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

[Miodrag]

I've heard you're arguements and read the quotes. I'm no closer to thinking he is a coward. I think that evidence is flimsy at best and it's a conclusion that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone in the Kingdom except Joffrey and maybe Robert. That's not exactly rock solid support

This is too big a derail now, so I'll stop with Tywin discussion, but not before I stress that expecting a 'rock solid support' might be too much in a story like this one, where any number of hints are 'hidden' or 'ciphered', especially with the characters like Tywin that are in the backseats.

We differ here because you want the show to be an exact replica of the novel. Cersei, Varys, Jorah, ect are supposed to be something in the novels. That's fine, but I like the TV's version of the characters better. I think the story is better and more believable because some of the characters have been humanized characters and in particularly the children are older.

If you let go of preconceived notions you might find this version and these characters enjoyable as well.

That is not the case at all. Purism means one thing: if I was to adapt ASOIAF, I'd stick as close as possible to the source material. If I was to adapt your posts, I'd try not to change them one bit. That's the purist me. But I don't 'demand' from others to follow the same logic. D&D are not purists? Fine, I guess. I have issues with their infantile stances like "Book purists would never make this show", but not with their anti-purism per se. The problem is bad writing. It just happens that the vast majority of their changes are written very poorly, but it has nothing to do with my purism or their anti-purism. What, because I'm a purist I can't say how terribly Talisa is written? For example, they could have kept Jeyne, with the background same as in the novels, and with the same circumstances surrounding her and Robb's romance; but, if in the scene she informs him of her pregnancy, she asks him "You angry with me?", it would still be a terrible writing. Talisa's line are what ultimately defines my view on her, and not changes. As I said, Locke is a crafty change. He's not an improvement, but as far as simplifications of the story go, that one is done very well. Locke's lines are not illogical. Locke is not a badly written character. He provokes my purism in no way.

Back on topic: the root problem with TV Sansa is not that she's altered. By the nature of TV business, many characters had to be simplified, which is an alteration by definition. Without inner thoughts, every POV character is inevitably changed, because all that stuff that goes through his/her head has to find it's way out, and that leads to some situations that didn't exist in the source material. And in a world so meticulously built, every added scene, no matter how little, may be a change. But, there are changes and there are changes. Competent writers would never mess with basic traits of characters. And Sansa (among a legion of other characters) is changed in her root. You may like her or not, but in the books she actively tries to escape King's Landing all the time. That is so defining! Two characters are imprisoned; one is actively trying to escape, and the other just endures; they can't be one and the same. No way. And no budget issue or schedule can justify that. Same thing with Sandor: if someone else tells the story of his face, Sandor can't be the same guy he's in the books. Which means, D&D changed a lot, whether they intended or not. Sansa is different, Sandor is different, and their relation is different. And what we got in the show is infinitely inferior to what the novels delivered.

That, my friend, is not purism. Hypothetically, the show could try to be faithful with their SanSan and still miss: bad acting can do that, along with bad directing, or cheesy music. My puristic self would still be disappointed. ("Gatsby" with Redford is such a case.) On the other hand, D&D could have - also hypothetically - alter SanSan and still deliver some good, or not bad stuff (as they did with Vargo/Locke). My puristic self probably wouldn't be impressed, but I'd have no reason to complain. But, what they did to SanSan in the show gives me all the reason in the world to complain. In regards to Sansa, they actually removed almost all the important points in her arc. How can she be the same character in psychological and narrative sense after their interventions? And Sandor is also altered, because taking his most important lines from him and giving them to someone else can't help but have consequences.

[boojam]

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.

I didn't think I said anything about catered too.

It's the fact that strong actors are going to be in a feedback loop with the producers and writers.

No way to avoid it , Dance has said he took the role because he liked the writing, even then his elocution , body language and superior acting craft are going to influence the presentation of that character. That has been true of all the veteran actors on the show especially Peter Dinklage. I am sure that rehearsals have resulted in all the roles having something added or subtracted from a character's arc. That has the knock on effect of influencing the whole narrative arc of the visual drama.

As well as Emilia Clarke has mastered the basics of her craft, she didn't have the experience , season 2, to object to D&D's neglect of the Qarth-story , I have to wonder if Iain Glen said anything to D&D , he probably just put his check in the bank. It was noticeable that David Petrarca, David Nutter and (of all people) Alan Taylor who directed those episodes seemed distracted too. I just think Dany's chapters in CoK defeated writers and directors combined. (The first four episodes were linear enough to not cause a problem (well Vanessa Taylor did seem to struggle with her 'Across the Narrow Sea' sequence episode 4).

