S06.E10: The Winds of Winter

[mac123x]

1 hour ago, InsertWordHere said:

The Trial by Fire.

Aww, come on, no love for "Septocalypse"?  It's pithy!  It's a portmanteau!  It's a pithy portmanteau!

Septageddon?  Conflaseptagration?

OK, I'll shut up now.

Edited June 29, 2016 by mac123x

[slf]

17 hours ago, taurusrose said:

I disagree with your POV.  IIRC, Lyanna Mormont's mother fought with Robb Stark and if I'm mistaken that it was the Little Lady's mother, I'm not mistaken in the fact that at least one woman from a noble house did.  I know that Jon let his emotions run away with him during the battle.  Foolish or not, Jon will always fight for those he loves, so I understand why he lost it when Rickon was killed right in front of him.  But none of that excuses Sansa from withholding vital information.  Talking to me about her pure bloodline, changes nothing.  It entitles her to nothing. Sansa was raised to be a noblewoman, not to lead the houses of the North.  Be outraged for people ignoring her all you want, but nothing in Sansa's upbringing prepared her to be anything other than someone's lady or someone's queen.  Her developed skillset is needlepoint, singing and scheming to save her ass primarily. She is no Dany.  She is no Yara.  Hell, she isn't even Lyanna Mormont, so the North choosing her for anything at this point would be ridiculous beyond reason.  

Well, Robb was raised to lead the House and he ultimately lost everything because he failed to understand politics, same as Ned. As Queen, Sansa would have a Hand and small Council (most likely). Jon could have been selected as Hand of the Queen and placed in charge of the military (for which is he is much better suited despite, as so much of the fandom seems to be forgetting, his massive screwups). The North is not left vulnerable with her as Queen.

And yet again, someone condemns Sansa for a lack of experience shared with Lyanna Mormont, who everyone's praising because she's got attitude. Who cares about Lyanna's mother? Does Lyanna Mormont have any experience on the field? I'm pretty sure she doesn't. If Sansa, due to her lack of experience, can't make good judgements w/r/t the military then I failed to see how the equally inexperienced Lyanna can make good judgements regarding the same.

Do people remember that Jon was stabbed to death by his own men? Which he didn't deserve but he did very much create the situation that led to it. He doesn't have a flawless history as a leader, politically and militaristically.

[Raachel2008]

4 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

As for battle strategy and self defense training, if Sansa inherited any of the physical talents that it seemed that all Starks possess, she probably could pick it up with enough training in a short amount of time

I'm sorry? There are no 'physical talents' the way you speak; Robb and Jon were preperly figth trained since childhood, Arya was 'training' with a sword when she as a kid, had lessons with Sirio and years of experience after leaving King's Landing in order to be able to kill the Waif,  Bran was already being taught archery and stuff, and it woudn't surprise me if Rickon was playing with wood swords when we were not watching. Sansa never learned anything remotely similar, she wouldn't be able to hold a sword like Longclaw or the Oathkeeper for more than 15 minutes - she wasn't physically strong enough to keep walking when chased but Ramsay dogs and men, something Theon could in spite of all the violence he sufered. As for battle strategy, it is also a learned skill - and even so it means nothing if you don't listen to your advisors (Robb killing Kastark), allows emotion to get the better of you (Jon) or fail protecting your food supplies before a battle (Stannis, who was an accomplished military man). 

What you are suggesting is that Sansa if  starts playing tennis right now in a couple of months she will be qualifying for a professional tournament. That is just absurd. Had Sansa been crowned Queen in the North, she would still have to rely heavily on Jon, Brienne and whoever else she choses, except she doesn't really trust anyone (see, Valle Army) and Jon would still be the one calling the shots about the incoming battle with the White Walkers. To say that Sansa would equal Jon in self-defense/battle strategy/warfare in a short amount of time or whatever amount of time they have until the Walkers come is really pushing it, and it is the same to say that in a short amount of time Jon could develop Sansa's  skills ('two weeks in King's Landing and I will pick up politics like my sister') so it is not a real problem not having them them now. This is exactly why he needs Sansa as his advisor, assuming she trusts her brother while advising him: fine skills requires time; maybe in ten years both Jon and Sansa will be better at the skills they lack now. 

It is just pointless to claim that in the near future Sansa could fullfill those areas where Jon is better than her  and because of that become a better suited ruler of the Nortth and vice-versa. Sansa's claim on the North is her birthright and that counted to nothing when the lords decided Jon having Ned Stark blood was enough for them. It sucks to be Sansa and proper writing could have made the whole thing clearer and still have the same result.

 

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Well if THAT doesn't make Jaime fundamentally question his devotion to Cersei, nothing will.

Jamie is valonqar and he is going to kill Cersei, not Arya or Tyrion, I'm sure of that.

3 hours ago, mac123x said:

The downside is you don't get the "yay! girlllpower!" theme they seem to have been running with this season.

Their Gilr!Power! failed big time with Dorne. I like your ideas better.

4 hours ago, jjjmoss said:

Well, according to an interview she wanted Margaery to die last season so she could book more movie jobs. So she's certainly not heartbroken.

I got the impression that she was never as invested in GoT as some other actors who see to regard being part of the show as the experience of a lifetime. I read some of her interviews in the past and I think she was never quite comfortable with the idea of a full grown up woman bedding young teen like Tommen. I could be wrong, though. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Raachel2008

[lmsweb]

In the books, Lyanna Mormont is the youngest daughter of Maege Mormont. The Mormont women are raised being taught to fight alongside the men. In fact, one of Lyanna's older sisters is Darcy Mormont, who in the books is 6 feet tall and is sort of like Brienne only more attractive. In the books she is killed at the Red Wedding. Another sister in the books is actually still outside Winterfell with Stannis' army guarding Asha Guardjoy. Lyanna has also been raised by a warrior-woman Head of House Mormont. I think it's fair to say that yes, Lyanna is more qualified x 10 to know about fighting and battles and wartime and how to command men than Sansa is.

And Jon's reputation as a bad ass fighter was even cited by Ramsay when Jon wanted them to settle things just between the two of them.

I'm all for the whole "sisters are doing it for themselves" thing, but for the battle that is to come, there is no contest here. The North needs to be united under and fighting with a man leading them who is a Warrior. Sansa can still do the quieter, more elegant politicking as the Lady of Winterfell.

[TaurusRose]

7 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Ned and Cat seemed to infuse all of his their children with honor and duty. It seemed that Sansa was starting to tap into the forcefulness that is required to be a leader when she first started presenting the idea that they should take back the Stark ancestral home. And considering the law of the land and thinking that an average lord wouldn't believe in resurrection magic, wouldn't they be a little disturbed that Jon abandoned his post, considering it should be death sentence to do so. . As for battle strategy and self defense training, if Sansa inherited any of the physical talents that it seemed that all Starks possess, she probably could pick it up with enough training in a short amount of time and she comes across as a fast learner. 

If Dany, who was raised with even less, can conquer cities, Sansa should be able to rule the North.

I sensed that once Sansa got to The Wall and felt safe with Jon, she began feeling stronger and more confident; thus, her strongest desire was to kick Ramsay's ass out of Winterfell and she said as much.  However, she didn't have a plan.  Her plan was for Jon to do the heavy lifting and (he having just recently been resurrected) wasn't keen to fight another battle.  During the first roundtable, her strongest contribution was the "North remembers" and the other houses would "rally round the Stark banner."  Davos correctly pointed out that the larger Northern houses had already suffered tremendously under Robb's leadership and the Red Wedding was still a sore spot.  Once Jon & Sansa went on their "come and help" tour, that point was driven home in spades. Sansa's reminder to the Lord of House Glover that he was sworn to answer House Stark's call was pretty much met with contempt.  Thus, Sansa began doing the math and telling Jon what he already knew, they didn't have enough men.  Jon's position was they had to take the fight to Bolton now because he didn't want the weather to turn against them as it had with Stannis's army.  Davos said they stood a chance if they were careful and smart, but everyone knew that chance of victory was a long shot.  Now, back to Sansa and her secret Vale knowledge.  With everything that was at stake, when she knew the scale was lop-sided, why didn't she tell Jon she'd sent for the Vale's army (instead of suggesting ravens to another northern house that would tell her the same thing Glover did)?  Why did she lie about her meeting with Littlefinger?  She was too busy being secretive and throwing shade at Jon for listening to Davos instead of her vague pleas.  Do you think the North would think kinder of her if they knew that she had withheld information vital to winning a major battle?  Loyalty and sacrifice is something people expect from their leaders. When did Sansa exhibit these traits?  What physical talents has Sansa displayed?  What leadership experience does she have?  Talking about Dany's situation and Sansa's is talking apples and oranges.  Other than being female, I don't think they have a lot in common.  I suspect it would take some time (years, maybe) to become skilled in strategy and swordsmanship; I suspect practice and actual application play a huge role in competency.  For the sake of argument, say that Sansa is a quick study.  There still isn't time for her to acquire the skills needed to wind up on a battlefield and live.  As to your comment that Jon abandoned his post, (1) Jon told Ed not to knock the wall down in his absence, which leads me to believe he planned on returning, but if he did not (2) he died in service to the NW, so technically, he has met his obligation there.  Whether or not the average lord would be disturbed by Jon's resurrection is a topic for another discussion.

