A Game of Thrones

**Moriath** · #**501** June 7th, 2012, 7:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

I'm new to this series and I've been reading up a lot lately. One thing got me thinking though. Apparently a lot of people think Sandor is more or less in love with Sansa. I disagree... after seeing the episode written bij GRRM I fairly convinced she reminds him of his sister and he just feels protective of her. It makes sense to me.. More than a love story. Btw.. that was also one of the best written episodes.

I think the dynamics between Sansa and the Hound are rather different but, in my view, GRRM's episode underlined the somewhat creepy romantic feelings on his part. I agree about GRRM's being one of the best episodes.

*Lord Godric* · #**502** June 8th, 2012, 7:13 pm

I don't know if Sandor is in love with Sansa. In the books most of his reactions with her seem to be either when he is doing his duty and protecting the King and his betrothed or when he's drunk and rambling about not being a knight. In the books especially he comes across as exceptionally creepy with his feelings towards her, and I'm no SanSan shipper at all, but I think the point of their relationship is to show that this anti-knight is better than the true knights and Sansa's delusions about a royal court and royal life are smashed by how she is treated by the Hound in comparison to how she is treated by Joffrey.

As the series progresses we'll see how Sansa's opinions change and the Hound is central to that changing mentality.

Siriusandme · #**503** June 8th, 2012, 9:10 pm

I don’t know either way... I hope my theory holds up because to me, a grown man who falls in love with a 13 yr old girl (or even a 16 yr old) is just creepy. For me the Sansa-reminds-him-of-his-sister-theory still explains the behavior but without the creepiness. And it makes sense.. to me at least.

*Lord Godric* · #**504** June 11th, 2012, 2:06 am

That's an interesting theory, but, assuming the show sticks to the books, I don't think it'll hold much water as the series progresses.

*DeliciousMoon* · #**505** June 11th, 2012, 3:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

That's an interesting theory, but, assuming the show sticks to the books, I don't think it'll hold much water as the series progresses.

I wouldn't bet on the series staying close to the books anymore. They've begun changing character motiviations and events. It can only get worse from here.

*Lord Godric* · #**506** June 11th, 2012, 9:48 pm

I honestly don't believe they'll diverge too much as Martin still writes one episode per season. Also, I don't really see any major characters that have had their motivations changed, perhaps with the exception of Dany. But her story is boring in the books anyway, they need something to spice it up. The only disappointment of last season was the house of the undying - but after reading the producers reasons I understand their decision.

*DeliciousMoon* · #**507** June 12th, 2012, 2:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

I honestly don't believe they'll diverge too much as Martin still writes one episode per season.

He wrote one this season and there were still lots of changes. (in the other 9)

Quote:

Also, I don't really see any major characters that have had their motivations changed, perhaps with the exception of Dany.

Catelyn and Robb's motivations at the end of the season were very different. The fact the writers had them make their mistakes before thinking Bran and Rickon were dead was a huge disservice to both their characters imo. Robb also married out of love, not honor, unlike the books. I would definitely call them main characters, especially since Catelyn is a point of view character, and Robb was pushed to be more of a main character in the show.

Spoiler: show

They also cut out key character scenes -

Spoiler: show

*Lord Godric* · #**508** June 12th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Ah, I didn't think of Robb and Catelyn's motivations. While I would agree they played up the Robb married for love bit, Catelyn's motivations were very similar. No, she didn't find out about Bran and Rickon's "deaths" but she did think Jaime would be murdered overnight and it was her last opportunity to save her daughters. As for Robb/Talisa I really don't understand the change from Jeyne Westerling to Talisa. But even with those changes, the show has remained true to the books. Sure this season had more changes and next will too, but I doubt it'll ever get to a point where it doesn't reflect the books at all like a lot of shows do (I'm thinking of Legend of the Seeker/Sword of Truth mainly)

*Wimsey* · #**509** June 14th, 2012, 3:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

But even with those changes, the show has remained true to the books.

Season 2 certainly was very true to the story: it did a great job of telling a tale about people caught between conflicting promises and vows. Jamie Lannister's little exchange with Catelyn about what a man is supposed to do when he swears to do X, Y and Z, only to find that upholding X violates his vow to do Z.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

As for Robb/Talisa I really don't understand the change from Jeyne Westerling to Talisa. But even with those changes, the show has remained true to the books.

