Submitted by Boss452 t3_11bf3ri in television
Astrosaurus42 t1_j9xxiz7 wrote
They should have given us Lady Stoneheart.
Sharks2431 t1_j9y5cdh wrote
D&D didn't like all that fantasy stuff in their... Fantasy show.
McZalion t1_j9y9fc7 wrote
Ironically they made GoT S6-S8 typical fantasy with rushed ending
Fuzzikopf t1_ja2filu wrote
S6 still had some really good moments/episodes and the overall pacing was also fine, compared to S7/8.
It was much better than S5, which doesn't get nearly enough hate IMO. I read the books afterwards and the way that the Dorne plot was butchered in the TV adaption is absolutely disgusting.
StannisLivesOn t1_j9yvhbx wrote
They wanted to take out magic to appeal to "mothers and NFL players". That's a real quote.
monsieurxander t1_j9z9pz5 wrote
It's not a real quote. Someone misquoted them as they were live-tweeting an event, and publications ran with it. When the audio turned up with what they actually said, those publications didn't rush to correct themselves. What they actually said:
>“With the fantasy genre on television, tonally it’s very easy [go too] campy. Every scene, you change these two lines and it’s Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” Weiss jokes. “Also, in terms of fantasy exposition, with proper nouns, it’s almost like a game of Jenga, where you’re trying to plow as many of them as possible without the whole thing falling over. In the first pilot, we had one too many and the whole thing fell over. Going forward, we tried to keep that stuff to a minimum, because we didn’t just want to appeal to a fantasy fanbase. We wanted them to love it, and we wanted our parents to love it, and people who play professional football to love it. We wanted to reach a wider audience, and to do that keeping the tone [under control] was very important.”
VitaminTea t1_ja238vw wrote
Even if it were a real quote, a show aiming to appeal a broad audience is not a bad thing.
drupoxy t1_j9zn57k wrote
There is a middle ground between Season 1 of the Witcher in which they absolutely do have too many "proper nouns" introduced for most viewers, and then whatever it was that they gave us. The key is being a good writer, so, ya know...
MissKhary t1_ja0atob wrote
I feel like The Witcher was confusing on purpose though with the timelines, it's like they wanted you to always be wondering "wtf was that about"
drupoxy t1_ja0fivq wrote
I was able to follow it without any issue because I had CC turned on. Without those, all of the jargon and names tossed at you are much harder to remember. So for example, if you see the queen's name in ep 1, it's pretty straightforward to connect the dots later in the show when they mention her in the past tense.
MissKhary t1_ja0gibd wrote
I had read the books and played games, and while I knew the storylines I still kept getting a bit tangled in the timelines. But then again the books with their short story format also jumped around. So while some things were obvious as different times, some things were only apparent in hindsight, even if I had some frame of reference that the average viewer would not have. So I think it HAD to be purposeful, because it was confusing even to me, but I only realized HOW confusing it was in the last episodes.
OathOfFeanor t1_ja3zdtb wrote
It may not be verbatim but that is still exactly what they said...literally the same message
monsieurxander t1_ja48296 wrote
Aside from the massive difference in tone... they're talking about fantasy vocabulary, not magic itself.
AH_BareGarrett t1_ja0pegl wrote
They wish their writing was half as good as Monty Pyrhon.
Mentoman72 t1_j9yxykv wrote
Ashamed to admit I'm one of the people that this was for. Everytime the show turned into dragon fest i was bored. The dragons are easily my least favorite part of HOTD too. I like the political drama, not so much the fantasy elements.
Jacknboxx t1_ja05x5i wrote
I agree with you and I'm not ashamed to admit. The political scheming was by far the best part of the show. The dragons and White Walkers were always much less interesting.
OathOfFeanor t1_ja40uhd wrote
There are plenty of 100% drama shows out there, no need to ruin a well-written fantasy that incorporates politics into it very well.
I don't want full CGI dragon episodes either but if you completely remove them the story doesn't even make sense. IMO they would be better used like a monster who you rarely see on screen at all, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and they are erased from the story.
If you are not a fan of fantasy you probably do not even realize what we are talking about with Lady Stoneheart. Catelyn Stark comes back from the dead. That's a pretty major plot point for a major character to come back from the dead, and they just left it out because they are clueless schmucks who didn't know what to do with it.
Mentoman72 t1_ja418e5 wrote
I know about Lady Stoneheart. I understand the fantasy elements are important to the story, I just said they're my least favorite parts. I didn't ask for them to be removed or anything.
