A Game of Thrones star speaks on Season 4's big omission, and what it means for Season 5

Ever since that breathtaking season finale of HBO’s Game of Thrones, fans have been talking just as much about what didn’t happen as what did. So what does the star at the center of the controversy have to say?

Spoilers ahead for Game of Thrones, obviously!

Entertainment Weekly chatted with Michelle Fairley, who played Catelyn Stark on the hit series, about the apparent omission of her zombie resurrection and evolution into badass Brotherhood leader Lady Stoneheart. To recap: In the books, Catelyn’s body is retrieved in the wake of the Red Wedding by the Brotherhood Without Banners, whose leader, Beric Dondarrion gives his life for hers. From there, she comes back as a stone-cold zombie looking for vengeance.

But, as viewers roundly noted, that massive twist was noticeably missing from the TV version. Luckily, the interviewer thought enough to ask Fairley about the twist, and she seemingly confirmed dead is dead and that Stoneheart will likely not be a part of the series moving forward.

Here’s an excerpt from the Q&A:

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?

Fairley: 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?

Fairley: 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. 

Unless she’s playing extremely coy and trying to keep us in the dark, that lays it out pretty clearly. Of course, there’s always a chance the writers could be changing up the elements of that story to introduce later, but it sounds pretty cut and dry.

Do you agree with the change? Good move for narrative flow, or terrible omission?

(Via Entertainment Weekly)

More from around the web