Adaptation Analysis: Exploring The Seven Kingdoms

[Meredith Quill]

A place to analyse the show changes in detail, and discuss how/if/why/should/could they have been done differently.

[anamika]

1 hour ago, OhOkayWhat said:

To say they sidelined a character (and point it as a mistake) is to assume that there is a place within the storyline being written that intrinsecally belongs to that character. And that is not true. The place within the storyline that belongs to that character is exactly the one that they wrote in the script.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. My point was that the North plot in the books was quite different - Northern houses with Robb's will, Manderly supporting Rickon, Mountain clans marching to save Arya, Jon supporting Stannis and planning to lead the Wildlings against Ramsay, Stannis himself on the move, Theon trapped with Stannis and Jeyne on her way to the wall. It's an interesting mix of conflict and showcases the loyalty of the North to the Starks.

Notice how Sansa is absent in the above mentioned plots because she is busy being Sweet Robin's caretaker in the Vale? That's what I mean by Sansa getting inserted into a book plot where she does not belong -  now the plot has to be written around her character and the Northerners were turned into an opportunistic, cowardly bunch  because Sansa/Vale/LF had to get there for the last minute save at the battle.

So while in the books, the conflict is between Jon and Ramsay over Arya and Jon decides to go attack Ramsay to save his sister, on the show, the conflict is between Sansa and Ramsay and Sansa has to goad Jon into fighting against Ramsay. There is no exploration of Jon as a deserter of the NW, no one is curious about how he got out of his vows on the show. Jon is a skilled tactician and negotiator in the books, even getting deals from the Iron Bank, but on the show he has to look to Sansa to talk to Lyanna Mormont. And finally Jon had to mess up in the battle so Sansa can 'save his ass' as Sophie Turner eloquently put it. So not only does get Jon sidelined in his own plot, but he was written as an idiot to show up Sansa as being smarter.

Quote

As far we know, they do not know that.

How would they not know that? They see her riding in with LF. Would they not ask Jon and Sansa how the Vale army came about? More bad writing where we are supposed to come up with our own theories for what could have happened.

1 hour ago, OhOkayWhat said:

It is not established that Sansa trust Littlefinger.

Littlefinger : Hey Sansa, BF has taken Riverrun and by the way, Jon is only your half brother...

Sansa: Did you guys know that the BF has taken Riverrun?

Jon : How did you know this?

Sansa: Ramsay received a Raven! I also secretly wrote to LF asking for his help, but I am not giving you that info either!

1 hour ago, OhOkayWhat said:

But the plot (or at least most storylines) makes sense. It happens that sometimes we assume things (as the previous two examples) that the show never actually established. If we include those errors in our analysis, it is possible that it will look like the narrative does not make sense even if that conclusion is not true.

The plot makes no sense to me. Again, why does Sansa not tell Jon about the Vale? We should not get these answers from comic con. The show should tell us this. If Sansa does not trust Jon, why does she not trust Jon? Why does she allow Jon to nearly die in battle by not telling him about the Vale? Is she being malicious? Is she an idiot?

Why was Jon made KITN? Why do the Northerners not care that he has left the Night's watch considering that we saw Ned beheading a deserter in the very first episode? What special leadership skills has he shown to the Northern leaders to get elected King, considering Ned's legitimate heir was sitting right next to him? His mistakes in the battle led to many men dying and if it had not been for Sansa's rescue with the Vale army, he would be dead meat. Why did Davos suddenly go and ask Melisandre to resurrect Jon Snow? How does Davos know that Melisandre can do that? What's the deal with Jon? Is he like Beric? Does he sleep? 

Edited April 8, 2017 by anamika

[nikma]

3 minutes ago, anamika said:

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. My point was that the North plot in the books was quite different - Northern houses with Robb's will, Manderly supporting Rickon, Mountain clans marching to save Arya, Jon supporting Stannis and planning to lead the Wildlings against Ramsay, Stannis himself on the move, Theon trapped with Stannis and Jeyne on her way to the wall. It's an interesting mix of conflict and showcases the loyalty of the North to the Starks - On the show, the Northerners are an opportunistic bunch who only sided with the Starks after the battle was won.

Notice how Sansa is absent in the above mentioned plots because she is busy being Sweet Robin's caretaker in the Vale? That's what I mean by Sansa getting inserted into a book plot that she has no business being in.

So while in the books, the conflict is between Jon and Ramsay over Arya and Jon decides to go attack Ramsay to save his sister, on the show, the conflict is between Sansa and Ramsay and Sansa has to goad Jon into fighting against Ramsay. There is no exploration of Jon as a deserter of the NW, no one is curious about how he got out of his vows on the show. Jon is a skilled tactician and negotiator in the books, even getting deals from the Iron Bank, but on the show he has to look to Sansa to talk to Lyanna Mormont. And finally Jon had to mess up in the battle so Sansa can 'save his ass' as Sophie Turner eloquently put it. So not only does get Jon sidelined in his own plot, but he was written as an idiot to show up Sansa as being smarter.

I have only one respone to everything you wrote here.

 

PS Who cares about the books and what happened in the books? If they did the Northern plot the way it was done in the books, there would be no screentime for anything else in S5. 

[anamika]

16 minutes ago, nikma said:

PS Who cares about the books and what happened in the books? If they did the Northern plot the way it was done in the books, there would be no screentime for anything else in S5. 

Well, the discussion started because of comments on the differences in the book and show versions of the characters and the discussion is continuing in the books vs show thread. So if you don't care about the books maybe you should stick to the show only threads?

[nikma]

9 minutes ago, anamika said:

Well, the discussion started because of comments on the differences in the book and show versions of the characters and the discussion is continuing in the books vs show thread. So if you don't care about the books maybe you should stick to the show only threads?

I care about this topic, but what you are asking is  completely impossible for the show . Mountain clans, different fractions with Stannis and within his army, Yara in the North, Jayne there, many Northern houses with different agendas, separate storylines for Davos, Brienne and Sansa, different fractions within the wildlings at the Wall,...

If they did that there would be no time for anything else in the show.

It is fine to bring books sometimes, but it is also important to have realistic expectations from the show. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[anamika]

18 minutes ago, nikma said:

I care about this topic, but what you are asking for the show is completely impossible. Mountain clans, different fractions with Stannis and within his army, Yara in the North, Jayne there, many Northern houses with different agendas, separate storyline for Davos, Brienne and Sansa, different fractions within the wildlings at the Wall,...

If they did that there would be no time for anything else in the show.

It is fine to bring books sometimes, but it is also important to have realistic expectations from the show. 

Why do they need a separate storyline for Sansa and Brienne while they are doing the North plot? They had Bran sit out a season, they could have done the same for Sansa, Brienne and Davos. Just like Bran turned up last season, being the three-eyed raven, Sansa could show up after a season already being a player. The show's insistence on giving Sansa something to do is what led to the messy writing for the North. I agree that the Vale plot is boring for a TV audience, but show!Sansa at this point is not only badly written, but has led to Jon being written as an idiot as well. As I mentioned earlier, the show managed to juggle Stannis, Sam, Jon, Melisandre, Davos, Shireen, Gilly etc at the wall in season 5 perfectly well - but the minute Sansa gets there all that character growth Jon got in season 5 went out the window.

It's like they can't write both Sansa and Jon as being smart. Or it's like they can't explore both characters at the same time. If they can't do that, then they should leave Sansa out of Jon's plot.