Edited June 30, 2016 by taurusrose

[slf]

23 minutes ago, lmsweb said:

In the books, Lyanna Mormont is the youngest daughter of Maege Mormont. The Mormont women are raised being taught to fight alongside the men. In fact, one of Lyanna's older sisters is Darcy Mormont, who in the books is 6 feet tall and is sort of like Brienne only more attractive. In the books she is killed at the Red Wedding. Another sister in the books is actually still outside Winterfell with Stannis' army guarding Asha Guardjoy. Lyanna has also been raised by a warrior-woman Head of House Mormont. I think it's fair to say that yes, Lyanna is more qualified x 10 to know about fighting and battles and wartime and how to command men than Sansa is.

Youngest and so least experienced. Lyanna Mormont is not a battle-experienced leader. She has no experience. Her understanding is theoretical. And on what grounds is Lyanna making this judgement? She's not, perchance, making this endorsement as a Lady of House Mormont- a title she can only claim as a legitimate daughter of House Mormont? It's hypocrisy. Surely there are more experienced men or women of Bear Island than Lyanna Mormont, since that's apparently what matters?

Seriously. Is the North creating a democracy or are all the Lords still keeping monarchy so they can claim power and land without having to prove they're qualified for it? This...isn't monarchy. It isn't democracy either. It's a coup.

Jon was a Stark in everything but name before. In every way that matters he was the son of Ned Stark, the man who died defending the throne from illegitimate usurpers. But to usurp his own sister? Now he's just a Stark in name.

[VCRTracking]

My first thought in the Davos scene was "Nice catch!" Melisandre has good reflexes for a woman hundreds of years old. If that was me I would have awkwardly juggling Shireen's toy for a few seconds before it fell to the ground.

Edited June 29, 2016 by VCRTracking

[TaurusRose]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Well, Robb was raised to lead the House and he ultimately lost everything because he failed to understand politics, same as Ned. As Queen, Sansa would have a Hand and small Council (most likely). Jon could have been selected as Hand of the Queen and placed in charge of the military (for which is he is much better suited despite, as so much of the fandom seems to be forgetting, his massive screwups). The North is not left vulnerable with her as Queen.

And yet again, someone condemns Sansa for a lack of experience shared with Lyanna Mormont, who everyone's praising because she's got attitude. Who cares about Lyanna's mother? Does Lyanna Mormont have any experience on the field? I'm pretty sure she doesn't. If Sansa, due to her lack of experience, can't make good judgements w/r/t the military then I failed to see how the equally inexperienced Lyanna can make good judgements regarding the same.

Do people remember that Jon was stabbed to death by his own men? Which he didn't deserve but he did very much create the situation that led to it. He doesn't have a flawless history as a leader, politically and militaristically.

Maybe I'm forgetting something here.  Please give examples of Jon's massive screw-ups.  I don't recall any.  Not sure why you keep trying to compare Sansa to Lyanna Mormont.  It's quite apparent that LM has been raised to lead and has maesters to advise her.  But more importantly, we haven't been shown one person who doesn't take her seriously and that's good enough for me.   Damn skippy we remember Jon was stabbed by some of his own men.  But.  It's not Jon's shortcoming that some men could not look past their personal sense of entitlement, jealousy and/or grief to see the big picture.  Jon was absolutely right to bring the Wildlings inside the Wall.  Jon fought the battle of Hardhome and knows they've got bigger concerns than the petty squabbles consuming everybody right now.  He doesn't have to be flawless, he has to keep doing what he's doing and preparing people to fight an enemy that threatens every man, woman and child in Westeros. 

[TaurusRose]

5 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I've been thinking of the sept explosion as The Big Green Boom.

As for who should be the leader and whether Jon being proclaimed King in the North was earned, I think he's about the only person truly suited to leading this particular fight at this particular time, and that proclamation followed his mention of what the true fight is that's coming. If you think of a Venn diagram, Jon's at the center. The acclaim of the Northern lords may have been the least earned, based as it was on the success of a battle he didn't really win, a blood connection that we now know isn't what they think it is, and a guilt trip by a little girl, but there's not really anyone else who's really up to leading the Northern lords. In peacetime, if they were just gearing up for a long winter, Sansa would be awesome at it, but her sending a letter to a man she knows is crushing on her doesn't qualify her to lead the armies of the North against the White Walkers. None of the other Northern lords qualify, since they failed in the call to action, other than Lady Mormont, and as awesome as she is, I don't think anyone would put her in charge right now. So in that circle of the Venn diagram, we have Jon and maybe Sansa. Then there's leading the Wildlings, who are going to be an integral part of the fight against the White Walkers. Jon has lived among them and knows how they work, and they're loyal to him because he's put himself on the line for them. I don't think they'd follow any of the other Northerners, including Sansa. They fought in the battle for Winterfell solely because of Jon. In that circle, there's Jon, Tormund, and maybe some of the other Wildling leaders. Then there's the Night's Watch -- they're going to have to work together on this, as this fight will likely involve the cooperation of the Watch as the Northern and Wildling armies have to man the Wall and the castles on the Wall. Now that the murderers are executed and Jon's friend Edd is in charge, Jon's probably the one most likely to be able to work with the Watch and maybe even lead a combined army that includes the Watch, with the Watch under his command (not as Lord Commander, but as King in the North). I can't think that Sansa or any other potential candidate could fit into that circle of the diagram. There aren't a lot of candidates for leader who've actually fought against White Walkers, but Jon fits in there, and he's killed one. Jon is the intersection of all the circles in the diagram, and then there are intangibles, like the fact that his legend is likely to grow, with stuff like dying and being raised from the dead and him facing down and killing a White Walker.

It would be silly and petty for Sansa to get into a snit about not being chosen to be Queen to lead them in what they're really up against. Since the title of King in the North has been long defunct, it's not really about blood lines anymore. It's about who they want to lead them in the current crisis.

Sorry for the back to back posts.  But...

All of this.  

Edited June 29, 2016 by taurusrose

[MarySNJ]

5 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

There is a long ranting about genetics ready to be made by someone who can explain science, Bb, BB and all that better than me, but in the books it is a main point that Jon looks more like a Stark than some of his siblings, and that was one of the reasons nobody ever doubted he was Ned's son. Also noted that Ned and Lyanna both had dark hair and that Sansa, Bran and Rickon were all Tully in their coloring. I'm pretty sure there was a mention of Sansa asking Catelyn if Arya was a bastard too since she looked like Jon, but I don't remember if was something Arya herself thought - details are a little fuzzy, I can't even remember if it was on the show too. Anyway, it was established that Jon and Arya looked alike, that Jon looked like Ned/Starks and that Ned and Lyanna had the same coloring. In the show I think their main concern was finding the right people to play the characters, thus having dark haired Isaas Hempstead Wright playing auburn haired book Bran.

As for the Targaryen, they are not all white/silver haired people. Rhaegar's children with Elia from Dorne were dark haired.

"The seed is strong, Robert has dark hair, Baratheon are dark haired people, Robert will never have children who are not dark haired" has been an endless debate in fandom for a long time, because as unlikely as it is, it is not impossible that the Lannister 'seed' was strong too,  thus producing three blond kids. In the books it is stressed that all Robert's 16 bastards have dark hair, even the ones with blonde mothers. There is a few holes in the whole plot, Tyrion, who has always known the truth about his nephews, says that all Cersei needed was one children with Robert. In the books she aborts said child, in the series that dark haired child died right after of birth, or was sitllborn. So, in the books it makes a bit more sense, sicne she never 'produced' a dark haired child, but in the series she has and that was known, thus it wouldn't be absurd to think that Baraethon's blood prevailed with the first child, and Lannister's with the others. 

It is all messy and questionable, but I guess GRRM's motto is 'if you guys believe in dragons and people walking through fire and white walkers, you better believe that my genetics lessons are perfect'.

Also, let's not forget that the show missed it big time when they cast Shireen Baraethon with light brown hair.

Yeah, I think the casting confuses things that are pertinent in the books, as some of their looks don't necessarily follow book descriptions - except for Lannisters and Targaryens. And even then the male Lannisters aren't all as blond as described in the books. Peter Dinklage's hair was much blonder in season one and is brown now. TV-Robert wasn't "black of hair", nor was TV Renly, Stannis or Shireen despite all the talk about the "seed is strong". TV Gendry has dark brown hair like the male Baratheons on the show, but is not black of hair.

On the other hand, some show-only fans assumed that Jon was Robert's bastard because Kit Harington has black hair, based on the dialog. IIRC, some theorized that Meera Reed was Jon's twin, presumably because Ellie Kendrick has curly dark hair and brown eyes.

Anyway, I think they got it right in casting black-haired Aisling Franciosi as adult Lyanna Stark. She has rounder face, somewhat like Maisie's and they vaguely resemble each other, as well as Kit Harington. At least they got that part right.  

I think it's been demonstrated on the show that Targaryen traits are recessive...or however it works on Planetos (maybe it's magic), but in season 2 Daenerys sees a vision in the House of the Undying of Drogo and Rhaego, and Rhaego is a dark haired infant, so there is definitely a precedent although blink and you'll miss it. 

[stagmania]

I don't really see how one can claim that Jon "usurped" Sansa, given that he basically told her Winterfell was hers, she was sitting right next to him when the call to name him KitN came (from the people they need to support them, not from Jon), he looked to her for approval as it happened, and she went along with absolutely no protest and even seemed pleased. If one really wants to argue that Sansa should be ruler of the North at this point in the story (a huge stretch that willfully ignores a lot of important context, IMO), that's one thing; trying to frame it as Jon actively betraying her just doesn't hold up.

[Shanna Marie]

3 hours ago, mac123x said:

Aww, come on, no love for "Septocalypse"?

That one gets my vote. I like it even better than my submission of "Big Green Boom."

1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

Now, back to Sansa and her secret Vale knowledge.  With everything that was at stake, when she knew the scale was lop-sided, why didn't she tell Jon she'd sent for the Vale's army (instead of suggesting ravens to another northern house that would tell her the same thing Glover did)?  Why did she lie about her meeting with Littlefinger?

Really, I think her failure isn't so much in not telling Jon that the Vale army might be on the way, but in not telling him from the beginning that the Vale army was a possibility and not letting him decide whether to accept or reject them. That could have changed a lot of things. If they'd been able to say that they had the Wildlings plus the Vale when they went around to the Northern lords seeking help, that might have tilted the balance and made them more willing to commit. It sounded like the fact that their forces looked too weak to win had a lot to do with their unwillingness to get involved. Having a bigger army to begin with might have helped them amass an even bigger army. The Northern lords come across as bandwagon jumpers -- they want to ally themselves with a winning cause and didn't want to risk everything on a cause that didn't stand a chance of winning.

[Raachel2008]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Jon was a Stark in everything but name before. In every way that matters he was the son of Ned Stark, the man who died defending the throne from illegitimate usurpers. But to usurp his own sister? Now he's just a Stark in name.

Please. Jon is as much as Stark as  Arya, Sansa and Bran, which is the whole point of Jon Snow's story.

Also, let's stop with this 'he is usurping his sister' nonsense. Things could have been better written, but that was never on screen. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Raachel2008

[Cosmosgravitation]

20 minutes ago, Shanna Marie said:

Really, I think her failure isn't so much in not telling Jon that the Vale army might be on the way, but in not telling him from the beginning that the Vale army was a possibility and not letting him decide whether to accept or reject them. That could have changed a lot of things. If they'd been able to say that they had the Wildlings plus the Vale when they went around to the Northern lords seeking help, that might have tilted the balance and made them more willing to commit. It sounded like the fact that their forces looked too weak to win had a lot to do with their unwillingness to get involved. Having a bigger army to begin with might have helped them amass an even bigger army. The Northern lords come across as bandwagon jumpers -- they want to ally themselves with a winning cause and didn't want to risk everything on a cause that didn't stand a chance of winning.

Yes, and if they had a big enough army they might have been able to negotiate Rickon's release in exchange for Ramsay getting to live and join the Night's Watch or being exiled.  I am certain Jon would have made that trade, not sure about Sansa.  

At the very least it would have saved a lot of wildling lives if it came to a battle.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Cosmosgravitation

[AliShibaz]

14 hours ago, Oscirus said:

Why were the children so willing to kill Pycelle?  Are we just supposed to ascribe it to the fact that they are feral, or was there a nasty implication of abuse there?

I will take a guess. My guess would be that like most adults (awa older adults in KL), Pycelle was a self-absorbed POS who cared very little for anyone other than himself. As a result, most of the children would not care beans about him. Witness his cheating that poor girl out of some moolah. Can you imagine what it would be like to blow that old smelly CSer and then get stiffed? Not good.

I have found that many times when an opportunity arises to take out my frustrations and anger on a sonomabich, it is always a pleasure to do so - regardless of who they are or just how guilty they may be. I find that if I just close my eyes and think a pleasant thought (such as ... "Ahhh .... Fuck 'em!), things tend to work out just swell!

As I said earlier .... it's just a guess.  However .... Pycelle would be very close to the top of my list of old fuckers with whom I could take out some revenge. How's about you? How close would he be to the top of your revenge list?

[Ailianna]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 11:33 AM, Funzlerks said:

Just because you are a woman and because you have been tossed around from abuser to abuser, you are completely forgotten even when you are sitting right there next to the king.  

You mean like Cersei?  That's been a lot of her frustration and anger; that her gender has controlled her destiny, including who she married, who she had to have sex with (although she did stretch that list out a tad), and where she could go or what she could do.

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 4:00 PM, stillshimpy said:

I think Tommen understood that Cersei was behind the bombing, because his mother's bodyguard blocking him from going would sort of tip that hand.  [snip]

I agree that scene wasn't really earned in this episode because -- and this is no fault of the young actor, he was punching way above his weight in terms of emotional knowledge and understaning he'd need to convey with no dialogue to help him -- the performance was a bit vacant, because that's too much for a 16-year-old actor to bring to emotional life without a word, "My everything, my life, my faith, my kingdom and all I've got left is my mother....who I was going to allow to die and she knows it....is gone.  Bereft, abandoned and entirely alone, I've come to the end of me" would be a steep hill for an adult, trained actor to hike.  Kid couldn't do it and I completely get why.  

I actually thought the actor did a good job in showing the complete void that Tommen's life just became.  He was vacant and wooden, because I imagine that's exactly how Tommen would feel.  Then he very deliberately took off the crown and set it aside (not a metaphor in this case), and very deliberately stepped up into the window, and very deliberately stepped out the window.  I actually really liked the vacancy because I think in that moment life had vacated Tommen before his body realized it.

[Knuckles]

On a rewatch, just a couple of small things. Of course, Edmure is back in the cells, and Jaime Lannister's lie about his having a baby was just that...a lie.

If Edmure hadn't believed Jaime, the Blackfish could have withstood a siege for 2 years, nicely tying up Lannister forces...and Jaime would have missed his sister's coronation. I guess he deduced that Tommen was dead...but he looked as if mourning his last living son was not his priority.

I don't think there's any question that Sansa objects to Jon being KiTN, her concerns center around Littlefinger. As she surmised that Ramsay would pull a sadistic stunt to drive Jon off his battle plan, she also knows that Littlefinger is an entirely ruthless opponent, who kills easily. She was a witness to two of his murders...Dontos and Lysa...both offed after they had served his purpose. Her strength is that she knows Littlefinger, and how dangerous he is. Jon has battlefield experience, most especially with the NK at Hardhome, but his political skills are undergirded by decency and trust...Sansa is far beyond that, she knows power politics, and how truly vicious the players can be.

And the music...just wonderful, especially for the scenes in KIng's Landing. 

And hooray for Michele Clapton...especially Cerise's battle/coronation dress. 