OathOfFeanor t1_ja42gv7 wrote
> I didn't ask for them to be removed or anything
And I never said you did. However you commented in support of it after the fact and cited multiple examples where you are in favor it happening.
In contrast I don't like seeing well-written stories ripped apart and having the elements that make them special removed or suppressed just for generic broad appeal.
I don't like pure political dramas but I don't want Hollywood to start modifying them to make them more appealing to me; I just don't watch them.
I just feel like the original story should be told a little closer to the way it was written. Sorry if I have been overzealous in expressing that.
[deleted] t1_ja42qis wrote
[removed]
31_SAVAGE_ t1_j9yifnn wrote
dont really agree. that storyline never went anywhere and the character literally had no character. im glad it got cut out of the show.
Collier1505 t1_j9yjy5w wrote
To be fair (I haven’t read the books too for what it’s worth), do we know it doesn’t go anywhere? I was under the impression it was kind of still developing as of the end of the most recent book.
Brilliant-Disguise t1_j9z9sba wrote
Character was introduced in the final page of a book released 23 years ago. Since then, they've appeared in a single chapter from a book released 18 years ago.
I don't think GRRM has any idea what's going on with the character. I don't blame D&D for dropping her.
edicivo t1_j9ypw8v wrote
We don't know if it goes anywhere but the show has been long over and the books don't seem likely to be finished so really, it doesn't matter whether or not Stoneheart is vital to the book storyline.
But currently, she just seems to be a revenge zombie which wasn't something the show needed.
31_SAVAGE_ t1_j9yls73 wrote
developing is a big stretch. there were a few chapters about it and they were quite vague. it was basically just a way to give some well-liked characters a reason to group up.
they arent even really mentioned in the 5th book afair, only up to the 4th book. and that shit was in 2005. almost 20 years, thats no longer "developing"
Sinrus t1_j9z4rh4 wrote
Very few characters are mentioned in both the 4th and 5th books, they take place at the same time in different parts of the world. As of where the books left off, Lady Stoneheart is moments away from executing two of the most important characters in the story, I would say that definitely seems to be going somewhere.
Metal64Game t1_j9ylukv wrote
Should D&D have cut Oberyn Martell because his only function was to get his head crushed by the Mountain?
Lady Stoneheart did serve a function: She was the main person exacting poetic revenge on the Freys. They gave this role to Arya, which is problematic because Arya was already a vehicle for a million other happenings.
It also gave us reasons why Jon Snow's resurrection may not have been a good thing, where in the show it was unambiguously the right decision.
That careful crafting of tension and ambiguity is something D&D forgot to do in the final seasons, something Lady Stoneheart would've given more of.
edicivo t1_j9ypbb4 wrote
I recently did a full rewatch and I don't think the story lost much without her. I think D&D made the right decision.
For starters, it would've been another storyline/character that D&D would have had to wrap up before the end and they clearly were struggling with what they already had.
They had Arya do what, 1 or 2 scenes taking revenge on the Freys? They would have needed to add more to justify Stoneheart or it wouldn't have been at all worth it to keep/revise a character that had little to do with the main story. Did we need more scenes of the Freys being hunted down? Nah. Arya standing in place was fine and took care of the Freys.
With John and Beric and the Mountain being revived from deaths, yet another character coming back would have lessened the stakes. (That said, D&D lessened the stakes anyhow with plot armor for the main "good guy" characters).
They wouldn't have had time to shoe-in more of John struggling about coming back than what was already in the show.
There were so many other problems with the later seasons that Stoneheart would've just been a waste of time.
Tarantio t1_j9z7hio wrote
>For starters, it would've been another storyline/character that D&D would have had to wrap up before the end and they clearly were struggling with what they already had.
Absolutely not, as the beginning of Lady Stoneheart was the end of Beric Dondarrion.
edicivo t1_j9zdclm wrote
That doesn't negate what I said.
In the show, Dondarrion, after Arya left the gang, is mostly nothing more than an extra sword with maybe a line or two of dialogue per ep. Dondarrion ultimately dies in the final battle against zombies. He never had any of his own storylines, he was always a part of someone else's.
Replacing him with Stoneheart as in the books would have required whole new storylines. Stoneheart as a character would have required an end point and she would have needed a more significant ending than what Beric got since Cat was a majorly prominent character. So, like I said, it would have been another storyline/character to wrap up in a show where D&D were already very clearly struggling to juggle storylines and characters.
