But admittedly, I'm no biblical scholar. I just googled it, and apparently Isaac was not the potential sacrificer, but sacrificee in the Bible!
Stannis ... willingness to do anything to further his own narrow interests.
But admittedly, I'm no biblical scholar. I just googled it, and apparently Isaac was not the potential sacrificer, but sacrificee in the Bible!
LOL . . . .Stannis is the man.
If I hear Arya screaming "Oysters, Clams & Cockles!" ever again I might kill someone.
I hate what he did but I also understand what he did.
He made the ultimate sacrifice. If he were in the bible he would be commended for his devotion to the lord.
I can see this choice being something that will eat away at him and probably undo him going forward.
This should be obvious to anyone who has been watching the past few seasons, as there has been more than one occasion where Stannis has pretty much said point blank that he doesn't care about gods/religion, he cares about the throne. He's been a one-track, one-dimensional character since his first scene. Absolutely nothing has changed at all with this guy. He's like a wind-up robot that just keeps bashing into a wall.
That's because you're confusing the son, with his father Abraham.
You're writing as if the audience was supposed to have some sympathy for Stannis, whereas that clearly didn't seem to be the intention of the show runner/writers. I thought he did a fantastic job of showing himself to be worn down and battered, yet still single-mindedly focused on his goal of becoming king. Really, in the great scheme of things, this behavior does fit in well with what he has done and been historically. I think it's just his one moment of being a loving dad skewing everyone's expectations. He wasn't a good dad really. He's extremely selfish and power hungry above all else, and he's single-minded. We saw that in spades last week.While the scene seemed forced, excessive and unnecessary to some critics, especially since it isn't in the books, I actually think the bigger problem is that it just wasn't well acted or directed. I think most of that falls to Stephen Dillane, the actor who plays Stannis. I always thought he was one of the weaker cast members going back to the second season. I don't read the books so not sure how the character is written, but Dillane pretty much plays him one dimensionally. There have been a couple of decent scenes here and there that played to his acting strengths but for the most part it's been rather one-note - bullheaded, has a sense of entitlement, and doesn't listen to anyone except the red woman. However this was the one scene where the character and the actor could have broken out. Here is a king who is almost broken and on the brink of losing everything -- his campaign, his men and his claim to the iron throne. he is left with one desperate last ditch choice offered by a seductive witch with questionable motives and a thirst for royal blood. Had Stannis been played as both conflicted and agonizing there might have been much more sympathy for him. Instead he protests for about ten seconds before giving in, then as his daughter is being marched off Stannis/Dillane just sort of stands there and looks like a hardhead as always. Not even a tear was shed. GoT takes place in a brutal world, so it's not so much the act itself (far worse things have happened), it's just that it came across as being played for shock value rather than to develop the characters or advance the plot.
this coming from someone who thinks ned lost his head for gendry?
does anyone else think the show is losing its roots a little? i mean the amount of lose ends is bizarre, nobody cares anymore about the original plot, and neither do the fans, everyone loves jamie and hates stannis, yet jamie had rob killed, tried to murder bran and bangs his sister.
nothing has been even mentioned of the freys, if they ever do return to the riverlands half the audience wont even remember why.
Enter your email address to join: