Jump to content

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


Ser Luke.

Recommended Posts

Because if Stannis is leaving for the Wall now he's going to turn up at the first battle at the wall. Meaning they've cut the second battle and made it all one big attack. I suppose they think it will be repetative having two battles there in the same season as well as fitting in the election and some Jon/Stan scenes?

I dont understand. The first Wildling attack on the Wall is imminent and a small force. Stannis needs time to build an army, gather a fleet, sail to Eastwatch, then march to Caslte Black. That is more than enough time for Tormund to attack, Yigrits final words, feels, tears, some KL/slavers bay/ Adventure of Rikkon and Osha (just wait and see), odd plotting between Lady O and LIttle Finger..... then... with 2 minutes left in episode 6, a battle that the KW cant possibly win erupts. With his brothers falling all around him, Jon prepares to die fighting when suddenly the cavalry rides in.

See, the choices dont have to be.... do both attacks as they are in the books, or only do one. The first one could be a small attack..... you know the FF are going to be defeated, and the main point of THAT scene will be yigrit's death.... Then later, (maybe after we get a good idea of Jaynos Slynt, Black Brother) the second attack happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the amount of characters and new developments happening it would be fairly easy to have him only slightly mentioned until episode 5-6. Look at season 3 just gone for example what did he actually do? How much screen time did he actually get? How many episodes did he not feature at all?

I see your point but if they have the battle on the wall at Ep 6 it should be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hopefully they'll include at least two of his reedeming monologues from SOS (the sacrifice one and the robert one) . I mean...he is a bit idolized, but ASOS in particular really changed my viewpoint of the character. of course, Benioff and Weiss don't like Stannis, clearly, but those I think are important enough that they'll put them in some format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but season 2 he wasn't set up going somewhere. It's tv they cant say he's going and then having him do nothing for 6 episodes. Like you say there's plenty going on with other characters, they might condense the wall. They sure cut Jon's story this season. Because if you think about it there's a lot to squeeze in 10ep. Two battles, Stan & Jon love-in, election, introducing Val ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really recommend reading the books again. It's the details that matter.

I am going to reading them again. Just not until I've seen the corresponding season first.... :cool4:

As for those points, I'll willingly concede 2, 4. I'd consider conceding 1, but l wrote about it below. 6 seems to be moot at this point. But I can't argue 2, 4.

But point 3, isn't that exactly why he visited Davos in the dungeon in ep 8 and the entire conversation therein? Davos says: "you could have freed me yesterday, or tomorrow. But you came to me now, before this boy is put to the knife because you knew I'd council restraint. you came to hear me say it because you believe it yourself. You're not a man who slaughters innocents for gain or glory." Then Davos tells a story about Mathos when he was younger concluding with "I believe mothers and fathers made up the gods because they wanted their children to sleep through the night."

Stannis responds and addresses point 1. He says, "I saw a vision in the flames. A great battle in the snow. I saw it. And you saw whatever she gave birth to. I never believed. But when you see the truth, when it's right there in front of you, as real as these iron bars how can you deny her god is real?" I never believed. I don't know what else you want him to say. Maybe you want him to say it more or more emphatically?

As to points 5 & 1, I'm not calling you out personally because these points are from another thread, but I see a lot of selective memory from book 'purists' regarding what we've been shown. Case in point. The very passage you choose to quote in point 5, Stannis delivers practically verbatim in that scene. Stannis starts: "Are they feeding you?" Then, "You don't belong in a place like this." After giving condolences over Mathos, Stannis tells of Melisandre's return w/ Gendry and her intent. Davos asks "Is there a difference between kill and sacrifice? The boy is your nephew." And here I think Stannis is playing the voice of Mel against Davos, he says "What of it? We're at war. Why should I spare the son of some tavern slut Robert bedded one drunken night? [Davos and Stannis discuss that Renly wronged him, the boy is an innocent] Stannis responds -- and compare this to what you quoted from the book -- "How many boys are there in Westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all she says, the night that never ends. Unless I triumph. I never asked for this, no more than I asked to be king. We do not choose our destiny. But we must do our duty, no? Great or small we must do our duty. What's one bastard boy against a kingdom?"