I thought that change was quite necessary. The Jeyne Westerling thing in the book simply would not have worked, especially given that the series has elevated Robb to a protagonist. Indeed, it was almost a bit comical:

Robb: "Hey mom, I sacked a castle. And speaking of sacking...."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!
Robb: "... meet my wife!"
Jeyne: "I wuv my Wobb-Wobb!"
Catelyn: "I haven't seen anything this disgusting since Lavender Brown. Somebody kill me....."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!

Seriously, I thought that seeing Robb actually fall in love with a girl who was his (close to) his equal but opposite fed the story well: Robb is promised to someone else, but now is quite conflicted about that. They did a particularly good job of paralleling this with Jon Snow and Ygritte. Again, the same conflict in both brothers at different parts of the world.

I also found Talisa appealing: she reminded me of Rothana from Katherine Kurtz's Deryni series. Moreover, I think that they used her well to provide some depth to the world and feed the anti-slavery theme that runs so strongly through the books.

I also thought that the show did a really good job with Theon. Again, he fed the conflicting vow story wonderfully: and I liked the added touch of him equivocating in his torn loyalty between father and adopted brother.

Arya was, as last year, extremely well done. Modifying Harrenhal to have Tywin Lannister there was a nice touch: it allowed a lot of exposition without sex, and helped develop Arya as a resourceful and intelligent young lady. I have very good ideas about what the future holds for many of the characters, but I'm sort of stumped on her.

It seems like numerous other small modifications helped feed the story nicely as well.

Sansa seemed to get short-shrifted, but I always found her vacuous, anyway. I was hoping that the TV show would find a way to make her more palatable, especially given how strong Arya and Daenerys are. They even made Catelyn a bit less shrewish than she is in the books.

It was too bad that they didn't include some of the scenes in the House of the Undying. However, they never showed us flashbacks to Rhaeghar (for all they talk about him), so springing him on us might have been out of the blue. Some of the long-asked questions of the books first appear there. If I recall, then the book also had a surreal bit showing us an upcoming wedding, too. Still, I think that the version that they showed did a good job of feeding the story: Daeny seemed to get to choose between a little slice of heaven and her duty to her dragons.

Next year's story is about 'Til Death do we Part." I'm very curious to see how they do a few key parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

I don’t know either way... I hope my theory holds up because to me, a grown man who falls in love with a 13 yr old girl (or even a 16 yr old) is just creepy. For me the Sansa-reminds-him-of-his-sister-theory still explains the behavior but without the creepiness. And it makes sense.. to me at least.

They are supposed to be in a world in which middle-aged men routinely wed teenage girls. You might just as well criticize Tolstoy for doing this, too. (All of those noble girls twittering over officers at balls were Sansa's age, with those officers probably near the Hounds age.) Historically, finding this to be "creepy" would be considered just plain weird. (After all, all the women in their late teens are either already we'd or leeady dead from child birth.)

Siriusandme · #**510** June 14th, 2012, 6:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wimsey

They are supposed to be in a world in which middle-aged men routinely wed teenage girls. You might just as well criticize Tolstoy for doing this, too. (All of those noble girls twittering over officers at balls were Sansa's age, with those officers probably near the Hounds age.) Historically, finding this to be "creepy" would be considered just plain weird. (After all, all the women in their late teens are either already we'd or leeady dead from child birth.)

I know.. and at the same time this weirdness is what made the writers up everyones age with about 3 years. We are not used to this medieval custom anymore and to a lot of people it feels a bit creepy. I don’t criticize Martin for it, but reading about it and seeing it in front of me are two different things. Even when said 13 yr olds are 16.

That said.. I find the Hound strangely fascinating.

*DeliciousMoon* · #**511** June 14th, 2012, 4:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wimsey

I thought that change was quite necessary. The Jeyne Westerling thing in the book simply would not have worked, especially given that the series has elevated Robb to a protagonist. Indeed, it was almost a bit comical:

Robb: "Hey mom, I sacked a castle. And speaking of sacking...."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!
Robb: "... meet my wife!"
Jeyne: "I wuv my Wobb-Wobb!"
Catelyn: "I haven't seen anything this disgusting since Lavender Brown. Somebody kill me....."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!