And with worthless Walder finally dead, and his two heirs, who inherits the Twins. None of his army of off-spring seem intelligent or even clean...with any luck, the Frey litter might start fighting amongst each other...would be nice to see House Frey go down in flames.

[forum4idiots]

12 minutes ago, Knuckles said:

On a rewatch, just a couple of small things. Of course, Edmure is back in the cells, and Jaime Lannister's lie about his having a baby was just that...a lie.

If Edmure hadn't believed Jaime, the Blackfish could have withstood a siege for 2 years, nicely tying up Lannister forces...and Jaime would have missed his sister's coronation. I guess he deduced that Tommen was dead...but he looked as if mourning his last living son was not his priority.

I don't think there's any question that Sansa objects to Jon being KiTN, her concerns center around Littlefinger. As she surmised that Ramsay would pull a sadistic stunt to drive Jon off his battle plan, she also knows that Littlefinger is an entirely ruthless opponent, who kills easily. She was a witness to two of his murders...Dontos and Lysa...both offed after they had served his purpose. Her strength is that she knows Littlefinger, and how dangerous he is. Jon has battlefield experience, most especially with the NK at Hardhome, but his political skills are undergirded by decency and trust...Sansa is far beyond that, she knows power politics, and how truly vicious the players can be.

And the music...just wonderful, especially for the scenes in KIng's Landing. 

And hooray for Michele Clapton...especially Cerise's battle/coronation dress. 

And with worthless Walder finally dead, and his two heirs, who inherits the Twins. None of his army of off-spring seem intelligent or even clean...with any luck, the Frey litter might start fighting amongst each other...would be nice to see House Frey go down in flames.

i do have to say, cersie's wardrobe this week was stunning.

[Ambrosefolly]

4 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

I'm sorry? There are no 'physical talents' the way you speak; Robb and Jon were preperly figth trained since childhood, Arya was 'training' with a sword when she as a kid, had lessons with Sirio and years of experience after leaving King's Landing in order to be able to kill the Waif,  Bran was already being taught archery and stuff, and it woudn't surprise me if Rickon was playing with wood swords when we were not watching. Sansa never learned anything remotely similar, she wouldn't be able to hold a sword like Longclaw or the Oathkeeper for more than 15 minutes - she wasn't physically strong enough to keep walking when chased but Ramsay dogs and men, something Theon could in spite of all the violence he sufered. As for battle strategy, it is also a learned skill - and even so it means nothing if you don't listen to your advisors (Robb killing Kastark), allows emotion to get the better of you (Jon) or fail protecting your food supplies before a battle (Stannis, who was an accomplished military man). 

What you are suggesting is that Sansa if  starts playing tennis right now in a couple of months she will be qualifying for a professional tournament. That is just absurd. Had Sansa been crowned Queen in the North, she would still have to rely heavily on Jon, Brienne and whoever else she choses, except she doesn't really trust anyone (see, Valle Army) and Jon would still be the one calling the shots about the incoming battle with the White Walkers. To say that Sansa would equal Jon in self-defense/battle strategy/warfare in a short amount of time or whatever amount of time they have until the Walkers come is really pushing it, and it is the same to say that in a short amount of time Jon could develop Sansa's  skills ('two weeks in King's Landing and I will pick up politics like my sister') so it is not a real problem not having them them now. This is exactly why he needs Sansa as his advisor, assuming she trusts her brother while advising him: fine skills requires time; maybe in ten years both Jon and Sansa will be better at the skills they lack now. 

It is just pointless to claim that in the near future Sansa could fullfill those areas where Jon is better than her  and because of that become a better suited ruler of the Nortth and vice-versa. Sansa's claim on the North is her birthright and that counted to nothing when the lords decided Jon having Ned Stark blood was enough for them. It sucks to be Sansa and proper writing could have made the whole thing clearer and still have the same result.

 

Jamie is valonqar and he is going to kill Cersei, not Arya or Tyrion, I'm sure of that.

Their Gilr!Power! failed big time with Dorne. I like your ideas better.

I got the impression that she was never as invested in GoT as some other actors who see to regard being part of the show as the experience of a lifetime. I read some of her interviews in the past and I think she was never quite comfortable with the idea of a full grown up woman bedding young teen like Tommen. I could be wrong, though. 

Never a child in your class that just seemed to pick up sports a little more quickly, naturally faster or more  agile? Who knows, maybe Sansa would be able to be much better at tennis than many other novices in a couple of months. Yes there is a white walker war looming, but there is also winter and between the wars and the Boltons bad management, there also needs to be necessities for survival, like food. Sansa would be better adapt at negotiating such things. I think @slf solution would be the best, Sansa be the Queen while Jon serves as Hand and has control of the armies, so he can be 100% focus on the white walkers.

[paigow]

21 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

What are we going to calL the destruction of the sept? 

Sept. Elmo's Fire

I can see a new horizon underneath the blazin' sky
I'll be where the eagle's flying higher and higher

[Constantinople]

21 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

So we've had the "Red Wedding" and the "Purple Wedding."  In the book, the biggest disaster in history known as "The Doom of Valyria."

What are we going to calL the destruction of the sept?  I guess they can just call it the "Destruction of the Great Sept" in the same way that people speak of the "Destruction of the Temple" in Jerusalem, but given this show's history it seems like we ought to come up with something more pithy.

The Stranger's Consecration

Cersei's Gift

[slf]

2 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

Please. Jon is as much as Stark as  Arya, Sansa and Bran, which is the whole point of Jon Snow's story.

Also, let's stop with this 'he is usurping his sister' nonsense. Things could have been better written, but that was never on screen. 

How about we got with "you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine" instead? For starters.

A lot of things were never on screen. And a lot of things were. For example, what was on screen: Sansa spending years as a political pawn due to her bloodline which led to public abuse and humiliation, two forced marriages, a rape, and betrayals by people she believed were her friends (including a man who was a friend to her mother for more than thirty years). The development of a keen mind with a knack for diplomacy. A sense of conflict with resuming life as Winterfell even though she's desperately wanted to be back there ever since her father's head was cut off. Also, Sansa not always looking thrilled during the very scene where Jon was proclaimed King. Jon looking to her for approval in a roomful of people whose support they desperately needed (and which should have been a given) who had just majorly disrespected her. What wasn't onscreen: Jon and Sansa having a discussion, even a brief one, about Sansa's feelings w/r/t who's the head of their House now.

Jon is not a real person. He's a fictional character. D&D have chosen to write him in a way that has him usurping Sansa. 

@taurusrose Just wanted to say I saw your response and am typing up mine. In the meantime you asked "Not sure why you keep trying to compare Sansa to Lyanna Mormont." I was responding to a poster who was comparing them.

Edited June 30, 2016 by slf

[lmsweb]

8 minutes ago, slf said:

How about we got with "you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine" instead? For starters.

A lot of things were never on screen. And a lot of things were. For example, what was on screen: Sansa spending years as a political pawn due to her bloodline which led to public abuse and humiliation, two forced marriages, a rape, and betrayals by people she believed were her friends (including a man who was a friend to her mother for more than thirty years). The development of a keen mind with a knack for diplomacy. A sense of conflict with resuming life as Winterfell even though she's desperately wanted to be back there ever since her father's head was cut off. Also, Sansa not always looking thrilled during the very scene where Jon was proclaimed King. Jon looking to her for approval in a roomful of people whose support they desperately needed (and which should have been a given) who had just majorly disrespected her. What wasn't onscreen: Jon and Sansa having a discussion, even a brief one, about Sansa's feelings w/r/t who's the head of their House now.

Jon is not a real person. He's a fictional character. D&D have chosen to write him in a way that has him usurping Sansa. 

@taurusrose Just wanted to say I saw your response and am typing up mine. In the meantime you asked "Not sure why you keep trying to compare Sansa to Lyanna Mormont." I was responding to a poster who was comparing them.

Actually, this was on screen. When they were standing on the walls Jon told her he was having the Lord's Chamber prepared for her. She says "Mother and Father's room? You should take it" Jon says he's not a Stark, and she says "you are to me". Since the Lord's Chamber is for the head of the house....I'd say this points to her seeing Jon as the leader.
As far as calling Jon a Usurper - Sansa had Littlefinger and the Vale knights right there. All she had to was to wave her hand in the air and say "um, fellas? Yes, that includes you over there, Lady Mormont. Jon is a Stark but a bastard and as such I am now the Head of House Stark. Did I mention the Vale knights over there are mine?"
Which technically would make Sansa a Usurper as well since, you know....BRAN is still alive. They know that Theon never killed the boys, and that Rickon was alive until he forgot to serpentine, so why wouldn't they be under the assumption that Bran is alive somewhere?

