Book vs. Show characterisation of SanSan: A TV Critic's Analysis

[Colonel Green]

What, that whole Amory Lorch stupidity is not a mess? You actually liked it?!

It was quite funny (that whole episode had quite a bit of humour in it).

As for Arya's "trajectory", you don't think her arc was significantly altered in the show?

Of course it was altered, but it is, from all appearances, headed in the same direction.

TV Jon's duel with TV Qhorin isn't a mess, you say?

As a matter of fact, I didn't say that. I said that they didn't make a mess with Ygritte.

Right, tragedy. She accepts Tyrion's gold to be with him, but refuses diamonds Tyrion offers her to leave him. Some tragedy that is.

She fell in love with him (and feels devotion to Sansa), and refuses to be paid off. That's tragedy. Whether the whole thing is carried off properly remains to be seen.

Is that a bad thing?!

No, that's an explanation for why your statements prompt queries.

[Le Cygne]

But with Sandor, Sansa can not only detect a lot of what is behind the bravado, but she's often quite assertive in her response to him, whether it be instinctual, by accident, or deliberately challenging his world view. Trying to make Sansa out to be a "victim" of Sandor's aggression is really missing the whole point of their interactions and stripping her of some of the most important agency she was able to develop in KL.

Perfect answer!

Abusive? Sorry, but no. Sansa doesn't think it was abusive, which pretty much means Martin didn't write it as a scene about abuse.

But we're not supposed to listen to Sansa! Seriously, nobody I know thinks it's abuse, either.

Le Cygne has a point. D&D did want to show SanSan. This whole inappropriate nonsense is one more justification show-lovers came up with, but Le Cygne's miraculous quotes prove the intention was there. And somehow, it only makes the whole mess in the show look even worse, to me at least. Call me arrogant, but that's what I think.

I think they tried, just not very hard. I don't think inappropriate had anything to do with it. The whole series is inappropriate!

Blackwater, he would never hurt her, not sure where they're getting that from, he was trying to rescue her, books and show. He wanted her to want to come, he didn't want to just take her. He was stalling when he asked for the song. When he realized he'd scared her, he left. And then she wished he hadn't left. It's not that complicated. I think they just cut it because of time. And they cut the line about the fire, too.

Here's the author/director (cuts in bold):

(Sandor on screen.)

Peter Dinklage: I like that relationship between the Hound and Sansa.

Lena Headey: Yeah...

(Sandor reacting to the wildfire.)

GRRM: Of course here we see the Hound's ultimate nightmare here... This shot is of course the reason they don't have the actors wear their helmets, because if the Hound was wearing his helmet you couldn't get all of that fear...

(Sansa singing.)

GRRM: Sansa saves the day... and does what Cersei should be doing, which is providing moral support to the women, and encouraging them, and trying to calm their fears...

SANSA (to SANDOR): What are you doing here?

Lena Headey (to SANSA): He loves you!...

SANDOR (to SANSA): I could take you with me. Take you to Winterfell. I'll keep you safe.

GRRM: There was a line in the script that was cut unfortunately where Sansa says to him well, how are you going to get out of the city, there are guards at all the gates. And he draws his sword and says, I'm going to get out with this and no man is going to stop me, and then he sort of hesitates and says, unless he's on fire. I was sorry to lose that line, I really liked that little moment which emphasized the whole fire thing here...

Neil Marshall (director): We re-shot this scene because the first version we did also had a song in it... He made Sansa sing, but it was the song that she had just finished singing, so coming off the back of the scene it would have...

Peter Dinklage (singing the song from the Disney movie): Really? Beauty and the Beast ...

SANSA (to SANDOR): You won't hurt me (?)

Neil Marshall (answering for SANDOR): Naaa...

GRRM: In the books he demands a song of her and she sings that hymn about the Mother again.