Edited April 8, 2017 by anamika

[WearyTraveler]

She's not asking for the show to do the same thing scene by scene, but I do think there's an underlying desire to at least not change the characterizations.  For example:

• The Northern Lords and clans support the Starks always, not just after they win against Ramsay
• Jon is not an idiot in terms of military strategy
• If desertion from the NW was such a big deal in episode 1 of the show (and in the books) how come no one is asking Jon about his breaking his NW vows?

Things like that

[nikma]

Jon is not an idiot in terms of military strategy in the show either. But watching your brother being killed in front of you does affect every normal person. He is not a robot. What he should have done? Just stand there and watch Rickon die? That would be a character assassination and not the thing that he actually did in the show. 

 

3 Northern Houses supported Jon and Sansa, 2 supported Ramsay (one because of  Robb's actions and one because of Jon's) and the rest stayed neutral. It's not like everyone supported the Boltons, or liked them. And that's the matter of taste. Writing the North in a more romanticized way where everyone will fight for the Starks without question is not better or worse. It's just different. 

I agree that  desertion from the NW should have been mentioned more, not just from Ramsay. And Jon had a good argument, he would say that the war against the Boltons is the first step in the war against the WW, and that's the main purpose of the NW in the first place.

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[YaddaYadda]

They turned Manderly into an overly cautious man and (I can appreciate the sentiment that he didn't want more of his people to die). They turned Umber into a traitor and Glover into an oathbreaker for the sake of having a 10 year old call everyone out. With those 3 backing Jon, it would have been a more balanced fight, but they wanted the big finish with this large army riding to the rescue. I think they should have just kept Robb's will as the thing thing that tied everything together, but I'm assuming they cut that out because people would have expected it for like 3 seasons and they wouldn't have been able to do the KiTN moment. 

That's not to say that there isn't going to be some kind of a succession crisis in the north. Robb's Will allegedly names Jon as his successor, Manderly is looking for Rickon, and the Liddles (and Sam) know that Bran is still alive, there's Sansa in the Vale even though her location is unknown by everyone who isn't LF (and maybe Myranda Royce). 

Maybe it's a good thing twow isn't out yet.

[nikma]

They said they found Lyanna more original as Jon's main support in the North than some old bearded man. And I find it powerful that a girl named after his mother declared him the king. I wouldn't change much, but I  think it would be better if we actually saw lords Hornwood and Mazin. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, nikma said:

3 Northern Houses supported Jon and Sansa, 2 supported Ramsay (one because of  Robb's actions and one because of Jon's) and the rest stayed neutral. It's not like everyone supported the Boltons, or liked them. And that's the matter of taste. Writing the North in a more romanticized way where everyone will fight for the Starks without question is not better or worse. It's just different. 

3 minor houses versus 2 of the 3 largest vassals.

I don't think the North in the books is "romanticized" in the way we see many vassals rallying for the Starks.  It's realistic, for two reasons:

1)  The Starks have ruled the North for eons.  History shows that that does, in fact, inspire very deep bonds in many people.  That's why dynastic pretenders were always a threat in the real middle ages, for instance, and they were appealing to much, much shorter histories.

2)  And this is particularly important, it is not purely a question of the Starks' rule.  Wyman Manderly is a Stark man, to be sure, but I'd be quite certain that his #1 motivation was that the Boltons murdered his son in a despicable, sacrilegious manner.  The Red Wedding touched just about every house in the North, and they are all pissed.  The North rising against the Boltons shows that the Boltons cannot act the way they have and expect people to knuckle under.

Whereas in the show, the only people who seem to care about the dead of the Red Wedding are the Stark kids.

And it's not like GRRM's North is full of undifferentiated vassals of equal loyalty.  We see people like the Karstarks who do hold grudges, for instance.

[nikma]

GRRM had more time to develop nuances (oh, that magic word) of the North. In the show the only characters that really died at the Red Wedding were the Starks. The others were extras. So there is no emotional investment.   In the books there are other characters from the North. And not just in Book 5. They don't magically appear there, they are part of the story from the beginning. Manderly is in the Book 1? I don't remember, but I know that he appears in Book 2.  And many others. 

So when these characters want revenge for their dead family members in Book 5, we already knew them. Both those who want revenge, and those who were killed. 

There are many book fans who really like those minor characters from the North. Because they are characters in the books. In the show they are extras. They had Greatjon Umber in S1 for 3 episodes, but that actor left the show. From that point only Roose and lord Karstark were Robb's support from the North. And both of them betrayed him. And then there were Blackfish and Edmure in S3. 

The Red Wedding touched just about every house in the North, but they were just extras in the show from the beginning. 

So yes, there are many minor characters in the books that create more complex political situation. But that's not only the case with the North. In Meereen as well situation is much more complicated  in the books. In the whole Essos. But it seems that many fans don't care that much about that, because those storylines were not that popular in the books. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

3 minor houses versus 2 of the 3 largest vassals.

I don't think the North in the books is "romanticized" in the way we see many vassals rallying for the Starks.  It's realistic, for two reasons:

It made perfect sense to me, and personally, I found it much more realistic that the Starks, after Robb's many blunders and the damage caused by the war, wouldn't be able to command the Northerners' unwavering loyalty against the Boltons. Bran pointed out in Season 2 that the Starks shouldn't expect loyalty from their vassals if they can't protect them. There was that sacred trust of the Starks ruling the North for many years, but the demands of loyalty based on tradition only go so far when the rulers abuse that sacred trust by making boneheaded decisions that jeopardize their subjects. Dynastic loyalty doesn't count for much when you show yourself completely unworthy of it.

As for their desire to punish the Boltons for their role in the Red Wedding, the Northerners would have to balance their desire to punish the Boltons against the Starks' exceedingly poor track record. Sure, the Boltons betrayed the Northerners, but that never would have happened had it not been for Robb's stupidity, and Lord Glover and the other Northerners knew it. Roose never would have abandoned a safe bet; he only ditched Robb when he saw that Robb was going to fail (again, due to Robb's own stupidity). Heck, Lord Glover didn't even bring up Robb's decision to execute Lord Karstark, which also cost him a number of soldiers he needed. The Boltons' actions were outrageous, but to the Northerners Robb's failings and selfish, poor decisions were equally outrageous. 

After the hash Robb made of things, from the Northerners' perspective, why give the Starks another opportunity to fuck things up even more and get even more of their soldiers killed? At least the Northerners had an uneasy peace with the Boltons. Why ruin what little stability they had for a poor investment like the Starks?

"The North remembers" is a fine idea, but it's just that: a fine idea without the kind of emotional realism I saw in the show. But then, I often find that the show is more emotionally realistic; there are a number of characters in the books who seem more like concepts than actual people (Book Brienne, for one).

Edited April 8, 2017 by Eyes High

[nikma]

I'm 100% sure that if the show and the books "exchanged" their approach to the North, that those same people would claim that GRRRM wrote it more realistically and that D&D are Stark fanboys. 

[Eyes High]

3 minutes ago, nikma said:

I'm 100% sure that if the show and the books "exchanged" their approach to the North, that those same people would claim that GRRRM wrote it more realistically and that D&D are Stark fanboys. 

Of course. There's this idea among some fans that if GRRM did it, it's necessarily brilliant or at least better than what the show did, and if D&D did it, it's necessarily dumb or at least worse than what the books did. Nope!

It was pretty funny when Shireen was burned in the show on Stannis' orders, and the book fans immediately flew into a rage about how GRRM would never write that and what a horrible disservice it was to the books, only for D&D to reveal that in fact GRRM told them that this happens in the as-yet-unpublished books.

[SeanC]

3 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

As for their desire to punish the Boltons for their role in the Red Wedding, the Northerners would have to balance their desire to punish the Boltons against the Starks' exceedingly poor track record. Sure, the Boltons betrayed the Northerners, but that never would have happened had it not been for Robb's stupidity, and Lord Glover and the other Northerners knew it. Lord Bolton never would have abandoned a safe bet; he only ditched Robb when he saw that Robb was going to fail (again, due to Robb's own stupidity). Heck, Lord Glover didn't even bring up Robb's decision to execute Lord Karstark, which also cost him a number of soldiers he really could have used.

In many cases, those are things the show itself changed to make Robb look worse (even Bolton's claim that Robb ignored his advice at every turn in the show is wrong; he only ignored Bolton's evil suggestions about things like torturing prisoners).  Book!Robb didn't make all those mistakes (for instance, Karstark's army had already left by the time he executed him, and Bolton turned against Robb when news of the Blackwater arrived, and was probably already undermining Robb up to that point).  Moreover, Book!Robb was killed marching home to liberate the parts of the North that the Ironborn had taken over, and Winterfell was sacked because Bran sent its garrison to defend their vassals.

38 minutes ago, nikma said:

GRRM had more time to develop nuances (oh, that magic word) of the North. In the show the only characters that really died at the Red Wedding were the Starks. The others were extras. So there is no emotional investment.   In the books there are other characters from the North. And not just in Book 5. They don't magically appear there, they are part of the story from the beginning. Manderly is in the Book 1? I don't remember, but I know that he appears in Book 2.  And many others. 

So when these characters want revenge for their dead family members in Book 5, we already knew them. Both those who want revenge, and those who were killed. 

There are many book fans who really like those minor characters from the North. Because they are characters in the books. In the show they are extras. They had Greatjon Umber in S1 for 3 episodes, but that actor left the show. From that point only Roose and lord Karstark were Robb's support from the North. And both of them betrayed him. And then there were Blackfish and Edmure in S3. 

The Red Wedding touched just about every house in the North, but they were just extras in the show from the beginning. 

The show had no problem introducing various Northern characters in Season 6 who talked about dead relatives we'd never met (Lyanna and her mother, Glover and his brother [I think Galbart technically had one line in Season 1, but he wasn't a character], Manderly and his son), so I don't think that's at all the reason why they did it that way.

[nikma]

3 minutes ago, SeanC said:

In many cases, those are things the show itself changed to make Robb look worse 

So what? They are consistent within the show. 

 

3 minutes ago, SeanC said:

The show had no problem introducing various Northern characters in Season 6 who talked about dead relatives we'd never met (Lyanna and her mother, Glover and his brother [I think Galbart technically had one line in Season 1, but he wasn't a character], Manderly and his son), so I don't think that's at all the reason why they did it that way.

So there you have it. But you can't expect that their anger serves as a driving force in the Northern plot like in the books, because people doesn't care about them.  
So far in the books, the Starks have basically nothing to do with their own return to power.  What will happen in the future? Who knows?

Karstarks and (some) Umbers are with the Boltons in the books as well. And they have even Freys. I don't see a drastic change from the books at all. So far only build up with no pay off in ADWD 

GRRM won't be able to write that plot  and create tension if the Boltons don't remain a formidable threat. How will he achieve that? Will the wildlings army with Jon turn away some support from the Northern lords? Will Ned's and Robbs' mistakes do that?  Maybe we will find out, maybe not. I don't expect a new book for a long time. 

[SeanC]

9 minutes ago, nikma said:

So what?

So, it's all part of the writers' decision to change the themes of the story.  It's not a case that they wrote themselves into a corner.

Quote

So there you have it. But you can't expect that their anger serves as a driving force in the Northern plot like in the books, because people doesn't care about them.  

Since the show made the Starks the main characters in this plot, it doesn't have to be the driving force.  

Quote

GRRM won't be able to write that plot  and create tension if the Boltons don't remain a formidable threat.

What plot, exactly?  The Northern plot involving the Boltons, at least, appears to be entering its endgame, and GRRM has set up various potential indicators of a subsequent plot that would be some sort of contested Stark succession.

I don't think you are ever going to see a book version of the show's plot where Jon leads an army against Ramsay.  The show made a ton of changes in order to facilitate that.

Edited April 8, 2017 by SeanC

[nikma]

5 minutes ago, SeanC said:

So, it's all part of the writers' decision to change the themes of the story.  It's not a case that they wrote themselves into a corner.

I'm not sure that anyone here said that they wrote themselves into a corner. It was their decision, their worldview.

 

5 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Since the show made the Starks the main characters in this plot, it doesn't have to be the driving force.  

I'm not sure that I understand what  you really wanted from the show. To have Lyanna say to Jon and Sansa "I want to support you because they killed my mother on the RW"? 

 

5 minutes ago, SeanC said:

What plot, exactly?  The Northern plot involving the Boltons, at least, appears to be entering its endgame, and GRRM has set up various potential indicators of a subsequent plot that would be some sort of contested Stark succession.

I don't think you are ever going to see a book version of the show's plot where Jon leads an army against Ramsay.  The show made a ton of changes in order to facilitate that.

That's the main word.    For me it doesn't appear at all, because I don't think that Stannis will be the one to take the Boltons and that the Starks will come to the liberated WF. 

And battle between Ramsay and Jon is precisely what I expect to see in the next book. 

But since the book does not exist, we don't know who is right and who is wrong. 

[SeanC]

12 minutes ago, nikma said:

I'm not sure that I understand what  you really wanted from the show. To have Lyanna say to Jon and Sansa "I want to support you because they killed my mother on the RW"? 

I want to see the Starks actually rally a good-sized army in the North, because the Boltons' actions should have consequences (as the show itself kept saying would happen to Ramsay, only it never did).

Quote

That's the main word.    For me it doesn't appear at all, because I don't think that Stannis will be the one to take the Boltons and that the Starks will come to the liberated WF. 

And battle between Ramsay and Jon is precisely what I expect to see in the next book. 

In the books, there just isn't any substantial reserve of Northerners left, and GRRM had it that way for a reason.  There's no Northern houses for Jon to rally (or attempt to rally), because they're all either committed to Stannis or stewing in Winterfell (probably, based on the hints in ADWD, plotting betrayal).

And if you take from D&D's comments that Stannis is going to burn Shireen, then Stannis can't lose the Battle of Ice, because he's nowhere near Shireen and in a situation where there's no retreat.

Edited April 8, 2017 by SeanC

[nikma]

Just now, SeanC said:

I want to see the Starks actually rally a good-sized army in the North, because the Boltons' actions should have consequences.

You would make Ramsay an underdog in the North? With the Vale, the willdings, and almost every Northern house united against him, there would be no tension at all. 

 

Just now, SeanC said:

In the books, there just isn't any substantial reserve of Northerners left, and GRRM had it that way for a reason.  There's no Northern houses for Jon to rally (or attempt to rally), because they're all either committed to Stannis or stewing in Winterfell (probably, based on the hints in ADWD, plotting betrayal).

And if you take from D&D's comments that Stannis is going to burn Shireen, then Stannis can't lose the Battle of Ice, because he's nowhere near Shireen.

 

That was an interesting speculation, but speculating about the future of the books became very frustrating for me so I really don't have the energy to discuss about the possible plots in TWOW, because at some point I felt like I cared more about that book, that the author.

I will just say that I don't think that the fact that Shireen is not with Stannis changes anything. That character from the Iron Bank (forgot the name) came to Stannis from the Wall, so I really don't see any problem. 