The reality though is come next season it's not really going to matter who is the nominal Head of House This or That. Nobody is going to give a flying fuck about following the line of succession to the nth degree. There are going to be dragons and undead zombies to worry about. At that point all anyone is going to care about is whether they live it through it or not, not whose name goes before whose on dinner invitations.

[slf]

26 minutes ago, lmsweb said:

Actually, this was on screen. When they were standing on the walls Jon told her he was having the Lord's Chamber prepared for her. She says "Mother and Father's room? You should take it" Jon says he's not a Stark, and she says "you are to me". Since the Lord's Chamber is for the head of the house....I'd say this points to her seeing Jon as the leader.
As far as calling Jon a Usurper - Sansa had Littlefinger and the Vale knights right there. All she had to was to wave her hand in the air and say "um, fellas? Yes, that includes you over there, Lady Mormont. Jon is a Stark but a bastard and as such I am now the Head of House Stark. Did I mention the Vale knights over there are mine?"
Which technically would make Sansa a Usurper as well since, you know....BRAN is still alive. They know that Theon never killed the boys, and that Rickon was alive until he forgot to serpentine, so why wouldn't they be under the assumption that Bran is alive somewhere?

I appreciate that for some viewers that moment on the wall settles the issue but imo there's a long way to go between thinking your older brother should take your parents room and thinking he should rule the House instead of you.

I also don't think Sansa would ever undermine a sibling like that, even if she felt he was in the wrong. Sansa would never set Littlefinger and an army on Jon, especially when she was just basically given a vote of no confidence from her father's vassals. (Not that Sansa hasn't gotten used to, and come to expect, that sort of reaction.) He's still her family, and she has so little of that, and their situation is still dire.

Bran is an excellent point. I'm okay with them not working from the assumption that he is still alive for two reasons: 1) I think after everything Jon and Sansa have been through they aren't willing to work from the belief that Bran is still alive just because Theon admitted he didn't kill him when they have no way of knowing if he is still actually breathing, and 2) declaring someone Lord/King when they aren't present is hard enough but when you don't even know he's alive it's damn near impossible. Sansa/Jon could merely step aside when Bran is found. The North needs a ruler right now. I would consider it usurping Bran if they refused to recognize him when he came back, definitely.

Edited June 30, 2016 by slf

[Raachel2008]

2 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

Never a child in your class that just seemed to pick up sports a little more quickly, naturally faster or more  agile? Who knows, maybe Sansa would be able to be much better at tennis than many other novices in a couple of months. Yes there is a white walker war looming, but there is also winter and between the wars and the Boltons bad management, there also needs to be necessities for survival, like food. Sansa would be better adapt at negotiating such things. I think @slf solution would be the best, Sansa be the Queen while Jon serves as Hand and has control of the armies, so he can be 100% focus on the white walkers

Being better than other novices in a couple of months it is vastly different than getting in the  same league of people who have been playing for years, and that is a metaphor that can be applied to anyone, hence my example about Jon/King's Landing/politics. I'm sorry, that is not me bashing Sansa, but Sansa has zero life experience in pratical matters, like, say you, managing necessities for survival, like food. Sansa was not raised to know these things, she is a highborn girl who was prepared her entire life to marry another highborn kid. Can she learn those things? Absolutely, that is what life is about, plus had she been Queen in the North she would have a Hand, a small council, plenty of people to help and teach her, though it would have never happened as fast as you suggest. But the Lords of the North decided that Jon was the King in the North, and that is not Sansa's fault, or Jon's fault, or anyone's fault. And like Sansa, had she been queen, Jon is King without having the proper time to learn some of the skills he needs in his position, some of which  Sansa has. Instead, it is a fast 101 with Davos, Sansa, Tormund and possibly Brienne at his side.

Jon's skills qualify him better than Sansa to lead the incoming war against the White Walkers, and he would lead the war with or without being KITN. It is not his fault that the North Lords decided the two things should be the same.

 

1 hour ago, slf said:

How about we got with "you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine" instead? For starters.

A lot of things were never on screen. And a lot of things were. For example, what was on screen: Sansa spending years as a political pawn due to her bloodline which led to public abuse and humiliation, two forced marriages, a rape, and betrayals by people she believed were her friends (including a man who was a friend to her mother for more than thirty years). The development of a keen mind with a knack for diplomacy. A sense of conflict with resuming life as Winterfell even though she's desperately wanted to be back there ever since her father's head was cut off. Also, Sansa looking less than thrilled during the very scene where Jon was proclaimed King. Jon looking to her for approval in a roomful of people whose support they desperately needed (which should have been a given) who had just majorly disrespected her. What wasn't onscreen: Jon and Sansa having a discussion, even a brief one, about Sansa's feelings w/r/t who's the head of their House now.

Again, Jon is not a real person. He's a fictional character. D&D have chosen to write him in a way that has him usurping Sansa. 

For starters, Sansa is not a real person. She is a fictional character. D&D have chose to writen her in a way that has her accepting and approving Jon being crowned King in the North. That was on screen and she only looks less than thrilled when she sees Littlefinger's  face. What was also on screen: Jon telling Sansa she is the Lady of Winterfell and Sansa saying he should take Ned and Catelyn's room, which we know belongs to the ruler of Winterfell. What else? Jon acknowledging that Sansa saved him/them with the Valle forces and that is why they are there. 

And about Sansa spending years as a political pawn, two forced marriages, rape, betrayal etc, what is your point exactly? That she is a fictional character who had a long and at times extremely painful journey back home? So? I can make that list of horrible things that happened to all main characters, and it is not a pretty journey either.

Again, Jon is not usurping anyone. For what is worth, Jon being king makes Sansa safer and she should be relieved that those Lords didn't care about her birthright or Jon being a bastard. Sansa spent six seasons treated like livestock because of said birthright. That is what put her in Ramsay's bed. Now she doesn't have the same weight/value as the only living Stark/potential wife for whoever wants Winterfell/heir breeding machine and her life is much safer. Personally, I think Sansa is smart enough to see it. 

Anyway, none of that really matters. Being queen/king/lord/lady/wildling/noble/bastard/heir/Stark/Targaryen/Mormont/man/woman/adult/child have zero relevance if they all don't trust each other and stand together to defeat the White Walkers, who, by the way, doesn't really give a fuck about who is a king, a dragon, a heir.

 We are going to disagree forever on the 'usurping' part, so let's let it go for real. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Raachel2008
I can't spell.

[Ambrosefolly]

42 minutes ago, slf said:

Bran is an excellent point. I'm okay with them not working from the assumption that he is still alive for two reasons: 1) I think after everything Jon and Sansa have been through they aren't willing to work from the belief that Bran is still alive just because Theon admitted he didn't kill him when they have no way of knowing if he is still actually breathing, and 2) declaring someone Lord/King when they aren't present is hard enough but when you don't even know he's alive it's damn near impossible. Sansa/Jon could merely step aside when Bran is found. The North needs a ruler right now. I would consider it usurping Bran if they refused to recognize him when he came back, definitely.

The Lords might have allowed a bastard boy usurp a true born girl namely because she is a girl, but I wonder how everything would go if Bran and Meera were to make back to Winterfell. A lot of the Lords are probably power obsessed as there southern counterparts, so if they set up a precedent where a true born son is voted out of his birthright in favor of a bastard brother because he is perceived to more capable, it will endanger, I would bet, their positions, their true born children's positions and anyone else down the line.

As for Bran being able to prove Jon's position (not that it would change much), if he starts spouting off the personal information off anyone that would question his ability. Won't be an absolute confirmation, but it would show Bran would be the person that could know this.

[Umbelina]

Well, what was on screen was quite different than what both actors AND the writers said about Sansa, so who knows? 

[WatchrTina]

Okay I'm still trying to think of a pithy name for the destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor.  I'm just gonna spit-ball here.