[Miodrag]

Alright alright, I guess I should add a little substance to my post. Ya, I read the book, read the scene, and just finished up AFFC on a fast paced reread, so everything is pretty fresh besides ADWD. I love the Hound and all the tormented soul manically depressed alcoholic hatred in him. That scene? My interpretation was a drunk drunker than he's ever been after throwing away everything he has (besides that tourney gold) trying to save and protect Sansa and she won't even look at him. In a drunken rage threatens to kill her but starts to cry after he hears the song and realizing what he had just done.

But the thing is is that they're not making the show for people that have read the books and having a Rory McCann Clegane throw a 14 year old Sansa and hold her down with a knife ready to kill her in a fit of rage along with other scenes just doesn't work especially with a character the audience is supposed to sympathize. If you actually think a new viewer seeing the Hound's abusing and threatening Sansa (and yes if you see these actions you don't go for the it's their own way of showing affection excuse) would not see that character is evil well... have at it. And the show would get some pretty terrible press by groups against women's violence in UK and US. And did we really lose anything from having that removed from the show? Watch that scene?

1) If they worry about collective and/or individual sensitivities, they're adapting the wrong story. This one, as braschandy wrote, tends to challenge people's perceptions and perspectives. ASOIAF is what I'd consider to be the very opposite of a safe-zone. And I happen to adore it, but I can't fathom what's in there for sensitive people, let alone for writers worried about sensitivities.

2) But D&D aren't that much concerned with sensitivities. When their narrow vision recognizes an opportunity for a shock, they're going to change things, even if it means not only neglecting the context but also provoking sensitivities. Dany/Drogo wedding night is one example. TV Margaery, their own creation at this point, is an even better one: when Renly fails to have sex with her, she proposes ménage à trois with Loras; if we consider what Loras is to them (a brother to Margaery and a lover to Renly), that proposition may very well be the most disgusting thing spoken in the show so far. With a single line, Margaery shows an unparalleled inhumanity, cause not even Cersei at her craziest would propose something like that. Ramsay would be like: "Hey, girl, slow down a little". And the way it was delivered, and the way they keep portraying Margaery, suggest D&D don't find that line disgusting at all.

3) They're also not that much concerned with long-term images of characters. And there's an even better example than Margaery: one Jaime Lannister. He kills that poor cousin of his in cold blood... and for what exactly?! Not only that the scene itself is an epitome of TV stupidity (is there a jail escape that is more worn-out and at the same time more unreal than this method?!), and not only that it goes against the whole "kin is off-limits for killing" thing (which they didn't even bother to mention, by the way), but it also portrays TV Jaime as an inhumanly cold murderer, and they did that only one episode before he starts his journey with Brienne which does flesh him out in a rather different light. And why did they do all that? They wanted to remind the audience how dangerous Jaime is! Their words. If you think those authors were concerned with how Sandor would look to viewers, I'd suggest you think again.

4) And as for this particular case, allow me to repeat once more: SanSan scene is not about abuse. As far as I know, from lurking on this and many other sites (not only ASOIAF sites, but also portals and news outlets that wrote on ASOIAF and/or AGOT), before the show's second season literally nobody saw Sandor's conduct that night as an abuse. That 'justification' appeared only after show-lovers saw how failed the portrayal of SanSan is in the show, and, creative as they are (again: usually more creative than D&D!), they came up with that excuse. No sane person would have a problem with that scene, if it was filmed properly and, even more important, if it was carefully built up to, just like it was in the novels. And in the name of that, they shouldn't, by no means, give Sandor's lines to Petyr. Don't know if you already watched it, but

can go a long way in illustrating what the show missed. And please don't tell me you find that an abuse.

[Mladen]

ASOIAF is what I'd consider to be the very opposite of a safe-zone. And I happen to adore it, but I can't fathom what's in there for sensitive people, let alone for writers worried about sensitivities.