Seriously, I thought that seeing Robb actually fall in love with a girl who was his (close to) his equal but opposite fed the story well: Robb is promised to someone else, but now is quite conflicted about that. They did a particularly good job of paralleling this with Jon Snow and Ygritte. Again, the same conflict in both brothers at different parts of the world.

While I agree trying to make Talisa into a more fleshed out character and portraying a romance with her and Robb wasn't a bad idea in and of itself, its execution was absolutely terrible imo. There was nothing interesting about the way they wrote the romance. Imo, Talisa was a stereotypical cardboard cutout about a women who hated gender roles, and Robb was just being an idiot. At least in the books it's him being confused about what honor means, as well as him being absolutely devastaed about his brothers. In the show it's just "I love her and I'm going to marry her even though I know it's a terrible idea that's going to get me into a huge amount of trouble!" I mean, even Joffrey managed to look better than him in the last episode.

I do agree that having Talisa mention the bit about the slaves was a good touch, but a 5 minute monologue about a character that has no POV in the books, when they already have trouble giving time to the actual main characters more people care about, was a bad move imo.

Quote:

I also thought that the show did a really good job with Theon. Again, he fed the conflicting vow story wonderfully: and I liked the added touch of him equivocating in his torn loyalty between father and adopted brother.

Theon's storyline was the most well done in the show imo (aside from Blackwater of course). The actor was amazing and if anyone gets an emmy this season for Game of Thrones, I hope it's Allen!

Quote:

Arya was, as last year, extremely well done. Modifying Harrenhal to have Tywin Lannister there was a nice touch: it allowed a lot of exposition without sex, and helped develop Arya as a resourceful and intelligent young lady. I have very good ideas about what the future holds for many of the characters, but I'm sort of stumped on her.

Have you read all the books?

Spoiler: show

Also, did we really need 4 or so scenes of her and Tywin? They are great actors and play well off each other and I loved the first couple, but it became repetitive by the end and could have been replaced by scenes that actually moved Arya's character development forward.

Quote:

Sansa seemed to get short-shrifted, but I always found her vacuous, anyway. I was hoping that the TV show would find a way to make her more palatable, especially given how strong Arya and Daenerys are. They even made Catelyn a bit less shrewish than she is in the books.

Sansa is just as strong as Arya and Daenerys. And very intelligent.

Spoiler: show

I loved her in grrm's episode, but after seeing some of the interviews with the writers, I don't think they get her character very well. At least Sophie Turner does, given what I've seen of her interviews!

Quote:

They are supposed to be in a world in which middle-aged men routinely wed teenage girls. You might just as well criticize Tolstoy for doing this, too. (All of those noble girls twittering over officers at balls were Sansa's age, with those officers probably near the Hounds age.) Historically, finding this to be "creepy" would be considered just plain weird. (After all, all the women in their late teens are either already we'd or leeady dead from child birth.)

I thought the average age of marriage in the middle ages was in the mid twenties? Sure some noble families might have married a bit earlier, but the majority of the population didn't. Unless you mean it just wouldn't be considered weird by the nobles, which were by far the minority. But this is kind of off topic. Sandor having a crush on Sansa wouldn't be too surprising anyway.

*Wimsey* · #**512** June 14th, 2012, 6:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

While I agree trying to make Talisa into a more fleshed out character and portraying a romance with her and Robb wasn't a bad idea in and of itself, its execution was absolutely terrible imo. There was nothing interesting about the way they wrote the romance. Imo, Talisa was a stereotypical cardboard cutout about a women who hated gender roles, and Robb was just being an idiot. At least in the books it's him being confused about what honor means, as well as him being absolutely devastaed about his brothers. In the show it's just "I love her and I'm going to marry her even though I know it's a terrible idea that's going to get me into a huge amount of trouble!" I mean, even Joffrey managed to look better than him in the last episode.

The books has almost nothing about Robb being confused about honor: he's not a protagonist or even a POV character, so that's a facile interpretation. And, sorry, but you simply cannot combine "cardboard" and hating gender stereotypes: it is the cardboard characters like Sansa who accept them. Talisa is was an infinite improvement on Jane Westerling ("gaggeth me upon a spooneth!"), at least if you are going to make Robb a protagonist instead of a foil (which is all he is in the books). You need to show Robb falling in love (which is impossible to do without being an idiot, by the way!), show him (and us) that there is something of substance there with which he can fall in love (a noble woman who gave up the easy life to play at Doctors Without Borders is worthy of any man's pursuit) and show him being conflicted by his promises. "Honor" simply does not cut it: 99 times out of 100, it is not development; instead, it's a crutch. (THis series used it's 1% with Ned.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

Sansa is just as strong as Arya and Daenerys. And very intelligent.

Spoiler: show

I loved her in grrm's episode, but after seeing some of the interviews with the writers, I don't think they get her character very well. At least Sophie Turner does, given what I've seen of her interviews!

Oh they get her. And, yes, Sansa is an idiot. This actually is key in the books: part of her dynamic development (and part of what should or could have been happening in this season) is her figuring out that she is, in fact, an idiot. There were a few more things in the book that were omitted that strip away her inane beliefs about how the world works. We did get a little bit of this, when Littlefinger tells her that Kings Landing has hundreds of liars who are all much, much better at lying than she is: Sansa (as in the book) is begining to see that she is over her head, and thus sticks with the simple (and thus easy to repeat and easy to remember) lies. However, the only other thing in the books that could have been filmed was Sansa learning what really to expect from conquering knights. The other things (insofar as I can remember them) are entirely in her thinking.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see what they do on this score with Sansa in upcoming seasons: a big part of her dynamic development in the 3rd & 4th stories is her trying to come to terms with her inability to think quickly enough to play elegantly. Martin's literary devices (here, simply POV) obviously won't work on screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

I thought the average age of marriage in the middle ages was in the mid twenties?

It varied somewhat at different times, but most women who would marry married young. Men married a bit later, regardless of class: usually they needed to have some sort of financial footing to marry. (Being an eldest son of nobility obviously removed that as an issue.) But remember that women were purely tools for breeding amongst the nobility, and youth was a further assurance that they were still virgins. Well-born women hit menarche before the "small folk" did, too: that is tied to nutrition, after all. (That written, I don't think that even noble women reached menarche as early as they do in Martin's books.). The longer you waited to marry off your daughter, the more time there was for her value to drop if only through innuendo. This part of The Game of Thrones is quite realistic: the Game is not Machiavellian, it is brutally Darwinian.

That is a big reason why I liked the Stark-Lannister exchanges with Sansa-Cersei and Arya-Tywin. The Game is not just here and now: it is about Legacy, i.e., making sure that your descendants whom you will never know are the ones in power. This is expressed in the books, of course, but not in a way that is cinematic.

But this brings back a point to remember when reading my posts. Whether it be Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc., I judge adaptations purely by how well they communicate the "gestalt" aspects of the tale: i.e., the story and the themes. The details do not concern me: often times they are devices that work well in literature but they are no more useful on screen than a fin is on a lizard. Also, one must watch out for literary gills: a huge proportion of "that wasn't in the book!" scenes are cinematic lungs replacing some set of literary gills.

That means that I will judge Season 3 by how well it tells a story about "Till Death do we Part." They could well change a lot of narrative details. Heck, after so many years, I probably won't notice most of the changes, anyway: I did re-read the series last summer before Dance with Dragons: but that was 12 months ago, so I've forgotten the small details of Storm of Swords and Clash of Kings by now. But I do remember the story, and it is a good one: hopefully they will succeed in communicating it. They are 2 for 2 with Conflicted Values and Conflicted Promises; but those were similar stories. (Seasons 4 & 5 will have similar stories, too: but the plot structures might demand that they do some drastic revision to the plots even if they retain the stories.

mrfutterman · #**513** June 14th, 2012, 7:27 pm

ASoIaF owes a lot to the so-called "Wars of the Roses". Robert is a good match for Edward IV as is Cersei for Elizabeth Woodville, etc.

Edward fought his 1st battle at the age of 13. The future Henry VII was born to a 13 year old girl. They had no childhood. Marriage was about property and alliances, and breeding heirs.

*DeliciousMoon* · #**514** June 15th, 2012, 1:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wimsey

The books has almost nothing about Robb being confused about honor: he's not a protagonist or even a POV character, so that's a facile interpretation. And, sorry, but you simply cannot combine "cardboard" and hating gender stereotypes: it is the cardboard characters like Sansa who accept them.