• The conflagration of the Westerosi nation.
• Cersei's Revenge
• Baelor's Big Bang
• The Sparrocalypse
• It's raining men, Halleluah Seven Blessings
• The De-Sept-tion
• The Great Sparrow Barbeque
• The Baelor Blitzkrieg
• The Cowering Inferno
• The Disbanding of King's Landing
• The Septon's Downfall
• The Burning of Baelor
• The Great Fire of London King's Landing
• The Destruction of the Temple Sept
• The Sinking of the Titanic . . Ego of the High Sparrow
• John Lee Hooker Time in the Sept
• The Mad Queen Rises

[Hecate7]

11 hours ago, domina89 said:

I don't think you can apply logic or science to the genetics of the actors they have cast.  In the books, Jon and Arya have brown hair and grey eyes (Arya is said to look like her aunt Lyanna, so obviously Jon took on his mother's features as well); Not all Targs have the silver blonde hair and purple eyes (Rhaegar's daughter, Rhaenys Targaryen had brown hair, too).  Show!Tyrion looks nothing like Book!Tyrion (mismatched eyes, different color blonde hair), etc.

Regardless, it is a very good thing that Jon resembles the Stark line instead of the Targ line- otherwise he would have been targeted and killed by Robert Baratheon. I do like that Jon's direwolf is white, though... a subtle hint at his Targ lineage.

I have a theory about that. My theory is that Targaryens, Tullys, and Starks favor their mothers. So Sansa, Robb, and Bran look like Tullys instead of Starks, because the mother's genes dominate. In Baratheons, as Jon Arryn kept saying, "the seed is strong," so Baratheons favor their fathers, not their mothers. Lannisters? Unlike planet earth, I think genetics in GRRM's world works a little differently. It is also probably true that the white hair and purple eyes are a recessive gene, much like red hair in our world, hence the custom of incestuous marriage "to keep bloodlines pure"--inbreeding was the easiest way to insure that the heirs would look like Targaryens. Elia Martell's children didn't look Targaryen at all--they looked like her.

Jon Snow looks like his mother, and Danaerys looks like hers. Rhaegar and Viserys probably looked like Rhaella, too. It's my fan-wanky attempt to apply a little logic to the genetics of that world. So far it fits, even if every single one of the "secret Targ" theories turns out to be true.

[Neko]

41 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay I'm still trying to think of a pithy name for the destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor.  I'm just gonna spit-ball here.

• The conflagration of the Westerosi nation.
• Cersei's Revenge
• Baelor's Big Bang
• The Sparrocalypse
• It's raining men, Halleluah Seven Blessings
• The De-Sept-tion
• The Great Sparrow Barbeque
• The Baelor Blitzkrieg
• The Cowering Inferno
• The Disbanding of King's Landing
• The Septon's Downfall
• The Burning of Baelor
• The Great Fire of London King's Landing
• The Destruction of the Temple Sept
• The Sinking of the Titanic . . Ego of the High Sparrow
• John Lee Hooker Time in the Sept
• The Mad Queen Rises

Great White Plays Westeros.

Too soon?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Sweet Summer Child

[Gertrude]

4 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

Also, let's stop with this 'he is usurping his sister' nonsense. Things could have been better written, but that was never on screen. 

I think this is the point people are arguing. The way it was written, it could have been interpreted as Jon usurping Sansa. A simple statement of public support from Sansa would have erased this whole line of argument and made much more sense. Not only that, but it would have shown Sansa as more powerful and in control of herself than just being insulted and swept aside.

D&D did her a disservice and Sansa fans are (IMO) rightly upset. It comes down to sloppy storytelling and really dropping the ball on Sansa's characterization. I did not see any of the Boss Ass Bitch Sophie talked about preseason, with the exception of her speech to Ramsey before he died. She was strong in that moment, but otherwise she's confusing, contradictory and a bit of a sulky brat. I don't think it's too much to ask that Sansa demonstrate that she's grown the fuck up and learned how to take control of her destiny, especially in a season so heavily populated with strong women doing just that. The writing for her sucked.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Gertrude

[Gertrude]

55 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Well, what was on screen was quite different than what both actors AND the writers said about Sansa, so who knows? 

Instead of making the post above that I did, I should have just quoted this because YES. If the writers/directors/actors can't even agree, then how are we supposed to?

[Rocket]

On June 27, 2016 at 3:47 AM, morgankobi said:

I was actually pretty bummed that Pycelle got killed without anyone else figuring out his old-man act was just that, an act.

Cut scene shows that Twyin had figured out his act. 

[slf]

7 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Maybe I'm forgetting something here.  Please give examples of Jon's massive screw-ups.  I don't recall any.  Not sure why you keep trying to compare Sansa to Lyanna Mormont.  It's quite apparent that LM has been raised to lead and has maesters to advise her.  But more importantly, we haven't been shown one person who doesn't take her seriously and that's good enough for me.   Damn skippy we remember Jon was stabbed by some of his own men.  But.  It's not Jon's shortcoming that some men could not look past their personal sense of entitlement, jealousy and/or grief to see the big picture.  Jon was absolutely right to bring the Wildlings inside the Wall.  Jon fought the battle of Hardhome and knows they've got bigger concerns than the petty squabbles consuming everybody right now.  He doesn't have to be flawless, he has to keep doing what he's doing and preparing people to fight an enemy that threatens every man, woman and child in Westeros. 

Regarding Jon's screwups...? Just recently, charging the front lines by himself and choosing to spend the battle as a foot soldier, and so didn't issue a single command from the field. For a guy being touted as a great military leader those actually are screwups; you command from the back or you do what Robb did and keep a small guard around yourself whom you could dispatch with orders. He refused to listen to reason when discussing with Sansa and Davos how many soldiers he had to fight with; Sansa wanted to send for reinforcements from House Cerwyn (an excellent suggestion as they are incredibly loyal and only a half day's ride from Winterfell) but Jon got stubborn: "we fight with the army we have." The losses his army suffered were partially Sansa's fault (for not disclosing the Vale army's impending arrival; or the one she was hoping for anyway) but it was just as much Jon's fault for refusing to look into getting more men.

As to this next point I just want to restate that Jon's NW brothers should not have killed him. Absolutely. But that they did and that he didn't even see it coming...like...that was not a spontaneous assassination. Even the show, which has given Jon a few victories he hasn't earned, knows it: "I failed." Pretty much, dude. Hardhome should never have happened in the first place, and really highlighted Jon's blind spots especially w/r/t his humanism. Taking men away from the Wall (their force multiplier) to get the wildlings was a terrible idea, if entirely understandable and even heroic; he doesn't want to just let innocent people die if there's the possibility he might save them. (However, he cut that deal with Tormund since that was the only way Tormund would agree to get men together for Stannis to retake Winterfell. So: not entirely selfless.) There's also some logic to it: those wildlings would have been killed and turned into WW (though I doubt their numbers would have made a difference, ultimately). I get all of that and sympathize with it. However, the Wall exists for a reason and that is to defend the realms from attack and the WW. The Wall was already undermanned, had already taken a beating- they could not afford to have their forces cut and sent on a rescue mission to bring in hundreds or thousands of slow-moving men, women, and children, many of whom would've been starving, sick, or injured. As awful as it is, it was neither his call to make or his deal to strike. He needed to preserve his forces to defend the Wall; that was his job as Lord Commander: to hold the Wall.

Once he had made the choice to go through with it it was his job to manage his men. The argument he gave the wildlings is the one he should've given to the Night's Watch: “We’re not friends. We’ve never been friends. We won’t become friends today… This isn’t about friendship. This is about survival. This is about putting a 700 foot wall between you and what’s out there… These aren’t normal times. The White Walkers don’t care if a man’s Free Folk or Crow. We’re all meat for their army.” Because there's a lot of bad blood there (like Olly (??) watching his parents getting eaten by wildlings) and they are not only being expected to work with the wildlings but to allow the wildlings into the very lands that they have been defending from attack. I don't envy Jon the responsibility of beginning reconciliation but, shit. That was his responsibility.

It was just the wrong choice, and it followed other wrong choices like getting involved in politics south of the Wall, another huge no-no for the Watch. For a reason. It's not his job to gather men to help Stannis attack the Boltons and retake Winterfell. It's actually his job to not do that.

I don't think Jon's an idiot, don't get me wrong. He's one of a handful of characters I've really liked in the books and on the show and while I'm super annoyed about the season finale it doesn't change my love for the character. But the NW - while a vital learning experience for him - was not his place and he just couldn't be as objective as he needed to be. He made some serious missteps as a leader and on the battle field.

