Television Vs. Book: Why'd They Make [Spoiler] Such A [Spoiler]?

[Avaleigh]

I actually did sympathize with Robert, in a way. He was an idiot put in the most important job in the land. He wasn't cut out for it and I imagine the Iron Bank LOVED having Westeros deeply indebted to them but I think it's Cersei, Joffrey and t he Lannister regime that destroyed Westeros. I also sympathized with Robert more because I just find Cersei so DEEPLY detestable on EVERY level. I don't think there is an ounce of compassion or potential for remorse or regret in that creature and Robert was stuck with her because he was relying on the money from Casterly Rock.

She was screwing Jaimie the morning of her wedding to Robert and considering her long term scheme of putting her Full blooded Lannister on the Throne, her then threatening that Myranda Stone would have an "accident" if she were bought to Kings Landing is nauseating. Letting the people starve and ordering the massacre of infants throughout Kings Landing to snuff out Robert's bastards came back to bite her in the end because I think THAT'S why they cheered and jeered during Cersei's walk of shame. I wouldn't have felt for her either.

Of course she's been white-washed of all of this in the show so...............

I honestly didn't get the impression that the crowds were being vile to Cersei because of things like the terrible crime against Robert's bastards or hunger. During the riots of KL we definitely got comments from the crowds about the food situation but with Cersei's walk the comments were basically either sexual and/or misogynistic and there was very little variation. Occasionally someone might call out for Stannis or even Margaery but the comments were primarily about Cersei's body and sexual activity. Brotherfucker, rude propositions left and right, comments on her body, threats, the very real possibility of rape, etc. I totally disagree that the crowds would have been well behaved, sympathetic, nice, etc if Margaery had been forced to take a walk. A good man like Ned Stark was shouted down and jeered at by the crowds and he wasn't some naked vulnerable highborn woman. Lollys was a harmless woman who didn't do anything to incite the wrath of the crowd apart from being a highborn woman. Pretty Margaery being led naked through KL after confessing to some supposed sexual sin? IMO there's no way she wouldn't have been surrounded by a river of horrible shit.

Eta:

I honestly don't see the big deal about Cersei and Jaime having sex on the morning of her wedding. Does anyone really think Robert spent his final night as a bachelor alone? I can sympathize with a situation where people are marrying for political reasons and would want to be able to have their own private final moments before their lives are forever changed by a new alliance. Jaime and Cersei had no way of knowing how effectively they'd be able to carry on their relationship so I can definitely see them wanting to take advantage of one last time prior to Cersei's marriage. I feel like the situation would have been similar had she wed Rhaegar only I'm unsure as to whether or not she would have been inclined to betray Rhaegar with Jaime especially if Rhaegar had been good to her. I always liked that little story about young Cersei creating a drawing of herself with Rhaegar flying on the back of a dragon and Cersei lying to Jaime and saying that the girl in the picture is supposed to be Alysanne rather than herself. She was lying to Jaime even back then lol, no doubt she underestimated a bit when she said that she and Tyrion had lied to him a thousand times.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Avaleigh

[Minneapple]

I wonder why she's been whitewashed. Is it surprising awareness of how they portray women? So they dial back her stuff because it's too hateful? Or is it just being practical with time constraints?

I think part of it is because it's one thing to write a villain like that for books. For TV purposes, it's really hard to create a character that vile and still have her be a viable character as opposed to a cartoon -- for possibly seven seasons, remember. Reading the books, we have the benefit of seeing into Cersei's mind. The Unsullied don't have that.

I've been thinking about The Walk and I'm going to speculate that they'll make the High Septon a villainesque character. TV hates organized religion in general, so I think they'll relish the chance to make him evil. And since Cersei has been softened a lot, I do think The Walk will be portrayed as A Bad Thing.

[Cheshrkat]

 

I do think The Walk will be portrayed as A Bad Thing.

I think The Walk was A Bad Thing, and should be portrayed as such.  While I viewed it as a bad thing, I still felt no sympathy whatsoever for Cersei having to endure it, because she caused so many other Worse Things to happen to other people.  I may, however, feel some sympathy for show Cersei depending on where they take her relationship with Qyburn.  It's unlikely that they will have book Cersei providing Qyburn with willing subjects for his experiments (like Falyse), or that she will participate in the mutilation/torture of the innocent singer, so she will be much more sympathetic than book Cersei.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Cheshrkat

[jjjmoss]

We didn't have a peak into her mind for the first few thousands of pages.

[Advance35]

I honestly didn't get the impression that the crowds were being vile to Cersei because of things like the terrible crime against Robert's bastards or hunger. During the riots of KL we definitely got comments from the crowds about the food situation but with Cersei's walk the comments were basically either sexual and/or misogynistic and there was very little variation.

 

I don't know, I always felt like the people had a particular ax to grind with Cersei.   And I don't think it was REALLY about the succession war, I think it was everything she had done to the people.   I don't think the lowborn knew she was trying to snuff out the Baratheon line, I think they just knew the Goldcloaks went around Kings Landing putting various infants to death.     During the Battle of Blackwater, the show had her execute thieves, in the book they weren't stealing, I'm rather certain they were RUNNING from the warzone and she had some beheaded as a message.

 

And maybe Robert wasn't alone his last night as a bachelor or maybe he was sobbing into some booze over poor Lyanna, but I guess it's the incest angle with Cersei and Jaimie that skeeves me out.   I just can't sympathize.

 

While I viewed it as a bad thing, I still felt no sympathy whatsoever for Cersei having to endure it, because she caused so many other Worse Things to happen to other people.

 

Pretty much.   When she started crawling and breaking down, I kept thinking, "Poor Dear, tell Ned Stark, Catelyn, Bran, Robert, Malara, Falyse and etc, all about it."

[KatWay]

Yeah, seriously Cersei got no sympathy from me either. She basically orchestrated to make Margaery go through that exact same thing and basically giggled every time Sansa was humiliated by someone in court. She enjoys humiliation and violence when it's done to other women, so why should I feel bad for her?

 

That said I don't think they'll play it as a triumph or a victory for the forces of good or anything. I think they'll just play it straight and some viewers will feel sympathy for Cersei and others will feel she deserves it, without the show leaning too heavily in either direction.