I could have sworn that's what he told Catelyn but I could be mistaken. I have to reread. The snide comment from Talisa about not liking "those stupid girly things like playing a harp" was not unnoticed on me. The writers have slipped in a lot of this stuff (eg. Arya's "all girls are stupid"). Liking the harp, wanting to get married, loving pretty dresses and singing and dancing is not "loving gender stereotypes". It's being yourself and liking what you like. The writers do not get this kind of women. They don't seem to care about a women unless she's a sword weilding badass or rejects anything stereotypically feminine. IMO, Sansa has a lot of depth, it's just subtle. Talisa left her home to become a nurse because she didn't like playing the harp and stuff. Why am I supposed to care about her? What new thing does she bring to the table? They could have easily given depth to a girl similar to the Jeyne we're shown in the books - quite and a "lady" (and yes, women like that can be deep and interesting), but I don't think the writers care about women like that.

Quote:

Oh they get her. And, yes, Sansa is an idiot. This actually is key in the books: part of her dynamic development (and part of what should or could have been happening in this season) is her figuring out that she is, in fact, an idiot.

A naive thirteen year old is not an idiot. She learned the truth about the way things work at Kings Landing pretty quickly.

Spoiler: show

Anyway, I completely disagree with your assessment with Sansa, but I don't want to argue it because it will get us no where. I've seen this fight all too often on the game of thrones boards and do not wish to get involved in one.

*Lord Godric* · #**515** June 15th, 2012, 4:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wimsey

I thought that change was quite necessary. The Jeyne Westerling thing in the book simply would not have worked, especially given that the series has elevated Robb to a protagonist. Indeed, it was almost a bit comical:

Robb: "Hey mom, I sacked a castle. And speaking of sacking...."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!
Robb: "... meet my wife!"
Jeyne: "I wuv my Wobb-Wobb!"
Catelyn: "I haven't seen anything this disgusting since Lavender Brown. Somebody kill me....."
Highland Drummers: *rimshot* OI!

Seriously, I thought that seeing Robb actually fall in love with a girl who was his (close to) his equal but opposite fed the story well: Robb is promised to someone else, but now is quite conflicted about that. They did a particularly good job of paralleling this with Jon Snow and Ygritte. Again, the same conflict in both brothers at different parts of the world.

Well I think they could have shown him falling in love with Jeyne and it would have worked too. I absolutely agree that him going "off-page" and returning with a wife wouldn't work. But they certainly could have had him get wounded and be nursed back to health by Jeyne and falling in love with her that way. Martin himself mentioned how he doesn't like the "I'm a lowborn and I can talk back to a king and not get beheaded" stereotype and that is what Talisa was. I feel like they only changed her from Jeyne to Talisa to give us exposition about Volantis. I didn't hate Talisa, but it genuinely confuses me.

Quote:

It was too bad that they didn't include some of the scenes in the House of the Undying. However, they never showed us flashbacks to Rhaeghar (for all they talk about him), so springing him on us might have been out of the blue. Some of the long-asked questions of the books first appear there. If I recall, then the book also had a surreal bit showing us an upcoming wedding, too. Still, I think that the version that they showed did a good job of feeding the story: Daeny seemed to get to choose between a little slice of heaven and her duty to her dragons.

They made the decision a while ago to not show flashbacks, cause showing one would mean showing hundreds. So I didn't expect to see Rhaegar and Elia even if I wanted to. And showing scenes that we hear about in the books would be too large of spoilers. But I do hope they include some of the important prophecies because they not only feed Dany's motivations but gives us hints about her future.

Book spoiler:

Spoiler: show

Quote:

But this brings back a point to remember when reading my posts. Whether it be Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc., I judge adaptations purely by how well they communicate the "gestalt" aspects of the tale: i.e., the story and the themes. The details do not concern me: often times they are devices that work well in literature but they are no more useful on screen than a fin is on a lizard. Also, one must watch out for literary gills: a huge proportion of "that wasn't in the book!" scenes are cinematic lungs replacing some set of literary gills.

I absolutely agree. I judge adaptations in the same way and am not bothered, like many fans, but every change. I want an adaptation to capture the same ideas, characteristics and general themes and the GoT TV show has done a wonderful job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

I could have sworn that's what he told Catelyn but I could be mistaken.