There many famous instances of strong actor - story feed back in film making.

When Kubrick , in 1960 , took over Spartacus from Anthony Mann .... Kubrick hated a lot of Dalton Trumbo's dialog but could not get Universal to let him change it. It was also true that Laurence Olivier , Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov did not like their lines too, so they re-wrote them, Universal was not going object to actors of their stature deviating. Their craft and personalities had a lot to do with whole story that film carried.

That just one example.

[Miodrag]

When Kubrick , in 1960 , took over Spartacus from Anthony Mann .... Kubrick hated a lot of Dalton Trumbo's dialog but could not get Universal to let him change it. It was also true that Laurence Olivier , Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov did not like their lines too, so they re-wrote them, Universal was not going object to actors of their stature deviating. Their craft and personalities had a lot to do with whole story that film carried.

That just one example.

That's not the same thing. Those "Spartacus" actors insisted on changing the lines, because, possibly, those lines were really bad. Watched "Spartacus" ages ago, but I don't remember some brilliant script in there. And, maybe the actors demanded changes because the lines that were given to them didn't fit their characters. Or they were just assholes who used the confusion. But what you're suggesting about Dance, that's something else entirely, and not only because his lines - in the source material, at least - are the opposite of bad. Dance's craft and screen presence and charisma were to be evaluated and counted in before he was cast. Isn't that the basic purpose of casting process: to pick the actors based on their craft and appeal and whatever? If later on some 'dimension' of an actor surprises you to the point of altering the character an actor plays, then: 1) you failed at the casting, and 2) you have no clear idea of the direction your character is supposed to go.

And by the way, a good actor is supposed to play even the characters that aren't charismatic. Take Bertolucci's "Novecento" for example: DeNiro, an actor with possibly the most powerful screen presence ever, plays a weakling fool there, and he plays him wonderfully. Was Bertolucci to alter the character once he hired DeNiro? Of course not. Same thing with Dance. He's there to play Tywin Lannister, and that's it. He can bring all the layers and aspects of himself if he pleases to, but he can't alter the character, period. That would be my stance. And that was how David Chase and David Simon approached their shows. You think they didn't have charismatic actors in their cast? Of course they did. But they never changed their characters because of that.

Dance is not the first magnetic actor ever. And his virtues are to be used in favor of the story, not against it.

[boojam]

That's not the same thing. Those "Spartacus" actors insisted on changing the lines, because, possibly, those lines were really bad. Watched "Spartacus" ages ago, but I don't remember some brilliant script in there. And, maybe the actors demanded changes because the lines that were given to them didn't fit their characters. Or they were just assholes who used the confusion. But what you're suggesting about Dance, that's something else entirely, and not only because his lines - in the source material, at least - are the opposite of bad. Dance's craft and screen presence and charisma were to be evaluated and counted in before he was cast. Isn't that the basic purpose of casting process: to pick the actors based on their craft and appeal and whatever? If later on some 'dimension' of an actor surprises you to the point of altering the character an actor plays, then: 1) you failed at the casting, and 2) you have no clear idea of the direction your character is supposed to go.

And by the way, a good actor is supposed to play even the characters that aren't charismatic. Take Bertolucci's "Novecento" for example: DeNiro, an actor with possibly the most powerful screen presence ever, plays a weakling fool there, and he plays him wonderfully. Was Bertolucci to alter the character once he hired DeNiro? Of course not. Same thing with Dance. He's there to play Tywin Lannister, and that's it. He can bring all the layers and aspects of himself if he pleases to, but he can't alter the character, period. That would be my stance. And that was how David Chase and David Simon approached their shows. You think they didn't have charismatic actors in their cast? Of course they did. But they never changed their characters because of that.

Dance is not the first magnetic actor ever. And his virtues are to be used in favor of the story, not against it.

Looks like we are in agreement then.

By the by '1900' was not an adaptation so there is no way to compare Robert De Niro's character to anything but the screenplay, which may have been published but I don't know.

But my goodness Laurence Olivier's Hamlet differs from Innokenty Smoktunovsky to Kenneth Branagh and scores of other film and stage Hamlets good and bad! That was as Shakespeare intended it.

