Adaptation Analysis: Exploring The Seven Kingdoms

[anamika]

3 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

This still doesn't show that she trusts LF. She accepts this info at face value because she has nothing to lose by doing so. If acting on the information LF provided her would have somehow costed her dearly, she may have been more skeptical when acting on it. As it was, all she had to do was send Brienne. If she trusted LF, she would have accepted help from the Vale immediately.

So Brienne is not all that valuable to Sansa? She could send Brienne off all the way to the Riverlands to just check if LF was right?

Also remember that she mentioned this information to Jon and the others as fact - that Ramsay had received this information - Davos is immediately pleased with this and includes it in his plans. If what you say is true, she was again jeopardizing their plans by lying about information she knows may not be true.

As for the Vale, it's clear the way that conversation went with Sansa and LF, that LF's jibe about Jon being her half brother is what changes her mind. Sansa refuses his help of the Vale army and is pretty clear that she and Jon will take back the North and that she has her own army. LF reminds her that the army is Jon's and Jon is her half brother as he leaves. It's here she makes the decision to not trust Jon and use LF's information as her trump card. David and Dan then comment in the behind the scenes that Sansa is not a pure Stark and all that.

I feel that it's not good writing for that one remark from LF about Jon has her lying to and keeping secrets from Jon, but she goes on to then trust and use the information that LF has given her. Especially since show!Jon (unlike the book version) is portrayed as an unambitious, noble idiot - someone on here described him as a golden retriever puppy - and show!LF manipulated her and sold her to a brutal rapist like Ramsay Bolton.

And this brings me back to my original point which started this discussion - it's fine to have different show!versions in an adaptation as long as those show versions then do their own logical show version of the story. The problem comes when these different show!versions have to stick to the book plot. So show!Sansa has to remain chummy with show!LF and Show!Jon has to become king despite doing nothing to earn that title.

It would make sense to me for book!Sansa to act against Jon if Jon is made king as per Robb's will and she is left out and prone to LF's manipulations - especially since Jon is an ambitious little bugger in the books. It makes some sense for Sansa to continue to trust LF (though I have my issues with the writing for book!Sansa as well and have mentioned them before on this forum) and be manipulated by him in the books because book!LF has not done anything as horrifically bad as hand her over to someone like Ramsay. These plots don't make sense on the show.

12 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

And she only acts on LF's information and calls for the armies of the Vale as a last resort, when she is desperate. At that point she felt she had nothing to lose by asking for help. It didn't matter if she trusted him or not.

And if she only went on to act on LF's information about the Vale because she was desperate then why does she not extend that same courtesy to Jon who was also desperate for more men? Especially since she was scolding him for fighting with less men. Why does she feel she can't tell him about the Vale army when he straight up asked her how to get more men? She had nothing left to lose then either, right?

Edited April 12, 2017 by anamika

[GreyBunny]

3 hours ago, anamika said:

and show!LF manipulated her and sold her to a brutal rapist like Ramsay Bolton.

She was "sold" to Ramsay, or she was a "hardened woman making a choice."  D&D/Cogman can't seem to make up their minds from one script to the next.  Her convo with LF at Moat Cailin shows someone who didn't learn anything from her time in King's Landing or have the cleverness she demonstrated when she convinced the Vale lords that LF was innocent.  Sansa was basically Homer Simpson in season 5.  

[nikma]

21 hours ago, SeanC said:

 

Moreover, again with an eye to the wording being as explicit as possible, in the Behind the Scenes video for 605, David Benioff opens with the simple statement "Sansa's gotten pretty good at playing the game" -- and this is before the main Northern arc has happened.

As always you take it out of context. He said that she decided not to kill LF even if she wants him to die, because she believes that he can be useful in the future and that's the reason why she's gotten good at playing the game.

As I said I don't think that anyone should judge the show by what he or she thinks that the show wanted to say. 

[Meredith Quill]

3 minutes ago, nikma said:

As I said I don't think that anyone should judge the show by what he or she thinks that the show wanted to say. 

Wait, isn't that how everyone judges every dramatic show or film?? Any creative endeavour, whether it be art, tv or music is inevitably, nay, by very definition open to personal interpretation.

[OhOkayWhat]

13 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

Wait, isn't that how everyone judges every dramatic show or film?? Any creative endeavour, whether it be art, tv or music is inevitably, nay, by very definition open to personal interpretation.

The thing that is wrong is this kind of reasoning:

A-The show is trying to say X

B-The show is not showing X

C-Therefore there is a problem with the narrative

The problem with that reasoning is that A is also the opinion of the commenter.

Edited April 12, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[Meredith Quill]

1 minute ago, OhOkayWhat said:

The thing that is wrong is this kind of reasoning:

A-The show is trying to say X

B-The show is not showing X

C-Therefore there is a problem with the narrative

The problem with that reasoning is that A is also the opinion of the commenter.

My point is unless someone in here is D or D masquerading: every post in here is based on opinion, not fact ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think unless someone states 'this is a fact' the default assumption is it is their personal opinion/interpretation. Now, you may disagree with an opinion, but not by claiming the person is calling it a fact.