I am not certain about this. With huge advertizing potential seen for the past 3 years, with already established fandom, fact that two greatest fantasy franchises - HP and LOTR have ended, that Legend of the seeker failed epically as TV show, that political TV dramas airing in USA were almost uninteresting, GOT found its place quite easily. So, basically it was like, (for Miodrag to understand) - "Gde ja stadoh, ti produzi" thing... Fantasy genre wasn't exploited in TV enough, and there was a need for it. And when you look at competition like Once upon a time or Vampire diaries, it is normal to believe that GOT is leading TV drama in fantasy genre...

And as for this particular case, allow me to repeat once more: SanSan scene is not about abuse. As far as I know, from lurking on this and many other sites (not only ASOIAF sites, but also portals and news outlets that wrote on ASOIAF and/or AGOT), before the show's second season literally nobody saw Sandor's conduct that night as an abuse. That 'justification' appeared only after show-lovers saw how failed the portrayal of SanSan is in the show, and, creative as they are (again: usually more creative than D&D!), they came up with that excuse. No sane person would have a problem with that scene, if it was filmed properly and, even more important, if it was carefully built up to, just like it was in the novels. And in the name of that, they shouldn't, by no means, give Sandor's lines to Petyr. Don't know if you already watched it, but

can go a long way in illustrating what the show missed. And please don't tell me you find that an abuse.

We have certainly forgotten who has written that scene. I mean, if that scene was about violence, we would get some harsh talking and Sansa being frightened. But, no, we got very deep, romantic scene (almost the only romantic scene in GOT) where naivite and harshness colided. Where Sansa saw what no other person has seen before - that behind the scar, there is a person capable of love. "You won't hurt me" isn't just factual statement, it is deep notion of recognizing that in the cruel, vile world that is built by killers, you can find beauty in someone... And that my friends is what love for Martin is... In his books and in his scenes in GOT...

[Miodrag]

I am not certain about this. With huge advertizing potential seen for the past 3 years, with already established fandom, fact that two greatest fantasy franchises - HP and LOTR have ended, that Legend of the seeker failed epically as TV show, that political TV dramas airing in USA were almost uninteresting, GOT found its place quite easily. So, basically it was like, (for Miodrag to understand) - "Gde ja stadoh, ti produzi" thing... Fantasy genre wasn't exploited in TV enough, and there was a need for it. And when you look at competition like Once upon a time or Vampire diaries, it is normal to believe that GOT is leading TV drama in fantasy genre...

As a TV product it was a safe bet, you're right. I was talking more about the actual content. You know, the stuff brashcandy wrote about: how challenging ASOIAF may be for usual perceptions of ideals. In giving green light to a fantasy show HBO didn't risk anything actually, which, in the context, makes it even harder to understand why D&D didn't 'risk' by sticking closer to the source material and all it's unorthodox beauty.

As for the Serbian quote you used, if there's a way for it to be translated, it would help me a lot in many discussions.

[Woman of War]

Miodrag, I think you are raging, not arguing against the showmakers, sorry.

Your example with Margaery, I have no problems with that, Margaery was clever yet full of kindness and tact. Of course she had a goal here but she was in no way demeaning towards Renly. And besides, you argue as if D&D had offended a certain Margaery Tyrell - they haven't, they have interpreted a literary character.

[PatrickStormborn]

But the thing is is that they're not making the show for people that have read the books and having a Rory McCann Clegane throw a 14 year old Sansa and hold her down with a knife ready to kill her in a fit of rage along with other scenes just doesn't work especially with a character the audience is supposed to sympathize. If you actually think a new viewer seeing the Hound's abusing and threatening Sansa (and yes if you see these actions you don't go for the it's their own way of showing affection excuse) would not see that character is evil well... have at it. And the show would get some pretty terrible press by groups against women's violence in UK and US. And did we really lose anything from having that removed from the show? Watch that scene?

This is the crucial argument: viewer sympathy. Because, you know, viewers have to sympathise with all the characters all the time, right?

