(Book Spoilers) Theon and the reveal

[Jasta11]

Last year, show-lovers were saying Cersei is "much more complex in the show than she was in the books". They called her on-screen portrayal an improvement over the source material. Well, after season 3, it's pretty clear it never was the case, and - hopefully - no reader will ever again think that show-Cersei (while more interesting than an average female villain on TV) has a single thing on book-Cersei.

Are we going the same road with TV Ramsay this time? Is there really anyone who finds TV Ramsay a better/richer/scarier character than book Ramsay in any fucking way? It doesn't matter if you were underwhelmed by his screen-version like I was, or you found him quite impressive like some other viewers did. It doesn't matter if you were bored with Dreadfort scenes like I was, or watched them with interest. But, for heavens' sake, how can anyone see any TV Ramsay's advantage over book Ramsay?!

Book Cercei is complex? She's a ''Me Smash!'' bully, except that others do her smasing for her. Even before Joffrey dies she does cartoonishly evil things like killing Robert's harmless bastards out of pure spite. Then it's all revealed to be part of a silly prophecy. Of all the possible characters in the books to have depth, Cercei is not one of them. I prefer the TV version because while she still retains her pride she isin't an idiotic villain. They made her a bit too mellow towards Tyrion but apart from that she's a better character.

As for Ramsay, honestly, was he ever a well-rounded character? He's a fairly generic (if somewhat trollish) crazy psychopath in the books, hardly a genre-defining uniqueness. I enjoyed his darkly humorous routine, especially the hornblowing. But having an opinion is heresy I guess.

[Dove]

As a rule I'm pretty far from a book purist and think some things work better on the screen, and some work better on the page. I'm torn about it, but I think if they took him from the book as-is with no alterations whatsoever, he would probably just come across as a TVMA-rated Skeletor and not necessarily be compelling television even if he's a surprisingly unique character in the books. I'm totally fine with them giving him a little more 'panache' and making him a brainier kind of psycho.

As mentioned by myself+others my only hope in the end is that they can make him half as scurry as his book counterpart and avoid some of the silly, outright eyeroll-inducing cliches mistakenly attributed to him in the process.

Slightly toning down the "that Ramsay, what a yukster" stuff, introducing his highborn envy, and showing a bit of a temper would probably go a long way which makes me think they're waiting until Roose gets back to the Dreadfort to really flesh him out. Hopefully they plan on working in the dogs and his "hunts" because that shit is just the worst.

But having an opinion is heresy I guess.

this is the kind of stuff I was talking about!! We can all post and converse and even disagree all over the place without having to throw out aggressive (and passive-aggressive) asides all the time, y'all. If we all agreed on everything it would be pretty boring, yeah?

[Asshai by the Shadow]

I read some S4 speculation on wic.net and I think what they could do with Ramsay/Theon in season 4 is to have Ramsay take Theon with him on his hunt for Bran and Rickon because he knows how they look like. And perhaps they could find Osha and Rickon but Theon will lie that he doesn't know who they are and helps save their lives: immediate bonus points with audience and redemption for Theon, and interesting story involving 2 story lines.

[Chuck88]

I read some S4 speculation on wic.net and I think what they could do with Ramsay/Theon in season 4 is to have Ramsay take Theon with him on his hunt for Bran and Rickon because he knows how they look like. And perhaps they could find Osha and Rickon but Theon will lie that he doesn't know who they are and helps save their lives: immediate bonus points with audience and redemption for Theon, and interesting story involving 2 story lines.

I really like this idea. Gives Osha and Rickon a reason to go to Skagos as well.

[Miodrag]

@Hunt

As a rule I'm all for book-purism, not at the least because of how worn-out this "it wouldn't apply so well on television" notion actually is. Don't get me wrong, I think movie and TV writers wore it out, not fans like you. Just think about it for a while. Isn't it much harder in most cases to achieve desired effects on the audience by written words, than by all the stuff that's available to film and TV makers? Take Ramsay for example. In the books, there's nothing but words to explain how menacing he is. On screen, along with a dialogue there are face expressions, sounds, background music, special effects if need be... They can even use narration, like in voice-overs: yeah, some movie and TV authors (D&D included) don't like it, but it's used all the time, in many great movies and TV shows. Resources for good storytelling are practically endless on cinema and TV. And yet, with all this going for them, cinema and TV are yet to produce anything that matches depths and strength of classic literature. Maybe some movies or TV shows are going to be recognized as cultural milestones and masterpieces of highest order, but as it seems at this point, even the most respected movies and TV shows aren't able to last more than a generation before looking outdated.

One of the main reason for this is, in my opinion, exactly their "some thing don't apply so well on screen" attitude. You know, if some things that were inspiring and intriguing and thought provoking and memorable for centuries and millenniums really don't apply so well for screens, well maybe it's the screens that need to be fixed, not the other way around.

Back on topic, I believe book Ramsay is a joy to adapt for screen (though he himself would definitely be offended for being considered a joy at all). With a character written absolutely faithful to the source material, I'm willing to bet every actor would kill for the part. Everything about him is brilliantly designed, as evidenced by the reaction of readers: even those who have nothing but critique for ADWD were highly impressed by Ramsay, who's probably the main reason for all the (well earned) love for Theon's ADWD chapters. Adapting verbatim Theon to screen will be, I admit, much trickier, but not impossible. Ramsay, on the other hand, is all dialogue and always-near-explosion sadism you described so vividly in your earlier post.

Just look at one more thing I wrote a day or two ago, which some other posters agreed with: Ramsay's letter to Greyjoys was more menacing than Ramsay was in all of the season. Words, with their almost magical power, elevated so many stories. They can surely elevate an adaptation of the story that's already proved extraordinary.

[Khal-a-bunga]

Cersei is an infinitely better character in the show. Cersei, as presented throughout most of the book series, is pretty one-note. It might be an entertaining note, but it's still nowhere near as intriguing as the humanity Lena Heady and the writers bring to the role.

Ramsay works for me, for the time being. I don't think they're done developing his character, so I think it's a little early to tell whether or not he'll be given some of his more memorable attributes.

[Miodrag]

Book Cercei is complex? She's a ''Me Smash!'' bully, except that others do her smasing for her.

This isn't a Cersei thread, so I'll restrain myself from countering in details what you wrote. I'll just repeat that even TV Tyrion (dumbed-down version of his book namesake) sees how petty her philosophic blathers truly are. And I suspect many show-lovers love Cersei because of her blathering, present in the show from as early as episode two (her ridiculous chat with Cat in Bran's room). Evidence found in the books, such as lines often analyzed and debated over in numerous threads in the books section on this very forums, clearly disapprove this notion that book-Cersei is "one dimensional".

As for Ramsay, honestly, was he ever a well-rounded character? He's a fairly generic (if somewhat trollish) crazy psychopath in the books, hardly a genre-defining uniqueness. I enjoyed his darkly humorous routine, especially the hornblowing. But having an opinion is heresy I guess.

Having an opinion is no heresy, by no means. Just as elaborating one isn't, too. Which is why I'd ask you this: What would you change about book Ramsay to make him into a better character? We who think he doesn't need any change (on the contrary, I dislike changes already applied in the show!) already expressed why we find him so impressive as a character. Care to do the same with your claim?

[Dove]

@Hunt

You make a good point regarding his adaption, book Ramsay as he is wouldn't be fun on the screen - because he's not supposed to be fun. He's a psycho who literally hunts women like animals and "rewards" them if they give them good sport by naming his hunting dogs after them, among his other misdeeds. I get where you're coming from, and I think your sentiment is probably correct - unless they really work some unexpected magic in the translation, creepysexyfunny (lol that sounds dumb but it's the best way i can really sum him up) Joker lite Ramsay is definitely the "easy way out", so to speak. It would be more difficult to make a character like book Ramsay "work" and not just feel like one note tedious try hard grimdarkness all the time, but it would also be potentially much more rewarding.

I wanna respond to the General Adaptationchat in the rest of your post but I've gotta jet so I'll just leave it at this for now!! I think this is a legit interesting topic though.

[Dove]

Sorry for the twofer here but I don't want to just edit it in my previous post in case you miss it and I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts - do you think Iwan Rheon would be capable of pulling off a portrayal of Ramsay more akin to the book version, or do you find the ugly appearance and large stature to be an essential part of what makes him so menacing?