[WearyTraveler]

I sort of take offense at being lumped with Martin purists just because I don't like a choice D&D made.  Sometimes I think the story is better as written by Martin, other times, I'm quite happy to let D&D flex their creative muscle.  To me, Hardhome is a great example of D&D putting something there that the books didn't have which turned out great. I also think they were wise cutting Aegon (the one supported by Varys and Illyrio), Quentyn and Arianne out of the story, and I liked that they condensed the Slaver Bay plots so that we don't suffer through endless hours of Danny learning to be a Queen.

But, sometimes D&D have made very poor choices, and I don't think pointing those out or stating that one thinks a book plot was better than what was presented by the show means that one is a Martin worshiper. The sand snakes and Ellaria were a bust, and just horrible characters with nothing to contribute but the tired cliches of what some people think are bad-ass women.  Jaime has had very little character development for a long time now, Jon is diminished to elevate Sansa, the Northeners are portrayed one rung above hillbillies, Sansa is smart one day and dumb the other, and so on.

It doesn't have to be about hating/loving a character.  It could simply be that for some of us it was better written in the book, a counter argument shouldn't include such generalizations as to the motivation of the opinion itself. 

[SeanC]

7 minutes ago, nikma said:

You would make Ramsay an underdog in the North? With the Vale, the willdings, and almost every Northern house united against him, there would be no tension at all. 

No, there are any number of ways the story could have been written to still have dramatic tension.  For instance, the Starks get lots of Northerners to commit, and Ramsay, a la Napoleon at Waterloo, attempts to attack one of the portions of the army (the one Jon is with) before it can unite with the rest of the Northerners and destroy him.  Also, this version of the battle involves Jon actually showing his prowess as a commander, instead of acting like a dumbass, because the show has to provide some explanation for why the Northerners make him king if they're going to omit Robb's will, and that means he has to act like a king.

[nikma]

7 minutes ago, SeanC said:

No, there are any number of ways the story could have been written to still have dramatic tension.  For instance, the Starks get lots of Northerners to commit, and Ramsay, a la Napoleon at Waterloo, attempts to attack one of the portions of the army (the one Jon is with) before it can unite with the rest of the Northerners and destroy him.  Also, this version of the battle involves Jon actually showing his prowess as a commander, instead of acting like a dumbass

Jon is actually showing his prowess as a commander with Ramsay destroying half of his army with a sudden attack? Yeah, right.

And then what after that? Another battle? With the Vale coming to help?

So you would just create 2 battles out of one (I won't even mention the budget reasons why this is impossible), but here Jon will not be underdog because not enough Northen houses supported him, but because Ramsay destroyed half of his army even before the battle started? 

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[SeanC]

2 minutes ago, nikma said:

Jon is actually showing his prowess as a commander with Ramsay's destroying half of his army with a sudden attack? Yeah, right.

And then what after that? Another battle? With the Vale coming to help?

So you would just create 2 battles out of one (I won't even mention the budget reasons why this is impossible), but here Jon will not be underdog because not enough Northen houses supported him, but because Ramsay destroyed half of his army even before the battle started? 

No, nowhere did I suggest two battles.  I said there would be one battle, one in which Jon found himself facing a surprise attack from Ramsay that puts him on the defensive, and where he uses his skill as a commander to hold Ramsay off long enough for help to arrive (rather than the Stark army marching into Ramsay's trap after Jon charges at the enemy line like a moron).

Edited April 8, 2017 by SeanC

[nikma]

Jon didn't  charge at the enemy line "like a moron", he tried to save his brother, and then he was forced to charge because The Boltons shoot arrows at him.

 

Your version of the story also involves Ramsay's trap. Jon just marches with his army with no scouts  to report about Ramsay's army approaching? I can only imagine the complaints from book purists after that. 

Everything else would be the same, Jon fighting while he is waiting for teh help to come.  Every battle in TV and movie is a visual spectacle and they wanted to show how dirty is on the ground, how horrible and chaotic battle is, but if you have Jon sitting on his horse, commanding the army you lose the best aspect of that episode and that is chaos on the ground and horrors of the battle. 

And not to mention that your version of the battle is not even at WF.  D&D said that they wanted a pitched battle because that was something they've never done. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[SeanC]

4 minutes ago, nikma said:

Jon didn't  charge at the enemy line "like a moron", he tried to save his brother, and then he was forced to charge because The Boltons shoot arrows at him.

Yeah, that was moronic, because he is the commander, and he can't do stuff like that.  The lives of all his men are in his hands.

Quote

Your version of the story also involves Ramsay's trap. Jon just marches with his army with no scouts  to report about Ramsay's army approaching? I can only imagine the complaints from book purists after that. 

No, that's not a trap, it's a strategy.  Who said anything about no scouts?  Scouts can be evaded until Ramsay is so close that Jon has no choice but to offer battle, as retreat would be unsafe.  That happens all the time in war.  As I noted, it happened at Waterloo, where the Duke of Wellington famously exclaimed "Napoleon has humbugged me" and stolen 24 hours' march -- and I don't think anybody would say Sir Arthur was a bad general.  It happens quite early in the books too, where Roose Bolton is able to march within a mile of Tywin's position before Tywin knows he's there.

Quote

Everything else would be the same, Jon fighting while he is waiting for teh help to come.  Every battle in TV and movie is a visual spectacle and they wanted to show how dirty is on the ground, how horrible and chaotic battle is, but if you have Jon sitting on his horse, commanding the army you lose the best aspect of that episode and that is chaos on the ground and horrors of the battle. 

Again, I didn't say Jon wouldn't fight.  But we would also see him commanding his men, which doesn't happen in the show.

Moreover, in this version of events you don't have things that make no sense, like all the nonsense about Sansa not telling Jon about the Vale army, and there are real consequences for Ramsay's constant evil, which the show kept saying would happen but never actually did.

Edited April 8, 2017 by SeanC

[nikma]

That kind of battle you propose is the battle that will happen between Dany and jaime in S7.  As I sad D&D said they wanted  a pitched battle because that was something they've never done. 

 

But there are many problems with what you proposes, but currently I have some real life obligations, so I don't have time to write. I will return in a few hours. 

[WearyTraveler]

54 minutes ago, nikma said:

As I sad D&D said they wanted  a pitched battle because that was something they've never done. 

The proposed scenario does not negate a pitched battle.

 

As the old saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat.  They could have arrived at the same type of battle scenario without making Jon look stupid or Sansa shifty, which also made her partially responsible for the deaths that came before she got the Vale army to the battle, since she hid from Jon the fact that she could get the Vale army in the first place.

[Eyes High]

2 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

I sort of take offense at being lumped with Martin purists just because I don't like a choice D&D made.  Sometimes I think the story is better as written by Martin, other times, I'm quite happy to let D&D flex their creative muscle.  To me, Hardhome is a great example of D&D putting something there that the books didn't have which turned out great. I also think they were wise cutting Aegon (the one supported by Varys and Illyrio), Quentyn and Arianne out of the story, and I liked that they condensed the Slaver Bay plots so that we don't suffer through endless hours of Danny learning to be a Queen.

But, sometimes D&D have made very poor choices, and I don't think pointing those out or stating that one thinks a book plot was better than what was presented by the show means that one is a Martin worshiper. 

Except that's not at all what I or nikma said. The problem is with book purists automatically assuming that if GRRM did it, it's better, and if D&D did something differently, it must automatically be worse than what GRRM did, because it was different, without any analysis except "GRRM = good, D&D = bad." Often, it results in absurdities like book purists heaping disdain on some or other show plot twist, only to backpedal furiously when they realize it was done on GRRM's suggestion and instead heap praise on the wisdom and brilliance of that plot twist, something that has happened a few times.