[BookEater]

Robert, probably would've made a decent lord of Storm's End, he was just completely unsuited to be king. And just like Jaime/Cersei are toxic for each other I think Robert/Cersei were as well, they both loved wallowing in self pity and being miserable about their marriage that they made each other miserable as well.

I'm also in the no sympathy for Cersei, camp, but I do hope the show handles The Walk with some tact. By all means show the humiliation she felt and how vile the crowd were, but please, show, ban the 13 year old boy from the set. I don't need the scene to turn into "Hee! Naked lady! gigglesnort!"

[Pete Martell]

I wonder why she's been whitewashed. Is it surprising awareness of how they portray women? So they dial back her stuff because it's too hateful?  Or is it just being practical with time constraints?

 

No adaptation can be perfect, so it's hard to know where to give slack or not.  Since they are whitewashing some of the other Lannisters, I'm inclined to think they don't see them as needing to be that evil (or, as in the case of Tywin, don't see him as evil to begin with).  They might think they get enough of Cersei's awfulness on screen that they don't have to show EVERYTHING, or they might be holding some of it back so the audience isn't so repelled by her they turn the tv off.

While I give them a lot of grief for some of the horrible changes they made, sometimes I do have to step back and remember it is really hard to adapt hundreds of pages into 10 hours.

 

There are certain things male characters can get away with in the eyes of the viewers. Offloading some of the nastiest stuff onto Joffrey meant that the slaughter of infants just went into "don't you love to hate him?" territory. 

 

I guess they also may have wanted to make Cersei more sympathetic since they knew she would be a long-term character; Joffrey wasn't. 

 

I feel like one of the biggest changes is Cersei's sexuality. I was just reading the book version of the "you win or you die" scene with Cersei and Ned, and she makes a pass at him. Did she do that on the show? I can't remember. As gorgeous as Cersei was (and even Ned says to himself in that scene he now finally realizes how beautiful she is), and even knowing that Ned had sired a bastard, her thinking Ned would have sex with his best friend's wife after her family had crippled his son, maimed him and killed his men, and he'd found out she was fucking her brother...it rang huge alarm bells about her delusions. Their scene on the show wasn't handled that way. Cersei seemed more rational.

 

I wonder if they have toned this down because when the Walk does happen they don't want people to say, "Cersei slept around, she deserved this." 

 

Of course some fans will probably think that anyway...

[Avaleigh]

I really do need read the books again one of these days. There's obviously a lot of stuff I've forgotten. I didn't remember her making a pass at him, that is interesting. There's no way she could know that Ned isn't really Jon's father but anyone who had spent about an hour in Ned's company would know that he wouldn't be interested in that sort of proposition even if we were to take crippled Bran out of the equation. It's odd that she thinks this would work on Ned but has the sense to see that it would never work on Stannis.

Agreed that Cersei's sexuality is played down somewhat on the show. Even her relationship with Lancel is downplayed and there's very little sense that she was trying to make him into Jaime 2.0 just in case the original failed to come back. I wonder how many Unsullied even remember the one quick scene confirming that she was sleeping with him. Even more of a reason it just isn't going to work if Jaime is primarily upset at the idea of her supposedly being a cheating whore.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Avaleigh

[Pete Martell]

It was also a subplot in season 2 (Tyrion using Lancel as a spy), although it was dropped with no mention after Blackwater.
 
Here's the passage. (and then he asks her if she made Jon Arryn the same offer, she slaps him, he repeats the same, "I shall wear it as a badge of honor," line she used with Robert, which...she doesn't seem to realize was a mockery, as she starts railing that he has no honor with a bastard son).

 

 "You know what I must do."

 

"Must?" She put her hand on his good leg, just above the knee. "A true man does what he will, not what he must." Her fingers brushed lightly against his thigh, the gentlest of promises. "The realm needs a strong hand. Joff will not come of age for years. No one wants war again, least of all me." Her hand touched his face, his hair. "If friends can turn to enemies, enemies can become friends. Your wife is a thousand leagues away, and my brother has fled. Be kind to me, Ned. I swear to you, you shall never regret it."

Edited June 24, 2014 by Pete Martell

[benteen]

I didn't feel sorry for Cersei.  After everything she had done, she deserved to be brought low and embarrassed.  The only thing I will say is that she got punished for the least of her crimes.

 

Great point brought up that Robert very likely spent the night before his wedding with another woman.  A very revealing thing about Robert is despite how much he said he loved Lyanna and fought a war for to get her back, he was still screwing whores.  He even managed to father one of his bastards at the brothel in the Stony Sept.  He would have continued to cheat if he had married Lyanna...he likely just would have been more discreet about it.

Edited June 25, 2014 by benteen

[Maximum Taco]

I didn't feel sorry for Cersei.  After everything she had done, she deserved to be brought low and embarrassed.  The only thing I will say is that she got punished for the least of her crimes.

 

Great point brought up that Robert very likely spent the night before his wedding with another woman.  A very revealing thing about Robert is despite how much he said he loved Lyanna and fought a war for to get her back, he was still screwing whores.  He even managed to father one of his bastards at the brothel in the Stony Sept.  He would have continued to cheat if he had married Lyanna...he likely just would have been more discreet about it.

 

I don't even think he would've been more discreet about it. 

 

Lyanna herself told Eddard that Robert's love for her would not stop him from cheating after they got married. So she knew about Robert's indiscretions beforehand and was less than enthusiastic about the prospect of marrying him. And Eddard said Robert only ever saw Lyanna's beauty, he didn't know her well, and didn't ever notice her boldness or strength of will. This is one of the reasons that it's suggested that Lyanna went with Rhaegar willingly, because he saw her, unlike Robert who just saw her beauty.

 

Robert thinks Lyanna would've been a dutiful wife. She would ignore how he screwed around on her and when he finally came home she would be sweet and loving, not to mention horny as hell and every so often she would pop out an heir for him to ignore. But that probably wouldn't have happened, from what we know of Lyanna's wild nature she likely would've been more of a handful for Robert than Cersei is. Now I doubt she'd be screwing around with her brother(s), but she wouldn't have just let Robert do whatever he wanted, and be a painted china fuck doll, which is what Robert wanted.