[Le Cygne]

They've muddled or dropped the story for other characters/relationships, but fixed them later...

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but the point is, she's well past the age of silly jokes in the story.

There's a good story here. So let's see it.

[Zorn Gottes]

They've muddled or dropped the story for other characters/relationships, but fixed them later.

[...]

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but the point is, she's well past the age of silly jokes in the story.

There's a good story here. So let's see it.

Thankfully Sophie Turner will be 18 next year... So there will be not the age excuse anymore :rolleyes:

But if D&D have the intention to further develop the SanSan romance in the future, I wonder why they left out the bloody cloak stuff. That would have been an effective and concise way to compensate for the lack of internal dialogue, flashbacks, etc.and deliver Sansa's thoughts. But they dismissed it.

Sandor's feelings are pretty clear in the show, but as for Sansa's... until now, there is no hint that she may think about Sandor again. This worries me.

[Le Cygne]

Thankfully Sophie Turner will be 18 next year... So there will be not the age excuse anymore /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

But if D&D have the intention to further develop the SanSan romance in the future, I wonder why they left out the bloody cloak stuff. That would have been an effective and concise way to compensate for the lack of internal dialogue, flashbacks, etc.and deliver Sansa's thoughts. But they dismissed it.

Sandor's feelings are pretty clear in the show, but as for Sansa's... until now, there is no hint that she may think about Sandor again. This worries me.

Me, too. In the show the age gap is bigger (15/35), in the books it was 15 years (14/29) as of the last book. But that's in line with Westeros/other ages and relationships in the series (Dany, Lyanna, etc.)

[King of the Road]

But if D&D have the intention to further develop the SanSan romance in the future, I wonder why they left out the bloody cloak stuff. That would have been an effective and concise way to compensate for the lack of internal dialogue, flashbacks, etc.and deliver Sansa's thoughts. But they dismissed it.

I didn't think it until I read this comment, but when Sandor gives Sansa his cloak during her beating in front of the royal court, she walks out with it on. Is it implausible that she could still have it? Either that or they could use other reminders of her thoughts regarding Sandor, even as simple as showing a dog.

[brashcandy]

I didn't think it until I read this comment, but when Sandor gives Sansa his cloak during her beating in front of the royal court, she walks out with it on. Is it implausible that she could still have it? Either that or they could use other reminders of her thoughts regarding Sandor, even as simple as showing a dog.

It's possible she still has it, but the problem becomes how to illustrate the meaning it has for Sansa, which is very much connected to Sandor (although it's not the same as the bloody cloak). These "signs" have to have meaning in the show itself, otherwise they won't function (outside of signifying to book readers) and this is why the show has lapsed in the adaptation. Having an entire season go by where Sansa does not make one reference to Sandor or what he is said to her in parting was a glaring missed opportunity to reference not only their relationship, but how this figures into her character development.

[Le Cygne]

I didn't think it until I read this comment, but when Sandor gives Sansa his cloak during her beating in front of the royal court, she walks out with it on. Is it implausible that she could still have it? Either that or they could use other reminders of her thoughts regarding Sandor, even as simple as showing a dog.

That's a good idea, too, dogs come up a lot in her story in the books. Did Robert say get her a dog, she'll be happier for it on the show? I don't remember. I looked, he was wearing a white cloak in the scene where they met in the hall (that happened after he gave it to her). I suppose she could have kept the first one. I wonder sometimes if they don't write these scenes in such a hurry, things get missed.

I kept thinking Arya would bring up Jon Snow, too, like that scene when she still had Needle and Gendry knew who she was, and they were off to themselves, he's a blacksmith, he could have said, where did you get the sword, something.

[Le Cygne]

Ah, he did say it, just checked. "A direwolf is no pet. Get her a dog, she'll be happier for it."

[boojam]

Thankfully Sophie Turner will be 18 next year... So there will be not the age excuse anymore :rolleyes:

But if D&D have the intention to further develop the SanSan romance in the future, I wonder why they left out the bloody cloak stuff. That would have been an effective and concise way to compensate for the lack of internal dialogue, flashbacks, etc.and deliver Sansa's thoughts. But they dismissed it.

Sandor's feelings are pretty clear in the show, but as for Sansa's... until now, there is no hint that she may think about Sandor again. This worries me.