As for D&D I think they've placed at a premium the following:

1. Having some sort of coherent and straightforward overarching narrative that is digestible and comprehensible to the audience.

2. Keeping the number of characters and separate storylines to a minimum, preferably by bringing major characters into the same storylines as quickly as possible (Sansa and Brienne both getting looped into the Northern storyline, Tyrion meeting Dany and falling in with Dany's crew in Season 5, etc.) or by cutting book arcs short (getting Arya out of the FM posthaste, cutting Tyrion's depression and slavery arc short, etc.).

3. Redistributing storylines by putting primary or major secondary characters front and centre in place of tertiary characters (Tyrion for Barristan, Jon and Sansa for Stannis, Sansa for Jeyne Poole, Theon and Yara for Victarion, etc.)

4. Eliminating anything that doesn't serve #1, #2 or #3. If a book element isn't strictly necessary or can't be converted into something that serves their ur-plot, they won't use it. (The Northern conspiracy is a good example; it clashed with the narrative they wanted of Jon and Sansa struggling against all odds to win back the Starks' ancestral home, so of course D&D ditched it. The same went for Stannis; he had to go to clear the way for Jon and Sansa, so he died, and much sooner than he's looking likely to die in the books.)

To me, though, I think D&D subordinating absolutely everything to a coherent overall plot was the right decision, even if it meant they had to take a machete to the books to do so, and even if it meant that a lot of other things had to fall by the wayside to make that happen. D&D did what GRRM was ultimately unable to do and kept the plot from spiraling out of control, which is in of itself an enormous achievement given the source material. In that respect, at least, they have succeeded, even if they had to sacrifice a great deal of post-ASOS ASOIAF's plot and characterization on that altar. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Eyes High

[WearyTraveler]

22 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

Except that's not at all what I or nikma said.

There are two other people currently in this conversation, both of which expressed a dislike for certain choices, and then the post about the purists appears, logically, it follows you're calling one or both of us purists.  If that was not your intention, then those observations didn't have a place in this current conversation.

I put forth all my posts in the Book 6 thread, as well as, all my posting history in this subforum, for anyone who wants to explore it, so they can see that I sometimes agree with D&D and sometimes not; there's plenty of criticism of Martin in there, for whoever wants to find it.

Since during the hiatuses there are only a few of us around here, I've also had the opportunity to get familiar with some posters and their opinions, and I will say that while I have sometimes deeply disagreed with SeanC, I'd never say she's a book purist.

22 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

even if they had to sacrifice a great deal of post-ASOS ASOIAF's plot and characterization on that altar.

And what we are saying is that we can envision plenty of scenarios where all of that could be accomplished without sacrificing characterization.  At least of the principal characters, such as Jon and Sansa.  

Edited April 8, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[SeanC]

39 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

As for D&D I think they've placed at a premium the following: 

I would agree that those are their goals.  I don't, in principle, object to them (the show already had too many characters for it to manage comfortably in the early seasons).

Some of the things I object to are a result of the writers' taking a very different approach to themes or characters, which they're entitled to do (they have a very shallowly cynical view of politics, for instance, that infuses everything; that's different from the books, but whatever).

However, most of my biggest issues with the show are its inability to realize its own ideas.  Like, D&D hammered away for years that Ramsay's brutality and disregard for norms would backfire on him eventually (Rose goes on about right before he gets stabbed, even), so it's probably safe to assume they think the story they wrote bears this out.  But it doesn't.

It may have been possible to combine Sansa and Brienne with Jon and Theon's plots in a way that made sense on a plot and character level, but they didn't manage it.

[Eyes High]

1 hour ago, WearyTraveler said:

And what we are saying is that we can envision plenty of scenarios where all of that could be accomplished without sacrificing characterization.  At least of the principal characters, such as Jon and Sansa.  

Well, in a perfect world, sure, they would be able to balance both beautifully. But honestly, this type of criticism, which comes up a fair bit--I could have done it far better than D&D, I could have thought up better scenarios that provided plot without sacrificing characterization, etc.--sounds like little more than hollow statements from people who have never been and will never be in D&D's position of adapting two arguably unadaptable books (AFFC and ADWD) for a mass audience and constructing a cogent plot from little more than a plot outline post-ADWD. We can jaw all we want about the mythical writers who would have pulled this off without making any sacrifices or compromises, or even position ourselves as those mythical writers who would have effortlessly pulled off everything that D&D could not, but it sounds kind of silly, doesn't it? It's like the guy watching football who loudly claims that unlike the NFL star QB, he never would have thrown an errant pass. Words are winds and all that.

It's funny that GRRM and D&D unintentionally represent these two extremes in approaching ASOIAF. GRRM put worldbuilding and carefully shepherding his many, many parallel plots first, leading to the bloated messes that are AFFC and ADWD. D&D put a coherent plot first, resulting in an adaptation that in many respects is little more than a stylized cartoon of the books.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Eyes High

[WearyTraveler]

I don-t think we-re talking huge undertakings here.  In some respects we are talking about D&D actually being consistent with their own words and in others we are talking about doing things that are unnecessary to carry out the same vision they say they have.  Off course I'm not a writer, but that doesn't mean that I can't think of ways in which a writer's work can be improved.  And this applies to all professions.  Fresh eyes and all that.  Just because a person is not in a particular field, it doesn't mean they can't look at that field and have valid input.

Saying that someone who is not a writer can't contribute is simply making a strawman to shoot down, but the strawman does not reality reflect.

But, we're now straying too far from the point of this thread, IMO, so, I'll leave it at that.

[nikma]

@SeanC

My problem with what you said in general (not to go into specific aspects of your fanfiction) is that I see no point in any of that. What you are proposing is a completely different story, the story they didn't want to tell. They wanted to establish LF as the main antagonist in S7 and to for a time repair his relationship with Sansa (in some way), so they had to owe him for that to be possible, so he had to lay an important role in their victory.

Then we know that basically entire S7 plot in the North could be called "Battle for Sansa's soul". They had to plant that kind of mistrust between Sansa and Jon, her lies to him, her own schemes. We will see the culmination of that story at the end of S7. And as I see many fans even on the internet where they read many theories, believe that Sansa will betray Jon in S7. So they succeeded. And even if Jon is absent from the Noirth for the majority of S7, his "spirit" is still there and Arya will serve as his PR.

Jon was not written like an idiot, he had a good strategy against Ramsay, but Ramsay had the good psychological game for Jon. They both stayed true to their characters. 

What you are proposing is a completely different story. Sansa and Jon are in a great relationship and there is no need of the Vale army.

Edited April 8, 2017 by nikma

[nikma]

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

However, most of my biggest issues with the show are its inability to realize its own ideas.  Like, D&D hammered away for years that Ramsay's brutality and disregard for norms would backfire on him eventually (Rose goes on about right before he gets stabbed, even), so it's probably safe to assume they think the story they wrote bears this out.  But it doesn't.

What Roose said was that he will be threated like a mad dog and in the end he he was. He was killed like a mad dog.

And I really don't know when or where D&D were saying for years anything like that about Ramsay. They would never discuss downfall of a character if that didn't happen already. They never hinted in their interviews about the deaths of Tywin, Joffrey, Roose, Walder Frey,... and I don't believe that Ramsay was an exception. 

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, nikma said:

What you are proposing is a completely different story. Sansa and Jon are in a great relationship and there is no need of the Vale army.

...

They had to plant that kind of mistrust between Sansa and Jon, her lies to him, her own schemes. We will see the culmination of that story at the end of S7. And as I see many fans even on the internet where they read many theories, believe that Sansa will betray Jon in S7. So they succeeded. And even if Jon is absent from the Noirth for the majority of S7, his "spirit" is still there and Arya will serve as his PR.

I never said anything about Jon and Sansa's relationship in my overview of what a battle storyline would look like, and the Vale army can be part of the forces they recruit (without any of the nonsensical withholding of information).  The show can do that tension over any number of things.

However, they would have to do it in a way that makes sense, which they did not do in the actual series.  The whole Vale army subplot is absolutely awful, some of the worst plotting in the whole series, and suggesting the writers completely misunderstand the stakes and implications of it, and makes Sansa look like a moron.  The writers (as can be seen from the script) want to set up a dynamic where Sansa is excluded from decision-making, but this makes no sense either because they never convey that at all, and it's further undermined by Sansa withholding information from Jon for no reason when that would radically alter their strategic calculus.

My proposed alteration to the story was guided by, among other things, the fact that the show's writers want this storyline to show Sansa becoming a player, but in the actual story as told she is a total failure who never accomplishes anything.  So having her succeed in gathering some allies, overcoming initial reluctance (which would be understandable) with shrewd diplomacy, would actually do this.

Quote

Then we know that basically entire S7 plot in the North could be called "Battle for Sansa's soul".

We don't, in fact, know that.

Spoiler

Indeed, according to Lads, it amounts to nothing.

Quote

Jon was not written like an idiot, he had a good strategy against Ramsay, but Ramsay had the good psychological game for Jon. 

No, he didn't have a particularly good strategy, and in any event we never see him actually leading his men.  The story D&D set up when they excluded Robb's will requires that Jon be so impressive that the Northmen all want to make him king.  That's fine, I think, but you have to write that story.  They didn't.  They wrote a story where the pro-Stark forces would have been much better off if Jon was not there at all.

3 hours ago, nikma said:

What Roose said was that he will be threated like a mad dog and in the end he he was. He was killed like a mad dog.

Roose was talking about Ramsay's willingness to go to the Wall and murder the LC of the Night's Watch.  It was the last of a series of moments where Roose upbraids Ramsay for his lack of caution and self-control (a similar feature to the books) and says that Ramsay will not last long if he doesn't do better.  He did the same in the previous episode when Sansa escaped, to cite another instance, and had earlier said the same thing in 503 when he first raised the idea of Ramsay marrying Sansa and pursuing a different course than going around murdering people at the drop of a hat (as he had done with the Cerwyns that episode).  These scenes are the writers setting up a test for Ramsay, and the "mad dog" line is clearly meant to pay off in the way Ramsay dies.

But the thing is, Ramsay never experiences any consequences for his brutality.  The writers seem to think he does, but he doesn't.  Sansa's escape doesn't matter, because Sansa herself accomplishes nothing.  The Northern lords don't care, Ramsay actually gains allies afterward, Jon and the Wildlings are easily defeated by Ramsay, and Ramsay only loses because Littlefinger shows up, which he was going to do anyway.  I mentioned the Cerwyns, another example where, prior to Season 6, many fans were assuming this would pay off when the Cerwyns joined the Starks; but no, Cerwyn hides in his castle, and the show even calls attention to this at the end of the season.  So Ramsay's brutality worked exactly as he intended it to.  Hell, in the very episode where the battle happens, Jon remarks that Ramsay's men don't want to fight for him and will falter or turn on him if he looks weak; in the course of the episode, Ramsay proceeds to rain arrows down on his own soldiers, and after his army gets wiped out, barricades himself in Winterfell for a last stand, and his men...fight to the death anyway.  Ramsay's style of leadership is consequence-free to the very end.

Edited April 9, 2017 by SeanC

[anamika]

10 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Except that's not at all what I or nikma said. The problem is with book purists automatically assuming that if GRRM did it, it's better, and if D&D did something differently, it must automatically be worse than what GRRM did, because it was different, without any analysis except "GRRM = good, D&D = bad." Often, it results in absurdities like book purists heaping disdain on some or other show plot twist, only to backpedal furiously when they realize it was done on GRRM's suggestion and instead heap praise on the wisdom and brilliance of that plot twist, something that has happened a few times.

 

It's funny how suddenly the topic has swerved to book purists because I criticized the writing on the show. So expecting logical, cogent writing from the show is now apparently being a book purist.

Book!Jon is planning battles, administrating the NW, studying wights, negotiating with kings and banks. He is pragmatic and forceful. He knows how to make his case and stands up to Stannis a couple of times. In season 5 we saw some of this. So far so good.

The problems start when we get Sansa and Davos at the wall in season 6. This is the result of combining plots on the show. Now what one character (Jon) would do in the books has to be split between three.  Davos is written as the advisor and diplomat and Sansa is the diplomat, motivator and smart player - so Jon gets relegated to battle planner and fighter - with help from Davos and Tormund. Sansa complains about this because she also wants to be battle planner and advisor.

So since Jon is not a diplomat or a thinker on the show (Which he is in the books) - he needs to be judged on his prowess as battle planner and leader of his men.

So Jon the battle planner and leader, how does he fare?  After Rickon is killed, Jon rushes headlong into battle leading his men to their deaths and the North would have been lost if it had not been for Sansa, LF and the Vale - and this idiot is made king despite Sansa sitting right there.

I am not saying that the show should have Jon doing all the things that he did in the books to show us that Jon is qualified - that's not possible. But don't show us things that makes Jon unqualified to be king and then have the Northerners make rousing speeches about how awesome Jon is when he didn't do shit - Jon Snow avenged the Red Wedding?! How? By getting his men killed? The Northerners don't know what Jon has been doing at the wall - they would have judged him on that battle. And he failed in that battle. If you want to give Jon credit for that then actually show him successfully beating Ramsay at his game with tactics and strategy and good thinking so that the Northerners would have the confidence that this guy can take on the White Walkers and not get good men killed.

But they can't have Jon doing it, because they need to have Sansa showing up with the Vale army for that last minute save. For the same reason, the Northerners don't help (Apparently because they are angry about the Red Wedding but it's all water under the bridge after Lyanna Mormont scolds them).

And Sansa's big moment of being a player of the game is to write LF a letter asking for help and then not telling anyone about it because why? No one knows.

That's the thing - the show has it's characters make these big blunders and while the viewers are judging these characters on these decisions, the show itself blithely ignores these character defining moments.

The show wants to have it's cake and eat it too. It wants Jon to be king but it used the battle of the bastard episode to show how Sansa is awesome. Sansa tells Jon to not do the thing Ramsay wants him to do. Jon falls for the trap and is losing the battle badly and it ends with Sansa and the Vale army to the rescue.

Hence the dissonance in the last episode, when the rightful heir and person who was responsible for the victory was ignored in favor of the bastard NW deserter who did not get his head chopped off by the opportunistic, cowardly Northerners who now no longer care about Robb's actions because a 10 yr old scolded them. But sure, these are just complaints from book purists automatically assuming that GRRM will do better.

Edited April 9, 2017 by anamika

[OhOkayWhat]

23 hours ago, anamika said:

So while in the books, the conflict is between Jon and Ramsay over Arya and Jon decides to go attack Ramsay to save his sister, on the show, the conflict is between Sansa and Ramsay and Sansa has to goad Jon into fighting against Ramsay.

Even if I agree that is an exact description of the plots, I do not see the narrative problem. They are just different storylines.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Jon is a skilled tactician and negotiator in the books, even getting deals from the Iron Bank,

Book!Jon and Show!Jon are different characters. No narrative problem.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

So not only does get Jon sidelined in his own plot,

We cannot call a hypothetical plot "his own" plot. 

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

How would they not know that? 

Many of them were not in the battle. And she is there, besides him, because she is already near to the battle zone. It is not like she traveled with him from the Vale to Winterfell.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Would they not ask Jon and Sansa how the Vale army came about?

They already talked with the man who saved the day.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Littlefinger : Hey Sansa, BF has taken Riverrun and by the way, Jon is only your half brother...

Sansa: Did you guys know that the BF has taken Riverrun?

Jon : How did you know this?

Sansa: Ramsay received a Raven! I also secretly wrote to LF asking for his help, but I am not giving you that info either!

That does not prove she trust Petyr. That proves that Petyr manipulated her.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Again, why does Sansa not tell Jon about the Vale? 

Because she really thinks that whatever Jon decides to do, Ramsay will be able to use mind-tricks to defeat Jon and Jon's troops. It does not matter if it is true or not. It is true in her mind.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Why was Jon made KITN?

There are conjunctural and structural causes:

Conjunctural: a mix of regrets, enthusiasm and Littlefinger words.

Structuctual: the dramatic shift of the values at the core of Westeros society after the War of the Five Kings.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Why do the Northerners not care that he has left the Night's watch

Same structural reason and because in the last decades (or more) within the story, only very few people actually cared a lot about the Night's Watch

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

What special leadership skills has he shown to the Northern leaders to get elected King, considering Ned's legitimate heir was sitting right next to him?

Why to assume the reasons that got him elected are necessarily related to him. Most of them were not related directly to him. And the narrative established those reasons and circunstances.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

if it had not been for Sansa's rescue with the Vale army, 

They do not know it was Sansa who asked for help.

 

23 hours ago, anamika said:

Why did Davos suddenly go and ask Melisandre to resurrect Jon Snow?

Because Davos knows about the Long Night problem. And he also knows that Jon knows.

Edited April 9, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[OhOkayWhat]

Another of the problems that I usually find within the criticism is that sometimes people analyze using some kind of "Universal Narrative Rule" :

Character X made a mistake = Narrative mistake.

And that Rule does not make sense.

Edited April 9, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[nikma]

@SeanC

Why do you watch the show and do you have anything postive to say about the show?

Reading your post was tiresome because it seems that you have some kind of personal vendetta against D&D, some kind of personal relationship where they've offended you, there is so much anger and bitterness in your words against them (where you you use words like moron and idiot describing their characters, but at the same time using every  euphemism imaginable to defend GRRM's writing) you are twisting their words, taking the lines from the show or their interviews out of context just to portray them as a people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing, like a two idiots who just happened to run the biggest TV production in the world. 

As I said, Jon had a good strategy against Ramsay, and you just replied that that was not a good strategy and you continue with your rant like nothing happened. I don't know what is the point if you are going to write me monologues while ignoring what I said. I didn't say that that was the greatest strategy ever seen, but Jon had an understanding of disadvantage they faced. But everything fell aparts with Ramsay's games. Because Jon is not the kind of person who will stick to the strategy and watch his brother die . But this is the show about the characters, not military strategies, so for D&D it was more important to have Jon and Ramsay stay true to their characters than to watch some complex military strategy. Which battle in this show had complex strategy?

And yes there were other ways to establish  tension around Sansa, but they've chose this way. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by nikma

[nikma]

4 hours ago, anamika said:

ence the dissonance in the last episode, when the rightful heir and person who was responsible for the victory was ignored in favor of the bastard NW deserter who did not get his head chopped off by the opportunistic, cowardly Northerners who now no longer care about Robb's actions because a 10 yr old scolded them. But sure, these are just complaints from book purists automatically assuming that GRRM will do better.

Yes that was a dissonance, and that will be the main part of the Northern plot in S7.

Only Glover refused them because of Robb's action, other lords just didn't believe in their leadership. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by nikma

[YaddaYadda]

9 hours ago, anamika said:

The Northerners don't know what Jon has been doing at the wall - they would have judged him on that battle. And he failed in that battle.

The writers threw a line in there from Ramsay about how he heard all about Jon and if he believes the rumors, Jon is the best swordsman that's ever lived. So The north seems aware of Jon and what he's up to at the Wall, add to that all the rumors about the Wildlings. 

But yeah, he failed that battle and he had nothing to do with avenging the Red Wedding. Besides, Ramsay killed Roose who was one of the three architects of that blood bath. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by YaddaYadda

[SeanC]

7 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

That does not prove she trust Petyr. That proves that Petyr manipulated her.

She accepts Littlefinger's information uncritically.  That's trust.

Quote

They do not know it was Sansa who asked for help.

Why would they not know that?

Quote

Because Davos knows about the Long Night problem. And he also knows that Jon knows.

That doesn't make any sense.  Davos doesn't know resurrecting people is possible, he has heretofore been opposed to Melisandre's magic and prophesies, and he has barely interacted with Jon.  There's no reason why he would think resurrecting Jon was something that needed to be done.

5 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

Another of the problems that I usually find within the criticism is that sometimes people analyze using some kind of "Universal Narrative Rule" :

Character X made a mistake = Narrative mistake.

And that Rule does not make sense.

For my part, my criticisms have been when the characters' actions do not line up with what the show wants us to think about them.

5 hours ago, nikma said:

@SeanC

Why do you watch the show and do you have anything postive to say about the show?

Reading your post was tiresome because it seems that you have some kind of personal vendetta against D&D, some kind of personal relationship where they've offended you, there is so much anger and bitterness in your words against them (where you you use words like moron and idiot describing their characters, but at the same time using every  euphemism imaginable to defend GRRM's writing) you are twisting their words, taking the lines from the show or their interviews out of context just to portray them as a people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing, like a two idiots who just happened to run the biggest TV production in the world. 

Where exactly was I using "very euphemism imaginable to defend GRRM's writing"?  That wasn't even part of this discussion.  In any event, pivoting to asking why I watch the show is the last fallback of anyone arguing about it, and there's no vendetta in my writing.  It's simply a list of criticisms, not a rant.

Quote

And yes there were other ways to establish  tension around Sansa, but they've chose this way. 

And it was a tremendously stupid way that doesn't make sense either as a plot or for the characters.

Spelling out what the show is trying to accomplish by doing a certain thing does not automatically make it good storytelling, for all the reasons I identified.

The Season 6 Northern plot is a mess of conflicting character imperatives, where variously:

- Jon has to go from being resurrected to being crowned king in a plot where, absent Robb's will, that happening must be justified by great deeds.  However, this runs into the problem of him having to share this plot with...

- Sansa, who has to go from sex slave to "player" and play the critical role in defeating the villain that she now has the strongest personal connection to in the story.  However...

- The plot also requires that Sansa fail at being a player so that she can be forced to go crawling back to Littlefinger.  The show tries to square the above circle by suggesting that accepting Littlefinger's offer of help is somehow a strategic masterstroke, instead of something literally anybody could have done with the information she had.

Edited April 9, 2017 by SeanC

[nikma]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

Where exactly was I using "very euphemism imaginable to defend GRRM's writing"?  That wasn't even part of this discussion.  In any event, pivoting to asking why I watch the show is the last fallback of anyone arguing about it, and there's no vendetta in my writing.  It's simply a list of criticisms, not a rant.

 

Yes, that wasn't part of this discussion, but we had many discussions on this forum so I just noticed. 