 

To me Robert never loved Lyanna, he just loves her now because he's idealized the beautiful girl he knew when he was a teenager but never got to be with because Rhaegar took her away from him.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Maximum Taco

[ElizaD]

Michelle Fairley:

 

You couldn’t have missed the online furor over the lack of Lady Stoneheart in the Thrones finale. Were you surprised by that attention?
I actually haven’t seen any of that. I don’t look that stuff up. I avoid it like the plague. I was totally unaware.

There was a lot of online conversation. I heard third-hand that you were basically told that it’s not likely to ever happen. Is that accurate?
Yeah, the character’s dead. She’s dead.

Do you have a preference at all—do you think Catelyn’s arc should end where it ended, or would you be into the resurrection idea?
You respect the writers’ decision. I knew the arc, and that was it. They can’t stick to the books 100 percent. It’s impossible—they only have 10 hours per season. They have got to keep it dramatic and exciting, and extraneous stuff along the way gets lost in order to maintain the quality of brilliant show.

 

Damn. I wanted dead Freys on TV, not more indifference to the Red Wedding (I guess the "Lawful Neutral, not a villain" comments about Tywin should have been an even bigger warning sign to me that the showrunners did intend to treat the RW as just another plot twist rather than an atrocity). Now what's the point of Brienne's wanderings in S5? Will she actually find Show Sansa in the Vale? If Stoneheart is cut, does that confirm that Jaime gets away from her in TWOW and can be the valonqar?

 

If they're cutting Stoneheart, they'd better cut at least one of the Oldtown/Quentyn/Aegon plots too. The thought of them taking an axe to that AFFC/ADWD bloat is my only consolation right now as I'm mourning the loss of RW vengeance, which might be reduced to a one-episode event where Sansa kicks Walder out of Riverrun.

[Lady S.]

If Michelle was told beforehand, I wonder why she was coy as hell from the end of s3 on. I know I recently said some crap about Sibel Kikelli in the ep 4.10 thread, but in that case Shae is definitely dunzo so I don't see much point in revealing more in future seasons. But really the most annoying thing about the LS fervor has to be how many non-readers are spoiled about her now, if they were going to still include in Brienne's plot later, putting it out that that definitely won't happen seems like a good way to keep the surprise element, which is really the best part about the UnCat twist. But to paraphrase a quote about Walder Frey, "expect nothing of D&D and you will never be surprised", I was only surprised at my own lack of disappointment at the end of 4.10, and I realized I no longer care really what they change or cut as long as the result is good enough television. It's a great feeling, but probably only possible because I only gave in and read the books after getting into the show.

[Pete Martell]

If Michelle was told beforehand, I wonder why she was coy as hell from the end of s3 on. 

 

Even in an interview she did a few weeks before the season ended, she said she couldn't really talk about it. She was directly asked and said she couldn't talk about it.

 

I don't necessarily even want to see LS, as I'm not sure how the show would handle it and it's such a depressing story, but I have to wonder if she's playing along so that we will be surprised in season 5. Even in that interview she says "the character's dead" (which is technically true) and you have to respect what the writers do. 

Michelle Fairley:

 

Damn. I wanted dead Freys on TV, not more indifference to the Red Wedding (I guess the "Lawful Neutral, not a villain" comments about Tywin should have been an even bigger warning sign to me that the showrunners did intend to treat the RW as just another plot twist rather than an atrocity). Now what's the point of Brienne's wanderings in S5? Will she actually find Show Sansa in the Vale? If Stoneheart is cut, does that confirm that Jaime gets away from her in TWOW and can be the valonqar?

 

There's quite a bit of stuff in the show that won't make as much sense without LS, especially Brienne's story, and everything they set up with Beric in season 3. I'm not sure whether to take her at her word or think they are doing this because it's pretty much an open secret about the character and they want to fool people.

[elzin]

I think she's telling the truth as best as she knows it. I don't think she'd be trolling us deliberately because there is going to be such a shitstorm over this that the spoiler is going to get out.  And I agree with the poster above who said the surprise of it was the best part, the final jawdropper in the jawdroppingest book I think I've read.

 

I don't think her exclusion MEANS something, as we've seen what they do to book canon, but we'll see.  Minds can be changed, replacement actors can be cast.

[benteen]

Michelle Fairley:

 

 

 

 

Damn. I wanted dead Freys on TV, not more indifference to the Red Wedding (I guess the "Lawful Neutral, not a villain" comments about Tywin should have been an even bigger warning sign to me that the showrunners did intend to treat the RW as just another plot twist rather than an atrocity). Now what's the point of Brienne's wanderings in S5? Will she actually find Show Sansa in the Vale? If Stoneheart is cut, does that confirm that Jaime gets away from her in TWOW and can be the valonqar?

 

If they're cutting Stoneheart, they'd better cut at least one of the Oldtown/Quentyn/Aegon plots too. The thought of them taking an axe to that AFFC/ADWD bloat is my only consolation right now as I'm mourning the loss of RW vengeance, which might be reduced to a one-episode event where Sansa kicks Walder out of Riverrun.

 

I still think there's a chance Lady Stoneheart will still appear though it doesn't look like a strong one.

Now, I do agree the most exciting part of the Lady Stoneheart storyline is her surprise appearance at the end of ASOS.  That is pretty much ruined with the way it's been talked about in the press, particularly Hibbert and Entertainment Weekly.  Hibbert seems to have a real problem with the storyline and I recall him accidentally giving away a spoiler when reviewing the Season 1 finale back in the day.  That was actually one of the reasons I decided to read the books ahead of time (not the only reason and I'm glad I did).

 

Stoneheart's big contributions are to the fate of two characters, Jaime (one of the most important characters in the story) and Brienne.  I've thought for a while that Jaime would survive and his destiny would be linked with Cersei.  Brienne, I don't know what her future is and without Lady Stoneheart, I don't know what you can do with her next season.  I'll give D and D some credit for making Brienne's storyline far more interesting this season than it is in the books.  But what's next?

 

Stoneheart's other big contribution is the retaliation against the Freys in the Riverlands.  Problem is, D and D decide to completely ignore the Riverlands in odd seasons (Season 2 and Season 4).  The book and television audience deserves to see the Freys getting what is due to them but are we going to see that at all?  As pointed out, if D and D don't think Tywin is an evil man, then they shouldn't have much of a problem with what happened at the RW.  Since they wouldn't bring up Tysha again to protect Tywin "He's not an evil man" Lannister, maybe they'll completely pretend like the Lannisters had nothing to do with the RW.  The Boltons will be the ones to pay, as they should.  But it's the Freys who really deserve that reckoning. 

 

I just don't have confidence in D and D to go into business for themselves when it comes to changing these plots.

[Winnief]

There is still hope that even if we don't see LSH next season we might yet  get Frey Pie as being something HBO couldn't resist doing.

 

Personally, I think the fact that they segued from the Rat Cook story by Bran directly to Walder was definite foreshadowing there.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Winnief

[Lady S.]

Even in an interview she did a few weeks before the season ended, she said she couldn't really talk about it. She was directly asked and said she couldn't talk about it.

Yeah, I saw that one too, but right after s3 ended she wasn't saying "no comment", it was more like "idk, anything's possible". When obviously she already knew she wasn't returning for s4, and now she's saying they flat out told her Stoneheart wasn't on at all. So, why not say no comment from the start? It's still an ambiguous answer but wouldn't get people's hopes up as sly and playful ambiguous comments. Either she was trolling then or she's trolling now.

 

 Since they wouldn't bring up Tysha again to protect Tywin "He's not an evil man" Lannister, maybe they'll completely pretend like the Lannisters had nothing to do with the RW.  The Boltons will be the ones to pay, as they should.  But it's the Freys who really deserve that reckoning. 

I think that was more D&D not caring about the stories of abused women, so Tysha not being a whore is as unimportant to them as it was to Tywin. Tyrion told their version of the story in 1.09, and Tyrion, Cersei, and Bronn have brought her up since then, but never by name, because she was just a faceless cipher meant to develop Tyrion's pain, her own trauma didn't matter. What bothers me is the show didn't even make clear that what happened to her was a gang-rape, that much was true whether she was a whore or not so it should have been clarified if the rest of the truth was never known. This way, if show-watchers do remember her, there's always gonna be a gross contingent thinking a whore can't be raped.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Lady S.

[KatWay]

To be fair it's not like Book!Tysha's storyline is about her, it's also solely about Tyrion's pain and Tyrion's trauma. The fact that she was an innocent girl, not a whore, wasn't meant to make us go "OMG, poor Tysha" but "OMG, Jaime lied to Tyrion" and "Tywin is even more evil than suspected". It was motivation for Tyrion to go dark, it had nothing to do with the character Tysha herself. I suspect Tyrion will never meet Tysha again, actually, which is why they cut her completely. In the books we have come to expect that some things just don't go anywhere, but if they had made a big deal out of her, maybe show viewers would have waited for her to appear again or play an important role.

[Lady S.]

Yeah, I think that's also part of it, I doubt anyone's too sad not to get the "where do whores go?" arc. But that could have been avoided even with the truth imo, without Tyrion actively searching for her, I doubt many fans would be fooled about the character's importance. Tysha and Shae were both fridged for Tyrion's development in the book, but the show managed to make that even worse by only mentioning Tysha's name once and never making it clear enough she was a victim, and turning Shae into an illogical disaster of a character whose murder can be written off as self-defense.

 

Even her relationship with Lancel is downplayed and there's very little sense that she was trying to make him into Jaime 2.0 just in case the original failed to come back. I wonder how many Unsullied even remember the one quick scene confirming that she was sleeping with him. Even more of a reason it just isn't going to work if Jaime is primarily upset at the idea of her supposedly being a cheating whore.

That was the only time we saw them in her bedroom together, but their affair was a running plotline in s2. I'd think only the Unspoiled who think Dany's name is Khaleesi wouldn't remember it, the ones here definitely do. Lancel was her only confirmed lover during Jaime's absence in the book, so I don't see the problem with Jaime only being aware of him. I doubt he'd take the news that much easier without Osmund Kettleblack around, and I don't think he ever took the Moon Boy mention that seriously.

 

I don't know, I always felt like the people had a particular ax to grind with Cersei.   And I don't think it was REALLY about the succession war, I think it was everything she had done to the people.   I don't think the lowborn knew she was trying to snuff out the Baratheon line, I think they just knew the Goldcloaks went around Kings Landing putting various infants to death.     During the Battle of Blackwater, the show had her execute thieves, in the book they weren't stealing, I'm rather certain they were RUNNING from the warzone and she had some beheaded as a message.

How many lowborns even know who ordered the bastard extermination? Tyrion is later told people assume he got rid of Janos Slynt for being too honest, so maybe they think those were rogue goldcloaks acting on Tyrion's orders. Yoren is told Gendry is wanted by the queen, but at that point the goldcloaks were actually trying not to kill Yoren and fight his men, that wouldn't be a problem with unarmed mothers and small children in King's Landing.  I imagine the show version of the slaughter wasn't too far off, with nobody being told what was going on. Janos Slynt was careful not to name Cersei to Tyrion, which could point to her involvement not already being public knowledge.

 

In the book, the "traitors" were running away, but they were doing so on horses from the royal stables, so they were technically thieves. That's why she had their heads mounted on the stables as a warning.

[Pete Martell]

 

Stoneheart's other big contribution is the retaliation against the Freys in the Riverlands.  Problem is, D and D decide to completely ignore the Riverlands in odd seasons (Season 2 and Season 4).  The book and television audience deserves to see the Freys getting what is due to them but are we going to see that at all?  As pointed out, if D and D don't think Tywin is an evil man, then they shouldn't have much of a problem with what happened at the RW.  Since they wouldn't bring up Tysha again to protect Tywin "He's not an evil man" Lannister, maybe they'll completely pretend like the Lannisters had nothing to do with the RW.  The Boltons will be the ones to pay, as they should.  But it's the Freys who really deserve that reckoning. 

 

I just don't have confidence in D and D to go into business for themselves when it comes to changing these plots.

 

I feel like one of the problems with the Freys is that we truly only know one of them on the show, and we've only seen him twice. I don't know if the show has forgotten about the Freys - certainly I don't believe fans will ever forget Walder Frey - but the North has been such a generic region in season 4, essentially just this big space where Arya/Sansa almost met and then the Boltons began taking over the rest.

 

I'm not sure if they're trying to whitewash Tywin's role in the RW as much as the storylines have become separated (the season 4 Lannister story was about self-destruction and isolation) and the writing may not have the nuance to show that the decay of the North mirrors the Lannister rot.

 

I do wonder if some of this is about keeping Jaime out of the story, since they already changed one line (telling Roose Bolton to give the Lannister regards, not his specific regards). Do they not want Jaime to pay a price for his sins? Is this part of his "redemption" (which will just continue if he isn't in the Riverlands in season 5)? The irony is this route will just strip the character even further of value or purpose, and season 4 went a long way to doing that already.

[SilverShadow]

IIRC the reason for Jaime's line change to "The Lannisters send their regards." is some of the actors found it confusing and the writers thought fans might get confused as well. Nikolaj asked something along the lines of, "Wait did I help plan this? Was I involved?" for instance. I think the explanation of the cut is in one of the audio commentaries for the episode.

[Pete Martell]

Thanks. I didn't know that. I guess I can see where it may have been taken out for that reason, but I do wonder if they're going to whitewash Jaime's role in this so that he won't really have to face a comeuppance from LF (of course I assume that book story was also done to help show Jaime's redemption, but I can't help wondering if the show feels he even needs redemption for what he did to the Stark family).

[Winnief]

Well to be fair Jaime was actually *innocent* of any complicity in the Red Wedding...but I'm thinking/hoping we'll see more of the aftermath from that atrocity next season when we start meeting some of the Northern Lords and when Jaime *does* eventually make it to the Riverlands after Dorne, (according to D&D it will be via jet pack.)  Except the Scene Which Will Not be Named, I think they're generally on the right track with Jaime-and that next season will be about seeing him *trying* to make amends for past sins.  I believe ultimately Bran will be asking some service of Jaime, (probably not until TWOW or Season 6) and that will be Jaime's truly redeeming act when he tries to atone to the innocent he directly harmed...possibly by actually helping Sansa.

[Holmbo]

Even if LS is not in next season I'd be surprised if there's not a huge focus on comeuppance for Freys and Boltons for the RW. The Bolton plot will be about them trying to establish their control over the north even though many of the bannermen are still loyal to the Starks. Hopefully there will be ghost of winterfel and Frey pies and it will end with a Battle for Winterfell.
I'm not sure what role SH would play though. If there's a battle for Winterfell (and possibly one in Meeren) then I can't see their being a RW 2 like some people have speculated.

[Winnief]

 

I'm not sure what role SH would play though. If there's a battle for Winterfell (and possibly one in Meeren) then I can't see their being a RW 2 like some people have speculated.

 

That's the thing-the show doesn't have Stafford Lannister unwittingly walking into Red Wedding 2.0, and THAT I think was probably going to be the one time LSH played a role, (Jaime's redemption arc doesn't necessarily require her after all.)  But I think if they do any kind of Red Wedding 2.0 event it will be up North-hmeeave Walder and his despicable heirs make their way to WF to the Boltons hoping to gain Northern spoils and then wipe out the whole lot of them, via vengeful Northerners.  

[benteen]

If they do it on the show, I suspect it will be Walder Frey's wedding since they killed off his wife.  Maybe he's marrying some lesser Lannister girl.

[Winnief]

 

If they do it on the show, I suspect it will be Walder Frey's wedding since they killed off his wife.  Maybe he's marrying some lesser Lannister girl.

 

Oooh...Good Theory!  Walder specifically said he looked forward to finding a new young bride...but I doubt the Lannister's will sacrifice any of their own to him.  Well Cersei might.  And no decent House in Westeros wants anything to do with the Frey's.  Still, some poor girl will pull the short straw and that could be the scene of the Next Massacre.

[loki567]

I still feel pretty sure that LS is happening, but D&D are being cagey with it. I can understand why they would save it for season 5, lack of big wow moments and the whole thing might flow better if LS introduced and resolved in the same season.

 

I almost wonder if it would have been better if Catelyn stayed dead. GRRM had that memorable quote about Gandalf staying dead, ASOIAF is starting to fall into the same trap of death being cheap.

[Winnief]

 

 

I still feel pretty sure that LS is happening, but D&D are being cagey with it. I can understand why they would save it for season 5, lack of big wow moments and the whole thing might flow better if LS introduced and resolved in the same season.

I almost wonder if it would have been better if Catelyn stayed dead. GRRM had that memorable quote about Gandalf staying dead, ASOIAF is starting to fall into the same trap of death being cheap.

 

That's another angle to this-it could be that D&D might have decided to scrap LSH, because given Jon's story arc they didn't want to screw around by having more than one member of the Stark family come back from the Dead.  ESPECIALLY since they'll already have another Undead Monster character in FrankenGregor.  

[Pete Martell]

To me having both Jon and Cat return from the dead, given their broken relationship, would be good drama. I don't know if D&D would agree though. For some reason I've always assumed Jon will be the one who kills her/sends her to her rest/what have you.

[Greta]

Has there actually been any kind of confirmation of Red Wedding 2.0 in the upcoming books? I see it stated as a fact all over the Internet but never with any backup from anything GRRM has said or explicit text in the books. One of the Lannister cousins (Devan?) says he's supposed to marry a Frey at some point but he also specifically states he's not in any great hurry to do so and the Freys really have no leverage to push for it.

 

Being a contrarian, I wish the next wedding in these books to be a beautiful, moving joining of two souls deeply in love, with their families' complete support, no political ramifications of any kind, and a very dull reception that includes much food porn and not even a single death to liven it up. Oh, and both the bride and groom should have red hair, so I can call THAT Red Wedding 2.0.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Greta

[Holmbo]

Has there actually been any kind of confirmation of Red Wedding 2.0 in the upcoming books? I see it stated as a fact all over the Internet but never with any backup from anything GRRM has said or explicit text in the books. One of the Lannister cousins (Devan?) says he's supposed to marry a Frey at some point but he also specifically states he's not in any great hurry to do so and the Freys really have no leverage to push for it.

 

Being a contrarian, I wish the next wedding in these books to be a beautiful, moving joining of two souls deeply in love, with their families' complete support, no political ramifications of any kind, and a very dull reception that includes much food porn and not even a single death to liven it up. Oh, and both the bride and groom should have red hair, so I can call THAT Red Wedding 2.0.

 

I have not seen anything close to proof. I'm just speculating based on that if LS is in the show it'll be because she's important for the overall plot. And the only way I can think of is to do some kind of huge revenge thing on the Freys and possibly Lannisters.

[Avaleigh]

What sort of wedding would bring about those feelings though?