[Hecate7]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:11 PM, lovebug1975 said:

now you are just being emotional.  you are trying to justify a second tier character to surpass an obvious first tier protagonist.  as far as teh north is concerned, she is still lady bolton, who was married to a lannister who butchered their kin at the red wedding.  no if or when's about it.  ask grandma tyrell on that comment on no say on who she can marry.......oh wait, wasn't that why joffrey died?  and didn't grandma tyrell choose who she married?  didn't caitlyn choose ned over little finger?

yup, the north remembers......how cunning women can be.....which also implied sansa might have married into those 2 families fro her own sake.

While the overall sentiment makes sense, and yes, to Northerners Sansa is Lady Bolton, who married Ramsey Bolton AFTER the Red Wedding, btw, Catelyn did NOT choose Ned. Hoster Tully pledged her to Brandon Stark. Littlefinger challenged Brandon to a duel, and lost. Brandon's later death might have raised Littlefinger's hopes, but I doubt that Catelyn had anything to do with that. Ned Stark inherited Brandon's contractual obligation to marry Catelyn. The Stark family were her father's choice and Catelyn obeyed. No choice was actually involved there.

While everyone knows that women do not as a rule choose their husbands, and that Sansa's first wedding was arranged by Cersei and Tywin Lannister, and her second by Petyr Baelish and Roose Bolton, the fact remains that she was an "ally" in both camps, by virtue of being married. I would hope that her marriage to Ramsey would be more damning than the one to Tyrion, because Ramsey took Winterfell from her family, while Tyrion was really not involved at all in the Red Wedding. As she told Lady Mormont, Sansa did what she had to do to survive. That she didn't die rather than marry into either of those families could be seen as a choice, I guess.

[slf]

On 6/28/2016 at 9:23 PM, lovebug1975 said:

not fighting is  a minor part....but it is a factor (to some houses).  it is more the dilemma of sansa's relations with a lannister (who is responsible for the red wedding) and a bolton (who they just evicted).  notice that they kept mentioning the red wedding and avenging it.

why in god's name would they want a ruler who has some involvement with the people responsible for the red wedding and the people they just defeated?

pretty sure they made that clear during the meeting....the red wedding was a big no no.  there is no way for the families to know sansa's role with both the lannisters and boltons.  we knew she was a victim.....they don't know that.  they is no way for them to know that other than her word.  but the red wedding was such a stain that any link to a lannister WILL be frowned UPON.

...Sansa was known throughout the Seven Kingdoms as a hostage of the Lannisters. Why in the world would they assume that a 14 year old girl held hostage by the family that beheaded her father would choose to marry into that family? Especially when that same girl became associated with the death of the Lannister responsible for murdering their beloved Ned Star - after she was forced to marry a Lannister?

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the argument they were making. I think they were stressing that being vassals of the Starks had cost them family. Not actually saying they held Sansa accountable in some way. 

[patchwork]

2 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I think this is the point people are arguing. The way it was written, it could have been interpreted as Jon usurping Sansa. A simple statement of public support from Sansa would have erased this whole line of argument and made much more sense. Not only that, but it would have shown Sansa as more powerful and in control of herself than just being insulted and swept aside.

D&D did her a disservice and Sansa fans are (IMO) rightly upset. It comes down to sloppy storytelling and really dropping the ball on Sansa's characterization. I did not see any of the Boss Ass Bitch Sophie talked about preseason, with the exception of her speech to Ramsey before he died. She was strong in that moment, but otherwise she's confusing, contradictory and a bit of a sulky brat. I don't think it's too much to ask that Sansa demonstrate that she's grown the fuck up and learned how to take control of her destiny, especially in a season so heavily populated with strong women doing just that. The writing for her sucked.

Sansa making her opinions known one way or another in front of the Northern nobility would have been a huge step for her character. Ever since her father's death she's been trying to keep her head down and fly under the radar, terrified that saying or doing the wrong thing would mean death or worse. It wouldn't be as dramatic as Arya and her Fray pies but it would be a healthy step towards healing.

As I've said I've no problem with Jon being declared KitN but the way the scene was written doesn't work for me. 

[stagmania]

7 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Well, what was on screen was quite different than what both actors AND the writers said about Sansa, so who knows? 

No kidding. Those post-episode interviews were baffling to me. It reminds me of the whole blow up around the altered Cersie/Jamie sex (rape) scene from season 4; the creators seemed to have no clue what they had actually portrayed onscreen. And in this case, viewers can't agree on it either; I've seen so many people say they've gone back to rewatch the scene to get a handle on Sansa's reaction, and they all came to different conclusions. There's deliberate ambiguity, and then there's storytelling so haphazard that the audience has no idea what a main character is thinking or feeling. @Gertrude said it well: the writing for Sansa this season really let her down.

[Bill1978]

7 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Okay I'm still trying to think of a pithy name for the destruction of the Great Sept of Baelor.  I'm just gonna spit-ball here.

• The conflagration of the Westerosi nation.
• Cersei's Revenge
• Baelor's Big Bang
• The Sparrocalypse
• It's raining men, Halleluah Seven Blessings
• The De-Sept-tion
• The Great Sparrow Barbeque
• The Baelor Blitzkrieg
• The Cowering Inferno
• The Disbanding of King's Landing
• The Septon's Downfall
• The Burning of Baelor
• The Great Fire of London King's Landing
• The Destruction of the Temple Sept
• The Sinking of the Titanic . . Ego of the High Sparrow
• John Lee Hooker Time in the Sept
• The Mad Queen Rises

I could believe Westerosi calling the event The Burning of Baelor. Although the other ones are very creative and hilarious.

[Advance35]

Quote

I also don't think Sansa would ever undermine a sibling like that, even if she felt he was in the wrong. Sansa would never set Littlefinger and an army on Jon, especially when she was just basically given a vote of no confidence from her father's vassals. (Not that Sansa hasn't gotten used to, and come to expect, that sort of reaction.) He's still her family, and she has so little of that, and their situation is still dire.

This and I think Sansa knows the value of APPEARING unified to outsiders.   LF knows her and he can see she's not satisfied with the way everything shook out but she certainly hasn't spoken any confirmation to him as of yet.  The Northern Lords don't have that insight where she is concerned, this is a girl that spent a large amount of time in Kings Landing, where nothing and nobody was what they seemed.   Sansa has learned  that conflict should rarely if ever, be direct.   She was there for a number of very public displays in Kings Landing where the Lannister's were concerned.  Jumping up and effectively challenging Jon would have been the wrong move.  This is just in response to those who feel Sansa should have spoken up if she had something to say, I also think this is why she didn't speak up in the command tent before the Battle of Winterfell.   She disagreed with Jon and didn't want to do so publicly.

I think she is trying to consider her future, Jon is effectively, now head of House and she as his ward is a step down.  There isn't a noble in Westeros who wouldn't realize that.  If Jon marries, further down the ladder she goes.   I guess she would just like something at the end of the road, something gained after all that's happened.  I question whether the "White Walker" threat has truly registered for her yet.

[WatchrTina]

So I was thinking about Tobias Menzies this morning (I'm an Outlander fan), recollecting the scene in the tent between Edmure Tully and Jamie and unless I'm mistaken, Jamie offered to set him up in quarters in Casterly Rock where he could be with his wife and child.  Did I imagine that?

I realize that Edmure did not accept that offer -- that he surrendered River Run because of Jamie's threat to hurl Edmure's infant son at its battlements via a catapult -- but still, the offer was made.  Nevertheless, Walder Frey tells Jamie in the finale that "Edumure Tully is back in the dungeon."  This goes to show that the Blackfish was right.  You can't trust the word of the Kingslayer.

I really hope Edmure gets some revenge.  He'll never live down having surrendered River Run (even if it was to save his possibly fictional son) but I'd like to see him come out of those dungeons and do something epically destructive to the Freys and Lannisters next season -- especially if he finds out no "son" exists.  He should die in the effort and his last words should be "The Tullys send their regards."

Edited July 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Enigma X]

1 minute ago, doram said:

What confuses me is the idea that Edmure would want / love / wish to protect this fictional son. He knew his Frey bride all of 3 hours and he was fucking her while his sister and nephew were being murdered by her family. Why the fuck would he give a damn about any child she might have conceived for him?

Well, the fact that he is his son is a fairly good reason to me. I don't get but have seen similar arguments against such a bond, so I am not necessarily planning on getting in a debate about it. I am just throwing out an obvious reason to me and one I totally get (and agree with) since the question was asked.

