Is there any hope for the adaptation of Stannis in Season 4? (TV and Book Spoilers)

[Dragon Shieldbreaker]

Nonsense. If The Great Gatsby ended with Jay Gatsby and Daisy walking off into the sunset to live happily ever after everyone would hate it and rightly so, because it would be unfaithful to everything that The Great Gatsby was trying to tell the reader.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about an adaptation that makes significant CHARACTER changes which have nothing to do with the medium of film or time constraints or budget any of the other excuses that are routinely trotted out.

If you don't or hardly notice the changes a year after last reading the book, they probably weren't that significant. And I'm a huge nerd and read all the books and I thought Stannis felt pretty close to how he was in the books.

[The Mondrian Oak]

If you think that one simplistic term is enough to describe the Stannis-Renly situation then you sure as hell don't. Thing is, in GRRM's world, characters are willing to cross boundaries if need be; the Baratheons tossed aside their fealty to Aerys in wake of his tyranny and ridiculous actions, Dany stood by and watched Viserys die instead of protesting because she knew he'd committed a crime punishable by death, Qhorin Halfhand commanded Jon to do what men of the NW would declare treachery and make him labelled as a traitor.

Rigid rock solid rules are only meant to be followed up till the point they help you survive. Beyond that, i.e Renly wanting you dead, you take action. this is justification for Stannis having Renly killed.

Mate, knock it off, you're starting to be rude.

However: Stannis is the first to believe in a black-or-white world. Hence my examples on smuggling. God, you Stannis fans are like iron, breaking before bending.

[Toxspecific]

Mate, knock it off, you're starting to be rude.

However: Stannis is the first to believe in a black-or-white world. Hence my examples on smuggling. God, you Stannis fans are like iron, breaking before bending.

Who's breaking?

And Stannis believes in a black and white world and yet said 'the good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad or good'. Believing in black and white, wouldn't he just label Davos a smuggler and go 'since you were smuggling before you saved me (by labels, a rebel), you die!'

[The Mondrian Oak]

Who's breaking?

And Stannis believes in a black and white world and yet said 'the good does not wash out the bad, nor the bad or good'. Believing in black and white, wouldn't he just label Davos a smuggler and go 'since you were smuggling before you saved me (by labels, a rebel), you die!'

I certainly am, and I ain't no Stannis fan! Only a realist supporter. He is the best contender to the throne, at the moment.

[Weeping Sore]

I certainly am, and I ain't no Stannis fan! Only a realist supporter. He is the best contender to the throne, at the moment.

Except for his being dead. Boy, the hue and cry will ring from Dorne to the Wall when it's confirmed to this forum that Stannis did in fact die ignominiously off-page, just like Balon Greyjoy.

And don't quote me your TWoW spoilers. No indication that happened chronologically after the Pink Letter.

IMNSHO, GRRM wouldn't fake-kill Jon & Stannis at the same time. One of those deaths is real, and it's not Jon's.

[Toxspecific]

Except for his being dead. Boy, the hue and cry will ring from Dorne to the Wall when it's confirmed to this forum that Stannis did in fact die ignominiously off-page, just like Balon Greyjoy.

And don't quote me your TWoW spoilers. No indication that happened chronologically after the Pink Letter.

IMNSHO, GRRM wouldn't fake-kill Jon & Stannis at the same time. One of those deaths is real, and it's not Jon's.

Now there was a pretty big thread explaining why Stannis dying was chronologically (or something) impossible. And it makes such little sense for him to die at this juncture.

Now where is that thread.

[Weeping Sore]

Now there was a pretty big thread explaining why Stannis dying was chronologically (or something) impossible. And it makes such little sense for him to die at this juncture.

Now where is that thread.

I'll read it if you find it. But I think it makes plenty of sense for him to die at this juncture, or if not, early in TWoW. A Bolton victory would be more dramatically useful.

ETA: And it would make sense to close out the War of Five Kings by the beginning of the last 2 books by having the 5th King die.

[Thelastactionhero]

I mean, feel however you want about it, I'm just pointing out that these lines and elements you say are missing, actually aren't missing. And I don't really consider this...

...'accounting for' anything. You're trying to make a point by excluding these important scenes from the two episodes that focused on Dragonstone more than any other this season (other than the finale, that is), and I'm not sure how that really works in terms of making an accurate judgement. You mentioned yourself that you felt they did a good job with his material in season two, so it sounds like your main issue is with Stannis' willingness to sacrifice Gendry and his reliance on Melisandre. But there are some distinct differences between the situation with Gendry and the situation with Edric that I mentioned earlier (other than the fact that Edric is a child and Gendry is practically an adult); namely that Stannis has never met Gendry before, and didn't even know he existed until Melisandre arrived with him on Dragonstone. Stannis was ready to sacrifice Edric before Davos helped him to escape, so I see no reason why Stannis wouldn't have done the same in the situation presented in the show. These aren't just things that should be looked at as differences from the text, because these changes also have an effect on the context of these sequences. In other words, it's not a 1:1 comparison, so it shouldn't be treated as such.

Stannis has lost some of his agency in season three, sure, but perhaps that's because of the fact that he "suffered a stunning defeat" outside the gates of King's Landing. And Melisandre has made good on all of her promises thus far - she killed Renly and bolstered Stannis's forces; she showed him a true vision in the flames; and just days after declaring that all of the would-be kings will die, Robb Stark is murdered and the northern rebellion squashed...

Again, not really something you "accounted for" by essentially ignoring all of the events that happened in Kissed By Fire and Second Sons.

I don't think the character from the show is being portrayed as a villain, nonetheless, and don't agree that the show supports this view point, either. You say "he's totally cool" with executing Davos, but the look of doubt on his face after he makes the declaration says otherwise. Dillane often plays the part in a way that makes Stannis a bit impenetrable (in terms of understanding what's happening mentally), but there are subtle moments strewn throughout all of his scenes that can say just as much as the written words used to get these points across when we're reading the books.

As far as explaining what does and doesn't make for a compelling arc, all I can say is that having one at all is preferable to the alternative of not having a discernible arc. We'll just have to wait and see how they handle these characters going forward. The latter half of ASoS seems to be the point at which many of us started to appreciate Stannis more than we had been, and I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case going forward. Regardless, it hardly seems fair to judge four books worth of development for the character against the one and (roughly) a half books worth of material that has been adapted thus far.

Although I agree that some of the elements I'm complaining about are present in your transcript, to be clear, that section of dialogue is transcribed from this quote: "Edric—“ He started. “—Is one boy! He may be the best boy that ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.” His hand swept across the painted table. “How many boys live in westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies… a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone… She speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more then I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?” (And even this transcript is saddled with an unnecessary misogynistic bit that seems like it was put in just to make him look like more of an asshole.)

There are an abundance of quotes from the text, like those I brought up, which trace the trajectory of Stannis' moral conflict and increasing willingness to sacrifice Edric in order to save the Realm from darkness. It's a process, and the arc was clearly rushed, which diminished the emotional pay off we're supposed to get from its dramatic conclusion with Davos rescuing Gendry. Again, I don't expect every piece of dialogue that I like in the books to pop up verbatim, and I fully agree with you that thematically it needs to be understood differently because he doesn't know Gendry, who is an adult, the way he knew Edric, but I don't think there was sufficient character development to properly convey this conflict, nor display his autonomy.

I don't think that the scenes from Episode 5 and and 8, despite their quality, were enough to counterbalance these significant deviations from Book Stannis. And if you pay attention to my posts, unlike many fans of the character I never argue that he wasn't willing to execute Davos or Edric. I merely state that the manner in which this comes about is radically different and farless compelling than its book counterpart. Stannis wielding Lightbringer preparing to execute Davos himself says a lot more about him than having his guards drag him away. It seems like a moment tailor-made for television and would have served as an amazing cliff hanger. The greater problem, which you didn't really address, is that Stannis' facial expressions during this scene do not, in any small measure, make up for the fact that he was willing to execute Davos after reading the Nightwatch letter. It appears to me, and most viewers, that Melisandre convinces him to save Davos and go to the Wall, rather than him reaching this conclusion for himself. By your own admission, this is Stannis' turning point where people started to care about his arc, so can't you see that taking that choice away from him seriously endangers the emotional impact of that future character arc? I'm not pulling this shit out of my ass, its clear as crystal in the episode.

Here's another example of what bothers me about the television portrayal. I'll concede that this is Stan the Man's lowest point, and that you shouldn't expect the character who emerges at the end of Book 5 to be present in the first half of Book 3, but it seems to me that even when we do get glimpses of his redemptive qualities, they are presented to us with an antagonistic tonality. Do you remember his discussion with Davos about Crackclaw point?

Stannis touched the Painted Table. “Look at it, onion knight. My realm, by rights. My Westeros.” He swept a hand across it. “This talk of Seven Kingdoms is a folly. Aegon saw that three hundred years ago when he stood where we are standing. They painted this table at his command. Rivers and bays they painted, hills and mountains, castles and cities and market towns, lakes and swamps and forests . . . but no borders. It is all one. One realm, for one king to rule alone.”

“One king,” agreed Davos. “One king means peace.”

“I shall bring justice to Westeros. A thing Ser Axell understands as little as he does war. Claw Isle would gain me naught . . . and it was evil, just as you said. Celtigar must pay the traitor’s price himself, in his own person. And when I come into my kingdom, he shall. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. And some will lose more than the tips off their fingers, I promise you. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that.”

Now obviously you can't include this beautiful dialogue in its totality, since Axell isn't present, and Claw Isle kind of comes out of leftfield. Some of this dialogue does appear in Episode 10, however, most memorably the last line. But the way we experience this transmuted script at the Painted Table didn't feel nuanced at all to me. Stannis is ruthless to some degree, and he does commit acts of evil throughout the series, but he isn't irredeemably cruel or power hungry in my own interpretation. The scene in Mhysa didn't give me a nuanced, morally complex character who is cold, hard, but just. It showed me a man who is "willing to use any arms at his disposal" to get what he wants, not a man who has truly seeks to bring justice to the realm. Perhaps our interpretations differ here, and perhaps I am simply nitpicking in this particular instance, but you have to be aware that the producers control the angles and atmosphere in which we experience these scenes and dialogues. For me, this season gave us an overabundance of negative images which have greatly detracted from the ambiguity of the character, and I have a feeling that this pattern is going to continue in Season 4. Hopefully I'm wrong, and there's going to be a massive redemption, but I'm not sure how that's possible, considering the most redeeming decision he makes in the Series has been usurped from him by Melisandre's influence.

[Toxspecific]

Except for his being dead. Boy, the hue and cry will ring from Dorne to the Wall when it's confirmed to this forum that Stannis did in fact die ignominiously off-page, just like Balon Greyjoy.

And don't quote me your TWoW spoilers. No indication that happened chronologically after the Pink Letter.

IMNSHO, GRRM wouldn't fake-kill Jon & Stannis at the same time. One of those deaths is real, and it's not Jon's.

Bolton victory would be dramatically useful but incredibly dumb. It is Stannis who has been setup to play a role in the war against the Others; if he dies now how's he going to do that?

Plus all the hints, all the problems within Winterfell, indicate that Bolton will be thrashed.

[Weeping Sore]

Bolton victory would be dramatically useful but incredibly dumb. It is Stannis who has been setup to play a role in the war against the Others; if he dies now how's he going to do that?

Plus all the hints, all the problems within Winterfell, indicate that Bolton will be thrashed.

Surely you don't think that Stannis is Azor Ahai at this point?

I may be wrong, but I think that GRRM is setting us up again with all the fake deaths. Meaning, we're so used to the fake deaths at this point that we'll assume Stannis is not dead, when really he is.

Jon's ressurection is pretty telegraphed, so wouldn't we assume he'd take the central role in the North?

Really what's convincing me, though is how really really hard I wanted Stannis to prevail in the battle of Winterfell. Pretty much about as hard as I wanted Oberyn to beat Gregor...

[jons nissa]

I have no problems with what he did to Renly. In this case, the ends justify the means. He prevented the deaths of thousands of soldiers,

and then turned around and ordered them to fight in a no win situation. he even acknowledges that thousands will die.

and even gained a few in the process.

let's be honest, it was always about getting renly's army.

I mean ... what would you do? Would you swallow your brother's treason and support him? Would you hit him with a smaller army? Would you use sorcery and sacrifices, if they were your last options. Makes you wonder, really, what's right and what's wrong. :D

i would have continued my fight for what I believed was mine and if i were to come across my brother fighting against me, i would have fought him to the bitter end but no, i would not have resorted to sorcery against my brother. i think stannis gets so much flak because it was his brother. i truly doubt readers would be as up in arms is because he used black magic against his own brother in order to get his brother's army.

[jons nissa]

And okay, Stan gets the kinslayer label. But its an empty, meaningless label at this point, you know, kind of like Ned was technically a traitor to the Targaryen dynasty of the Iron Throne. That kind of empty, meaningless label.

neither of these acts are meaningless even if they are not very important to you.

[Miodrag]

Hope nobody would mind this, but it's quite a surprise to me that people find Stannis ruined only now, and not in the second season. As for his actions and lines in Season 3, almost everything is at least in proximity to the books. The most problematic thing is his relationship with Mel, and that was actually 'ruined' (more precisely: radically changed) at the very beginning of their arc, with two decisions: 1) to cut out Proudwing story, and 2) to turn Mel into a seductress basically.

1) If Proudwing bares no importance, why did GRRM included it in the novel? Just for mileage? Don't think so. Especially because of the spot he put it on: the end of Davos I in ACOK. Stannis is never as 'independent' as in that scene. He explains to Davos that practically it is he who uses gods, even the one Mel represents, as he finds fit. Is it important for his characterization? Of course it is of paramount importance. At that point, we know that he knows that Mel has some unnatural powers (the end of Cressen's prologue), but he isn't impressed by that at all. It shows he isn't afraid of Mel, even if every men in his service - except Davos - actually is.

2) In the eyes of other characters, book Mel is defined by two traits: attractive and imposing. Which of the two is stronger? The fear her presence commands. We often witness men and women being affected by the fear they feel around her, and, though we're often reminded how attractive she is, we witness no action, by any character, driven by that attraction. There is a hint or two about possible sexual relation between her and Stannis, but we never witness the intercourse itself, nor any action between the two of them that would indicate sexual nature of their relationship. GRRM is not known to be shy about sex. If he wanted to show something, be it the intercourse itself or some undeniable implication from neutral point of view, he'd he'd find a way. The reason he didn't is, most probably, because he wanted to emphasize her imposing nature which is often shown explicitly, and not her attractiveness which is only implied. In the show, however, the Red "Come Fight Death With Me" Woman is exploited sexually from the very start, and was exploited that way ever since, while I can't seem to remember any example of her being imposing or frightening, except in the shadow-assassin scene with Davos, and through exposition delivered by Sallador San in the premiere of Season 3.

So, Stannis is changed in his root and at the very beginning of his arc, by omitting the scene in which Stannis himself openly and explicitly speaks of his defiance to divine authorities, while Mel's two defining traits were being played in the ratio completely opposite to the one from the novels. It escapes me how can show-defenders think these changes are insignificant, and point to any number of similarities between Stannis lines from the book and from the show. The omission of Proudwing was never compensated, and Mel is naked in every other indoor scene. If by "any hope for the adaptation of Stannis" you mean seeing Stannis we know from the books, I wouldn't hold my breath at all. He may become more interesting and layered in the future (as he's inevitably going to if they keep close to his novels' arc, and as he just might even if they start diverging more), but I see no path that leads to the Stannis we know from the source material.

[The Idiots Lantern]

Show Stannis's biggest problem is he has no power whatsoever over Mel. She has told him that the reason he lost the battle of Blackwater is because he wouldn't take her with him, and that if she'd been there she could have saved everyone who died. What's killing Stannis is that even though he's not sure he believes her, he now thinks he just can't take that risk. As a result he really thinks he has no other choice then to do what she says he must do to save the realm. Even if it feels wrong.

Show him a chink in her armor, some flaw in her magical Galadriel-fashioned all-knowing mysticism, and he'd probably jump all over it. I think he's yearning to return to doing what he knows is right.

[jons nissa]

but it's quite a surprise to me that people find Stannis ruined only now, and not in the second season. As for this actions and lines in Season 3, almost everything is at least in proximity to the books. The most problematic thing is his relationship with Mel, and that was actually 'ruined' (more precisely: radically changed) at the very beginning of their arc, with two decisions: 1) to cut out Proudwing story, and 2) to turn Mel into a seductress basically.

while i would not say stannis was ever ruined, i agree with the idea you are discussing here. however, i would say it is not the lack of the proudwing story as much as it was a problem to introduce stannis via a mel burning scene. stannis lost his agency from the very start.

proudwing only helps us understand why stannis is ok with the death of his "maester" father. he is willing to part with the old for something new that will hopefully work better. this could be a blessing in disguise, though, since it is hard to accept the death of the maester that has so much obvious affection for our awkward, lonely stannis.

as for the seduction of melisandre, it is not explicit in the books because we only see stannis through davos. but davos does tell us that stannis locks himself up for a long time, only allowing his red witch to comfort him, which she did at all hours of the day and night. however the minute stannis reaches the wall, we get the most honest and damning statement of jon recognizing who is the real queen of stannis.

the show has emphasized and strengthened melisandre's influence on stannis but it is in the books, if you look for it.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Furthermore, does that sound like it makes for good television? Beyond the fact that it's simply not true, it isn't good screen-writing to have a character remain static for the entire length of a series.

This is How to Write a Screenplay 101 crap that has little to do with how actually storytelling really works. In a very, very large ensemble cast, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a character who is rigid and adamant about not changing as the story progresses because putting that character in a sea of constantly changing events and other characters who are constantly changing leads to very entertaining material.

[Miodrag]

the show has emphasized and strengthened melisandre's influence on stannis but it is in the books, if you look for it.

It isn't hidden in the books at all. No need to look for it. Her influence on him escapes nobody in the books. There are big differences, however. It's one thing being influenced by a woman who, as we're constantly reminded, keeps frightening the living hell out of otherwise fearless knights; and on top of that, it is you who allowed her that influence (and you who, occasionally, put some limits to that influence). It's something else if the same woman doesn't scare anyone that much, but seduces everyone (even BWB lust after her), and it is rather unclear why Stannis was influenced in the first place and is he able to resist her at all.

while i would not say stannis was ever ruined, i agree with the idea you are discussing here. however, i would say it is not the lack of the proudwing story as much as it was a problem to introduce stannis via a mel burning scene. stannis lost his agency from the very start.

I'd agree, the scene scheduling didn't help either.

proudwing only helps us understand why stannis is ok with the death of his "maester" father. he is willing to part with the old for something new that will hopefully work better. this could be a blessing in disguise, though, since it is hard to accept the death of the maester that has so much obvious affection for our awkward, lonely stannis.

I'd say it is even more important for Stannis' view on divine authorities (which, if I may add, are subject to no duty, and therefore of no particular interest to Stannis who likes to deal only with entities that can be held accountable and responsible). And in the show, to my recollection, we saw none of it (even if I'm wrong, as in, if he mentioned gods in a line or two, that's far from some firm stand).

as for the seduction of melisandre, it is not explicit in the books because we only see stannis through davos. but davos does tell us that stannis locks himself up for a long time, only allowing his red witch to comfort him, which she did at all hours of the day and night. however the minute stannis reaches the wall, we get the most honest and damning statement of jon recognizing who is the real queen of stannis.

Even in Mel's one chapter, we only got implication, and not confirmation. Theoretically, GRRM could reveal in the next book that they never had sex, and there would be nothing to contradict it. I don't think he's going to do it, since the hint in Mel's chapters does point in that direction, but the reason for this subtlety is, in my eyes, goes beyond the selection of POV characters. Had GRRM wanted, we'd find out about it through Davos' chapter, just like almost everything else we did find about Stannis. So far, however, not even a rumor appeared.

[Mr Fixit]

(...) the reason for this subtlety is, in my eyes, goes beyond the selection of POV characters. Had GRRM wanted, we'd find out about it through Davos' chapter, just like almost everything else we did find about Stannis. So far, however, not even a rumor appeared.

"CONFIRMATION BIAS", madman screamed repeatedly as darkness inched its way ever closer.

[Khal-a-bunga]

This is How to Write a Screenplay 101 crap that has little to do with how actually storytelling really works. In a very, very large ensemble cast, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a character who is rigid and adamant about not changing as the story progresses because putting that character in a sea of constantly changing events and other characters who are constantly changing leads to very entertaining material.

Beyond the fact that such an interpretation of Stannis has already been proven to be incorrect based on the text, I don't it's a stretch to say that Stannis has been portrayed as fairly static and rigid in the show to this point, though that's been framed within the context of his two advisers. The show has posited the Dragonstone story line almost as a battle for Stannis' soul between Davos & Melisandre, and we can see how both of them influence him in their own way. It's hard to say how things will play out, since the writers know more about the future of these characters than we do, but I'd imagine we're going to see Stannis assume some more "agency" in the coming seasons, as this battle continues to play out. In fact, I'd say Stannis is essentially on the cusp of making some fundamental realizations about how his quest for the iron throne has blinded him to the real dangers that face the realm.

[jons nissa]

It's something else if the same woman doesn't scare anyone that much, but seduces everyone (even BWB lust after her), and it is rather unclear why Stannis was influenced in the first place and is he able to resist her at all.

i agree, there was no need to have sex with gendry - it was really gratuitous and i never say that - but we really don't know who lusted after her.

I'd say it is even more important for Stannis' view on divine authorities (which, if I may add, are subject to no duty, and therefore of no particular interest to Stannis who likes to deal only with entities that can be held accountable and responsible). And in the show, to my recollection, we saw none of it (even if I'm wrong, as in, if he mentioned gods in a line or two, that's far from some firm stand).

i don't know that we've been shown that his view on divine authority is important especially given his belief in r'hollor's power. by his own words, he gave up on the gods but can't deny what he's seen melisandre do.

Even in Mel's one chapter, we only got implication, and not confirmation.

true but melisandre hardly seems the type to sitand think dreamily about her last romp in the hay. she's got bigger things on her mind and says as much. but her bed has definitely not seen any action since stannis left.