More or less he did. He felt honor-bound to marry Jeyne after he slept with her that one night. I can't remember if he ever flat out says this, but Catelyn certainly thinks about it and draws comparison to Ned and his honor.

Quote:

The writers have slipped in a lot of this stuff (eg. Arya's "all girls are stupid").

As for Arya, that's pretty much how she is in the books too.

Quote:

A naive thirteen year old is not an idiot. She learned the truth about the way things work at Kings Landing pretty quickly.

In the first book/season Sansa is certainly an idiot. But after Ned's death she learned. And in Clash of Kings she starts using what she learned. One thing I didn't agree with was the decision of the writers to cut out the part that Sansa was, at least in part, to blame for Cersei capturing Ned before he was able to flee back to Winterfell. It showed how stupid (or naive, but really it's the same) Sansa was about how things were. Sansa believed the world was like a song, and she learned quickly. But in Clash of Kings she has adapted enough to survive in King's Landing.

*Wimsey* · #**516** June 15th, 2012, 5:56 pm

Save for a flurry of posts last year, it really has been 10 years since I discussed "Song of Fire and Ice" in any detail. However, these posts have brought a couple of things back to my mind regarding Sansa. Lest this seem off-topic, I'll summarize below why this presented real challenges for a cinematic presentation and why I'm not 100% sure I can criticize the producers.

What makes Sansa interesting as a Literary Character is that she is, in fact, an uninteresting character. Allow me to explain this apparent contradiction, and also explain why Martin's little experiment presents huge challenges to adaptations. Modern literature thrives and derives from the dynamic evolution of characters, and a common source for this is the plight of intelligent women railing against the general sexisms of their societies. This stands in stark contrast to fairy tales, which use static icons (or, put another way, cardboard cutouts). There, the beautiful women (and men) are content and happy to fulfill mundane stereotypes. (This also works for mythical versions of the 1950's….)

What Martin does is quite daring and potentially very clever. In addition to the usual intelligent women (Arya, Daeny) and even less than intelligent women (Cersei, Brienne) railing against the system, he includes a woman who is so completely sold on the system that she unquestioningly buys into the fairy tales glorifying it. Indeed, in many ways, Sansa is straight out of one of those fairy tales: she is the beautiful, kind-hearted, dutiful, sweet innocent: and also without a thought in her head beyond being wooed by a gallant young lord and subsequently popping out his babies. She is 13, yet she has the naivete of a 7-year old. Her entire basis for evaluating reality is make-believe: knights and lords are virtuous and heroic, ladies are chaste, gentle and caring, and beauty = goodness. When confronted with any hints that this is not reality (namely, her younger sister Arya), she essentially covers her ears and hums at 110 decibels. She's not wearing rose-colored glasses: she's wearing blinders.

Now, Martin has a little fun. Let's take our Cardboard Cutout Girl and write A Homecoming Queen in King Henry's Court! This does not only feed the first story about clashes of values (Sansa's fairy tale truths vs. the Game), but also becomes important in the plots (Sansa's bumblings are even more important in the book than last season.) When it comes to the Game, she is standing in the middle of the field skipping rope, utterly uncomprehending of what is happening around her and convinced that they are skipping rope, too, simply because she is too limited not even to grasp even the basics of the football/soccer game, but to grasp that there is any game other than skipping rope. Only after some serious errors (sorry dad!) and the slow dawning that, in fact, everyone around her thinks she is an idiot (which is a constant thought of Sansa's in the book) is there any chance for dynamic development.

So, how does such a character evolve when she, basically, lacks the intellect to really evolve? What does she do once she starts to come to grips with the fact that she really is quite stupid and that she fundamentally does not grasp the why of other people's intents, never mind what they intend. That is when things could get interesting, although this does not happen before the 2nd story ends. Instead, what dynamic development we get is Sansa losing illusions without replacing them with opinions. She retreats to a silly lie that nobody buys (as Littlefinger kindly points out) that is in keeping with the story: she clings to her vow to wed Joffery. (Feeding the story of conflicting vows and promises along the way, too!)

Very few story tellers have attempted this because, well, you really only see it in one format: comedy. I mean, seriously, even though it was toned down, all that it lacked was Bronn saying "Nobody can be as dumb as she's acting" to Tyrion at one point. And this is part of why I cannot fully criticize the producers: I cannot think of a good way to show someone coming to grips with the fact that she is both ignorant and unintelligent. In the books, most of it comes from Sansa's thoughts as she realizes that yet another preconceived notion is wrong or that once again people are laughing at something she has said. Showing this on screen (big or small) is always tough.

That being said, although I admire the literary construction, I still find Sansa as dull as she is dim. Still, if you are missing that Sansa is quite unintelligent, then you are missing what an interesting literary device she actually is.

Along these lines, I would add that I like how they have accelerated the development of Cersei and Margaery. Cersei already is developed as someone who thinks she is terribly clever, when in fact she's actually quite limited intellectually. In the books, this is not as clear until later stories, when Cersei herself becomes a protagonist. Margaery is immediately presented as quite politically savvy. I might be misremembering, but my recollection of the books is that this did not become obvious until a bit later. Oh, and the casting is, um, appropriate given the actress' CV…..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

Well I think they could have shown him falling in love with Jeyne and it would have worked too. I absolutely agree that him going "off-page" and returning with a wife wouldn't work. But they certainly could have had him get wounded and be nursed back to health by Jeyne and falling in love with her that way.

That would have required extending the plot quite a bit and introducing scenes that would have fed only that one story and plot line. The way that they did it managed to keep all of this within scenes advancing 3 other plots all contributing to the same story. One thing I like in adaptation is parsimony: every stone should kill 2+ birds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

They made the decision a while ago to not show flashbacks, cause showing one would mean showing hundreds.

Sorry, I was not clear: I was referring to the "Previously, on Game of Thrones" flashbacks at the outset of each story. Those are extremely useful devices for reminding audiences of important points from earlier episodes. (I truly wish that the Harry Potter films had used them.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

More or less he did. He felt honor-bound to marry Jeyne after he slept with her that one night. I can't remember if he ever flat out says this, but Catelyn certainly thinks about it and draws comparison to Ned and his honor.

IThat might well have been there. However, to really feed story, we had to see Rob tempted, we had to understand what was tempting him, and then see his decision. For romance to work on page or on screen, you have to feel it: you have to wish you were him and want her (or wish you were her and want him) if only for a fleeting second. For myself, I got it: Robb is meeting an interesting, dynamic and (all things considered) independent woman with a strong sense of duty that transcends what he is doing. And it even works for her: she's vowed to be a neutral party, and yet she winds up sleeping not with the enemy, but with a combatant.

And this is why I really liked the season. Over and over again, I saw characters in a "I promised X I'd do A this and I promised Y that I'd do not A." That was the real strength and appeal of the story in the first place.

~~SnapesBane~~ · #**517** June 15th, 2012, 8:31 pm

This season was all over the places for me. Characters disappeared; the narrative wasn't cohesive; scenes with characters was wasted; Jon's story went no where; the build up to the white walkers were not good enough; Melisandre went away for a long time; the battle was stupid; etc.

I feel it cant hold a candle to the first. In fact, i'll likely not continue it next year.

**Moriath** · #**518** June 16th, 2012, 12:03 pm

I know that some of you struggle with the concept of a balanced, equal conversation and I'm sorry to see this thread turn into literary criticism 101. Let me reiterate. Make sure to present your opinion as such, do not turn your interpretation of a character into canon, try to see other members' arguments and engage with them instead of telling them how wrong they are! Defending your opinion and arguing a point is one thing, talking down to other members is another. In case you were in doubt, the latter is not what we want to see.

*DeliciousMoon* · #**519** July 21st, 2012, 4:11 am

They have casted a bunch of new characters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpSDS...ature=youtu.be

Interesting to see Missandei being cast so old. I have a feeling she's just going to replace the role of Dany's dothraki handmaidens. :/

I have only seen Diana Rigg in that Extras scene with Daniel Radcliffe, but I can't wait to see her pull off the queen of thorns! And Jojen and Meera look awesome imo!

*Lord Godric* · #**520** July 21st, 2012, 6:32 pm

The boy playing Jojen did a mighty fine job in the Doctor Who episodes Human Nature/Family of Blood, so I'm excited for him.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

	Contact Us - MuggleNet.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved. Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.