What the Hound does in that moment is nothing compared to what some of the protagonists of the series do. What about Dany massacring unarmed men and women? Or when she later crucifies 163 Great Masters? What about Tyrion murdering Shae and Tywin? What about Bran skinchanging into Hodor repeatedly? What about Jon threatening Gilly's baby unless she follows his orders? Should these all be cut so viewers don't feel conflicted about the characters they love?

This is a series about grey characters who sometimes do bad things. D&D shouldn't be worrying about what some viewers may think of the characters... Viewers who can't handle grey characters are watching the wrong show. And if D&D are prioritising these viewers over the quality of the source material, they're making the wrong show.

Doreah died in the book, albeit differently. I tend to think they got rid of Irri to keep the size of Dany's supporting cast down (having Missandei replace her).

"Albeit differently" is a bit of an understatement.

In the book, Doreah dies in the Red Waste, and Dany personally remains with her for the duration of her illness until she dies. It's a very tender and personal moment that demonstrates the friendship that existed between these women, even though the friendship itself is technically over when Doreah dies. In the show, Doreah betrays Daenerys, kills Irri, and gets locked in a vault by Daenerys.

As for Irri... I'm really not sure why they killed her. I understand that Dany's supporting cast obviously can't be the size of, say, King's Landing... But what did killing Irri achieve? They have to hire extras to play the Dothraki anyway (including a handmaiden in Dany's scene in 3x07 - The Bear and the Maiden Fair), so why not just keep Irri around and hire fewer extras? They can afford to hire endless sex workers and even a contortionist, so there's no valid excuses IMO.

I'm also not keen on the show's adaptation of Missandei, if only because the relationship between her and Daenerys has been - to put it mildly - completely butchered. I honestly don't know any other way to describe it... There's a character called Daenerys on the show, and there's a character called Missandei on the show, but the relationship between them shares absolutely nothing with their relationship in the book.

[Mladen]

Miodrag, I think you are raging, not arguing against the showmakers, sorry.

Your example with Margaery, I have no problems with that, Margaery was clever yet full of kindness and tact. Of course she had a goal here but she was in no way demeaning towards Renly. And besides, you argue as if D&D had offended a certain Margaery Tyrell - they haven't, they have interpreted a literary character.

There is a difference between interpretation and fanfiction. Following logical train of thoughts, you simply can't see how they get to Margaery Dormer is playing, unless they morphed her with, previously said, The Tudors' Anne Boleyn. Which I sincerely believe they did. TV Margaery isn't interpretatio of the character, she is totally new one... Even in AFFC, we couldn't see even half of what we saw in this season. They simply, molded Maragery into what they needed and presented her as some brilliant player, when reality is completely different. Margaery is smart, no doubt in that, but she isn't seductress, and power-hungry opposition to Cersei...

As for the Serbian quote you used, if there's a way for it to be translated, it would help me a lot in many discussions.

I have found it... I wanted to use the line for an essay I have been working on, and I am glad you need it too. Here is complete "Svetli grobovi" (Bright gaves) in spoiler brackets:

Have you been, my young brethren,

Have you ever been to a graveyard,

To a large graveyard?

– Well, we are always in a graveyard.

The earth we walk on is a graveyard;

The water we sail on is a graveyard;

Yards and gardens are graveyards;

Hills and valleys are graveyards,

Each foot

Grave next to grave.

The monument of all times is a graveyard;

The books we read are a graveyard;

The history book of all lands,

Of the olden emperors, kings,

And the obituary of higher images

Of the chosen ones, of martyrs,

From as far back as memory goes;

It’s all a graveyard –

But a cradle too.

There is no name and no number

For all the stars high above,

And even less can there be number and remembrance

For the graves in the dear earth!

Millions were swallowed by darkness,

The pitch darkness of many a millennium,

Nobody remembers them still,

But a candle always burns for some of them.

It is either a candle, or the name is bright,

Or the deeds are ever-burning,

So that they adorn with their rays

The rows of the endless cemetery.