[OhOkayWhat]

11 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

My point is unless someone in here is D or D masquerading: every post in here is based on opinion, not fact ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think unless someone states 'this is a fact' the default assumption is it is their personal opinion/interpretation. Now, you may disagree with an opinion, but not by claiming the person is calling it a fact.

Of course, every show is open to interpretation.The problem is to assume "what they wanted to say" as a fact.

Edited April 12, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[nikma]

31 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

Wait, isn't that how everyone judges every dramatic show or film?? Any creative endeavour, whether it be art, tv or music is inevitably, nay, by very definition open to personal interpretation.

What I wanted to say is that I'm against using some quotes (often taken out of context) or some other material that is not part of the show to judge the show. 

Everything is open to personal interpretation, yes, but the problem is when you claim that you know what someone wanted to do, and you often use their words or their writing out of context as proof that they faild at what they wanted to do. The perfect example was "controversy" over that one scene from S6E9. 

Or the interpretation that Sansa at the end of S6 is LF's puppet again, so she failed at everything, when it is clear from their last scene from S6 that they are playing each other. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by nikma

[OhOkayWhat]

As I said before, I think the interviews, behind the scenes commentaries, etc. are important, they give us a point (or various points) of reference to analize. They allow us to think our own interpretations around that point of reference.
We also need to remember those interviews, etc. exist within a context. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[Meredith Quill]

20 minutes ago, nikma said:

What I wanted to say is that I'm against using some quotes (often taken out of context) or some other material that is not part of the show to judge the show. 

Everything is open to personal interpretation, yes, but the problem is when you claim that you know what someone wanted to do, and you often use their words or their writing out of context as proof that they faild at what they wanted to do. The perfect example was "controversy" over that one scene from S6E9. 

Or the interpretation that Sansa at the end of S6 is LF's puppet again, so she failed at everything, when it is clear from their last scene from S6 that they are playing each other. 

Bolded part - this is your interpretation, and proves my point beautifully: we ALL see different things and take different meanings from those things. Therefore, it's like trying to tell someone that not liking the taste of chicken (Sandor heh) is wrong - to them, it is their truth - chicken is yuck - even if it isn't yours, and to claim they are stating chicken is disgusting as a fact and are wrong for doing so - in their world it IS a fact because it's disgusting to them. 

TL;DR We all have our own truths, perception is reality and sometimes yours will be opposite to someone else's. Let's all play nice and not accuse each other of being disingenuous.

[Silje]

I'll just be very blunt now and say that I think some viewers have spent more time coming up with Sansa's motivation for withholding the information about the Vale army than the writers did. They obviously wanted a surprise save at the end of the battle and that's the reason Sansa didn't tell Jon about the army. 

This article was published after 6x09 and I think it illustrates the problem with the writing of Sansa: 

Quote

Why didn't Sansa tell Jon she had another army via Littlefinger? We don't know. And the trouble is that it's not clear whether Game of Thrones does either. The show has depended more and more on viewers to inexpertly paper over many of its massive missing facts and motivations.

(...) Sansa's behavior leading up to this episode is incredibly damaging and oddly unexplained. Why keep Jon in the dark? Is this advancing her arc, or is it, like Arya's, contorting a character to suit the battle's needs? (Everyone loves a last-minute cavalry charge, after all.)

(...) It's as if we've been saddled with Schrodinger's Sansa: she's either Dim and Virtuous or Evil and Cunning. Right now — to everyone's confusion — she's both.

(...) The Dim Sansa case is simple: Sansa writes to Littlefinger but doesn't tell Jon Snow. Why? Maybe she didn't hear back. Maybe she's not sure he'll turn up. Maybe she just likes knowing she has a secret*. Dim Sansa is sometimes petulant and changes course often. She hectors Ser Davos for not understanding the North, annoys the houses she asks for help, and resents Jon for not asking for her advice but then decides not to tell him anything when he does. Still, she's basically good.

(...) Let's say Sansa knew Littlefinger was coming and planned his arrival without telling Jon. Cunning Sansa has her reasons: If the Vale army showed up in advance, Ramsey would likely retreat to Winterfell, where he couldn't be defeated. He had to be goaded out into a war he thought was winnable; he had to be baited with the promise of a slaughter. This would make Sansa a brilliant and Machiavellian military strategist. It would also make Jon the bait. 

(...) Cunning Sansa knows Brienne will object to her methods, so she sends her on a trumped-up quest. Remember when Brienne asks Sansa why she needs to go to Riverrun in person? "We can send the Blackfish a raven," Brienne offers. "We can't risk Ramsey intercepting it. It has to be you," says Sansa, who proceeds to send Littlefinger a raven. Cunning Sansa wants Brienne out of the way because Brienne might object to Sansa setting her brother and his army up to be slaughtered. 

Since we all know how important it is to understand that book!Sansa and show!Sansa are two different characters, I think I actually would welcome our new Evil and Cunning show!Sansa because the show (unintentionally?) presented a pretty strong case for it.  

* That really made me laugh.    

[OhOkayWhat]

7 hours ago, Silje said:

I'll just be very blunt now and say that I think some viewers have spent more time coming up with Sansa's motivation for withholding the information about the Vale army than the writers did.

