screamin

The problem is, there's a Lannister who's also the Queen's Hand - which is an issue that Jon might minimize both because of his previous friendly relationship with Tyrion and because his beloved's trust in Tyrion might lead Jon to accept her judgement in his trustworthiness uncritically.

And if Robb fell for Margaery Tyrell while idealizing all Margaery Tyrell's drawbacks as nonexistent because he loves her, that still would be fair game for his family to comment on as an issue. I don't see it as unfair that Sansa - or even Arya - point out things they might think he's overlooking, because they aren't in love with Dany.

I tend to disagree that TV Shai's death was a murder - as the show presented it, it was more self-defense. Tywin was the more clear-cut murder, though if ever 'he needed killing' was a defense, that was. Which doesn't mean that that was the nadir of dark things Tyrion does in his life.

I'm thinking that Arya will be more wary of Dany than Jon is - especially if Dany reacts badly to the news that Jon is the heir to the throne before her. Anything less than wholehearted support of Jon by Dany is going to activate Arya's protective instincts toward Jon. This isn't likely to occur in the first episode, though.

So do you think Olly committed an 'utterly vile' act that Tyrion is far above, and that therefore he deserved a death that Tyrion could never possibly deserve - no matter WHAT he does as a final betrayal (even though neither of us has the faintest idea what that betrayal could be?) I'm also puzzled why you think Tyrion condemning himself at the end would be a 'bargain basement Richard III". They're very different characters. Richard was a sociopathic villain from the get-go. Tyrion's voyage is far different.

I beg your pardon. Do you not consider Tyrion killing his father a murder? Do you not consider Tyrion pressuring Dany out of attacking KL explicitly to save his sister - thus dooming large numbers of his queen's men to needless death - a betrayal? If not, why not? And did I say that I considered Tyrion an unequivocal villain now? I did not. I said he has one more betrayal coming which will tip his scales. Granted, the bar for behavior is set much lower than ours for what is forgivable behavior - even lower than for Westeros in peacetime. The Hound HAS committed utterly vile acts. He's been informally pardoned by Arya, in a sense - but IMO, he still has a punishment coming before the scales can be balanced - if not by the legal powers of Westeros, then by karma. Did little Olly commit an "utterly vile" act in aiding the assassination of Jon? IMO, no - his reasons for carrying out the killing are as understandable as Tyrion's are for his murder - and as a child, they're much more excusable. Yet Jon put him to death. Do you consider Jon's action 'ridiculously harsh' and thus unbelievably out of character? IMO, there's a whole spectrum of possibility for committing a crime and deciding a punishment for a person than 'good riddance to bad rubbish.' One may reluctantly, sadly come to the conclusion that this is what must be done...and the punishment of such more complex villains can be the stuff of great drama. Just because Dinklage has played Richard III doesn't mean he can never possibly be interested in playing another Shakespearean (or other) villain. They're all different - just like the good guys are. And Tyrion is a very different character from Richard III, anyway, even if he does commit one more betrayal which ends up being the last straw for his character.

He wouldn't be, for the reasons I've said. And really, you can't have it both ways. Either what Tyrion did is truly evil and completely unjustifiable, in which case the remaining heroic characters will be justified in executing him in a departure for TV Tyrion's character so insane and extreme that no actor could pull it off (much less be happy with such a radical shift, as with Sibel Kekilli), or it was justifiable or at least understandable, in which case the heroic characters will look ridiculously harsh for condemning him to death instead of exile, the Wall, or some lesser punishment. Not all murderers are Richard III. Not all villains are monsters. Many have understandable motives that are worthy of sympathy. Doesn't exonerate them all of their crimes. Nor does it makes all their stories alike. It makes no sense to say that once Dinklage has played Richard III, he could NEVER possibly be interested in performing any dark criminal character again, no matter how different the character is. The fact is, TV Tyrion - however whitewashed his character is compared to the books - is already a murderer. Dany already pardoned his patricide. He's also betrayed her once, by urging she abstain from attacking KL with dragons for supposedly humanitarian reasons, which he already admitted to Cersei was a cover for protecting his sister - while getting his queen's people killed by needlessly prolonging the war. Dany doesn't know this, but with Bran, it's now knowable. Add to that something else (say, Tyrion engineering Jon's death as the necessary Nissa Nissa sacrifice instead of Dany, rather than leaving it in the hands of fate or allowing both of them the choice) and I don't think it would be 'ridiculously harsh' for the judges to reluctantly conclude it's just one too many crimes. Not to mention there's no Wall any more to send him to.