These graves,

Old, new,

They shine

For every generation –

When minds get engrossed in the past

For them not to get lost in the darkness;

When you plunge into the holy ancient times,

Both holy and cursed ancient times,

For your thought not to get you off your way.

They are harbinger fires,

Which reach from distant eons

In that long procession –

Shining a light for one another

With a stream which flows forth,

Striving toward a single goal, –

And so the bright beams

And so the bright traces

Of a

single

spirit of

various

ages,

A spirit which has no grave.

– It merely chucks the bones into the grave,

Shakes off the ashes which impede it.

For a faster progress, higher flight

Toward an elevated future.

He who turns around to look

With a clear eye and sight

At these bright graves,

History books in a long succession,

He must hear how,

Through centuries, through mist,

Grandfather to grandson, father to son,

Warrior to warrior

Loudly cried:

‘Where I stopped – you will go!’

‘What I couldn’t – you will do!’

‘Where I couldn’t – you’ll arrive!’

‘Whatever we owe – you pay it off!’

These are the words, these are the voices,

Which adorn the past,

Which penetrate through the world of darkness

From those shining graves,

Binding with a thunderous roar

And with a divine force,

Binding centuries together

And binding man with man.

[…]

[Masamune]

Credit to sansaofhousestark (via Tumblr):

the thing about game of thrones the tv show is it has the most fantastically rich source material to adapt. it has an incredibly diverse world - westerosi people may be the protagonists, but essos is strongly linked to various narratives. it has feminist themes and narratives, it has queer characters, and poc in more than just menial positions, it has one of the greatest examinations of a deeply flawed, patriarchal society i’ve ever seen, and is an anti-war narrative to boot.

and yet.

and yet it goes for the sexualised murder of ros. it goes for dany’s wedding night rape. it goes for explicit details about sansa’s near gang-rape. it goes for podrick payne’s ‘reward’ of several contortionist prostitutes. it goes for the erasure of chataya and alayaya; in doing so it puts all the brothels of king’s landing under a man’s thumb. it goes for the silencing of catelyn tully and the prioritization of her son’s storyline, UTTERLY missing the point of her pov chapters in the process. it goes for making xharo xhoan daxos straight. it goes for killing irri and jhiqui, and making doreah into a double-crosser, destroying dany’s female friendships. it goes for ageing up missandei to put her in revealing costumes. it goes for naked women as little more than set pieces. it goes for making oberyn martell as white as they can without technically whitewashing him, and calling that representation.

it goes for all the bullshit the books had done so well at avoiding, or subverting completely. it goes for queer erasure, whitewashing, the erasure of poc entirely from the narrative, for sexualised violence and the minimising of women’s storylines.

it goes for utter crap.

[mormont]

[mod] Drop the personal bickering, please. [/mod]

[Le Cygne]

No sane person would have a problem with that scene, if it was filmed properly and, even more important, if it was carefully built up to, just like it was in the novels.

And it's a full scene, after he makes her sing there is resolution, and it's pretty beautiful, and it sets up the relationship going forward.

1) Setting up the scene (see the actor's setup below) he's been protecting her the whole time, he risked his life to save hers, the audience/readers know he values her life and safety. - Books and show

2) He comes to protect her and risk his life for her once more. - Books and show

3) He says don't scream or I'll kill you in his usual over-the-top way (bravado, she and Arya both saw through it) to let her know they are in danger. - Books only

4) He's afraid and has been drinking. - Books and show

5) She's afraid and has been drinking. - Books and show

6) He says "I'll keep you safe" and the audience/readers get the subtext = "I love you" (see the reviews/commentary, listen to everyone who likes the story) - Books and show

7) He says look at me (in the books, he makes a move to kiss her, in the show, he gets in her face and grabs her) - Books and show

8) She's afraid to go with him. - Books and show

9) He knows she's not going to be safe there without him and he stalls for time. - Books and show

10) He makes her sing a song. - Books and show

10 Substitute after the cut) He tells her the world is full of killers, even her father was a killer, and her sons will be killers. - Show only

11) She's not afraid anymore (Books: she cups his cheek, Show: "You won't hurt me") - Books and show

12) He feels bad that he scared her, and leaves. - Books and show

The fact that everyone watching the show wondered why she didn't go with him was a good thing. She had the same reaction in the books, she wished she'd gone with him. They just didn't follow up with that on the show.

Here's the setup for the scene from the actor who plays Sandor:

"He's as good as dead in Kings Landing. When he rejects his position, rejects the king, and the army, and the city he's trying to protect, he's got to get out of there, he's on a one way ticket. This is a chance for Sansa. Sansa can come, she could be protected, the Hound believes he can protect her. He sees it not going great for Sansa at all. Especially without... he's leaving for sure. And the gods be with her without the presence of the Hound keeping an eye on her."

[Miodrag]

Miodrag, I think you are raging, not arguing against the showmakers, sorry.

Your example with Margaery, I have no problems with that, Margaery was clever yet full of kindness and tact. Of course she had a goal here but she was in no way demeaning towards Renly. And besides, you argue as if D&D had offended a certain Margaery Tyrell - they haven't, they have interpreted a literary character.

Actually, in that post I wasn't even addressing D&D, but what some people here suggest D&D's motives are. If we compare book Sandor with characters D&D altered/created, I can't fathom why some people think it's Sandor's unpleasantness they shorthanded SanSan for.

Personally, I have nothing against disgusting characters, if they serve a narrative purpose. One Ramsay Snow is the epitome of a disgusting and sick spawn of a devil, but as a character he's priceless. I adore ADWD much more than many other posters, but even those who didn't like that book were 'enjoying' (for lack of a better word) Theon's chapters, all of which were easily dominated by Ramsay. But, please don't tell me TV Margaery's proposition isn't a disgusting one. It's without consequences, because Renly rejects it right away, so her proposition goes nowhere. But if you think about it, you'll see how sick it is. It is sick from any possible angle you look at it. Had Renly hypotethically accepted it, just imagine how it would look like and you'll see what am I talking about. Or try to imagine this situation: Robert wants to take Cersei into bed, she's reluctant, and then he proposes to invite Jaime in if she's going to have easier time that way. Wouldn't that be sick as hell? And what TV Margaery suggested is even worse, because it's her brother she's talking about. It would've been twisted even if she wasn't related to Renly's lover, but with Loras being her sibling, it's a whole new level. And if D&D have no problem with showing that, and other examples I listed, then they certainly didn't have a problem with showing SanSan, even if they thought it's abuse just like some posters here suggest.

Ultimately, I don't like what D&D did with Margaery, for all the reasons Mladen counted. And her unscrupulous nature is among the lesser objections. She's badly written, even for an unscrupulous character. It is not the 'honor' of her book origin I'm defending here. I'm not defending anything, actually, I'm just criticizing D&D's writing in this and a legion of other cases.

[Colonel Green]

4) And as for this particular case, allow me to repeat once more: SanSan scene is not about abuse. As far as I know, from lurking on this and many other sites (not only ASOIAF sites, but also portals and news outlets that wrote on ASOIAF and/or AGOT), before the show's second season literally nobody saw Sandor's conduct that night as an abuse.

Plenty of people did. I certainly did. One hardly needs to want to defend the show to find a guy berating a preteen girl, threatening her with death, and drawing a knife to her throat abusive.

[Le Cygne]

Actually, in that post I wasn't even addressing D&D, but what some people here suggest D&D's motives are.

You are on the right track, stepping through it to understand the adaptation is a good thing.

I actually think they think they are doing the book story for all of these stories, for the most part.

The WOIAF app describes the Blackwater scene this way = the way most readers think it went down:

"During the Battle of the Blackwater, Clegane leads a force attempting to hold the King's Gate, but is unable to fulfill his duties due to his fear of the burning wildfire raging on the river and on the docks. Instead, he finds his way to Sansa Stark's chambers, where he forces her to sing him a song while trying to work up the courage to take her with him out of the city. Her fear of him -- as well as her song -- makes him leave without her."

Afterward, she thinks this, the author spells this out really clearly for the readers:

I wish the Hound were here. The night of the battle, Sandor Clegane had come to her chambers to take her from the city, but Sansa had refused. Sometimes she lay awake at night, wondering if she'd been wise. She had his stained white cloak hidden in a cedar chest beneath her summer silks. She could not say why she'd kept it. The Hound had turned craven, she heard it said; at the height of the battle, he got so drunk the Imp had to take his men. But Sansa understood. She knew the secret of his burned face. It was only the fire he feared. That night, the wildfire had set the river itself ablaze, and filled the very air with green flame. Even in the castle, Sansa had been afraid. Outside... she could scarcely imagine it.

[Le Cygne]

So if we could move past the fact that some people on the forum don't like Sandor for various reasons... Which could go on forever.

Can we keep talking about the adaptation?

Here's what they put in the Viewer's Guide character bios:

Sansa Stark, Ward of the Court

As beautiful as her mother, Sansa grew up dreaming of a courtly world of knights and princes. Unfortunately, her northern naivete hasn't helped her in King's Landing, where she was routinely abused by her former fiance, King Joffrey Baratheon. Her vulnerability has also attracted the interests of the Hound and Littlefinger. Sansa's direwolf, Lady, was destroyed at Queen Cersei's request.

"Sansa will do her duty." - Cersei Baratheon

Sandor Clegane, "The Hound", Ex-Kingsguard

As personal bodyguard to King Joffrey, the Hound carried out his commands. He bears no love for his brother Gregor, known as "The Mountain," but has a soft spot for Sansa Stark, a frequent object of Joffrey's cruel whims. The Hound abandoned his post and left King's Landing when he saw the Blackwater burn.

"You'll be glad of the hateful things I do someday." - The Hound

The part in bold is really interesting, why did they add that? A lot of us think there's a conflict being set up between Sandor and Littlefinger in the books. Sandor left her there, rather than take her. Littlefinger took her anyway. Sansa wishes Sandor hadn't left her, and he wishes the same (they use the same words). Littlefinger doesn't know anything about this. He's kissing her, but she's thinking about kissing Sandor.

So the question we are all asking is, what's going on with the show?

[boojam]

Ultimately, I don't like what D&D did with Margaery, for all the reasons Mladen counted. And her unscrupulous nature is among the lesser objections. She's badly written, even for an unscrupulous character. It is not the 'honor' of her book origin I'm defending here. I'm not defending anything, actually, I'm just criticizing D&D's writing in this and a legion of other cases.

I will repeat myself for the 10th time. I can't see how the blame I see laid here being the burden of David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (but I am not a purist and don't mind about 98% of the adaption they have made.)

One hires the best actors one can get (I don't think, and we don't know , a number of actors they wanted never signed on for various reasons).

Those actors , particularity those that are veterans of their craft will bring their own personalities to a role, or just to pick an example Charles Dance. An actor with a force of will , who is going to bring an interpretation to a role , be it Twyin or Hamlet.

I thought the Twyin in the book was flat as a character, Dance brings a dimension to the role that a good writer has to exploit. It would be stupid not to!

The show full of fine veteran actors whose craft is going to shape a role differently from the prose version, it cannot be avoided.

Add this will shape the narrative too.

An exact transliteration is not going to work in narrative drama and when it is tried one winds up with a disaster on their hands.

[Mladen]

I will repeat myself for the 10th time. I can't see how the blame I see laid here being the burden of David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (but I am not a purist and don't mind about 98% of the adaption they have made.)

You don't see how show creators, writers, producers and directors aren't accountable for poor adaptation? Hmmm, it would be like saying that we don't see how killer is quilty of killing someone...