Maybe it does seem like the last fallback, but I'm genuinely interested, because your are clearly following everything about this show and I never heard you said anything good about the creators. I was absent from this fandom for months, I just moved on, watched some other shows and I returned recently and there you are with the same passion you had many moths ago. 

And I really feel some kind of rage, aggression in your writing. I'm not telling you that you are rude, of course, but it seems almost personal, from my perspective. 

 

Quote

And it was a tremendously stupid way that doesn't make sense either as a plot or for the characters.

 

That's what I'm talking about. So much aggression in your approach.  "Tremendously stupid way".  

 

Quote

The Season 6 Northern plot is a mess of conflicting character imperatives, where variously:

- Jon has to go from being resurrected to being crowned king in a plot where, absent Robb's will, that happening must be justified by great deeds.  However, this runs into the problem of him having to share this plot with...

- Sansa, who has to go from sex slave to "player" and play the critical role in defeating the villain that she now has the strongest personal connection to in the story.  However...

- The plot also requires that Sansa fail at being a player so that she can be forced to go crawling back to Littlefinger.  The show tries to square the above circle by suggesting that accepting Littlefinger's offer of help is somehow a strategic masterstroke, instead of something literally anybody could have done with the information she had.

Yes you  identified some aspects of Northern plot, but I think there is too much of your own interpretations. For example, I don't think that the show is telling that Jon becoming the king was  justified or that he deserved it more than Sansa. He became the king by accident really, just because Lyanna liked him more.

Also, I don't think that the show was suggesting that accepting  Littlefinger's offer was a "strategic masterstroke" (another exaggeration of yours), but it was a move only she could make because of her personal relationship with LF and the lords of the Vale. Sansa made a more strategic decisions in S6 than ever before in the show. It was her idea to take the WF, her idea to use the wildlings in Jon's army (that's not something he wouldn't think of, but she came up with that first, and he was against it), it was her idea to use some Northern lords, it was her idea to seek Blackfish and refuse LF at first, and to promise some kind of reward to LF, which she won't deliver,...

So if being a player is being a politician, Sansa was precisely that for the first time ever in the show. I don't remember any political decision that she made in the first 5 seasons. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by nikma

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

REMINDER: Please remember to be respectful of other posters opinions. There are no right or wrong opinions here, only differing ones. Furthermore, nobody is under any obligation to explain themselves or why they hold a certain opinion on any topic; but if someone is generous enough to do so, that should be that.

Thanks.

[OhOkayWhat]

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

She accepts Littlefinger's information uncritically.  That's trust.

We only know that she uses the information. Also, we do not know if she used it uncritically or not (we do not know what are her thoughts).

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

Why would they not know that?

It is possible nobody told them.

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

Davos doesn't know resurrecting people is possible

Davos knows Melissandre do magic. That opens the possibility.

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

he has heretofore been opposed to Melisandre's magic and prophesies,

He thinks she can be useful in this particular circunstance.

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

he has barely interacted with Jon

He interacted with Jon for several weeks or more. He knows what he did in certain events.

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

There's no reason why he would think resurrecting Jon was something that needed to be done.

 The Long Night.

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

For my part, my criticisms have been when the characters' actions do not line up with what the show wants us to think about them.

How do we know what the show wants us to think?

 

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

The plot also requires that Sansa fail at being a player so that she can be forced to go crawling back to Littlefinger. 

She plays. She fails. The narrative still makes sense.

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

The show tries to square the above circle by suggesting that accepting Littlefinger's offer of help is somehow a strategic masterstroke, instead of something literally anybody could have done with the information she had.

I do not think the show suggests that.

Edited April 9, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[nikma]

I think they should have put a scene where Davos, Edd and Tormund are discussing over Jon's dead body what to do next and then to have a scene with Davos and Melisandre. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by nikma

[OhOkayWhat]

53 minutes ago, nikma said:

He became the king by accident really,

Agree. The circunstances that got him elected are (mostly) not directly related to him. Lyanna's speech is one of those circunstances.

21 minutes ago, nikma said:

I think they should have put a scene where Davos, Edd and Tormund are discussing over Jon's dead body what to do next and then to have a scene with Davos and Melisandre. 

I wish they include more scenes to explain things better. But we also should remember this (books and show comparison): in the books, the writer has almost all the pages the writer wants to give us details. In the show, if I am not wrong, each main character has around 45-60 minutes of screentime each season . That is like 1/4 of the screentime a main character has in other shows.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, nikma said:

Yes you  identified some aspects of Northern plot, but I think there is too much of your own interpretations. For example, I don't think that the show is telling that Jon becoming the king was  justified or that he deserved it more than Sansa. He became the king by accident really, just because Lyanna liked him more.

Why did Lyanna like him more? She wasn't impressed by him (or Sansa) in 607. What happened in 609 to change her mind? Nothing we saw would seem to warrant it. That's my point -- whether the show thinks Jon deserves to be king more than Sansa, I don't know, but the plot does not remotely sell that anybody would want to make him king at that point. The Stark army would have been better off if he wasn't there at all.

Quote

Also, I don't think that the show was suggesting that accepting  Littlefinger's offer was a "strategic masterstroke" (another exaggeration of yours), but it was a move only she could make because of her personal relationship with LF and the lords of the Vale. Sansa made a more strategic decisions in S6 than ever before in the show. It was her idea to take the WF, her idea to use the wildlings in Jon's army (that's not something he wouldn't think of, but she came up with that first, and he was against it), it was her idea to use some Northern lords, it was her idea to seek Blackfish and refuse LF at first, and to promise some kind of reward to LF, which she won't deliver,...

So if being a player is being a politician, Sansa was precisely that for the first time ever in the show. I don't remember any political decision that she made in the first 5 seasons. 

Sansa was trying to be a player for multiple seasons at that point, going back to aligning with Littlefinger in Season 4. Season 6 is supposed to be when she comes into her own and plays the decisive role in defeating the Boltons (and there's no doubt that this is what the show is conveying; look at how her arrival at the battle is filmed, and the final scene between her and Ramsay). But she doesn't do this. The whole plot is structured around her failing and having to crawl back to Littlefinger, and in fact, even what little success Team Stark has prior to that point is attributed to Jon and Davos, not her, even though diplomacy is supposed to be what she's good at. So the idea that Sansa accomplishes anything, which is the trumpeting soundtrack sure as hell wants you to think she has, hinges on the notion that contacting Littlefinger is something other than an admission of failure. Because looked at objectively, Season 6 demonstrates that Sansa is incapable of doing anything on her own wits.

59 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

We only know that she uses the information. Also, we do not know if she used it uncritically or not (we do not know what are her thoughts).

If the show wants us to think she has any doubts about it, it has to demonstrate them.  What we see is her being told about it then immediately using the information, and even with Brienne, who knows where it came from, the authenticity is never discussed.

Quote

It is possible nobody told them.

Deeply implausible.  The Valemen are there, and have no reason to keep it a secret.

Quote

Davos knows Melissandre do magic. That opens the possibility.

He thinks she can be useful in this particular circunstance.

He interacted with Jon for several weeks or more. He knows what he did in certain events.

 The Long Night.

Davos has no reason to think Jon is some vital cog in the war against the White Walkers.  He barely knows him, and had maybe one scene with him on the show.  That's a classic case of the show taking what will assuredly be Melisandre's role in the books and assigning it to another character when it doesn't make sense for that character.

Quote

How do we know what the show wants us to think?

The show is not subtle about communicating how we're supposed to interpret events. Everything about how Season 6 is pitched, as well as how the creators and actors describe it, is blaring that Sansa becomes a formidable game player that season, for instance.

Edited April 9, 2017 by SeanC