Sansa and Harry the Heir--even if they did genuinely fall in love (no way will that happen IMO) LF's machinations are going to make an occasion like that seem ominous because it would be what he wants to happen and that's unlikely to be to anyone's benefit but his own.

Aegon and Arianne wouldn't really be able to be a big wedding and I don't know how happy everyone would be considering all of the uncertainty. How would JonCon feel about that union for example? What about the shadow of Dany during something like this since we know Aegon has thought about her in that sense.

Jaime and Brienne can't get married and even if they could who in the story would be happy and celebratory over it with them?

Myrcella and Trystane- -I don't think those two will be lucky enough to make it..No way would the two families involved be happy about letting that union go forward.

Tommen could marry again after Margaery's execution although. I can't even hazard a guess as to who would be next in line.

[Hecate7]

Good question, who Tommen would marry after Margery. The Martells hate the Lannisters, but the offer of marriage and the Iron Throne might be the sort of olive branch that might actually work.

 

Then again, it might be more politic to extend that olive branch to Danaerys Targaryen, who does have dragons, or a dragon, anyway, and is obviously planning to invade. If she could take the Iron Throne without bloodshed, would she do it?

[elzin]

I don't think I've seen this piece posted, but I really liked it and it articulated some of my major Stoneheart issues better than I can.

 

 

Like a lot of people, I was really surprised and disappointed when Lady Stoneheart didn’t make an appearance in the season four finale. It seemed like the perfect opportunity for a shocking final shot that would keep people talking all summer and beyond.

...

Although Graves adds in the words “this season” at the end, his comment suggests that he doesn’t see the point of including Lady Stoneheart in general. After all, she’s just a zombie who kills people, and that doesn’t play into the whole story in a productive way. (Unlike, say, gratuitous rape scenes and Tyrion’s beetle story. They’ve got to stay focused on the important stuff).

 

Anyone who’s read the books could tell you that Lady Stoneheart isn’t just “a zombie who kills people.”

...

The fact that someone speaking for the show can call Lady Stoneheart “a zombie who kills people” is another clear demonstration of the show’s complete lack of understanding of nuance when it comes to characterization. In the books, almost every character is emotionally and morally complicated. They’re more than they first appear. But in the show, everyone is reduced to the the most straightforward tropes. Tyrion is the surprising hero of our tale. Brienne is the tough warrior woman. Catelyn was the nagging mother, and as supportive of war as anyone else, while Robb was the bold young hero. Talisa was the Not Like Other Girls love interest. And on, and on, and on. Things are exactly as they appear on the surface.

...

The tragic contrast between the living Catelyn Stark and the reanimated Lady Stoneheart can’t exist on the show, because the show’s version of Catelyn was already keen on vengeance. And as the show didn’t really treat Catelyn as a protagonist by the end, but as a smaller part of Robb’s story, her return is still shocking but less emotionally impactful. We were never taught to care much about this woman when she was alive. Why then should we be expected to care about the changes she’s undergone now she’s dead?

 

I know they can't be word-for-word adaptations, but it seems like the WRONG things are being changed.

 

[PeteMartell]

She’s a reinvention of a character who was staunchly anti-vengeance and who is now consumed by it, indiscriminately killing those she considers her enemies.

 

 

I haven't read all of the books yet, but I've read most of the first one, and I can't say I remember Catelyn being staunchly anti-vengeance. She didn't go after Tyrion because of vengeance, per se  - she was backed into a corner when he recognized her at the Twins, and before that she just wanted to make sure her son and family were safe - but vengeance was definitely part of the process. I also remember reading that she wanted Theon brutally murdered for what he did to Bran and Rickon, whereas Robb was much more reluctant and just wanted to give his friend a quick death. 

 

I think the idea is supposed to be LS representing "be careful what you wish for." That wanting a character to return as a killing machine, smiting all those who did them or those they loved wrong, can have terrible consequences. 

 

I do agree that the show likely would not know how to handle this type of nuance, but I also think it's a mistake to read so much into a quote from a director who has already said very problematic things and who won't be working on the show next season anyway.

Edited June 28, 2014 by PeteMartell

[Winnief]

 

 

I think the idea is supposed to be LS representing "be careful what you wish for." That wanting a character to return as a killing machine, smiting all those who did them or those they loved wrong, can have terrible consequences.

I do agree that the show likely would not know how to handle this type of nuance, but I also think it's a mistake to read so much into a quote from a director who has already said very problematic things and who won't be working on the show next season anyway.

 

Agreed.  (And I'm hoping the sept scene outcry might have taught them a good lesson for next season so they'll be more careful about that shit in the future.)

 

It just occurred to me that one reason they may have decided to do away with UnCat as a character is because they have so many living characters to explore the theme of taking vengeance too far with like Oberyn and his tragic death, the Sand Snakes, and perhaps most of all Arya.  Seven Hells,  Sansa might well be a Stark force for vengeance in the future as well.  If UnCat doesn't play that big a role in future events then maybe they think they don't need her to get that cautionary point across.  And of course they're trying to find ways to cut down on the cast when future storylines demand certain new characters appear.  So yes, I'm disappointed to lose LSH, but I'm more than willing to give them a chance next season anyway.  

[Brn2bwild]

 

I know they can't be word-for-word adaptations, but it seems like the WRONG things are being changed.

It feels as though the show has laid some ground work for Lady Stoneheart to appear, though.  Not just with the Brienne quest, but also with Bran's past image of Catelyn as this vengeful ghoul, and also certain lines and angles that show Catelyn as very angry and/or vengeful.  It's possible they've changed their minds, but why would they bother if they never intended to introduce the character ever?

[Winnief]

 

It's possible they've changed their minds, but why would they bother if they never intended to introduce the character ever?

 

Good point.  Maybe when they started outlining Season Five, they decided LSH, just wouldn't work.  

 

Having heard, Martin's latest comments on TWOW, I'm more grateful than ever for the show, since I can't imagine D&D will keep delaying Dany's meeting with Tyrion/journey to Westeros the way bloody Martin is.  By the Old Gods and the New what is he thinking?  

[elzin]

 It's possible they've changed their minds, but why would they bother if they never intended to introduce the character ever?

 

In another show, I'd agree but it seems like it's just not the case here any more.  Like why introduce Tysha and then not have her be part of Tyrion's escape? She was talked about a few times, then in her big moment, she was left out. 

