Sophie Turner or Kit Harrington are? That's she's part of the supporting cast and not the main one. And I believe....let me check...yep...my inference is correct. I am one hell of an inferrer.

Well, if you can't use opinions on this site, or Television without Pity, or other sites that follow GOT, or mentions in reviews, or number of interviews with her about the series, how is one supposed to be able to gauge her character's popularity or lack of popularity?

It sort of seems like the deck is stacked against anyone who has an opinion that her character is not popular because any metric that might be used is discounted. Convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×