Since there is so much evidence about what a scumbag Renly was why on earth would the show writers make him the best of the three Baratheon brothers? It makes no sense to me.

stefansasse:

racefortheironthrone:

Because GRRM, in his tricksy wisdom, also made Renly intelligent, funny, and genuinely charming and then made his main opponents people who aren’t. 

When we first encounter Renly in Sansa I and Eddard III, not only is he a young Robert without the alcoholism and Targ-murder-boner, but he’s also making fun of the Lannisters who we’re being primed to hate even more because they’re trying to execute dogs. (Although if you think about it, isn’t it interesting that Renly comes off so well despite not lifting a finger to actually help?)

Then when we encounter him again in ACOK, he’s being contrasted against Stannis, who we’re also primed to dislike (so that the face turn works in ASOS). Remember, Stannis is introduced allowing walking empathy magnet Maester Cressen to be humiliated, and the next image we have of him before he meets with Renly is him joining a scary cult (another example of how priming wrong-foots people: Melisandre). And again, look at their meeting:

Again, on the surface, Renly’s the one with the better japes, the peach, and he’s the one who’s going to get horribly murdered so there’s the sympathy factor as well. 

The case for Renly falls apart when you step back, ignore all of the surface qualities, and ask yourself what has he actually done and what has he actually said. And that’s when you start to see all of the subtle thematic and character work GRRM has been doing in the background. 

My guess? Benioff and Weiss aren’t very good at literary analysis and simply missed that second layer. 

I really don’t buy into this whole “D&D didn’t get ASOIAF” thing. They sat down for hours with GRRM talking about the story, while he thoroughly tested them. Understanding the character of Stannis doesn’t seem to be something he’d miss, and the same goes for Renly. My guess as to what happened with GOT us that they made a conscious choice to change stuff. And with Renly and Stannis, you can see that clearly and it works well. They use Renly less as a character in his own right but to heighten Robb’s tragedy. Don’t forget that Renly proposes an alliance with Robb before being killed in the show!
This if course puts him more squarely into the sympathetic corner, as does his critique of Robert’s “making the eight”. Does this make him less interesting and different to the books? Yes, but it’s good for narrative economy and still gives a well-rounded secondary character.
It’s even more pronounced with Stannis. As I’ve written extensively (http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/07/19-season5-false-hero/noscript.html), he’s absolutely different from the books. His character arc in the show is a cautionary tale of not using bad means for good ends. He’s not book!Stannis, but he is a coherent in show!verse.

I think he tested them on plot more than on character – Jon Snow’s mother’s identity is not exactly a question about characterization. Also, I would argue their perception of the books was likely significantly shaped by the fact that ADWD had yet to come out when they started writing. 

And yeah, they definitely decided to change stuff, because there’s no way that Stannis’ story ends the way it does in the books that it does in the show. Does it work well? I would disagree – Stannis’ show end-game was the classic example of an idiot plot and it came off really clumsily. 

Although, they’ve certainly said enough things that provide evidence for the “didn’t get it” side – from their comments about themes being for book reports, or not knowing who POV characters were.