I think anyone that believes Stannis will be an evil dictator at the wall needs to watch the scene in ep 8 where he goes to visit Davos in the cell again. Every point that was cherry picked from the unsullied forums, especially those in bold, is answered directly by this scene. Should we have had more scenes like this? Of course. What were the showrunners thinking by including Pod the sex god over more scenes like this? No fucking clue. That's indefensible in my opinion. Were the fetus jars fucked up and unnecessary? Yes. But Stannis, at his core, is still in there. It's surrounded by a fair amount of bullshit, but I believe it's there. Another passage that was in bold was the person going to the wiki for backstory because the show didn't give any. A lot happened in the ep Blackwater, so it's easy to forget, but Stannis gives the whole story of holding Storms End during the war only to have Robert give it to Renly. "He was my older brother and my king, so I did my duty." Again, I see that as selective memory. I think people are a lot more likely, in the moment of reading, to flip back a few pages and freshen up on something than they are to, in the moment of watching, rewind to freshen up on something, especially if that scene is in the previous season.

Lastly, because this is getting too long, I take issue with purism in itself, which is where I see a lot of the issues coming from. Even though I know it comes from a place of love, I believe it to be flawed because a tv show isn't a book. It's redundant, but it seems like it needs to be said. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Areo, I don't have a problem with ep. 8 Stannis. Not surprising actually, since Martin wrote big parts of that episode. Bryan Cogman wrote episode 5 - Stannis is pretty decent in there too. Bryan Cogman is a huge book fan and Martin of course wrote the books.

What people are peeved about is ep 10 Stannis and some others like ep 3 where he begs Mel for sex. These are written by D&D and they're pretty clear that they hate him and they've said that he's like the republican party and that he would make a terrible king. It's clear they're not adapting the books any more , but are intent on pressing their own personal agendas ( you can also see this with the screen time list in the nitpick thread ). This has huge implications going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Areo most of your points come from episode 8 Stannis which was really well done, this season Stannis had personality change each episode he appeared, in ep1 it was okay, in ep3 it was WTF but Cogman said it was made to underline how deeply Mel affected him. I don't agree but it's not a big problem. In ep5 complex human side of Stannis we had in the books started appearing, Stannis in ep8 behaved exactly like you would expect book Stannis. But in ep10 simply by hearing Robb's death he became the spineless bitch that we had in ep3. In the last scene he says 'Ive made my decision' about Davos' death even after hearing the letter, but Mel insists on letting him live and Stannis goes 'Yes master.' But the laugh and the last sentence was similar to the book Stannis, mocking the bitter irony in all these.

I sincerely hope this was not a result of a foolish hate coming from D&D but simply their incompetence in writing this complex character, I wish they would let GRRM or Cogman write all the Stannis arcs in coming seasons. (And if it was Cogman who wrote ep10 Stannis, well nothing to do then, they've got their favorites to look after, who cares about Stannis?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Areo, I don't have a problem with ep. 8 Stannis. Not surprising actually, since Martin wrote big parts of that episode. Bryan Cogman wrote episode 5 - Stannis is pretty decent in there too. Bryan Cogman is a huge book fan and Martin of course wrote the books.

What people are peeved about is ep 10 Stannis and some others like ep 3 where he begs Mel for sex. These are written by D&D and they're pretty clear that they hate him and they've said that he's like the republican party and that he would make a terrible king. It's clear they're not adapting the books any more , but are intent on pressing their own personal agendas ( you can also see this with the screen time list in the nitpick thread ). This has huge implications going forward.

LOL, did they really say Stannis was like the Republican Party? Jesus, do they even know what they're reading anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Episode 1 - 2 : Gathering his army. Diplomatic moves with some Lords.

Episode 3 : Sailing away from Dragonstone : epic moment.

Episode 5 / 6 : Arrives at the Wall smashing down the Wildlings.

Episode 7 - 9 : Lord Commander election, meetings with Jon / Mance.

Episode 10 : Jon refusing his offer as he becomes Lord C

This is kind of what I figured. Him saving the Wall won't be an episode 9 main event, I think that will be Tyrion's escape and the crossbow.

Lastly, because this is getting too long, I take issue with purism in itself, which is where I see a lot of the issues coming from. Even though I know it comes from a place of love, I believe it to be flawed because a tv show isn't a book. It's redundant, but it seems like it needs to be said. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad the consensus seems to be that he was handled (relatively) well at certain points.

That being said, in the end, there's no such thing as "episode 8 Stannis" or "episode 3 Stannis." There's just Stannis. Every episode creates a larger whole. When one says a character was great in one episode but terrible in another, for the most part, they seem to be implying that the character (read: adaptation) was closer to the books in the episode they deemed 'great.'

And I can respect that. Up to a point. Because we don't get a Stannis POV in the books. We never get in his head. I think it makes sense there's a sexual element to Stannis and Mel's relationship, even a somewhat dependent one. Another thread about Dany's burgeoning Messiah complex seems relevant here. Stannis had one too. Then he lost. To the very mortal, very temporal Tywin Lannister. Whatever growing conviction of his own messiah-ness was brutally cut down. By ep 3, he's a broken man. A man without purpose. He didn't just want to fuck Melisandre, he wanted her to make him another "son" to keep the fight alive. "Your fires burn low, my king," she responds.

As for Stannis willing to go to war after One leech, not three, it robbed us of "two isn't three, woman," and maybe made him appear more impulsive, but it fits their timeline. If Stannis had waited until all 3 died, he wouldn't be leaving Dragonstone until around episode 6 or 7 of season 4. By then, in the show's timeline, Mance would most likely have already defeated the Night's Watch. Admittedly, they probably could have killed Balon off in the finale, but they couldn't have killed Joffrey without pushing his wedding to season 3, which would mash the timeline for the intro of the Red Viper plus push the wildling attack on the wall. Move one thing, and 5 others move with it. Isn't that what took Martin 5 years to write Feast and 6 for Dance, timeline issues?

The Republican party bit certainly seems to repeated and believed a lot around here, so I don't doubt that all started from a kernel of truth. But I googled "Stannis republican" "stannis, republican party" "Benioff stannis republican""benioff, stannis, republican" and came up with nothing. If someone does have a link, I am genuinely curious at this point. I don't doubt they said it, but I'm growing skeptical. Another simple option is that maybe one of the creatives behind the show is a republican, and doesn't see comparing Stannis to the republican party as damnation. Far fetched, I know, but not impossible.

That's pretty close to what I remember from book Stannis, he being 'iron' who'll "break before he bends."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad the consensus seems to be that he was handled (relatively) well at certain points.

That being said, in the end, there's no such thing as "episode 8 Stannis" or "episode 3 Stannis." There's just Stannis. Every episode creates a larger whole. When one says a character was great in one episode but terrible in another, for the most part, they seem to be implying that the character (read: adaptation) was closer to the books in the episode they deemed 'great.'

And I can respect that. Up to a point. Because we don't get a Stannis POV in the books. We never get in his head. I think it makes sense there's a sexual element to Stannis and Mel's relationship, even a somewhat dependent one. Another thread about Dany's burgeoning Messiah complex seems relevant here. Stannis had one too. Then he lost. To the very mortal, very temporal Tywin Lannister. Whatever growing conviction of his own messiah-ness was brutally cut down. By ep 3, he's a broken man. A man without purpose. He didn't just want to fuck Melisandre, he wanted her to make him another "son" to keep the fight alive. "Your fires burn low, my king," she responds.

As for Stannis willing to go to war after One leech, not three, it robbed us of "two isn't three, woman," and maybe made him appear more impulsive, but it fits their timeline. If Stannis had waited until all 3 died, he wouldn't be leaving Dragonstone until around episode 6 or 7 of season 4. By then, in the show's timeline, Mance would most likely have already defeated the Night's Watch. Admittedly, they probably could have killed Balon off in the finale, but they couldn't have killed Joffrey without pushing his wedding to season 3, which would mash the timeline for the intro of the Red Viper plus push the wildling attack on the wall. Move one thing, and 5 others move with it. Isn't that what took Martin 5 years to write Feast and 6 for Dance, timeline issues?

The Republican party bit certainly seems to repeated and believed a lot around here, so I don't doubt that all started from a kernel of truth. But I googled "Stannis republican" "stannis, republican party" "Benioff stannis republican""benioff, stannis, republican" and came up with nothing. If someone does have a link, I am genuinely curious at this point. I don't doubt they said it, but I'm growing skeptical. Another simple option is that maybe one of the creatives behind the show is a republican, and doesn't see comparing Stannis to the republican party as damnation. Far fetched, I know, but not impossible.

That's pretty close to what I remember from book Stannis, he being 'iron' who'll "break before he bends."