But in another sense, it would be just as limited and confining a role, as well as just as poor an ending, if Tyrion ended as saintly and faultless. IMO, the most compelling story would be one where a character - ANY character - is a imperfect one with well-drawn virtues and flaws, who does interesting - and perhaps WRONG things - for understandable reasons. IMO, a trial where Tyrion defends actions he's taken with bad outcomes for some but for the good of the many, with all the wit he's capable of, with his judges recognizing his points but reluctantly in the end deciding too much weighs against him and condemning him...that could be a great scene that Dinklage could rightly be proud of. (Myself, I still think he's going to convince Jon to be the Nissa Nissa sacrifice so Dany can survive, but that's just my theory). The possibility that really bugs me is that the GC gets to WF by ship before Jaime or Theon has time to warn them of Cersei's treachery, Tyrion talks people into letting them in because he thinks they're Cersei's promised reinforcements - and then is blamed for whatever attack they execute. The most annoying ending to me would be St Tyrion the Martyr getting one more coat of whitewash. If he's to be tried, let it be for a crime he really DID do, for a change.

I'm thinking the dragon ride will represent the peak of ideal romance between Jon and Dany...and it'll all be downhill from there, the morning after. Sansa's question to Jon (which apparently wasn't a possibility he'd considered) will make him wonder if he's idealizing her as Queen unduly. This will be underlined by the subsequent news of what she did to the Tarlys. THEN he gets the news that HE'S a Targaryen nephew of Dany's, and BTW he outranks her. Being Jon, he will try to keep that news quiet. But being Jon, he won't be able to keep from acting weird around Dany. She will already be on edge about her cold reception from the North, and will pick up Jon's unease with her and worry whether his compatriots are turning him against her. THEN the news gets out that Jon is actually rightful king of the IT (you know it will) and her suspicions will redouble. This will make the news of her pregnancy and the subsequent political marriage a much more angsty, harrowing affair than you'd expect. The showrunners think idyllic honeymoons are dull. It's angst all the way for them.

Thing with Bran is that his powers work in real time, as we've seen. If he wants to get information about Cersei's plans, he has to go into a trance and spend hours with his eyes rolled up watching Cersei drink to a stupor, call an audience of locals so she can sit on the Iron Throne and enjoy humbling them, gloat over what's left of the Shame Nun in the dungeon and MAYBE during that time mention something to Qyburn or Euron about her plans for WF. During that time he may miss important things happening in places he's not watching. If the Wall has just fallen and the NK is coming, I can totally see Bran blowing off the idea of stopping his surveillance of the NK just to spy on Cersei. Cersei is nothing to him, and the NK has personally attacked and traumatized him. IMO, he will be preoccupied with the danger the NK poses and underestimate the danger of Cersei, just as Sansa does the exact opposite because she had the opposite experience. Which leads me to wonder if the GC will go quickly North by Euron's ships, arrive quite openly at WF, saying they're the army Cersei sent...and once quartered in WF, they await the right moment (dragons sent for reconaissance, or the dead of night), set WF's granaries on fire, grab hostages and flee by ship. (They'd be vulnerable to dragons in retreat, but it's been hinted that Euron has some magic of his own). This could happen before Jaime (traveling slowly overland) can get there to warn then that Cersei is bent on double-crossing them, pregnancy or not.