[stillshimpy]

10 hours ago, Raachel2008 said:

I'm sorry, that is not me bashing Sansa, but Sansa has zero life experience in pratical matters, like, say you, managing necessities for survival, like food. Sansa was not raised to know these things, she is a highborn girl who was prepared her entire life to marry another highborn kid. Can she learn those things? Absolutely, that is what life is about, plus had she been Queen in the North she would have a Hand, a small council, plenty of people to help and teach her, though it would have never happened as fast as you suggest. But the Lords of the North decided that Jon was the King in the North

Sorry about the partial quote above.  Another week, another Sansa debate is how the show tends to run whenever she has anything to do.  Mostly I've been reading along and intrigued by a couple of the points.  I also agree that the writing for Sansa this season has been all over the damned map.  One scene has her telling Littlefinger he's either an idiot or her enemy, then when push comes to shove, he's the ally she asks for help. I was absolutely not in agreement with the folks last week who were just ticked off that Sansa didn't tell Jon about the possibility of the soldiers of the Vale joining the fray and then this week?  Color me amused when she apologizes for not telling Jon.   Again, I think that would have been a hilarious scene.  "Yes, the last time we met I told him to fuck off in about fourteen different ways, but I have since sent him a raven, so...." 

But aside from the incredibly uneven stuff they've had Sansa doing in the last couple of years -- and I do agree with people who think the show just had to pull a Sansa reset to put her roughly back into the place she was in the books, with Petyr in the Vale -- the back and forth here and what's quote above made me realize something:  She's sort of a Littlefinger figure in the story.   No, not the "he's evil incarnate and the King of Chaos" but rather the overlooked, supporting player in other people's lifescripts.  

In the books and to a much lesser extent in the show, thanks in part to Aiden Gillen's up-to-no-good-ever vibe, no one ever reacts to Littlefinger as if he has the potential to be powerful or is powerful.  They just do things like give him Hot Potato Harrenhal and then call upon him when the want the city guard.  He's always the pawn in their chess games, at least in their heads and they sort of don't notice most of the shit he's done or is doing.  

Just thinking about what went into forming Littlefinger's character.  That feeling of constantly being slighted and overlooked that led him to use that and become an incredibly deceptive force in the story.  

It just occurred to me with what was said in interviews afterward by Sophie Turner and the showrunners -- which I agree was more than a bit "What? Uh...okay?  I really didn't get that from the....let me rewatch....no...still only sort of there...?"  that everything Sophie Turner said basically boils down to "Yes, she's hurt that she's been overlooked and discounted" and that one of the things she's learning is that what she thought was important really wasn't.  

She started out thinking that the North would rally to the Stark name, specifically her name, that she was personally important and was actually ye olde Key to the North.   She sort of swiftly found out that the only lock her key fits is to whatever it is that Petyr is ultimately up to.  

So I checked the staging on that scene where she sees Littlefinger and her smile just disappears.  Here's what I realized:  Sansa and Littlefinger are both staged so as to be something other than the focal point for others.  She's seated, all eyes are on Jon.  He's the point of the scene to all present, except for Sansa and then she looks over and the only person focusing on her is Littlefinger.   They are occupying the same kind of emotional space in that scene. 

Actors are always told to play every scene as if it is actually about them.  Not drawing focus, but having a full inner-world for their characters.  We're all the stars of our own life dramas.  In that scene everyone but Littlefinger and Sansa are ceding the importance of that moment to focus on Jon.   Littelfinger is seated up against a wall (fading into the wallpaper, as it were) but we all know that Littlefinger is quite possibly the most dangerous character in the entire show specifically because he can do a lot of shit without being the focal point.  He gets away with a lot because by the time anyone notices him it's usually too late to save the situation. 

Every week the episode thread usually has a Sansa debate going on and for the most part I just think it's kind of funny.  The badass Mother of Dragons just finally peeled out from Mereen, inbound to the Seven Kingdoms at long fucking last, but trying to figure out Sansa is more of a focus.   I usually defend Sansa and I'm not actually going to break from that now, but it did finally occur to me, when I realized she had staked out the same "not anyone's focus, but clearly having an internal process about the entire situation" space that Petyr usually occupies to the detriment of all, "uh oh. the entire room is looking at Jon except for Sansa and Littlefinger, who are looking at each other and having some sort of unspoken exchange of thoughts" and it finally sort of dawned on me:  they are kind of showing us the same process that made Littlefinger in the first place.  

Edited June 30, 2016 by stillshimpy

[that one guy]

For some reason this page won't load properly during certain times, so I can't quote people because I don't have those tools - two things: Bran and Meera - I believe they are at the Weirwood tree at which Jon took his vows to the Night's Watch. It's just north of Castle Black, which is why Benjen isn't overly concerned about Meera being able to drag him to the gate. It's gonna be a pain in the ass, but the dead aren't comfortable coming this close to the wall any more than Benjen is. Sansa: one thing she's learned from her time spent with all the twisted schemers in the halls of power is to keep her cards close to her chest. This is how Cersei, Olenna, Tyrion, Littlefinger, and Roose Bolton play the game. She's not one to speak up and assert herself in public (yet?). So it's tough for her to be open and share, even more so when she feels like she's not being listened to when she tries. She also doesn't want to be Queen - hell, half the time she wants to sit alone in her room and alternate between rocking back and forth and sobbing, and needle point. Recovery is going to take a little time. What she DOES want, according to Sophie Turner anyway, is a little bit more recognition for her contributions. She DID save the day, not to mention that taking back Winterfell was her idea in the first place. Acknowledged leader or not, what they do next will probably be her plan since Jon doesn't have a plan, and it's obvious that he feels defeated in spite of being publicly victorious. He failed to save the Wildlings at Hardhome, was murdered by his own men and had to hang Ollie and Ser Alliser, and screwed up the attack on Winterfell. He feels like he's obligated to save the world because nobody else is willing to do it. But neither Jon nor Sansa seem to particularly want this job, so I doubt they're going to fight over it.

[MrWhyt]

1 hour ago, doram said:

What confuses me is the idea that Edmure would want / love / wish to protect this fictional son. He knew his Frey bride all of 3 hours and he was fucking her while his sister and nephew were being murdered by her family. Why the fuck would he give a damn about any child she might have conceived for him?

perhaps he's not an emotionless robot.

[benteen]

5 hours ago, stagmania said:

No kidding. Those post-episode interviews were baffling to me. It reminds me of the whole blow up around the altered Cersie/Jamie sex (rape) scene from season 4; the creators seemed to have no clue what they had actually portrayed onscreen. And in this case, viewers can't agree on it either; I've seen so many people say they've gone back to rewatch the scene to get a handle on Sansa's reaction, and they all came to different conclusions. There's deliberate ambiguity, and then there's storytelling so haphazard that the audience has no idea what a main character is thinking or feeling. @Gertrude said it well: the writing for Sansa this season really let her down.

And this is the issue I've had with Sansa.  I don't know if I'm angry at the character because I have no idea what the writers are trying to do with her.  There is still no good reason to explain her withholding the information from Jon.  There's no reason for her to distrust Jon and trust Littlefinger, who she knows is duplicitous.  Her issues with Jon seem to be the writers creating conflict for the sake of conflict.

[MrWhyt]

23 minutes ago, doram said:

Won't being devoted to a child that was mothered by the same family that killed his sister and  nephew make him an emotionless robot?

and the child was a conspirator in the red wedding plot? Why should he hold the Frey's sins against his son?

[proserpina65]

29 minutes ago, doram said:

Isn't that like arguing that a woman who wants to abort a child born of rape is an emotionless robot? 

Not the same thing at all.

[Oscirus]

So,  the dumb ass crown prince didn't bother to come up with any contingency plans in case he lost? So basically "if I win I come back for you and the baby if I lose, you're trapped in this tower until someone kills the people guarding you. Hope it's not one of the many enemies I made with this move, byeeeeeeee." 

[MrWhyt]

36 minutes ago, doram said:

Edmure doesn't have to hold the Freys's sins against his son - to not allow the child's existence be something that can be used to blackmail him. And it's borderline ridiculous/illogical that after a year of being a PoW by the same people who killed his family that he should give a damn about a child he doesn't even know for certain exists. And like I said, it's tactically illogical of him to believe that the Freys would kill the child if it exists. It's of more value to them and it is to him. 

1. yes emotions are often illogical.

2. A Frey didn't threaten his son, a Lannister did. Name me one Frey who is going to successfully stand up to Jaime Lannister