That's why I still have some faith that D&D know what they are doing with Stannis and that they are trying to build some kind of redemption arc for him. It really pisses me off what they've done to Stannis, but it seems that Benioff, at least, understands his character (and he has Davos as one of his favorite characters, so he might even be a Stannis fan for all we know), so "the butchering of Stannis" might have a valid reason and pay off in the end. I can't believe they'd let their personal feelings towards a character in the books cloud their portrayal in the adaptation, especially after the great job they've done with most other characters in the show. Even though they've screwed up a few times, I don't consider them that unprofessional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I still have some faith that D&D know what they are doing with Stannis and that they are trying to build some kind of redemption arc for him. It really pisses me off what they've done to Stannis, but it seems that Benioff, at least, understands his character (and he has Davos as one of his favorite characters, so he might even be a Stannis fan for all we know), so "the butchering of Stannis" might have a valid reason and pay off in the end. I can't believe they'd let their personal feelings towards a character in the books cloud their portrayal in the adaptation, especially after the great job they've done with most other characters in the show. Even though they've screwed up a few times, I don't consider them that unprofessional.

Agreed. Especially about the endgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I still have some faith that D&D know what they are doing with Stannis and that they are trying to build some kind of redemption arc for him. It really pisses me off what they've done to Stannis, but it seems that Benioff, at least, understands his character (and he has Davos as one of his favorite characters, so he might even be a Stannis fan for all we know), so "the butchering of Stannis" might have a valid reason and pay off in the end. I can't believe they'd let their personal feelings towards a character in the books cloud their portrayal in the adaptation, especially after the great job they've done with most other characters in the show. Even though they've screwed up a few times, I don't consider them that unprofessional.

Which other characters are you talking about? Seems to me they ruined all of them... and the only one they're doing a good job of is Jaime's arc...but even that is thanks to Cogman...

Lastly, because this is getting too long, I take issue with purism in itself, which is where I see a lot of the issues coming from. Even though I know it comes from a place of love, I believe it to be flawed because a tv show isn't a book. It's redundant, but it seems like it needs to be said. 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.

Spare me, I am no book purist.. I understand all the other changes, even long term changes but I would never understand changes that concern a character's complexity... Was it really that hard to give scenes, lines, and dialogues to certain characters when you have so much time to put unnecessary/annoying/out-of-character fillers? No, it's not an adaptation anymore... It's a fanfiction....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which other characters are you talking about? Seems to me they ruined all of them... and the only one they're doing a good job of is Jaime's arc...but even that is thanks to Cogman...

Please tell me, what did they ruin in Arya, Bran, Jorah, Barristan, Davos, Joffrey, Tywin, Roose, Balon, Sandor, Bronn, Ned, Robert, Dany, Viserys, Varys, Samwell, Olenna, Margaery and Theon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only trouble I have with the way they treated Jon and Theon's arcs is that both characters are smarter than they seem to be in the TV series. I have difficulty imagining Kit Harrington's Jon as Lord Commander of the Wall. The arcs themselves are portrayed with sensitivity, but only Alfie Allen is a good enough actor to pull the slight character divergence off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think that since they changed the note from Aemon to say that the White Walker's are attacking there's no chance that anyone else in Westeros is going to show up at the Wall to help, no one else will believe it. Mel will tell Stannis this and he can go there early with his forces to help garrison the wall. Davos will be off trying to gather men to join Stannis.

I think the key is next season it has to look like Mance Rayder has a chance to win. He's got a very high numbers of followers and he was once a crow himself. Plus he's got wargs and giants and who knows what else.

This gives the Wall story a chance to get some things out of the way (assuming they're going to have the big battle for the Wall episode 9 and just a few smaller attacks before it) the Night's Watch trying to elect a new LC, Jon Snow being offered Winterfell so that Northern Lords will join behind Stannis.

If they don't have Stannis arrive early then it will be another pretty uneventful season after last season of him sitting around not doing much.

I really hope that they have Stannis show up early get some NW stuff out of the way or else the Wall storyline won't even get through Storm of Swords next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with all of that, though the queer friendship (and I don't mean it that way) that develops between Jon and Stannis doesn't become a major feature in the books until ADwD. Before that, Stannis' habit of talking at people instead of debating with them and the demands he makes on Jon make it a very one sided relationship, despite Stannis in his own way intending to help Jon. They should really get the battle for The Wall out of the way as soon as possible, without compromising the necessity of course for setting up the long-overdue embassage from Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I still have some faith that D&D know what they are doing

Ya, they know what they are doing. They are doing the butchering on purpose.

Just check the screentime by lines of every character and you'll instantly see it. If they happen to not like the character, it get butchered. If they happen to like it, it gets whitewashed to extreme proportions.

I toyed with this idea too when I thought of all these changes in characters that could have been avoided most of the time simply by keeping the dialogue in the book intact (this would have change A LOT in Stannis' arc even if they wanted to free Gendry in episode 10, there is a huge difference between 'the boy will die' and 'sacrifice... it's never easy, or no real sacrifice' etc). and they've got some characters' relationships with each others really wrong. And everytime we complain about these showdefenders says how we lack screentime.

I first thougth that they might not be doing this, councouisly, being biased after reading the books like any fan, about their favorites, but now that I think of it it's clear that they're concentrating more on some characters and not on others I mean if you watch the 'inside episodes' I noticed that they mostly speak about same characters ignoring some others eventhough there's been great plot development on the otherside. And there's also the number of lines per character which provides further proof(from some poster in WIC) :

Characters with the most lines in Season 3:

1. Tyrion – 224

2. Jaime – 120

3. Daenerys – 106

4. Arya – 105

5. Tywin – 99

6. Cersei – 97

6. Sansa – 97

8. Davos – 96

9. Robb – 92

10. Jon – 89

11. Bran – 84

12. Gendry – 72

12. Joffrey – 72

12. Margaery – 72

12. Samwell – 72

16. Olenna – 71

16. Ygritte – 71

18. Theon – 70

19. Thoros – 67

20. Shae – 64

21. Brienne – 60

21. Missandei

23. Melisandre – 59

24. Stannis – 58

25. Sandor – 57

26. Varys – 56

27. Jojen -55

28. Jorah – 52

29. Osha – 52

30. Ramsay – 49

31. Gilly – 48

31. Talisa – 48

33. Catelyn – 46

34. Bronn – 45

35. Littlefinger – 40

Sum of these numbers make 2625. Now let's look at King's Landing characters' sum (Tyrion, Tywin, Cersei,Sansa, Joffrey, Margaery, Olenna, Shae, Varys,Bronn, Littlefinger) : 937, so 35.7% of the whole story.

Let's compare it with to books, going till the chapter 56 of aSoS (the Bran at Nightfort), and the number of KL chapters (Sansa+Tyrion) is 9, so 15.8% of the story taking in account the prologue too.

So there's over two times more time spent in KL in the show than in the books, well I hope its clear why the other characters lack screen time! For more whiteTyrion and whores and useless stuff. With that much time spent on KL they didn't even managed to get Sansa right.

And looking again at the numbers, WHY Tyrion has that much lines, he basically does nothing big in this part of aSoS except marrying and whining. Stannis or Catelyn has less lines than Shae the funny whore -__-. Catelyn has as much lines as BRONN, this is how much she got downplayed. you'll also notice the 2x factor between Tyrion and Jaime, knowing that this season was Jaime's prime, so we will be lucky if Jaime talks as much as Shae next season.

So yeah. They have clear favorites and are doing all this character assassination on purpose.

They just utterly failed to get Robb Stark right. As far as Stannis goes, it seems to be heading down the same path.

After season 1, roughly 80% of the King in the North storyline is about the Robb-Talisa relationship. The character of Talisa is awful, cliche and totally unrealistic and only could have made sense if she was a spy.

Here is roughly the story of Robb Stark

Season 2.

Robb wins a battle. Meets Talisa, who back chats to him.

Robb-n-Talisa share more banter. Talisa writes a letter.

Talisa asks Robb for 'supplies'.

Robb-n-Talisa take a walk in the park.

Robb-n-Talisa get some sexy time. Robb is pissed with his mommy and locks her up.

Robb is still pissed with his mommy, and marries Talisa out of twu wuv.

Season 3.

Robb-n-Talisa arrive at Harrenhal. Robb locks up his mommy.

Robb-n-Talisa share a kiss, but are interrupted by Bolton. On the way to Riverrun, Catelyn delivers a long rambling monologue to Talisa.

Robb laughs at his grandfather's funeral. Talisa treats some Lannister boys.

Robb executes Karstark. Robb-n-Talisa come up with a plan to attack Casterly rock.

Robb-n-Talisa share some more sexy time. Robb moons over Talisa's ass. Talisa writes a letter.

Red wedding ( thank god its finally over. This episode was fairly good though )

If you compare it to the books, it's just so superficial and just not the same.

That's why I have no hope for Stannis. His story is heading down the same path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...