Yes, they have great actors. Great veterans, great young actors... And somehow half of the storylines fall flat. Tyrell storyline finished in E08 just like that, without even a proper closure, Tyrion seems to suffer over RW more than Sansa, and half the characters have been remodeled into stereotypes Martin deconstructed over the course of 3 books... It's like they are tearing apart entire Martin's work... Look at the wedding scene where the focus has shifted from Sansa to Tyrion's misery... Luckily, it seems that only Ramin Djawadi understood that the victim of the wedding is actually Sansa... I agree that Dance and Rigg brought new dimensions to their characters, but for every Dance's scene you have 20 scenes in which D&D's adaptation is completely off. Theon's torture scene, Melisandre and Gendry's almost-sex scene, Ros, Shae, Talisa, and so on and on... There are serious problems with the adaptation and it is one of the main reasons why the show isn't recognized as it should have been.

[Woman of War]

by Miodrag:

........ But, please don't tell me TV Margaery's proposition isn't a disgusting one......

This may be off topic so we should not go into detail:

Umm, no, disgusting is the wrong word, strange would be accurate imo, and there are stranger things happening in these books.

[Miodrag]

I thought the Twyin in the book was flat as a character, Dance brings a dimension to the role that a good writer has to exploit. It would be stupid not to!

Now, this is an example of things I can't help but challenge. How is Tywin flat in the books? He is possibly the most dangerous person in the entire series, the only one we know of that committed a Westerosi equivalent of a genocide, and not once, but twice (or even three times, if we count the sacking of King's Landing in). And yet, he is a craven, as evidenced when Joff insults him upon receiving the news about the Red Wedding. A man who was a coward all his life, managed to become the most feared person in the entire realm. Is that a flat character? And it's not just what we witness Tywin do or say. In the books, we know all there is to know about his father and his late wife. Or, more precisely, we still don't know the whole truth about his life, but we know he never stood up to his once friend Aerys, even though Aerys made inappropriate advances toward Joanna Lannister occasionally. And we know a lot about his always wounded pride, over his children being rejected (Rhaegar/Cersei) or ordered by someone else (Jaime). And the best thing is, Tywin appears in how many chapters in total? I just checked at The Tower of The Hand: 16. In at least half of them he barely appears at all. And yet, he's constantly subjected to in-depth analysis, for example in threads like this one and this one and this one (ther's more of those, but these are just from the top of my head). Maybe it's flat for you, but for the love of God please tell me what is the dimension Charles Dance brought in with his portrayal.

Don't get me wrong, Dance is one of the few actors who are doing a pretty good job in GoT, and I think he physically fits the part perfectly. I have no problem with his acting, but with the writing, and especially with the notion he was flat in the books ant therefore he's a richer character in the show. The show can only look rich if we completely disregard any number of layers and any complexity from the books, which is, my friend, what I think you just did with your post. (Back on topic: Just like some objectors to SanSan constantly do.)

[Miodrag]

One hires the best actors one can get (I don't think, and we don't know , a number of actors they wanted never signed on for various reasons).

Those actors , particularity those that are veterans of their craft will bring their own personalities to a role, or just to pick an example Charles Dance. An actor with a force of will , who is going to bring an interpretation to a role , be it Twyin or Hamlet.

And this is another thing I can never understand, this "actors need to be catered" reasoning. Let's speculate for a moment: Meryl Streep wants to get into GoT; she's a fan; and she wants a big role. But, Olenna is occupied, and I can't recall any other role that would suit Streep's gender and age. So, would you be OK if, in that hypothetical case, they cast her as Victarion Greyjoy (though, he'd become Victoria, I guess). I mean, since when are roles remodeled according to actors? Maybe they are in some cheap excuses for a movie or a TV show, but in stuff regarded as high drama it's never the case. The example with Hamlet is a good one. That character was played countless times. Was it ever altered to suit the actor?! I mean, it probably was, but small wonder it is that I can't remember that adaptation.