 

So yeah, we won't know until it happens/doesn't happen, but their inconsistency is one of the things that makes me craziest.

[that one guy]

I always have sympathy for Cersei because I love the actress so much, and because growing up Tywin's daughter would warp anyone. Her character had grown more evil since S1, but for understandable reasons.

 

So it looks like Varys is actually heading to Essos with Tyrion and that is sure as hell a big change...but probably a good one now that I think about it.

I think this is a great change - in the books, you find out about Varys' agenda and history with Illyrio with Varys absent for the entire book! That would be lame on TV. Let Varys tell you his plans by himself. I hope they keep Aegon in, if only because I want to see the action set piece with Tyrion and the rock zombies on the boat. But maybe it's too expensive and they want to get to the Tyrion/Jorah buddy comedy, which will also be awesome.

 

I don't actually think they will permanently exclude Lady Stoneheart, and I wish the Internet were not spoiling her so heavily. What the show has done so far is wait to introduce characters until they have something to do. So the Reed kids were introduced in S3 rather than S2, because they didn't do anything in Book 2 except hang around Winterfell. Oberyn was introduced in the books before the Red Wedding, but on TV they waited until Season 4. No Greyjoys yet because there's nothing for them to do except vote on who should be king in S5 - remember how thrilling the Senate scenes were in Star Wars Ep 1? No? Okay then. So far in the books Lady Stoneheart has 2 scenes, one Frey hanging and one Brienne hanging. It's not enough to justify bringing back Michelle Fairly, and it's not necessary. If LSH does something important in Winds of Winter, I'm sure she will hang some Freys, or maybe Brienne, at the beginning of Season 6. But to have the character do one scene in the S4 finale, and one scene in S5? I see why they did not do this. For TV, the character needs to be either bulked up, or eliminated. 

[Winnief]

 

I don't actually think they will permanently exclude Lady Stoneheart, and I wish the Internet were not spoiling her so heavily. What the show has done so far is wait to introduce characters until they have something to do. So the Reed kids were introduced in S3 rather than S2, because they didn't do anything in Book 2 except hang around Winterfell. Oberyn was introduced in the books before the Red Wedding, but on TV they waited until Season 4. No Greyjoys yet because there's nothing for them to do except vote on who should be king in S5 - remember how thrilling the Senate scenes were in Star Wars Ep 1? No? Okay then. So far in the books Lady Stoneheart has 2 scenes, one Frey hanging and one Brienne hanging. It's not enough to justify bringing back Michelle Fairly, and it's not necessary. If LSH does something important in Winds of Winter, I'm sure she will hang some Freys, or maybe Brienne, at the beginning of Season 6. But to have the character do one scene in the S4 finale, and one scene in S5? I see why they did not do this. For TV, the character needs to be either bulked up, or eliminated.

 

Agreed.  Thing is depending what LSH actually *does* in TWOW, D&D might well have decided they could do without her just like they eliminated Coldhands, Loras's older brothers, the Kettleblacks, Weasel, Chataya, etc. etc.  They are at a stage where they want to streamline things AND have other players to introduce like the Dornish crowd, so we can expect some pretty ruthless cutting on their part.  

 

Personally, apart from LSH, I think we can also expect that not all of the Greyjoy brothers will make it to the screen and I have my doubts about fAegon and Griff-frankly those changes might affect the storyline more than LSH's exclusion ever could. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Winnief

[Hecate7]

To be fair it's not like Book!Tysha's storyline is about her, it's also solely about Tyrion's pain and Tyrion's trauma. The fact that she was an innocent girl, not a whore, wasn't meant to make us go "OMG, poor Tysha" but "OMG, Jaime lied to Tyrion" and "Tywin is even more evil than suspected". It was motivation for Tyrion to go dark, it had nothing to do with the character Tysha herself. I suspect Tyrion will never meet Tysha again, actually, which is why they cut her completely. In the books we have come to expect that some things just don't go anywhere, but if they had made a big deal out of her, maybe show viewers would have waited for her to appear again or play an important role.

 

I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet, with the Tysha story. I think it's much nicer and stronger to let Tyrion's leaving King's Landing be about the fact that he's got to get away, and to let Tywin's death be about Tywin's treatment of Tyrion, which it is and always was.

 

But Tyrion is about to go to the Free Cities, and if there is a Tysha story in the books, then it will pick up there, in the Free Cities. How much stronger would it be, for Tyrion to stumble over Tysha in a brothel or on the street in the Free Cities, and hear from her own lips what happened to her? Then we can worry about Tyrion going back to Westeros, Danaerys and dragons in tow.

[Pete Martell]

Speaking of what may or may not be left out of the show, I wonder if we're going to get anything of Jon and Arya being able to warg. Or if Nymeria will be back. They laid the groundwork for her to return (in her exit episode), but I'm not sure the show will follow up.

 

I do think they know the value of some supporting/filler characters (like Grey Worm and Missandei, who go a long way to make me care about Meereen and not just see it as white people angsting about how they aren't happy enough after they freed the slaves), although I can see why some characters are cut. I do think characters like Chataya and Satin would go a ways to making the show feel more fresh and opened up. King's Landing and The Wall could both use that, and Satin would show us a lot about Jon and his willingness, if not eagerness, to buck convention.

[Ffiferoo]

It seems like the kid at the Wall (Ollie is it?) is going to be taking the place of Satin, which is too bad, but understandable I guess.  I doubt that they're going to pick up the Tysha story again, although you never know.  It seems to me like as they progress through each season, the showrunners make decisions about what plot threads to drop pieces of into the scripts, but then later they sometimes change their minds or decide to address things in a different way.  It felt to me, this season in particular, that they were doing a lot of backpedaling to re-introduce plot elements that had been only partially addressed or dropped entirely from past seasons, like Dontos coming back into it after not being there for all of season three and with the prior reveal of Littlefinger trying to help Sansa escape.  One of the biggest surprises for me was them leaving Bronn's story as-is, after cutting the Stokeworths completely out of season two and then just bringing them up out of nowhere this season, especially with the opportunity for them to have Bronn take the place of Ilyn Payne with Jaime going forward.  Ultimately, they may have intended to keep the Tysha story intact when they included it in season one, and then changed their minds about it later for whatever reason.  

 

At this point, just about everything I really cared about up through where we are in the books now is past, so I'm sure I'll still be annoyed about things, but nearly all of my most anticipated moments have already come (and been altered) and gone.  I just wish they would stop arbitrarily changing memorable lines - I'm assuming "Edd, fetch me a block" won't make it either.  

[Avaleigh]

The line I'm hoping they can keep is "Can I have his boots?"

I'm okay with them cutting Satin only because I fear what this show might do with a character like that.

Re Tywin, I basically went from seeing him as one of the most competent leaders in the story to thinking he really wasn't all that in terms of the show.

He couldn't handle the situation with the Iron Bank, he had no plan, he treated the threat of Dany in the most casual manner, he failed to control Cersei and couldn't keep her in check after she made her weak threats, he didn't have the sense to put a muzzle on the Mountain wrt Elia, his own sexual hypocrisy ended up getting him killed, etc. I feel like I have more to criticize him for in terms of strategy on the show than in the books. I also wonder why he's so insistent on two alliances with the Tyrells when they're already connected with the family via Margaery and Tommen. IMO he should have been looking for money or extra ships. A Redwyne or Hightower maybe.

Re Tywin's refusal to accept the truth about the incest--I was strongly reminded of the scene in s1 of Cersei telling Joffrey that he didn't really scream and cower in fear but that he fought off a direwolf. These people will believe what they want to believe and I feel like they picked that up from Tywin. I mean, when Tywin said to Olenna that Cersei was the most beautiful woman in the kingdoms, it's like he thinks simply saying something like that will make it so. Perhaps that was the case once upon a time but obviously that's no longer true, but Olenna actually had to call him on it before he'd take her point and even then he didn't really acknowledge that his daughter isn't as young as she was and likely isn't the best chance for them to have a Lannister/Tyrell take over Highgarden one day. One of Kevan's daughters should have been quite sufficient but IMO that's greedy Tywin all over.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Avaleigh

[benteen]

D and D wouldn't know what to do with Satin.  A whore who doesn't get naked and have sex is as useless to them as Jaime is as a warrior without his hand.

 

I'm sorry to see Satin go but I'll point out what someone else said here.  I liked the character but the most interesting about him as that he was once a whore.  I think the Olly character could fit in well on this show as Jon's steward.  The whole mentor thing would be good for Jon and it'll be hard for him to forget that the kid killed Ygritte.

 

Varys I'm really looking forward to on this show.  He'll keep Tyrion's Essos trip interesting (I think Peter Dinklage will too) and I liked the suggestion that he could meet up personally with Aegon and Jon Connington.  No matter what, I think he'll still return to Westeros in advance to put his plans into motion.  He's not going to leave his precious Realm alone for two long.

 

Varys as a fugitive along with Tyrion might also take the suspicion off of Jaime for letting his brother out.  Although I suspect Cersei will have the same blind spot towards her brother's guilt in this matter as Tywin had for the whole Twincest matter.  Especially after Cersei gave herself to Jaime in the season finale.

[Winnief]

 

 

Re Tywin, I basically went from seeing him as one of the most competent leaders in the story to thinking he really wasn't all that in terms of the show.

He couldn't handle the situation with the Iron Bank, he had no plan, he treated the threat of Dany in the most casual manner, he failed to control Cersei and couldn't keep her in check after she made her weak threats, he didn't have the sense to put a muzzle on the Mountain wrt Elia, his own sexual hypocrisy ended up getting him killed, etc. I feel like I have more to criticize him for in terms of strategy on the show than in the books. I also wonder why he's so insistent on two alliances with the Tyrells when they're already connected with the family via Margaery and Tommen. IMO he should have been looking for money or extra ships. A Redwyne or Hightower maybe.

 

Actually even in the books there were some striking weaknesses on Tywin's part.  Obviously he was blind where his children were concerned; never admitted the Twincest to himself nor could he see that Tyrion was by far the most talented of his children.  Robb kicked his ass on the battlefield and was clearly the better battle commander.  Sure his backalley deal for the RW stopped the young wolf but at what cost?!?  After all  Red Wedding wasn't just brutal and immoral on Tywin's part it was also short-sighted; it was a hugely destabilizing event in Westeros that grievously wounded the very foundations of diplomacy in the Seven Kingdoms and in AFFC, it was pretty obviously a problem that nobody trusted or respected the Lannister's.  He also completely underestimated the risk of Northern rebellion post RW-his plan to have Tyrion impregnate Sansa and use the kid to take control of the North never, EVER could have worked.  They'd have sent Tyrion back in pieces and quite possibly the child too.  Then there was the fact that the murder of Elia and her babes put the Lannister's at odds with the Martell's.  Tywin always wanted people to fear him and respect him, (he tended to equate the two,) and he preferred that to earning public love-which is what Macchiavelli advised.  But Macchiavelli also warned you should take care not to make yourself hated-and that is something Twyin never thought to avoid.  Between him and Cersei the Lannister's burned their bridges with every other Great House in Westeros and made themselves despised by the Smallfolk as well-which means that if/when the Lannister's ever got in trouble there'd be no one to help them back up.

 

As said, he ignored the reports about dragons and the threats beyond the Wall since he couldn't conceive of them.  And even beyond the Twincest he ignored a lot of hard truths about Cersei; that she was never fit to be Queen and a horrible mother until it was far too late.  Remember when he sent Tyrion to KL as Hand, his original belief was that Tyrion had to root out the bad counselors that were serving Cersei and Joffrey so horribly; it hadn't occurred to him that they could be doing such an awful job on their own.  (Though, Tyrion guessed right away.)  What's striking about ASOS is seeing Tywin actually meeting his grandson for the first time since the boy was very young-and realizing he's killed tens of thousands to put Aerys III on the Throne.  It also finally dawns on him what a disaster Cersei is-which is I think at least part of why he was so desperate (In the books and on the show) to marry her off and get her out of KL.  But of course Cersei isn't necessarily such a desirable catch anymore.  Sure she's younger in the books but thanks to her reputation House Tyrell, (specifically shrewd old Olenna,) rejected her as a bride for Willas-and Tywin seemed surprised by that move.  He was looking for a different suitable groom after that, but again I think that would have been a helluva lot harder for him than he anticipated.  

Edited June 30, 2014 by Winnief