Tarantio t1_j9zmbpt wrote
They would have struggled a lot less if they had thrown out less.
The writers took out a lot, but they seemed to disregard the difficulty of writing plot to replace what they cut.
Dondarrion being just an extra sword is a result of the writers cutting the end of his story and then having to come up with more for him to do.
Maybe if they had let him die bringing back Stoneheart, we wouldn't have had to suffer through the "seven dudes try to capture a zombie for some reason" plot line. Beric would be dead, Thoros and Gendry would be with the Brotherhood under Stoneheart.
Metal64Game t1_j9yq9qo wrote
People up here still justifying D&D's rampant cuts to the story and over-simplification of characters and themes despite this obviously ruining the show in spectacular fashion.
edicivo t1_j9yr9nh wrote
So either you only read my first two sentences and completely overlooked the multiple times I criticized D&D or you're talking about other people in this thread. Your reply is very vague.
So here, D&D divebombed the show spectacularly, but losing Stoneheart was one of their rare right choices.
Metal64Game t1_j9yrw7u wrote
Arya fast travelling inside the Frey's castle and killing them all off screen in 30 seconds was easily one of the worst moments of the show.
Revenge in GOT became a cheap quick thrill for the crowd.
Arya became a fake character rather than a real person, an omniscient assassin who could kill the bad guys cleanly without any fallout because that's what the audience loves.
And we lost the best twist of the books after the Red Wedding, which is the reveal of Stoneheart, an insane moment justified by its own merit.
For all your problems with Stoneheart, a million more sprung up in her place because of her omission.
edicivo t1_j9yv567 wrote
I agree that Arya becoming a superhuman, and her "growth" as a character in general, were awful.
That said, all of the issues you brought up could have been fixed with better writing of her character.
Adding Stoneheart in in place of Arya just for your reasons would have been a complete waste of time. You're clearly very attached to the books so you should obviously be aware that as of this point, Stoneheart has had literally no effect on anything of importance in the story. I'll be generous and say she's in or referenced in maybe...15 pages of the books at this point? For all we know Brienne will get out of her noose and chop off Stoneheart's head right there. We have - and probably will continue to have - no idea.
Metal64Game t1_j9yw7tg wrote
If I had to guess what Stoneheart's "ultimate" purpose is (since it seems like audiences everywhere are just obsessed with that stuff)...
Remember that story Catelyn told about how she hated Jon Snow and desperately wanted him dead?
Jon Snow would've likely reunited with Stoneheart at some point, and we'd seen a conclusion their specific dynamic. Either Jon would have to end Stoneheart's revenge spree out of pity, or Stoneheart would remember her promise to the gods, and finally put aside her hatred of Jon Snow and let him live, against all odds.
But I don't know, I'm not payed millions by HBO to deliver a fucking story rather than cut it to shreds.
Jazz_Potatoes95 t1_j9z1dyc wrote
Given that George RR Martin was also getting paid by HBO to deliver a story, and he spectacularly failed in doing so, I'm actually willing to give D&D a bit of slack here.
They were adapting books they loved based on the promise from the author that he'd have the whole thing wrapped up by the time they caught up with him, and instead they started having to write their own material because the author himself found it impossible to untangle all the different threads.
Did they do a great job? No.
Should they really have been put in that position? Also no.
Metal64Game t1_j9z23z5 wrote
GRRM: "I was pretty much out of the loop After GOT Season 4"
"you get the famous creative differences thing – that leads to a lot of conflict."
I'm not willing to give D&D "dany kind of forgot lol, sansa is the smartest character lol, also we killed off barristan selmy because the actor got sad about it" any slack.
They should've given showrunning over to someone willing to carry things the rest of the way with passion and care. It's obvious they just didn't care anymore, they just wanted to film a bunch of cool battle scenes for a giant paycheck and then move onto something else.
HOTD's success paired with keeping GRRM involved only confirms to me that D&D were the main factor in GOT falling apart post S4. They thought they could do better than GRRM, they failed spectacularly, end of story.
31_SAVAGE_ t1_j9ymz75 wrote
from that perspective it just wouldve been a total red herring (it is, as far as we know since the books wont be finished). jon snow is revived without any issue or drawback and nothing ever happens to him.
also thats a pretty weird comparison to those characters btw who are all well-developed and you know, actual characters with conversations and personality. vs zombie lady who doesnt talk and we know nothing of her intentions/motivations other than general revenge, and we follow her because?
Metal64Game t1_j9yp6yk wrote
Lady Stoneheart represents revenge the way GRRM intended: limitless, destructive, unclean.
By giving this moment to Arya in a crowd cheering moment, Arya is no longer a real character on a real journey, she instead became an omniscient, fast travelling, can-do-no-wrong dora the assassin.
They removed the best twist of the books post-season 4, then ruined one of the best characters by offloading all that baggage on Arya, and then completely subverted the way revenge is meant to be portrayed as intended by GRRM.
All this... just because Stoneheart might've been a bit meaningless? Lol. At that point, they should've just removed Oberyn Martell too.
vartoushvorytoush t1_ja1w0pm wrote
"dora the assassin"!! Fuck me silly that's the funniest line of the week.
Rhodie114 t1_ja0fhwi wrote
> that storyline never went anywhere
I mean, that has more to do with GRRM not writing anything for the past decade.
I think there will probably be a couple big roles for LSH in the books. First, she'll be a model for how fucked up the process of resurrection can leave a person. When Jon is resurrected, I think there will be a lot more uncertainty about his temperament, and whether it's even still Jon in there.
Second, I think at some point she'll meet Arya. They both have similar goals in exacting revenge against those who wronged House Stark, in particular those involved with the Red Wedding. I think this will bring them together, and seeing her mother as a fucked up revenant murdering her way through the Riverlands will be what finally steers Arya away from revenge. It would be a more compelling resolution to that character arc than the Hound looking at her and telling her "actually, don't kill Cersei" at the eleventh hour.
Rhodie114 t1_ja0dhtw wrote
That sucked, but what really got me was the way they resolved Tyrion's arc.
In the books, he's constantly revisiting the trauma of his relationship with Tysha. She was the first woman Tyrion was ever with, and he wound up falling for her and marrying her. Tywin found out, and ordered her to be raped by his entire guard, then ordered Tyrion to rape her last before he sent her away. Tywin reveals he did this because she was just a whore who was conning Tyrion, and Jaime admits that he knew about it. This obviously fucks Tyrion up, both because of the obvious horror of what happened to her and the implication that nobody will ever love him genuinely. The whole Shae situation reopens this wound.
When Jaime and Varys come to smuggle Tyrion out of the city, the subject of Tysha comes up. Jaime admits that he lied, and that Tysha was actually just a commoner who fell for Tyrion. Tywin forced Jaime to pretend otherwise to teach Tyrion a lesson. In a rage, Tyrion admits (falsely) to assassinating Joffrey, and tells Jaime (truthfully) that Cersei is fucking just about everybody she can behind Jaime's back. He then sneaks into the Tower of the Hand, murder's Shae in cold blood, then has an argument with Tywin about Tysha. This culminates with him shooting Tywin the second he calls Tysha a whore.
In the show, all the Tysha stuff is dropped. Tyrion sneaks into the Tower of the Hand unprompted, and tearfully kills Shae in self-defense. He then kills Tywin for calling Shae a whore. He also has a tearful, sentimental farewell with Jaime. All in all, it was a much more sanitized happy ending for Tyrion, and wound up robbing both him and Jaime of their purposes in future seasons. Jaime was supposed to grow distant from Cersei, instead he keeps doing her bidding and we get whatever the fuck that Dorne arc was. Tyrion was supposed to stay on his trajectory of becoming a vengeful monster who wants nothing more than to hurt everybody who's wronged him. Instead he becomes a cheerful drunk who likes to make quips and ask invading queens to pretty-please not kill any of the people who wronged him.
theyusedthelamppost t1_j9zr5p5 wrote
That is one of the cuts I can live with. The question is: Where is the character going? We don't know since we don't have the ending for her.
Outside_Bumblebee179 t1_ja1w2hr wrote
My best guess is that she will be responsible for the death of House Frey in lieu of Arya.
Fuzzikopf t1_ja2f4dv wrote
There's also the theory the she will be used to resurrect Jon in the books, but that's kinda out there lol
Outside_Bumblebee179 t1_ja3l4l7 wrote
Seems kind of wonky but who knows. I think George RR Martin has grown to hate his original ending so maybe he should just canonize his favorite fan theories.
spyson t1_j9ylasb wrote
They made the right choice to cut it if they weren't going to dive deeper into what's happening in the riverlands.
knockturne t1_ja5ac8u wrote
The ending of season 4 was a dud, all they had to do was put the Book 3 epilogue at the end and it would have been the best season of all time
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments