Lemuria

And you thought it was going to be difficult. Ha!😄

That's not what happened. He stopped by Rickon and saw him die, looked up at Ramsey, and saw all of Ramsey's archers draw and prepare to fire. Jon's troops were all standing still (as was Jon himself) and would be cut down by the hail of arrows. He shouts out for them to go and goes himself, forward because he could see the arrows were being aimed at where he had been standing and also behind him into his front line, but for the moment, not in front of him. I don't know if it was in the show or in something external written about it, but I believe that not all Valeryans were able to ride or control dragons.

And that's the primary issue. Because if they don't win, the amount of stores they have are irrelevant. Without the two armies and two dragons, the North is screwed. And you'll never convince me that Jon did not send a raven telling Sansa that "Hey, Sis. Great news! I'm returning with a ton of dragonstone, plus two armies and two dragons--which is wonderful, since fire also can destroy wights. Your brother, Jon" So, she had some lead-in time. What did she do with it, exactly? (And no one said that, if they win, all of the armies and both dragons with be hanging around the North, eating the stores up, and not heading south to face the other enemy.) Thing is, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If the show wanted me to see Sansa as a smart and competent leader, it wouldn't have had her voice it as sarcastic complaint designed more to increase friction between Dany and the Northerners. Instead, she would have indicated that she was concerned the stores they had might not be enough and suggested a barnstorming session to try to determine how much might be needed and if they have it, or can get it in time. We'll have to agree to disagree that Jon disregards her opinions. Sansa, on the other hand, has played passive-aggressive with him; has challenged him in front of everyone, something no monarch would ever tolerate (and no matter how many times it's happened, she never seems to get the point); and has kept (and, we've been told in recent interviews, will continue to keep) major secrets from him. Could she be more blatant about having no respect for, or faith in, him? As for why she kept Littlefinger's offer a secret: I've heard from Sansa fans that she kept it at Castle Black when LF first showed up because she thought Jon would accept it and she didn't want LF around; and after the BoTB, because she thought Jon wouldn't accept it because he was too proud; and now, because he didn't trust LF--except that Jon didn't really know anything about LF at the time of the BoTB (I don't remember LF even coming up in any discussion before the battle). However, according to the person who should know the character best--ST--Sansa sat on the information because she wanted to lead the Vale army in and be the Hero of The Day. So, if I understand ST correctly, Sansa let all those people die who were there fighting for her cause, not their own, so that she could play at being the Savior of Winterfell? IMO, it's a good thing that the Northern Lords--who refused to follow the Stark banner to fight for Winterfell because they felt betrayed by Robb Stark--don't know about this.

I was watching the reaction to Ep. 1 by SiTHFuRion and he just tossed out a question that I hadn't thought about, probably because my initial reaction was to answer it "No." Still, it's an interesting idea: Can the NK control any undead, or only those he or his minions (the WW) have raised? And if the former is true, could he also control the Mountain? Food for thought.

What amazes me is the number of people responding to that post – – despite the fact that the title of the episode has been known for weeks – – who never put it together! No wonder Dabb gets away with what he does.

You mean like "Closer to Home?" "Are you thinking of Joffrey? Such a spirited lad. I was his uncle. I was also his dad." That might work. 🤣

But she knows that the NK brought the Wall down. Why would he then decide to sit around Winterfell for years? Besides, what's the alternative? Send away the two armies and two dragons the North desperately needs if it's going to stand any chance of defeating the AoTD? Of course not, so why then voice it as a complaint and an annoyance, instead of using it as an issue of joint concern that could possibly bring both sides together? You know, the smart and politically savvy thing to do.

I have no idea if this is mentioned in a book or in something Martin said, but I thought that there has only ever been the one.

That doesn't make any sense to me. The Children of the Forest created the NK to fight the First Men, which means it predates the rise of Valyria (and thus predates Targaryens) by a hella long time.

The way Sansa felt that she was entitled to the Northerners' loyalty despite the betrayal they felt by her family? In some ways, Sansa comes from an even more entitled background, since until she came to KL, she was surrounded by privilege and a loving family. Dany spent that time an impoverished fugitive. Both have a sense of entitlement and both have demonstrated an ability to be ruthless and not always nice. I don't have a problem with Sansa and the Northerners being wary of Dany, whom they do not know. However, I do have a problem--if the show wants me to believe that Sansa is oh, so smart and politically savvy--with her not have the smarts or savvy not to openly display it or to antagonize someone the North really, really needs at the moment. Then we have the "logistics" complaint. Seriously? Does Sansa think that this is going to be a long term situation? The AoTD is on its way; the battle is happening sooner than later. To me, this comment by Sansa just shows how poor her (and the Northern lords) understanding of the situation they're in really is. If the "Show" contradicts the "Tell," I'm going with the "Show." I've seen this complaint before--that Dany was"Blowing into Town with [a] show of force"--but I don't quite understand it. She came North with her entire combined army and her dragons to help them fight. Just exactly where is she supposed to hide them so that it doesn't look as if she's making a "show of force?"

Actually, I think the Dragonpit/wight scene last season was the first time Jon had been to King's Landing (or the South, period. Well, except for being born there, which he probably doesn't remember too much about. 😊) or had any dealings with Cersei. I don't think he knows her any better than Dany does.

I thought he kind of had a smile 😊 (Drogon seemed to like Jon last year)

As opposed to what, Sansa's side-eye looks and barely concealed dislike and disrespect? And "entitled" appears to the be "attack Dany word of choice" among some fans. To me, there speaks children of the late 20th century and the 21st century. Most of whom have never lived under the reign of an absolute monarch, who not only thought they were entitled, they actually were. The "Divine Right of Kings [and Queens]" and all that. If they rode your child down while they were out hawking, well, wasn't that just too bad for you? When Sansa swooped down on the Northern lords and expected them to fall at her Stark feet, she was demonstrating entitlement (and chutzpah). When she betrayed her brother (both brothers, actually. It's clear she never intended to get Rickon back) and all the troops that had come to help get Winterfell back, holding back that another larger army was coming to help because (according to ST) she wanted to swoop in an be The Hero of the day and end up ruler of Winterfell, she was demonstrating entitlement (and that she had not understood the anger against betrayal by the Starks that the bannermen were feeling; so much for "smart"). That sense of entitlement comes with rank, prestige, power, position, and Sansa has more than her fair share of it. I have to admit to being disappointed in all of the Arya scenes. She just came off oddly to me.

Actually, Ned looked down on Jaime for exactly that reason. This is case where the audience knows more about the situation than either Ned or Daenerys.

Exactly how would you do something like this warmly? Just curious.

We'll have to disagree. I guess you agree with Sansa that Dany's not bringing anything to the table that the North needs. Sansa acts as if she really has no idea what they're facing and doesn't really want to know. Of course, since D&D like her so much that she probably won't suffer the fate that that kind of attitude should usually bring about. Why on earth, BTW, should I ever believe that someone acting this stupidly and openly antagonistically toward the armies she needs to survive, is savvy about anything?

Question his "motives?" If she thinks that Jon does not have the welfare of the North (and all of the living people in Westeros) first and foremost in his mind, and behind his choices, then she's a flaming idiot. (Which goes along with something I've noticed with other shows as well: as soon as the show goes out of its way to verbally assure us that X, Y or Z is really, really smart, it's a sure sign that character will act like a horse's patoot during the episode.) Whether he respects Dany and appreciates her coming to help them only or whether he does that and he's come to love her, it doesn't change the reasons he went to her in the first place or the help that she can bring to the fight. Dany's coming to Winterfell will not increase Jon's power or wealth or position. There no "motives" for her to question. And the person who acts as if she would reject two armies and two dragons in a massive fight against an army of the dead is hardly being "practical." Sansa's proving the truth behind that quote in a recent article, with either LC or GC (I can't remember which) talking about Sansa's "irrepressible ambition and desire to rule." Maybe it's Sansa's motives we should be questioning.

Not really. Until almost the very end, she was listening to him. He made one mistake and said something about Arya that Sansa knew wasn't true: That Arya wanted to rule Winterfell. If he hadn't said that, she might actually have tried to have Arya killed.

The Sansa-pimping is being ratcheted up. I'm sure if it was LC or GC who was quoted in a recent article talking about Sansa's "irrepressible ambition and desire to rule,"and it seems that's more behind her attitude than a desire to protect the North. I mean, did she really criticize the logistics of dealing with the army and dragons that came to help save the North?

I just realized there was another eff/u to Dean and Dean fans in this ep. When Dean says that Jack killed Michael and Jack killed Nick, and Sam responds, "You almost seem bummed about it." Right. Screw you, Berens.

One thing I found interesting in the promo that could be considered a smidgen of growth for Dean (or, maybe, a smidgen of finally deciding he was tired of being yo-yo'd!) was Dean's insistence that they (ie he and Sam) both had to "sign on to this." Presumably he's referring to whatever they may need to do to stop Jack. Maybe Dean is tired of having Sam go along, of not taking a stand if he disagreed--and then later accusing him of putting Sam at the kids table. Or not arguing or challenging about not being completely open with Jack (and later in the ep, even telling the sheriff that people had to be kept in the dark about the supernatural)--only to turn around later and lecture Dean about how it was wrong. Well, now Dean appears to want it up front and out in the open: if both of them don't really agree that this is the course of action they have to take, Dean's not doing it.

