Jump to content

[Book/Show Spoilers] What will Stannis do next season?


Ser Luke.

Recommended Posts

There is simply a clear disconnect here. One moment they are running from ravens, and the next moment they are fine with no explanation provided. That's just jarring.

I guess why that didn't bother me was that they were getting the f out of there, cut to black, end episode. The next time we see them is, what, one or two epsisodes later? We left them as they were just out of harms way, an episode later, some time has gone by, and they're at the wall. I don't know. It didn't bother me as much as that scene being slapped on to the end of a rather slow episode just to give a *gasp*-Cut to black.

The hawk story...

I'll start with the hawk story...

Holy hell. I can see why you guys are so upset at that not being included. It certainly colors him way differently. I now hope they'll include it at some point, but who knows if it will be as effective. The showrunners have taken lines of dialogue from books and used them in the non-corresponding seasons, so maybe. But, again, it wasn't just Mel-Stannis sex. She told him she would give him a son. In that moment, I don't think he was as enthralled by her so much as the social mores of sons>daughters. Maybe that will be Stannis' arc next season, becoming more independent. I think we have to keep in mind how broken and desperate Stannis had to have been after the Blackwater. "Congratulations, you're the messiah!" --> Defeat. wut? I'm not expecting it next season, but maybe I'll allow myself some hope.

It's not that he doesn't believe in gods. In fact, he's among those who directly witnessed the power of Red God (in ACOK prologue). He's not an atheist. But, he's aware gods have no duties, and therefore he isn't interested in them. Stannis is, the way I see him, only interested in entities that are subject to duties, and gods don't fit the description. So, at the end of the day, he's following his own will, and not that of the gods. He just happened to find a god who's will seems to be in agreement with his (Stannis') own, but that's it. And he pretty much stays that way, through ADWD at least.

Interesting you put in those terms. As per my response to the hawk story, maybe when he's at the wall and hears the truth of the long night, dead rising, and the return of the WW from someone other than Mel, he'll see the red god's resurgance (fire - ice) as a form of cosmic, celestial "duty." Personally, I don't see that as too far off the larger scope of the books, that maybe what's going on now is just something that happens every few thousand years; the gods duking it out on the temporal plane in the hearts of men and women.

Next season i think they will show him episode 1 or 2 setting off for the wall

Episode 3-4 - show them arriving at Eastwatch by the Sea

Episode 5-6 - he rescues Jon from the wildling attacks

Episode 7-8 - give Jon the option of being legitimized if he supports him and tells him about the death of Robb

Episode 9-10 - Jon gets selected Lord Commander and he talks to Stannis about other lord who might give him support in the north.

I certainly hope this will be the timeline(ish) they follow.

but the reason why sex scenes stand out to me is something I believe you didn't address.

[...]

Roz: I expressed badly, I meant to say - if they restricted all the added sex scenes (you know, the ones that weren't in the source material) to one character, maybe it would've been better.

I'll try and keep this brief. I just think that sex scenes "standing out" is a function of us bringing our cultural baggage to a viewing experience. You said it yourself, we can see 15 year old Sophie Turner get punch in the face and beaten with the broad side of a sword, but we have to cut away before we show her getting raped or even being shown naked.

I do agree with you that seeing, watching the sex happen onscreen is, most of the time, unnecessary. And that GoT doesn't use sex as effectively as The Wire or other shows. You say "on paper, sex scenes aren't standouts at all." A quote by George RR Martin himself: "I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing me off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it's madness. Ultimately, in the history of [the] world, penises entering vaginas have given a lot of people a lot of pleaure; axes entering skulls, well, not so much."

As for restricting all added sex scene to one character, I think my point still stands. Sex is too integral to life, to what makes people who they are. To restrict it to one character is... restrictive. Perhaps you meant showing that added sex on screen. In that case, I might be tempted to agree. But we still might end up in the same place. If we only imply consensual love making, but we show exploitative, economic fucking, I can't really say we've taken a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Stannis in the show will likely arrive at The Wall, treat everybody like shit unless he was persuaded otherwise, grunt and snarl a lot, and cry if Melisandre didn't touch his cock for a day.

Except for the part of Melisandre and his cock, isn't that just what Stannis does at the Wall all the time? He never speaks to anyone without insulting them or threatening to execute them. I love Stannis, but you can't deny that he's a dick to everyone ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and keep this brief. I just think that sex scenes "standing out" is a function of us bringing our cultural baggage to a viewing experience. You said it yourself, we can see 15 year old Sophie Turner get punch in the face and beaten with the broad side of a sword, but we have to cut away before we show her getting raped or even being shown naked.

I do agree with you that seeing, watching the sex happen onscreen is, most of the time, unnecessary. And that GoT doesn't use sex as effectively as The Wire or other shows. You say "on paper, sex scenes aren't standouts at all." A quote by George RR Martin himself: "I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing me off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it's madness. Ultimately, in the history of [the] world, penises entering vaginas have given a lot of people a lot of pleaure; axes entering skulls, well, not so much."

Either you didn't understand me, or I don't understand that you understood me. Allow me to try one more time to explain why I see this problem in performing arts.

I can act in a fight scene with my sister; I can act in a dance scene with my sister; I can act a car chase scene with my sister; and so on... But, I'd never ever act in a sex scene with my sister. If you agree with this, than they're standout scenes for you, too, in terms of performing. And if you're aware how special they are in terms of performing, they have to be special in terms of viewing for you, cause every viewer gets, at least on subconscious level, that for those actors performing sex scenes wasn't the same as performing the rest of the scenes. It has nothing to do with how necessary or not the scene is. Nor with our baggage, existence of which I don't deny. When I watch a sex scene between Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone: 1) I envy the motherfucker, but that's not the point here; and 2) I'm aware he'd never ever act in that scene with his sister/daughter, just like she'd never act in that scene with her brother/son. The actors were exposed in that scene more than in any other scene they filmed together, and viewers can't help but get it.

These scenes aren't awkward because of what they depict. I have zero problems with fictional characters doing whatever it takes to make their story interesting and compelling. Sex is a part of life - certainly one of it's better parts, if I may add - and I see no problem with sexual act being depicted. Not only in books: comics too, cartoons also. They can fuck their collective brains out for all I care: I'll enjoy it in a narrative sense, no matter how graphic those scenes are. In novels, comics, cartoons and similar mediums, sex is no different than any other scene. If someone has a problem with sex in those mediums, that's the baggage you're talking about, and hypocrisy GRRM was talking about.

But, in performing arts, sex scenes request from actors a level of exposure that other scenes simply don't. If Michael butchers Sharon on screen, not a single percent of real Sharon was actually butchered; if Michael fucks with Sharon on screen, well, at the end of the filming of that scene real Michael and real Sharon weren't 100 percent 'intact'. There was no penetration (in majority cases, at least), but in graphic scenes some sexual exchange between the actors wasn't acted at all - it had to be real. And that may make the rest of the scenes 'less real' in some levels of viewers' minds. Once again, it has nothing to do with the baggage; only with the very nature of performing arts.

Back on topic, sort of. When Stannis was chocking Mel in 02x10, no actual violence took place in the filming of that scene; when Stannis was having sex with Mel in 02x02, some sexual exchange was inevitably present in their acting, because a kiss can't be performed without actual kissing, and grabbing one's naked body can't be performed without grabbing one's naked body. The actors were obviously OK with it, so I'm not judging them (that would be puritanical, probably even hypocritical, considering what I wrote earlier). I'm just saying that, after seeing them during sexual act, some part of the mind of every viewer is aware that scene was a standout among the rest of their scenes. And I'm not saying the industry should abandon sex scenes because of their nature. But, film and TV creators have to keep in mind this uniqueness of sex scenes, just as I'm sure the most skillful among them do.

Now, if you tell me all this post was for nothing, as in, it didn't make my stance any clearer, I'm just going to kill myself (out of despair, and not to film the suicide in order to prove my point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that "son" thing really wierd. In his first sex scene Mel promises Stannis "a son", which leads to her birthing the shadow. Later, in that terrible scene in S3 when Mel leaves, Stannis tells her to make him "another son", him obviously meaning another shadow.

I just find the terminology off, especially for Stannis, considering what a real son should mean to him - a male heir and another more 'normal' as well as socially acceptable child in general; it makes little sense to me for him to use the same term for basically a 'killing-device', which disappears moments after it's, ehm, born. That is, unless they've deliberately done it to make Stannis come off as more delusional or out-of-touch with him thinking of the shadows as his real sons. I understand that D&D need to come up with a name for Mel's creature, since "make me another shadow baby" would sound ridiculous. But what's wrong with simply using "shadow" or something? So yeah, really wierd in my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if you tell me all this post was for nothing, as in, it didn't make my stance any clearer, I'm just going to kill myself (out of despair, and not to film the suicide in order to prove my point).

Good news, you don't have to end your life!

I finally understand you. But I don't have time to respond in full right now as I'm at work. I just wanted to reassure you before you do anything drastic....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news, you don't have to end your life!

I finally understand you. But I don't have time to respond in full right now as I'm at work. I just wanted to reassure you before you do anything drastic....

It was a close one. You almost didn't make it in time. Anyway, looking forward to your full response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just confirmed that Neil Marshall will be the director of 4.09 episode, which probably means this episode will be totally focused on the battle against the wildlings, like they did in Blackwater.

Meanwhile, they will probably show the scene where Mel burns a criminal in order to get good winds during the travel to the Wall. But considering how much Benioff and Weiss hate Stannis, they will probably make him sacrifice some random innocent child for this "magic".

Season 3 completely DESTROYED the character. As if all that stuff with Davos prison and Stannis begging Mel for another child were not enough, they decided to make Stannis accept the sacrifice and created an extra scene just to show people that Stannis is going to the Wall because Melisandre told him to, which is TOTALLY false. He went there because he saw an opportunity to recruit some of those wildlings to his army and also to do his duty and save the wall, as a real king should have done.

All these things that the TV Show did to his character is totally unacepptable. You don't have to be a lover or a hater to notice that they killed Stannis only because they hated him. You should NEVER let your personal preferences influence on the way you make the show. This is lack of profissionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just confirmed that Neil Marshall will be the director of 4.09 episode, which probably means this episode will be totally focused on the battle against the wildlings, like they did in Blackwater.

Then that battle is going to be epic. I wonder if Shireen and her mother will be featured in the episode too...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Season 3 completely DESTROYED the character. As if all that stuff with Davos prison and Stannis begging Mel for another child were not enough, they decided to make Stannis accept the sacrifice and created an extra scene just to show people that Stannis is going to the Wall because Melisandre told him to, which is TOTALLY false.

I completely understand why the other stuff may upset you, but I thought the Davos in prison material was solid, and fairly in character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentwanderer - TV Stannis will most likely be talked into making his wife his Nissa Nissa and he'll sacrifice both her and Shireen to the fire. Have the producers confirmed how long the moustache is going to be yet they're going to give him in Season 4? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really grinds my gears is that they made Stannis an actual fanatic and believer in the Lord of Light("how can you deny that her god is real"). So what I think they should do next season is to give Stannis reason to doubt his faith and start to turn away from Melisandre and the sense of entitlement she brings, and start to lean closer to Davos and the sense of duty he instills. There wasn't enough character development in season 3, and it's up to them to make up for this in season 4. Given that the amount of source material and plot development is scarce for next season, I would suggest that focusing on character development is the best way to go for them. I enjoyed the Faustian/Macbeth parallels Stannis had in season 2, but it's time to put that to rest. Anybody that's read the books can easily see that Stannis, by the end of ADWD, has NOT gone down the path of Faust or Macbeth yet. If they start to show Stannis breaking away from Melisandre's spell, and becoming more of his own man, not only does it count as important character development, but also makes him more interesting to watch.

What I found odd is that in 3x10, Stannis plans to head north to fight the Others, not the wildlings. It'll be interesting to see whether they address and amend this next season. "I saved the realm because it's my duty" is a much better reason than "I saved the realm because my priestess says I'm God".

Note: This can only be possible if D and D STAY THE FUCK AWAY from writing Stannis scenes, and leaving it all to Bryan Cogman. In Cogman we trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found odd is that in 3x10, Stannis plans to head north to fight the Others, not the wildlings. It'll be interesting to see whether they address and amend this next season. "I saved the realm because it's my duty" is a much better reason than "I saved the realm because my priestess says I'm God".

Note: This can only be possible if D and D STAY THE FUCK AWAY from writing Stannis scenes, and leaving it all to Bryan Cogman. In Cogman we trust.

I'm pretty sure he went to the Wall to fight the Others just like in the show. The letter he gets from Davos is about the massacre at the Fist of the First Men, and later, when he's already at Castle Black, Stannis points North and says "there's the enemy I was born to fight" or something like that. As much as I hate what they've done to Stannis, that's not a change/inaccuracy. I just hope they keep his line about his duty next season.

And about trusting Bryan Cogman, I think I heard somewhere, during the production of S3, that Cogman wrote all of Stannis's scenes. I'm not sure about that, but I'd avoid the classic "D&D are idiots, but Cogman is a genius" thing we see pretty often here. It's hard to say who wrote what, especially when so many scenes were moved between episodes this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure he went to the Wall to fight the Others just like in the show. The letter he gets from Davos is about the massacre at the Fist of the First Men, and later, when he's already at Castle Black, Stannis points North and says "there's the enemy I was born to fight" or something like that. As much as I hate what they've done to Stannis, that's not a change/inaccuracy. I just hope they keep his line about his duty next season.

And about trusting Bryan Cogman, I think I heard somewhere, during the production of S3, that Cogman wrote all of Stannis's scenes. I'm not sure about that, but I'd avoid the classic "D&D are idiots, but Cogman is a genius" thing we see pretty often here. It's hard to say who wrote what, especially when so many scenes were moved between episodes this season.

My bad, I could have sworn he left Dragonstone to fight the wildlings(although I distinctly remember the "there is the enemy I have to fight" quote, so you're most likely right"). Cogman was in charge of the Stannis and Bran stories in s3, but I'm not sure whether that meant he wrote all of them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what the TV series is doing with Stannis in that they're slowly unveiling a sophisticated character, in a similar way that they unveiled other complex characters.

We've seen a simplistic introduction to a driven man with a witchy woman slowly evolve into a more interesting character and someone who will help fight for Westeros. A lot of Stannis's character is thereand his actions are now being revealed to be grey at worst, rather than Evilllll.

So I'm quite hopeful that we'll be pleasantly surprised at the detail we'll get about Stannis in season 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...