[Miodrag]

Sorry for the twofer here but I don't want to just edit it in my previous post in case you miss it and I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts - do you think Iwan Rheon would be capable of pulling off a portrayal of Ramsay more akin to the book version, or do you find the ugly appearance and large stature to be an essential part of what makes him so menacing?

I think he lacks deep, menacing voice. Voice is among the most powerful weapons of an actor. Think Dagmer from last season. Think Mark Addy, who physically didn't resemble Robert at all, but he wasn't half bad in the role mostly because of his powerful voice (pity they didn't find a way to film him in a manner so he can look taller and bigger; it's done all the time in the movies - Marlon Brando was always the smallest one on set, but he never looked like that on the screen, and that was like 30-40 years ago; that way, Addy would've been a true Robert).

With right voice, TV Ramsay would be much more menacing than he is at the moment. I think Rheon doesn't have it. His stature and appearance don't bother me at all, but his voice does. Maybe there's a way around for this problem, but I don't see one.

[Areo Speedwagon]

With just a few paragraphs of sharp dialogue (which would've been a delight to watch on screen), we're shown Cersei's prone to drastic mood changes, belligerent even in deep fear, that she never lets old grudges go even if who she has those grudges with is dead, and that she's also able to have fun along the way thanks to her humorous mocking of basically everyone...

I'm going to attempt to engage in honest, non hostile debate here. Please note I only seek clarification. I have no intent on changing your opinion as you have every right to it as I do mine.

I hesitate to start here, because this isn't a Cersei thread, but it exemplifies what I see in a lot of book-purists, to use NotYourSir's own term. You claim you really liked Cersei's mood swings and offer it as evidence of a more complex character. But in describing why you liked it, you seemed to directly contradict your point. You said she "never lets old grudges go" and you say her dancing with Tyrion over Stannis' perceived stupidity proves that. But isn't Tyrion her oldest and deepest grudge? Isn't she letting go of a lifetime of hatred in that moment? And didn't we get a glimpse of that in season 2 when she was lamenting over the monster Joffrey is and Jaime being gone, etc. Tyrion gets up, not sure what to do, and Cersei almost lets him comfort her before remembering who he is and her iciness returns. It was a moment of vulnerability (weakness in her eyes) and she was sure to stomp it out. To me, that seems pretty nuanced.

As a rule I'm all for book-purism, not at the least because of how worn-out this "it wouldn't apply so well on television" notion actually is. Don't get me wrong, I think movie and TV writers wore it out, not fans like you. Just think about it for a while. Isn't it much harder in most cases to achieve desired effects on the audience by written words, than by all the stuff that's available to film and TV makers? Take Ramsay for example. In the books, there's nothing but words to explain how menacing he is. On screen, along with a dialogue there are face expressions, sounds, background music, special effects if need be...

snip

Very true, but the one thing tv and film don't have that a novel has in droves is time. If he wants, Martin can take 100 pages describing one event, 10 pages to just flesh out all sides of a debate or 5 just to describe someone's eyes. You don't have that luxury in tv. You need to get in, hit your beats, then move the on. It's shitty, but it's was is. It's the main constraint of the medium when it comes to adaptation. That and the paramount need to tell the story visually, not with words, but with images.

Couple that with the fact that D&D aren't adapting Storm of Swords, they're adapting A Song of Ice and Fire. They always have to play the long game.

I may sound like a show apologist, and maybe I am. There certainly are things (small and large in every season) that have really disappointed me in the show, so there's that.

My main point and why I started this post with your comments about Cersei, is purism itself. I believe it to be flawed right out of the gate because a tv show isn't a book. It's redundant, but it seems like it needs to be said (especially on the Stannis threads - good lord). With purism, one approaches an adaptation wanting, expecting something the adaptation will never be. You're setting yourself up for disappointment. I can't presume to know how anyone other than myself watches the show. But as soon as I started watching the show for the show it is, and not the show it isn't, my enjoyment increased exponentially.