People comment about the show. People share their own interpretations of the scenes.

Edited April 13, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[anamika]

51 minutes ago, Silje said:

I'll just be very blunt now and say that I think some viewers have spent more time coming up with Sansa's motivation for withholding the information about the Vale army than the writers did. They obviously wanted a surprise save at the end of the battle and that's the reason Sansa didn't tell Jon about the army. 

This article was published after 6x09 and I think it illustrates the problem with the writing of Sansa: 

Since we all know how important it is to understand that book!Sansa and show!Sansa are two different characters, I think I actually would welcome our new Evil and Cunning show!Sansa because the show (unintentionally?) presented a pretty strong case for it. 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we can actually make a case for evil Sansa who deliberately botched up the diplomacy, tried to isolate Jon from Davos and Tormund, sends Brienne off and then prepares to use Jon and his wildlings as bait for Ramsay. Or we can make the case for idiot Sansa.

And this is possible because the show did not tell us why Sansa was doing the things she was doing. For instance, when Sansa tells Brienne that Jon is Jon and that she trusts him, Brienne straight up asks her why she lied to him about LF's info. Instead of answering Brienne, Sansa just looks at her. What are we supposed to take from this scene? That Sansa just lied to Brienne and actually does not trust Jon because she is dim? That Sansa is planning to double cross Jon and manipulate him because she is evil and cunning? Or that she just likes to keep secrets? lol!

Edited April 13, 2017 by anamika

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, nikma said:

As always you take it out of context. He said that she decided not to kill LF even if she wants him to die, because she believes that he can be useful in the future and that's the reason why she's gotten good at playing the game.

You're combining two separate strands of thought.  The first is:  "Sansa's gotten pretty good at playing the game.  When she sees Littlefinger, though, it's not about politics, it's not about trying to manipulate him or anything.  He betrayed her in the worst possible way, so in her mind, everything that happened after that, he's to blame for."  The first line relates to those immediately following, that Sansa is a pretty good game player, but when she speaks to Littlefinger, she's not thinking about politics.

Then you get the second part, as the conversation draws to an end:  "I think it goes through her mind how satisfying it would be to see Brienne just cut him in two right here.  But she doesn't, and that she doesn't is an interesting quality of Sansa's, that she's started to think a couple of moves ahead and she's started to think 'is it possible this person would be more useful to me alive than dead?'"  There you have her supposed player mindset reasserting itself.

Incidentally, this supposed player calculation makes no sense either.  Sansa could easily have him killed and then claim the Vale army for herself, which would be the genuinely smart thing to do; there's no reason to keep Baelish alive, other than that the plot requires it.  Which is the larger problem with how the show has reconfigured this dynamic -- whereas in the books Littlefinger has done a masterful job of entrapping Sansa in his web and making her dependent on him, in the show Sansa isn't actually dependent on him at all, she just doesn't seem to realize she could easily be rid of him, which makes her look stupid.

Quote

As I said I don't think that anyone should judge the show by what he or she thinks that the show wanted to say.

Whether a show lives up to its own aims is rather important in any assessment, because if they aren't delivering what they believe they're delivering, what the audience thinks it's seeing diverges from what the creators intend, and while in some cases that's not a big deal, most of the stuff we discuss here has major implications for how the series comes across.

Edited April 13, 2017 by SeanC

[Silje]

12 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

People comment about the show. People share their own interpretations of the scenes.

When the interpretations of the scenes is so different that they range from 'Sansa has trust issues' to 'Sansa planned to use Jon as bait and was willing to sacrifice him to win', doesn't that show there is a problem with the writing, direction and plotting?      

[whateverdgaf]

1 hour ago, Silje said:

When the interpretations of the scenes is so different that they range from 'Sansa has trust issues' to 'Sansa planned to use Jon as bait and was willing to sacrifice him to win', doesn't that show there is a problem with the writing, direction and plotting?      

Only if the show doesn't want to keep the audience guessing. I think we are meant to be suspicious of Sansa to an extent and unsure of her motives. I think a character such as Sansa is intended to be confusing as she herself is probably quite conflicted, conflicted between her love for her family, her desire for safety and her own ambition. 

[OhOkayWhat]

2 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

Only if the show doesn't want to keep the audience guessing. I think we are meant to be suspicious of Sansa to an extent and unsure of her motives.

When I was commenting her storylines, I forgot to reflect about the love in her heart.

I also forgot to reflect about the growing darkness in her heart. I think I mentioned her desire of vengueance, but the growing darkness is not only that. Sometimes, I wonder where is her compassion? I wonder about her ambitions. I see the terrible cruelty when she murders Ramsay. I wonder about those things and more. And I know that she needs to fight against that darkness.

Sansa is a very complex character, and it is possible I am forgetting more things about her.

 

3 hours ago, Silje said:

doesn't that show there is a problem with the writing, direction and plotting?  

What if they want us to keep wondering about her? I am not saying that is a fact, but it is a possibility.