I wish the show would drop mention of any character's age since as a visual drama it is apparent the youngsters just flat are not the ages on the page. As an adaptation that going is to last for , maybe, 3 or 4(!) more years, and they are not going to replace the principals , it will be obvious they are becoming or will be young adults.

Which is fine with me since I wanted to see Geroge's 'five year' time line.

[Zorn Gottes]

It's possible she still has it, but the problem becomes how to illustrate the meaning it has for Sansa, which is very much connected to Sandor (although it's not the same as the bloody cloak). These "signs" have to have meaning in the show itself, otherwise they won't function (outside of signifying to book readers) and this is why the show has lapsed in the adaptation.

I agree... Also, it's too late to use that other cloak now, no one would even remember it was Sandor's. The beating happened in 02x04, if I remember well, how could they possibly exhume that detail after 2 seasons with no reference at all, and hope that the viewers would catch the correlation? :dunno:

[King of the Road]

I agree... Also, it's too late to use that other cloak now, no one would even remember it was Sandor's. The beating happened in 02x04, if I remember well, how could they possibly exhume that detail after 2 seasons with no reference at all, and hope that the viewers would catch the correlation? :dunno:

Unless Sansa and Sandor actually do end up together then it doesn't need to be obvious, it could easily just be a kind of easter egg to satisfy die hard fans of the show. Merely alluding to Sansa's affection for the Hound is all they can do given the lack of an inner monologue, so subtle details like the cloak or a dog passing by is probably the best that SanSan fans can hope for.

To be honest I'd be happy with something like that, given that I have read the books and know Sansa's feeling for the Hound. Were I the director/writers, I would have shown Sansa wrapped in the cloak following her discovery of the Red Wedding, hinting at the fact that she has lost much of her protection with the absence of the Hound and how she craves for his influence.

[Le Cygne]

Having an entire season go by where Sansa does not make one reference to Sandor or what he is said to her in parting was a glaring missed opportunity to reference not only their relationship, but how this figures into her character development.

The funny thing is, she never missed a chance to reference him in four books, only missed one chapter.

Shae eclipsed not only Sandor in Sansa's story, but Sansa. Much the same way Talisa eclipsed Catelyn.

I wish the show would drop mention of any character's age since as a visual drama it is apparent the youngsters just flat are not the ages on the page. As an adaptation that going is to last for , maybe, 3 or 4(!) more years, and they are not going to replace the principals , it will be obvious they are becoming or will be young adults.

Which is fine with me since I wanted to see Geroge's 'five year' time line.

Same here, actors, too, I really don't care about ages. Fantasy world and all of that.

The beating happened in 02x04, if I remember well, how could they possibly exhume that detail after 2 seasons with no reference at all, and hope that the viewers would catch the correlation? :dunno:

I doubt we'll see it, too. But we will see Needle! Last seen about that time.

[Colonel Green]

I doubt we'll see it, too. But we will see Needle! Last seen about that time.

Needle was given about a thousand times more emphasis.

[Le Cygne]

Needle was given about a thousand times more emphasis.

My point was when it was last seen. However, with respect to emphasis:

Needle is part of Arya's story. Cloaks are part of Sansa's story.

[Lonin]

While I didn't like D&D giving LF two important Sandor lines... They did give me one of my favorite Sandor quotes

"You'll be glad of the hateful things I do one day, when you're queen and I'm the only thing that stands between you and your beloved king."

I will admit that I have spent some time thinking that maybe they gave us a hint at a future Queen Sansa..... but probably just a throw away line.

[Le Cygne]

While I didn't like D&D giving LF two important Sandor lines... They did give me one of my favorite Sandor quotes

"You'll be glad of the hateful things I do one day, when you're queen and I'm the only thing that stands between you and your beloved king."

I will admit that I have spent some time thinking that maybe they gave us a hint at a future Queen Sansa..... but probably just a throw away line.

That is a good line.

I liked his "I didn't do it for you" line in the rescue scene, too.

Occasionally the show comes up with a good line.

(Oh no, did I just say something nice about the show? :))

[brashcandy]

My point was when it was last seen. However, with respect to emphasis:

Needle is part of Arya's story. Cloaks are part of Sansa's story.

Yup, and not just Sandor's, but Tyrion's and LF's too. How Sansa thinks about, reacts to and utilizes those cloaks makes all the difference.