Jon could have offered an alliance as one monarch to another - as equals. "I agree to aid you in the battle against Cersei if we all fight the NK and survive." Win-win for both sides - Westeros and the world lives on; Dany gains the trust of the North and their armed support to get the Iron Throne; the North keeps a little negotiating power for the hazy future if they all survive. It's nothing to sneeze at...IIRC, Dorne negotiated its ruler keep the title 'Prince' when no other abdicating king got that privilege. Yes, the North has less capacity for war - less power - than Dany with her army and dragons does. But a more powerful ruler agreeing to an alliance of equals would gain more trust than one subordinating the weaker one. But instead of an alliance of equals - as Jon could have chosen - he decided to subordinate himself and the North to Dany, without ever having explained to the North what she had done to earn his abdicating the crown they had given him at great risk to themselves and handing over their allegiance to a stranger Targaryen without ever explaining what she had done to earn that much. Yes, Dany could fry them all and the NK is coming, so the North needs her. But all the North knows of the NK is tales heard at second-hand from Jon. Even if they fully believed him - which it seems they do - they know that the NK has been safely locked behind the Wall for 8000 years. The Wall still stands as far as they know - all that would seem necessary is to bring the Night Watch back to full strength to man the defenses properly. Then - pretty much all at once - the North finds out about Jon having demoted himself to Warden of the North, and meets their new monarch of whom they know practically nothing except that she's the Mad King's daughter, she has some scary-ass dragons, a Lannister Queen's Hand and a ton of soldiers to be fed...AND on top of that new ruler Jon is declaring that Cersei Lannister is ALSO their ally, at least for now - and sending a Lannister army to WF to 'help.' THEN creepy Bran suddenly declares that the Wall has fallen and the NK is on his way...the fairy-tale doom is coming, along with the all-too-real Lannister army that has slaughtered so many Northerners already. Under the circumstances, I think that the North panicking and lashing out at Jon is perfectly understandable. The NK's not there - but in Jon they have a more convenient target to lash out at who's already accustomed them to speaking openly to him. Granted, it's not rational - but politics isn't always a rational pursuit. Just look at politics nowadays. Panicky crowds do hasty, ill-judged things. Grailking says this happens after the assembly, not during it. As a private question from family, I think it's an allowable question, not an accusation. It is not a crime to have one's reason clouded by love. It's a mistake anyone can make - and asking the question can cause one to reflect on whether it has actually happened or not when one might not have realized it on one's own.

That's your opinion. And since Dany doesn't have anything BUT the North right now, and isn't going to till the NK is defeated AND the Iron Throne taken (both of which are far from foregone conclusions) I'd say Sansa's motivations will be a lot more immediate than the far-off theoretical possibility that she'd get WF to rule herself if Dany DOES eventually win and goes to KL to rule with Jon. Securing the marriage alliance immediately is good for the North and a repayment for Jon's fealty that he hasn't demanded himself.

That can be totally true and still happen without Sansa trusting Jon - indeed, it may happen BECAUSE Sansa doesn't trust Jon. In this case the distrust can simply be that Sansa sees Jon as utterly besotted with Dany, hence too likely to give away too much power for too little return. So it might be part of that distrust for Sansa to push for a marriage between Dany and Jon, to make permanent an obligated Stark-Targaryen alliance that would keep the North first and closest among Dany's subjects. That way, just in case Dany gets tired of Jon one day as a lover and wants to set him and the North aside as of lesser importance than new lovers and/or provinces, she won't be able to.

Speaking strictly for myself, IIRC, I've said every time that I brought up Cersei taking hostages that another goal of the same expedition would be to fire the granaries, destroying winter stores. I never said that Cersei's motive would be ONLY to take Sansa hostage. Sending the GC to make a frontal assault against a couple of armies and two dragons is suicide. Sending them in a guerrilla-style strike-and-flee, though? Totally doable. That strategy's already worked against Dany once in a different city across the Narrow Sea. And taking hostages is a natural tactic of such guerrilla strikes.

IIRC, that was a last-ditch Plan B - an 'if all else fails, your family has a place at WF crowded among homeless refugees,' reassurance. I don't think Sansa was delineating a military strategy of having everyone north of WF evacuate and move in to WF, letting their homes be sacked by the NK while Jon sits idly waiting while jamming half his population into the fort. Sansa is specifically NOT a military strategist, so I don't think she was speaking for Jon about military strategy in dealing with the NK.

Running away? Running away sounds good, too.

