SeanC

That's the thing, the people associated with the show say he wasn't manipulating her. Book Sansa has learned much faster than the show version, at this point (particularly in King's Landing, where the show excised most of her character development and she just sat around doing nothing).

I would agree with you if you look at what transpired rationally, but everyone associated with the show has claimed she did have a choice, and Aidan Gillen actually said he thought that if Sansa had said no Baelish would have let that stand.

Regarding the theory that the writers' take on Stannis was influenced by their knowing how this ends, I think the earliest they could have learned about this was between seasons 2 and 3, because Shireen wasn't in the second season and Bryan Cogman outright explained this (and the ambiguous dialogue between Stannis and Mel regarding children) by stating that the writers didn't know whether they were going to have Shireen on the show. If they knew from the beginning about this, it seems unlikely there would ever have been a question about her being present.

I expect there will be some sort of plan revealed (whether in the finale or next season), but that won't fix most of the problems with the plot until now.

The writers themselves stated that they didn't consider Tywin a villain, because they didn't consider him malicious and that you needed to be brutal to run Westeros (basically, he made the trains run on time). I wouldn't call that "a much better job", per se. GRRM's Tywin is not in complete control of the world. He's impressive, no doubt, but he ultimately wins the war because of two things that had nothing to do with him (Mel assassinating Renly and Littlefinger keeping the Vale out of the war). Had either of those things gone against him, he was toast. The TV show at times plays it like Tywin was always going to win purely because he's so ruthless (even though his ultimate victory in the show is also because of things that had nothing to do with him). That problem, for me, applies doubly to Mel. This is literally the biggest sacrifice she could urge Stannis to make; why is she so eager to have him do it before the White Walkers even show up?

I think there is definitely some of that, but Shireen being burned is not really a surprise to a lot of fans -- it's been a common fan theory since ADWD came out. What is at issue is Stannis' role in it.

I really don't buy that. Their take on Stannis has been different from the very beginning. He really only started to act more like the book version this season, and even that was in retrospect just to make his swerve to burning Shireen look worse. Unrelatedly, I'm wondering if the show isn't setting up Davos to get some version of his book story now. He's headed to the Wall, and I strongly suspect that the point of Sansa being told that Jon is Lord Commander now is in order to motivate her to go there after escaping Winterfell, newly-armed with the information that her brothers are alive. Once she's in a place to regroup (though she'll probably arrive to find Jon dead), looking for them would be an obvious item on her agenda (though I expect she'll also have to deal with Littlefinger's impending arrival), and Davos is assuredly done with Stannis at this point when he finds out, so he'd be a broken man in need of something to do.

I don't think it has anything to do with the actor. I've found him pretty good in his dialogue scenes; but most of the time he's being given only a single note to play ("glower at Jon"), and there's not much an actor can do with that. It's repetitive, and not terribly informative.

Book Selyse loves Shireen and is very insistent on her rights and status, unlike the show version.

Sansa has a ton of story left to tell. Indeed, the writers have been introducing new stuff in her most recent appearances, such as finding out about her brothers. I can't see any reason to think she's going to die.

That quote has circulated a lot, but I don't know that I've ever seen the original source for it. In any event, Trant is clearly dying.

Not a chance.

The daughter is inexcusable, but the brother was trying to kill him.

The Dornish plot is just a trainwreck at this point, and in this episode it felt like Ellaria's scenes were completely out of order. First, why is she not under arrest in the opening scene? And she acts like a snarky bitch, strolling away; then next she's teary and contrite, and even sympathizing with Jaime? And Doran is sending his only heir to King's Landing, not only giving up his hostage (Myrcella) but giving the Lannisters a Martell one? It would be one thing if there was some indication of a greater plan here, but the Dornish scenes without Jaime really don't suggest that. Also, due to the changes, Dany basically just abandoned her supporting cast to their seeming deaths.

(a) She does not know about that. (b) She does not have anywhere else to go.

Neither the show nor the books has really clarified this point, but I don't think Sansa and Theon have king's blood in the context that Stannis and Mel would need. According to them, Stannis is the one true king of Westeros -- so Theon being Balon's son wouldn't matter, because Balon isn't a king, as far as they're concerned. Sure, he's descended from some of the old Kings of the Iron Islands (as Sansa is from the old Kings of Winter), but if that counts, pretty much any noble in Westeros would have king's blood.

From the trailers, the assault on Stannis' camp is next week. I think Ramsay does whatever he's going there to do, and then goes back to Winterfell (because Sansa and Theon's escape requires him to be around for dramatic tension).

We know Stannis is alive in episode 10, from the blurb, so Ramsay evidently doesn't kill him.

There's no chance that Ramsay dies on this mission. That would completely remove any tension from Sansa and Theon's story. He will make it back to the castle for that reason. Ever since the Bolton characters entered the same plot two seasons ago, Ramsay has been clearly identified as the more prominent character. There's been only one Roose scene in the last two seasons where Ramsay was not present (with Littlefinger in episode 503), whereas there are numerous Ramsay scenes without Roose. Ramsay is the only villain that the heroic characters have any established dynamics with. And he's needed to write the Pink Letter, which I think is most likely in. If Roose dies, it will be because Sansa prods Ramsay into doing it (though given the amount of time left, I'm not convinced that the whole idea of her using Ramsay's insecurity about his inheritance against him is actually going to come to anything). That's exactly why I think people who assume she's now against Littlefinger are wrong: because she should be able to trap him easily if she wanted to, and Littlefinger isn't going anywhere for a while.

This is the fourth straight season where the Tyrells start out the year as a big deal and then fade into the background by the latter half.

I believe GRRM was asked about this and said that Ned would have. He would have had to promise to do so as a condition of establishing the hostage-situation to begin with.

I think it's implied that Dany's own men also use torture to secure information (they certainly did in the books, with her explicit authorization). It's a commonly-accepted practice in this world (and in the Middle Ages).

There's been nothing indicating that, and seeing as I think the Pink Letter is probably in, it's unlikely. If any Bolton is going to die this year (and that's a big if), it will be Roose.

I think there are two possible explanations: (1) Since the explanation is almost universally considered underwhelming, and delivered way past the point when people are thinking about it, they decided not to bother with it. (2) They decided to make Littlefinger responsible instead (a common fix-it by fans who didn't like the book explanation), and will reveal that at some later date.