[Khal-a-bunga]

@Hunt

As a rule I'm all for book-purism, not at the least because of how worn-out this "it wouldn't apply so well on television" notion actually is. Don't get me wrong, I think movie and TV writers wore it out, not fans like you. Just think about it for a while. Isn't it much harder in most cases to achieve desired effects on the audience by written words, than by all the stuff that's available to film and TV makers? Take Ramsay for example. In the books, there's nothing but words to explain how menacing he is. On screen, along with a dialogue there are face expressions, sounds, background music, special effects if need be... They can even use narration, like in voice-overs: yeah, some movie and TV authors (D&D included) don't like it, but it's used all the time, in many great movies and TV shows. Resources for good storytelling are practically endless on cinema and TV. And yet, with all this going for them, cinema and TV are yet to produce anything that matches depths and strength of classic literature. Maybe some movies or TV shows are going to be recognized as cultural milestones and masterpieces of highest order, but as it seems at this point, even the most respected movies and TV shows aren't able to last more than a generation before looking outdated.

Just words and, you know, the scope of your imagination. Which is malleable, and able to adapt with the ebb and flow of your changing perceptions and influences. Unlike a visual adaptation, which has logistical concerns, and must have a consistent and clear visual style. You can picture the Ramsay from the novels in the way that works best for you while reading, moment to moment - but watching it on-screen forces you to confront a different approach to or interpretation of the character. I think your simplifying the differences between the two mediums too much. The film-makers and writers and/or authors are experts at what they do; and it's been clear from the earliest days of cinema that some things are always lost in the transition from page to screen, but that some times things are also gained. There are advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. For instance, your mental image of Ramsay clashing so much with how the character has been portrayed on the show is a disadvantage. But there's more than one way to look at every situation, and the same rings true for how different people can interpret characters and their motivations differently. That's a large part of what makes the novels so interesting in the first place. But for readers who don't always have such a clear vision of the characters or locations in their mind, visual adaptations can becomes references points and enrich the reading experience. It's not as simple as a lack of imagination, it's just that the prose of an author isn't going to work for every reader.

In any case, based on recent interviews with Iwan Rheon, it sounds like the actor understands that Ramsay takes issue with his status as a bastard. He said:

How much do your politics enter into it, given that his father, Roose Bolton, is on the side of the Lannisters and participated in the Red Wedding? Versus being a sociopath or a psychopath?

I think a lot of it is he's acting on what his father has told him to do, but because of his nature. He may stray off exactly what they had in mind and take some things on according to his own ambition or whatever. But he's got a lot he wants to prove to his father. And he is a vicious sadist. [Laughs] And he needed to find out about the Stark boys, to get the information that they're still alive. And it's pretty harsh, isn't it, to be a bastard in Westeros? You see a lot with Jon Snow, how he was almost forced out. And Theon was, too, in a way. So they actually have a lot in common, but Ramsay has no empathy. He doesn't care. He can go off and do his own thing. He doesn't need to be friends with anyone.

Which, to me, doesn't preclude the idea that upon finding out that his captor is the son of Roose Bolton, Theon could call him Snow, and Ramsay could go from seeing Reek as his play thing to really... Well, to being more similar to how he was portrayed in the book. I don't have an issue with the writers tweaking the characters a bit here and there to allow for some growth (or even regression).

Anyway, here's the link to the full interview, if you're interested:

http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/game-of-thrones-iwan-rheon-bastard-bolton-interview.html

And another very good post-reveal interview:

http://www.accesshollywood.com/game-of-thrones-season-3-iwan-rheon-talks-finally-revealing-the-name-of-the-boy-torturing-theon-greyjoy_article_80540

And, just in case, the Inside the Episode link, which features a segment about this story line:

[LilJonUmber]

The most frightening part of Book Ramsay is all the horrific tales you hear second-hand about him. He has so few scenes, and his dialogue is rather brief compared to many. But he's like an urban legend in westeros.

They can start weaving some of these tales of his shenanigans next season to give him a real boost, in terms of how psycho he's perceived by the tv audience. It should have the same effect of taking his sadism to the next level -- and WAY beyond Joff.

[Miodrag]

I'm going to attempt to engage in honest, non hostile debate here. Please note I only seek clarification. I have no intent on changing your opinion as you have every right to it as I do mine.

Looks like you got one. Honest and non hostile debate, I mean. First, about Cersei: by "old grudge" I meant her hatred of Robert, not Tyrion. (Grudge maybe wasn't a proper word - sorry, English isn't my first language and there are limitations in my usage of it.) Robert's dead for some time now, and she's the one who killed him, and yet, she can't help but despise him even now and she enjoys mocking him. Along with cruelty, she shows vulnerability: she likes to remind herself often of her triumphs, in this case her triumph over Robert, in order to forget how actually weak and unprotected she feels inside. That's what I took from that short scene. There are many more examples of her complex personality in ACOK. Even in AGOT she showed me more than one dimension (her conversation with Ned, for example; I was surprised how vivid she was when faced with her crimes, unlike an average villain), but in ACOK she's fleshed out much more, primarily through her relations with Tyrion (which is brilliant, I'd say; their dirty little war is one of the best parts of the entire saga in my eyes) and with Sansa (their conversation/confrontation during the Battle of The Blackwater is a true literary triumph, of the rarest kind, and not only in fantasy, but in literature in general). Once again, I'm not Lena hater, in fact I think she's doing quite a decent job (while reading, I pictured Cersei more like Charlize Theron, but Lena suits me just fine). I don't have a single problem with people loving TV Cersei. The show is Lannister-focused after all. I only react when I encounter "book Cersei is one dimensional" notion, which is so far from truth. There's so much material in those books, so much nuance and details, and people tend to forget a lot of those details. Not that I blame people, I just like to remind them, same way I'm often reminded of some details when I read these forums.

Now, enough with Cersei. She's vile enough even withouth hijacking other people's threads. Let's get back to Ramsay, to whom I'll dedicate my next post.

[Miodrag]

@Areo Speedwagon

@Khal-a-bunga

The way TV/cinema use time is a conventional one. They may have good reasons for why they choose to make movies two hours long, or episodes one hour long, or ten-episodes seasons. But, it's a choice, not a given thing. And some authors do operate unconventionally (longer movies, longer episodes). And, in this particular case, it's on HBO to give D&D more time if they want to. If they don't want to, fine; if HBO isn't ready to break their schedules for GoT, fine; they don't have to, and it seems they're getting from GoT what they wanted (ratings, earnings...). I just don't like when they end up using time (or money) limitations as an excuse for their adaptation choices and decisions (especially because complaints often don't have anything to do with more money and more time, but with better writing and less focus on characters that aren't that important).

Something similar can be said for imagination. It's TV/cinema authors who often claim they have to "show, don't tell" or something to that effect. Yeah, in theory it's great when they can show us something, instead of telling about it. But, even in showing something explicitly, there's a room for viewers imagination. Think theater - more often than not, they can't put on stage everything that is needed for the scene to be fully realistic, and yet, they often manage to make viewers fully engaged in the play by invoking and inspiring viewers' imagination. Theater doesn't have the luxury of lavish spectacles we're often treated with in movies and on TV, but theater somehow works around this disadvantage for centuries and centuries - which makes me think that it maybe isn't a disadvantage after all; maybe it is the way to go, even in motion pictures. Not the strict theatrical way, of course. Theater is theater, and motion pictures are motion pictures. But, maybe TV/cinema should rely on viewers' imagination more than they usually do.

Ramsay may be a perfect example. In the books, we don't witness his worst acts. We only hear tales of them. (Apart from that disgusting scene with poor Jeyne and Theon on the wedding night, when he orders him to prepare her for sex; it showed how bounder-less his cruelty is; and that scene, by the way, would be so easy to film; if they do it according to the book, they'll shock and appall the viewers to no end, more than with the Season 3 scenes I'd say.) But, the important thing is that his manners and the way he talks and the way he addresses people (especially Theon) make us believe in each and every one of those tales. And even more important is how people around him react - and they're afraid of him like all the time.

In essence, we're promised a lot, and than Ramsay/Martin make good on some of those promises, not all of them, not even the majority of them, but a few important and effective ones (wedding night scene), and we have no reason to doubt them any more. It's a powerful literary technique. And it applies greatly on screen. Example: famous horse-head scene from "Godfather", one of the most memorable scenes in the entire history of film. We don't see the actual deed. There's foreshadowing (all those mentions of "an offer one can't refuse") and there's the aftermath (guy screams as he wakes up next to horse's head), and that's it. Nothing more is needed. In fact, had they put anything else, like the decapitation itself, it would only ruin the horror. By not showing the actual deed, they only made a bigger impact. TV Ramsay can be managed just like that. We don't need to witness all of his actual deeds. Show us only those acts that are easy to sell effectively, like the wedding night scene. For the rest, inspire our imagination with tales and reactions.

And, I'm aware book Ramsay's portrayal depends a lot on Theon's inner thoughts. But, there's a way around it, I believe. A piece of dialogue here and there, some eerie music in the background in the right moments, some face expressions by Alfie Allen that speak volumes... With enough dedication, it's quite doable this. In fact, I'll repeat once more: that's probably the best way to do it. Ramsay's letter to Greyjoys is a proof, I'd say. I'll disregard all the illogical aspects of that scene, and concentrate on the pure Ramsay effect. With Balon disgusted (and scared) while reading the letter, and with Asha/Yara being devastated so deep that she can't help but defy her father's order, Ramsay is as menacing as ever, without even being on screen. They can't do it all the time, of course, but if they keep disregarding viewers' imagination - as they often do in this show - their Ramsay won't do justice to his book original.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister!]

the thing with Ramsay is he was built up as a horrible monster before we even saw him. so when he was revealed we were like "oh shit". In the show without having time to talk about what he did to Lady Hornwood(?) or any of his other acts you don't get that "oh shit" moment, cause the audience would have had no idea who he was. Not sure how the audience who hasn't read the book reacted to Ramsay's show revealed.

[King Tyrion I]

I like(d) that scene.

Ramsay talking about Theon's penis and eating a sausage was hilarious. The morbid fascination of the macabre I believe. And of course the naming.

And Balon getting a parcel shipped containing the remains. Nailed it.

[Daske]

They can even use narration, like in voice-overs: yeah, some movie and TV authors (D&D included) don't like it, but it's used all the time, in many great movies and TV shows.

Yes, but only by one character - Dexter, Red in Shawshank, Deckard in Blade Runner, Count of Monte Cristo and so on. And the story mostly follows that character around. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not, but I can't even think of a film/TV show with more than one narrator (although there must some). You would need dozens in GoT - you couldn't just have us listening to Theon's thoughts in one location - how weird would that be? But trying to do it for multiple character all over the place would be a complete mess. PoV chapters in the book worked well - it just would not on screen. In this case it really is because it is a different medium.

I know you are saying you think show/filmmakers do not take artistic risks compared to literature, but imo in this case it is justified. They took a big enough gamble just getting the show on TV in the first place. Look how Camelot bombed. Also the main reason film/TV shows are comparatively not very brave compared to literature is that you don't lose millions of dollars if your book is a complete mess. Although of course as with the aforementioned Camelot if your show is no good you lose regardless.

And yet, with all this going for them, cinema and TV are yet to produce anything that matches depths and strength of classic literature. Maybe some movies or TV shows are going to be recognized as cultural milestones and masterpieces of highest order, but as it seems at this point, even the most respected movies and TV shows aren't able to last more than a generation before looking outdated.

There's plenty of movies that match classic literature imo, and that age well. TV shows I agree seem to age really badly.

The irony is that now and in the future GoT the show will almost certainly make critic's Top 100 TV shows of all time, but the books won't make the top 100 Books of all time.

[aFeastForDragons]

Looking back over all the Theon scenes I think Alfie and Iwan did an incredible job. Sure the reveal was way over drawn out and the "Who am I and where are you?" scene didn't make sense but the two actors did a top notch job. A glimpse at Winterfell in ashes would have been a good idea to really show how messed up Ramsey is.

[Cas Stark]

Well, you're never going to please everyone. Most people, for whatever reason, love Iwan's portrayal of Ramsey. I rewatched the episode lsat night and I still found the sausage jokes to be very out of place. And now whenever I see him the term "evil hobbit" comes crashing into my mind, LOL. I can see that he could portray the Ramsey of my imagination if he wanted to, because in those small flashes of anger, the actor can do it. He and the show have simply decided on a different character who is a jolly sadist.

My guess is that in his interactions w/Roose Bolton that Show Ramsey will be more of the petulant boy as opposed to the angry sullen freak from the books. Oh well, I'm over it all.