Setting their granaries on fire would starve the North, certainly. Knockout, though? How would the GC deal a knockout blow to an army plus dragons? Setting WF's stores afire won't kill the dragons, or the bulk of the army. If Jon and Dany's armies have no food to subsist in WF till spring, their only course is to go back down South - to KL. A hostage serves Cersei as insurance against a dragon attack on KL. That's long-term thinking.

Why would they, though? Can't see mercenaries suddenly willing to turn their coats (thus showing future clients they're unreliable) and fight for the side that has no money, just because It's the Right Thing to Do.

It has to make at least some sense from the point of view of the Golden Company, as well, or else you'd wonder why a force of mercenaries is agreeing to kamikaze themselves at WF, no matter how much money they're being paid. That's the thing, though. The Golden Company besieging WF in the middle of winter, in a country already devastated by war (hence not much food for an invading army to scavenge)? Futile. Besieging while an army and a set of dragons are within a few days' march when called by ravens to relieve the siege before the people inside can even start getting hungry? Suicide. I can't see the GC agreeing to a siege. Not to mention, even if the dragons didn't exist and it wasn't winter, a siege is a long-term, open-ended operation. I doubt Cersei has enough money to pay for so long a period in advance. I really don't think that when Cersei said she was 'taking back what was ours' with the GC, that she meant to take and keep WF. That's a losing proposition, with both dragons and winter to contend with. So what else is there to 'take' that was hers before? IMO, a certain useful hostage - a fortunately portable commodity.

That could be true whether the GC merely makes an unexpected attack on WF (as you posit) or if they make an unexpected attack on WF that burns food supplies, grabs hostage(s), delivers them by ship at KL and drops out of the plot thereafter. If Dany is in residence with dragon and armies at WF when the Golden Company arrives, a frontal attack, from the point of view of a mere group of mercenaries, would be suicide. Ergo, they probably mean to do something more covert, and IMO the only way they could see the possibility of a clean getaway from such an attack is attacking when the armies and dragons are not home. Cersei knew the armies are heading north - the GC would know it too.

If Jon and Dany go north, they'd have to go relatively slowly to allow their armies to follow. The GC could attack once they've gone a few days. I envision a hit-and-run raid where the GC attacks a lightly manned WF, invade quickly, set granaries on fire, grab whatever easily portable thing that isn't nailed down (including hostages) and leave fast, before Jon and Dany get wind of what's happened and turn back. No money Cersei could pay mercenaries could induce them to try and hold WF when winter is setting in and dragons might return in a hurry. Not that I'm aware of. But what else can the GC do that's of plot importance?

Maybe this is the point that Brienne decides to put into effect her new doctrine "fuck loyalty?" If Jon, Dany et al get together a military expedition northward to confront the NK (with Jaime probably going along, to boot) I can totally imagine Brienne requesting permission of Sansa to go to that all-important battle, and Sansa granting it.

There's a whole lot of Northern territory between Winterfell and the Wall, with several settlements that are under Winterfell jurisdiction and therefore Jon's responsibility. Imagining that Jon, Dany and company make their first stand against the NK at WF requires us to imagine they stood idly waiting at Winterfell after Bran told them of the Wall falling, and made no attempt to rescue any of the surviving Nightwatch or any of the Northern strongholds that would fall to the Night King on his way. I don't think that's in character for Jon. He'd want to take the dragons and bring the battle to the NK before too many of his subjects fall victim, and I think Dany would follow suit. And taking the bulk of their army North would leave the GC their opening to attack WF when it's not well manned, to carry out whatever mission Cersei gave them - IMO, it would be snatching up a few important hostages (like Sansa) and setting fire to their grain storage before retreating to KL. Such an attack would leave WF still standing, but useless as a refuge for a long-term siege - hence suitable for burning in a climactic battle such as in the trailer.

I suppose when Bran announces that the Wall has fallen, Dany and Jon will march with their forces northward to meet the NK, which is when the Golden Company will attack Winterfell.

I think we have to take any actor's pronouncement that no one guessed the ending with a grain of salt. If any actor HAD guessed the ending (and thus showed that the story was predictable in some way) they would be strictly forbidden from publicly saying so.