It’s not that Jack killed Nick; it’s how he did it. Sam should have taken Nick out when he had the chance and I would have had no problem with that. Nick had not only killed a lot of people, some of whom were probably innocent of any wrongdoing, but he was actively trying to bring Lucifer back. He had to be stopped and he had to be stopped permanently. Sam should’ve already learned the lesson that Nick was not interested in being redeemed. Unless Sam intended to find a way to lock Nick up for the rest of his life and to keep Nick away from any means of summoning Lucifer, then Sam had to make the tough choice and taking it down. He didn’t. The problem, in regard to Jack, is twofold: first, he wasn’t killing Nick because he was concerned about the world; he went after Nick because he was furious and has absolutely no control over his abilities. And second, was the way he did it. Jack not only killed Nick in a fairly brutal manner, but he also tortured Nick first. Breaking his fingers, for example. And in this kind of an instance, I think the point is that it’s not about Nick, it’s about Jack. It’s not about them, it’s about us. The good guys are supposed to be better than the bad guys. Irvin Kershner one said that the difference between the Empire and the Rebellion is not that the Rebellion can’t do what the Empire can, but that they won’t. Jack is very powerful; appears to have no control over his emotions, especially rage and hatred***; and seems capable of brutality and cruelty. This is a beyond dangerous combination. I’m far from being a fan of Mary but I thought she was right to be concerned and horrified. I also thought she was incredibly stupid to go about it the way she did. ***Early this season, when we saw Sam trying to get some instruction to Jack, Sam was trying to teach him about using his powers. I thought at the time that that was the wrong approach and that what Sam should’ve been doing was trying to teach Jack how to control his emotions first. Control over the powers would come with time, but if Jack did not learn to keep a tight rein on his emotions first, then learning to use his powers that only make him more dangerous. (Well, it seems that the iPhone can not distinguish between reign and rein. Good to know it’s not ready to take over the world as yet!)

Didn't Liam Cunningham recently reference something Gwendoline Christie said about Sansa this season (or maybe they were both just quoted in the same article and for some reason, I thought LC had referred to it)? Talking about Sansa's "irrepressible ambition and desire to rule." Which could be behind her attitude toward both Dany and Jon (because she may really, deep down inside, want to be QiTN). And which why we have the following two comments: Both of which speak to Sansa not being nearly as smart, politically savvy or smooth as the show keeps telling us she is. (I mean, really, would Varys or Littlefinger have given the game away so quickly?) Name one person in Westeros, other than the Children of the Forest (who, I believe, are presently extinct), who is not the descendant of an invader. The Starks are descendants of the First Men, who invaded from Essos and proceeded to despoil the land of the Children resulting in the creation of the Night King. In the South, they are now the Dornish, though there is the infusion of the bloodline of Nymeria and her people. (It's interesting to note that the various First Men holdings at the time, except for Dorne, didn't like the idea of Warrior Princess Nymeria. La plus ca change, and all that.) This invasion was followed by the invasion of the Andals, who took much of Westeros away from the First Men. And then, last but not least, Aegon arrived. So, people in glass house, so to speak.

You're making some huge assumptions, aren't you? For one thing, you say that the AOTD is "literally at the doorstep." That, of course, would mean that the Winterfellians (yes, I'm pretty sure that's the term 😊!) could see them from the ramparts. Since they don't show up until Ep. 3, we could be talking about as much as a couple of months before they show up. Yep, "literally at the doorstep." At this time, we have no idea how far they went or how quickly they got there or where they are. (Just because they filmed in Iceland, where scenes beyond the Wall have been filmed in the past, does not mean that they went beyond the Wall in this ep, only that they needed a rugged and snowy landscape.) Or how quickly they could return. I recognize that Jon and/or Dany can do no right for some posters on this forum--if they parted The Narrow Sea, hustled all the living Northerners south to safety and then drowned the AOTD in it, there would probably be complaints about their spending a day at the beach--but it seems to me that common sense would dictate that we wait to see the ep before we start frothing at the mouth.

I'm fairly sure they weren't invited to the storyboarding by Dabb. Which suggests to me it was by Pedowitz. As for JA and JP being "prepared for 'they' [READ: Dabb] not listening," well, that could mean they know they could end up out in the cold and ignored, and they'll accept it. Or, it could mean, that they "prepared" for it by putting Pedowitz on speed dial! I don't think they're going to have any problem going right over Dabb's head next season.