Edited April 13, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[Advance35]

Quote

 Sansa could easily have him killed and then claim the Vale army for herself, which would be the genuinely smart thing to do; there's no reason to keep Baelish alive, other than that the plot requires it.  Which is the larger problem with how the show has reconfigured this dynamic -- whereas in the books Littlefinger has done a masterful job of entrapping Sansa in his web and making her dependent on him, in the show Sansa isn't actually dependent on him at all, she just doesn't seem to realize she could easily be rid of him, which makes her look stupid.

This I can't agree with.  I think it would be VERY foolish for Sansa to try and get rid of LF prior to TWOW.  There is no way Sansa could have claimed the Vale Army.  The Vale knew of Sansa's situation with the Boltons and they were not going to get involved until LF prodded Robert Arryn to get involved, "Well she is my cousin, we should help her."  Prior to Littlefingers solicitation, Sansa's situation was just something for High Lords to talk about, however regrettable.  Even Lord Royce, who knew something fishy had gone down and that LF was involved, did nothing about it.  Sansa was regarded as spilled milk.  So the the thought that because Sansa announced "I'm here" and the Vale would be hers to do with as she wished, would have been a very self-aggrandizing mistake on her part.

LF was still VERY necessary for Sansa and I thought the show was able to illustrate that.   I'm not even convinced that the Vale is in the bag for Jon and Sansa as is.  He is King of the North, if LF were to whisper the right words to Lord Arryn, the Vale could, conceivable head back home and leave the North on it's own.

Quote

 

I also forgot to reflect about the growing darkness in her heart. I think I mentioned her desire of vengueance, but the growing darkness is not only that. Sometimes, I wonder where is her compassion? I wonder about her ambitions. I see the terrible cruelty when she murders Ramsay. I wonder about those things and more. And I know that she needs to fight against that darkness.

Sansa is a very complex character, and it is possible I am forgetting more things about her.

 

I definitely think Sansa has frozen over in quite a few ways and one of which is how she regards the outside world.   I can't see another Stark being so willing to face the undeniable fact that Rickon was as good as dead.  Jon has been through a lot but even he, a battle tested commander was under the delusion that they were going to somehow save Rickon.   I think Sansa's just developed a genuinely cold heart, she would have saved Rickon if she could have figured out a way but when she couldn't, he was no longer a factor for her.  

Compassion was made extinct in her heart after the red wedding and in quite a few ways, she's not a monster but other people's heartbreaks are just that in her eyes.  She knew the Tyrells were the guilty party in terms of Joffrey's murder and she also knew that Tyrion would face trial and likely execution for the deed.  I don't think she gave one fleeting thought to Shae after the Purple Wedding as displayed during her testimony to the Lord's Declarant where she told them she "had know friends in Kings Landing."   A sentiment that was returned by Shae during her testimony at Tyrion's trial.  She knew LF was hoodwinking the Lord's Declarant after murdering their Wardeness but he murdered Lyssa to save Sansa so she had know problem helping him cover it up.   I don't she's bothered that LF is a monster, I think she is just bothered if it is counter to her interest.

All of which makes her a very interesting character to my eyes.  I expect this is the ultimate trajectory of the book version of the character, I just think the writers avoided the scenic route in terms of getting her here.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Advance35

[SeanC]

28 minutes ago, Advance35 said:

This I can't agree with.  I think it would be VERY foolish for Sansa to try and get rid of LF prior to TWOW.  There is no way Sansa could have claimed the Vale Army.  The Vale knew of Sansa's situation with the Boltons and they were not going to get involved until LF prodded Robert Arryn to get involved, "Well she is my cousin, we should help her."  Prior to Littlefingers solicitation, Sansa's situation was just something for High Lords to talk about, however regrettable.  Even Lord Royce, who knew something fishy had gone down and that LF was involved, did nothing about it.  Sansa was regarded as spilled milk.  So the the thought that because Sansa announced "I'm here" and the Vale would be hers to do with as she wished, would have been a very self-aggrandizing mistake on her part.

Step 1:  When Littlefinger shows up in Mole's Town, kill him.

Step 2:  Ride south to Moat Cailin and say the Boltons did it, then use the army that Robin has already sent North to help her (now with additional motivating factor that the Boltons have now supposedly killed the Vale's Lord Protector).

She also had the option, on arriving at the Wall, of contacting the lords herself and warning them that Littlefinger had betrayed her, which, even if they didn't bring their army to help, would have screwed him over.

Edited April 13, 2017 by SeanC

[WearyTraveler]

22 hours ago, Silje said:

They obviously wanted a surprise save at the end of the battle and that's the reason Sansa didn't tell Jon about the army. 

Exactly!

5 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

I think a character such as Sansa is intended to be confusing as she herself is probably quite conflicted, conflicted between her love for her family, her desire for safety and her own ambition. 

There is a way to show internal conflict in a character, there is a way to show a character is naive, and there is a way to show a character is cunning.  Whatever the intent of the creators, they are only successful if the majority of the audience reads the character they way they intended that character to be read.  If you have a bunch of people saying "she's conflicted", a bunch people saying "she's an idiot" and a bunch of people saying "she's cunning", then the writers didn't succeed in their intent.

As a matter of fact, one should not need to ask the creators "why did character X do this, that and the other?".  This should be communicated on the show.  That said, if someone does ask the question to the creators and they answer it, then it's perfectly valid to use their response in any analysis one makes of the created product.  Furthermore, if you ask the creators: "why did character X acted this way?" And they answer "because she's cunning", then, it's valid to say, in a discussion such as this one: "no, character X is not supposed to be confused or conflicted, she's supposed to be cunning".  It would also be perfectly valid to say: "Action Y performed y character X is exactly the opposite of cunning, therefore, the creators failed in transmitting this message".

At the end of the day I think that the problem with Sansa is that D&D wanted to cut short her time in The Vale, and that is a decision I support; but, in order to do that, they had to create an alternate story for her that would still keep her in the action while at the same time putting her in position to do certain book plots that are necessary for the end-game (which we have all been told will be pretty close to George's intended end, for the main characters anyway).

So, because the show has Sansa back in WF with the help of LF and the Vale, we can all pretty safely conclude that book!Sansa will eventually return to WF and that the Vale army will support the North, after LF convinces the Lords of the Vale to do so.  This makes sense because as it has been mentioned above, book!LF has the Vale Lords and Sansa caught in his net.  On the show they decided to have show!LF manipulate Sansa into marrying Ramsay, which then caused her to mistrust LF.  So far, so good, where it all breaks down is when she decides to trust LF again to get the Vale army and lie to Jon, whom she had said she trusted a few episodes early.  But they need her to do this because LF has some plot purpose later on, so he has to be remain in her life and they want to have a surprise save at the end of the battle.

I think the writers do the characters a disservice by flip-flopping her so much so they can have their cake and eat it too.

49 minutes ago, Advance35 said:

There is no way Sansa could have claimed the Vale Army. 

I think she could have, if, for example,  they had shown her charming her little cousin and making it so that he trusts her more than LF.  They could have had a Sansa that, under LF's wing, learned so much about the game that she surpassed her teacher.  Instead of going to LF, she could have gone to her cousin and convinced him to order the Vale Lords to help her reclaim the North for the Starks.

Edited April 13, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[whateverdgaf]

48 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Step 1:  When Littlefinger shows up in Mole's Town, kill him.

Step 2:  Ride south to Moat Cailin and say the Boltons did it, then use the army that Robin has already sent North to help her (now with additional motivating factor that the Boltons have now supposedly killed the Vale's Lord Protector).

She also had the option, on arriving at the Wall, of contacting the lords herself and warning them that Littlefinger had betrayed her, which, even if they didn't bring their army to help, would have screwed him over.

If Sansa fails to convince the Vale army that the Boltons killed LF, then considering the love Robin has for him, Sansa could very well bring down the entire force of the Vale army against her. Killing him would be far too risky and the Lords of the Vale would only have Sansa's word to take for it. They may have believed her about her aunt's death, but the mere fact she was implicated in that as well would already make what she had to say about LF's very questionable. Plus, if LF is no longer Lord Protector, the Lords of the Vale might decide that they have no wish to fight in the North to the Vale. The entire plan would rest on everybody playing ball and taking Sansa's word for granted. 

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, whateverdgaf said:

If Sansa fails to convince the Vale army that the Boltons killed LF, then considering the love Robin has for him, Sansa could very well bring down the entire force of the Vale army against her. Killing him would be far too risky and the Lords of the Vale would only have Sansa's word to take for it. They may have believed her about her aunt's death, but the mere fact she was implicated in that as well would already make what she had to say about LF's very questionable. Plus, if LF is no longer Lord Protector, the Lords of the Vale might decide that they have no wish to fight in the North to the Vale. The entire plan would rest on everybody playing ball and taking Sansa's word for granted. 

The Boltons are known villains, the Vale army has invaded their lands, and Sansa has, as far as the Vale lords know, no motive to kill Littlefinger.  There would be absolutely no reason why they wouldn't believe this story, and since Robin Arryn sent them there, Littlefinger's death wouldn't cause them to leave.

Sure, there are some risks (there's never not), but it's clearly much less risky than refusing the Vale army, which is what she does, and riding around the North trying to cobble together a coalition of minor players.

Edited April 14, 2017 by SeanC

[OhOkayWhat]

@Advance35

I think a part of Show!Sansa storyline is her struggle to do not become a female version of Petyr.

Edited April 14, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[whateverdgaf]

8 hours ago, SeanC said:

The Boltons are known villains, the Vale army has invaded their lands, and Sansa has, as far as the Vale lords know, no motive to kill Littlefinger.  There would be absolutely no reason why they wouldn't believe this story, and since Robin Arryn sent them there, Littlefinger's death wouldn't cause them to leave.

Sure, there are some risks (there's never not), but it's clearly much less risky than refusing the Vale army, which is what she does, and riding around the North trying to cobble together a coalition of minor players.

At that point Sansa still expected for the North to come rallying at her and Jon's word, it was clear that she extremely confident in that, particularly in her discussion with Davos. It was only when she discovered that she was wrong did she turn to the Vale, at which point she had little chance of getting to LF in a way that did not implicate her as LF would have been with the rest of the Vale at this point. She thought the armies of the North were as good as hers at that point, so killing LF in order to get the army of the Vale would have felt needlessly risky. She already has Ramsay as an enemy, she didn't need the Lords of the Vale to turn against her as well. And by refusing LF, she had something to fall back on. Killing him would have left her with no contingency plan.

Plus, considering the Nothern Lords were reluctant to fight against Bolton despite knowing he was part of the plot to kill Robb, they were unwilling to rise against them. Why would the Lords of the Vale feel more loyalty to LF?

[WearyTraveler]

2 hours ago, OhOkayWhat said:

@Advance35

I think a part of Show!Sansa storyline is her struggle to do not become a female version of Petyr.

Then the writers need to do a better job when they explain in interviews what Sansa is supposed to be about.  The creators themselves say that Sansa is supposed to be a player now, and a great one at that.  And that she is supposed to be a player because of everything she has learned from LF.

This is the intended message as per the creators' own words.  If that is your interpretation, and you think it's supported by what you have seen on the show, then the writers conveyed a message that is not the message they intended to convey, so, they did it wrong.

Edited April 14, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[whateverdgaf]

4 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

Then the writers need to do a better job when they explain in interviews what Sansa is supposed to be about.  The creators themselves say that Sansa is supposed to be a player now, and a great one at that.  And that she is supposed to be a player because of everything she has learned from LF.

This is the intended message as per the creators' own words.  If that is your interpretation, and you think it's supported by what you have seen on the show, then the writers conveyed a message that is not the message they intended to convey, so, they did it wrong.

All characters are up for interpretation. Many writers and directors have their own interpretation for a character but still allow the audience to apply their own opinions on the character. And there are many layers to Sansa's character, and different people in the audience focus on different aspects of her. Sansa is becoming a player, although she is still learning and will obviously make errors in judgment, that is certainly part of her journey. But I think her struggle with her morality is another part of it as well. 

And what the writers have done successfully is making the audience care enough to want to discuss her. Whether we like Sansa or hate her, and think she is naive and conflicted or an ambitious schemer, people are interested enough to want to discuss her. 

[Meredith Quill]

As the Sansa arc has been thoroughly examined, I'm going to throw a new bone out for everyone to chew on: DORNE.

How do we feel about that huge swerve from book canon?

[WearyTraveler]

3 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

All characters are up for interpretation. Many writers and directors have their own interpretation for a character but still allow the audience to apply their own opinions on the character. 

Sure they are, but when the creators say that Sansa is now a player at the same level as LF, an interpretation that is diametrically opposed to that statement indicates one of two things is happening:

1. The statement is wrong because the creators conveyed what they wanted to say on the show by having the character act in that way
2. The creators were not successful in conveying the message they wanted the audience to receive

Pick your poison. If the creators wanted multiple interpretations, then all they have to say in interviews is that they want the audience to make up their mind as to Sansa's motives.  But that is not what they do, is it? They point blank say what we are supposed to think about the character.

Had they kept their mouths shut, I might have agreed with you that many interpretations are valid.  But since they themselves have said who Sansa is supposed to be, then, no;  I don't agree that many interpretations are valid.  Any artist has an objective when they create their work and they have an expectation as to what they want people to take from it.

Picasso, for example, went through many periods, and his work changed as he got older.  He is, off course, most famous for Cubism, a style where the image is fractured and out of perspective.  Picasso wanted to say something about his world and his time when he painted Guernica in this style, it was painted in response to the bombing of the town that gave the painting its title.  He said why he painted it, and those who look at the painting and analyze it say that they get the message Picasso wanted to transmit.  That is a successful artist.  Some aspects of the painting are open for interpretation and have been the source of contradictory opinions such as, the meaning of the horse and bull.  When asked about intent, Picasso left it open, basically saying that whatever you felt was the meaning of those elements, it was ok with him to interpret them that way.  But the main point of the painting is not a source of debate.  It is a criticism of war, and everyone accepts it as such.  No one would dare say the opposite of that and state that Guernica is a painting that supports and praises war.*

In terms of who Sansa is supposed to be (the main point of the character), if you saw what D&D intended as expressed by their own words, they succeeded, if you saw something different they failed.  It's as simple as that.

3 hours ago, whateverdgaf said:

Whether we like Sansa or hate her, and think she is naive and conflicted or an ambitious schemer, people are interested enough to want to discuss her. 

Meh, for me show!Sansa is worth discussing because of the train wreck that D&D have made of the character.  It's like watching an accident by the side of the road, I can't look away.  Book!Sansa, was frustrating for me in her naivete and her inability to see what was right in front of her nose and which her little sister (raised by the same parents in the same way as Sansa) could see right away; then, she became a bit boring (I really don't care about the Vale that much) and it's only book!LF's evil manipulations that get me through her chapters.  But at least book!Sansa has a logical progression in her character's development, and so, for me, she's a better written character than the show version.

2 hours ago, SilverStormm said:

As the Sansa arc has been thoroughly examined, I'm going to throw a new bone out for everyone to chew on: DORNE.

How do we feel about that huge swerve from book canon?

I see what you did there!  But, are you sure you want to open that can of worms?  I mean, what can you say about "bad pussy"?  /eyeroll

 

*I had the opportunity of seeing Guernica in Madrid and it's amazing!

Edited April 14, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[Meredith Quill]

4 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

1 hour ago, SilverStormm said:

As the Sansa arc has been thoroughly examined, I'm going to throw a new bone out for everyone to chew on: DORNE.

How do we feel about that huge swerve from book canon?

I see what you did there!  But, are you sure you want to open that can of worms?  I mean, what can you say about "bad pussy"?  /eyeroll

Don't you mean 'bad poosey'? ;) FWIW, I hated that they turned Prince Doran into an idiot when book!Doran is one of the better long-term players of the game (so far at least).

[whateverdgaf]

21 minutes ago, SilverStormm said:

Don't you mean 'bad poosey'? ;) FWIW, I hated that they turned Prince Doran into an idiot when book!Doran is one of the better long-term players of the game (so far at least).

Eh, I honestly didn't mind Dorne that much. But that's probably because I watched it after everybody else and expected something much worse. The Sand Snakes were silly and cheesy, but I loved the interactions between Jaime and Bronn. In fact, my only problem with the plot was probably the Sand Snakes. And after looking goofy for the entire season, I thought the moment where they successfully murdered Myrcella to be rather badass and creepy in its subtlety. If they had managed to keep that consistent for the rest of the season it might not have been so bad. 

I thought the fight scene where Jaime was able to catch that guys sword in his hand particularly satisfying, as it showed how Jaime was learning to use his weaknesses as a strength. And his love for Myrcella gave a great insight into what has been motivating Jaime throughout the seasons. So even for one of the weaker plot lines, I think it had its strengths. 

[JonSnow]

I think with Doran they butchered one of the more intriguing characters in the books since they barely used him and made him seem dumb as hell since he allowed known assassins to walk around with weapons whom he had arrested days ago and also read a secret message in front of all of them out loud when the message is about Myrcella being assassinated by Ellaria. Not to mention on top of that Areo Hotah, who is supposed to be regarded as one of the better fighters in Westeros in the books, has his back facing this KNOWN assassin who still has their weapon.
Instead of him being a character that is always one step ahead of everyone (in the books he foils Arianna's plan to put Myrcella on the throne), he never gave off the feel of him being this cunning intriguing guy that's been planning out his revenge on the Lannister's for decades, in the show the entire Dorne storyline is completely different (which can be fine sometimes) but Doran barely features in it and instead we get the cringey sandsnake plot. Even if he did have something planned in the show: like some people thought he was sending Trystane to be King, it came to nothing since they kill off Myrcella, then in the first scene of S6 they kill both Doran and Trystane off.

[WearyTraveler]

1 hour ago, SilverStormm said:

Don't you mean 'bad poosey'? ;) FWIW, I hated that they turned Prince Doran into an idiot when book!Doran is one of the better long-term players of the game (so far at least).

Me too, but in Dorne's instance I feel for D&D, bad pussy and all.  They wanted to cut Dorne out, which is, IMO, a good idea.  The plot reveal about Doran in the books is awesome, but Georgie boy sure took his time and meandered a lot to get us there.  Meanwhile, including Oberyn was necessary, so, they were forced to do something about Dorne because once he died at the hands of The Mountain, there had to be consequences.

It must have been incredibly difficult to decide how to portray those consequences on the show what plot aspects to include, which characters, how to eliminate Arianne and (f)Aegon, what to do with Myrcella, and so on.  That said, their version of the Sand Snakes was awful.

Edited April 14, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[ElizaD]

I can't even hate bad pussy like I used to after doing a bit of rereading and finding GRRM's prose much more purple and gratingly faux-medieval than I remembered - it feels kinda true to his spirit of cringeworthiness now. And since Doran's grand plan looks set to achieve little except further Martell deaths, his ineffectiveness is true to the character too: IMO, the show version actually had the potential to be more tragic by taking Ellaria's role as the pacifist who wants to end the bloodshed, while the book Doran wants vengeance but has pitiful schemes that don't make him look good as a person, player or father. The execution was just a total mess. But book Dorne isn't much better, so I don't feel that much of value was lost and though it would have been nicer if the showrunners hadn't messed it up in the first place, at least they recognized that Dorne had to go instead of committing even more screentime to a failure.

[Advance35]

Quote

And what the writers have done successfully is making the audience care enough to want to discuss her. Whether we like Sansa or hate her, and think she is naive and conflicted or an ambitious schemer, people are interested enough to want to discuss her.

Believe it or not, I truly do feel that the show has made the Sansa character more popular then she was, and there was always a strong fan interest in her prior to HBO.

I'm one of the few that doesn't mind Dorne.  It is what it is.  I may be more lenient with the show then most because I like that i am finally getting answers (and it's worth it's weight in gold to me).  I was one of the people that thought when all was said and done, Trystane Martell would be around to rule whatever is left of Dorne.  That is clearly not his characters fate.  I did detect an wiff of mutiny in AFFC & ADOD in terms of the Sand Snakes but I'm not ready to say they kill Doran and Trystane.  I could see them going their own way on a scheme and the domino effect taking out Doran and Trystane, as opposed to out and out murder.

And again, given that GRRM is unlikely to finish (I'm not convinced we'll ever see TWOW at this point) I feel like I can hazard a guess as to the fate of Arianne Martell.  Most people speculated she would survive in the books because she isn't in Kings Landing.  I don't think that's the case.  Whether she meets up with Aegon or not, I think that her story will come to a tragic end.

GRRM said “We have more deaths, and we have more betrayals. We have more marriages.”  

[OhOkayWhat]

5 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

Then the writers need to do a better job when they explain in interviews...

The writers needs to do a better job when they do a lot of things, talking in interviews included. But I will say this again: I think the interviews, behind the scenes commentaries, etc. are important, they give us a point (or various points) of reference to analize. They allow us to think our own interpretations around that point of reference.
We also need to remember those interviews, etc. exist within a context. 

[WearyTraveler]

8 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

We also need to remember those interviews, etc. exist within a context. 

Yes, but I haven't taken anything out of context.  When asked about Sansa's arc in the last season their response is that she is a player.  That's what's being discussed.  And it's been referenced in context.

For all the cries that those that criticize D&D must be Martin's apologists, those who laud D&D for every decision and defend their choices, even when they don't make sense, should take a good, long look in the mirror.

[whateverdgaf]

9 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

Yes, but I haven't taken anything out of context.  When asked about Sansa's arc in the last season their response is that she is a player.  That's what's being discussed.  And it's been referenced in context.

For all the cries that those that criticize D&D must be Martin's apologists, those who laud D&D for every decision and defend their choices, even when they don't make sense, should take a good, long look in the mirror.

Sansa being a player doesn't make every other interpretation of her wrong. Learning to be a player is just one part of her character's arc.

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

At this point the Sansa convo is now going round in circles. Unless there's something new to add, can we move on please.

Thanks.

[GreyBunny]

16 hours ago, Advance35 said:

I feel like I can hazard a guess as to the fate of Arianne Martell.  Most people speculated she would survive in the books because she isn't in Kings Landing.  I don't think that's the case.  Whether she meets up with Aegon or not, I think that her story will come to a tragic end.

I think she's toast.  I think she hooks up with fAegon, they rule Westeros for a short time, and then Dany comes along and scorches them.  Doran is inept, he managed to foil Arianne's plot because she's even more inept than he is (I think Tyene sold her out).  So far his plots have either withered into nothing or have gone disastrously wrong, and I think that's how his storyline and the fate of Dorne is going to ultimately end in the books:  his plans will backfire, his children (and most if not all of Oberyn's) will all be dead, Dorne is thrown into a war it's ill-prepared to fight, and Sunspear and the Water Gardens at the very least are going to go up in flames.  Those overripe blood oranges that spat on the ground are symbolic of Doran's poorly-plotted plans coming to nothing. 

I guess the show did try to show Doran's descent into disaster, but it wasn't the carefully-crafted march GRRM is setting up, they just dropped him off a cliff.  If they couldn't come up with plots that didn't require them to make certain smart and skilled characters stupid and incompetent, they never should have bothered.  "BAD POOOOOOSY!"  Yeah.  I wonder what horny 12-year-old boy they hired to write that masterpiece.

Edited April 15, 2017 by GreyBunny

[WearyTraveler]

Ok, I'll throw out another topic: The Lannister Brothers.

Personally, I don't mind all the changes they have done with Tyrion, but I'm disappointed at Jaime's arc on the show.

I guess I don't mind the Tyrion changes because, in the end, I think the essence of the character is the same.  When I read the books, I get the feeling we are meant to think that Tyrion is one of the good guys and root for him, so, IMO, the show just cut away some aspects that would have made it difficult for a TV audience to root for Tyrion. Martin presented us with a guy who was thought to be a monster but behaved kindly to the Starks:  he gave Jon good advice on how to deal with bullies, he designed a saddle for Bran, he even helped Catelyn in the Vale mountains when he was her prisoner.

We then see how much he has been bullied and mistreated by his own father and sister, and see his vengeful side.  Then he falls into the awful, sluggish, self-pitying, depression through the Eastern lands, accompanied with extensive travelogues.  As of the last published book, Tyrion was on his way to Dany and perhaps on a rebuild of his character, which reached a pretty low point.  On the show, Tyrion's flaws are never as bad as the book ones and we thankfully didn't get the travelling portion of his story.  We'll see what awaits him in S7, but, so far I'm mostly ok with the changes.

Jaime, OTH... very disappointing.  Jame's ASOS chapters are some of the most introspective of any character out there.  This is when we get to know Jaime on a very deep level.  He starts out as a monster, and then we start sympathizing with him, understanding him.  I don't think any of it justifies pushing a child out a window, but we do come to find out how Jaime ended up there, and he is severely punished for his transgression (in a karmic sort of way).  We discover he actually had the same dreams Bran had: to become a Knight like Ser Arthur Dane, to fight for good reasons, to be honorable, courageous, valiant... In the books, Martin makes us hate Jaime, then he makes us pity him, then he makes us care a little, then he makes us root for the guy, and finally, when he broke it off with Cersei, he makes us cheer for him.  I wish I had seen some of that transformation on the show.  It's difficult to root for show Jaime because aside from giving Brienne the sword and making an attempt to keep his promise to Catelyn, he hasn't done anything to benefit others, unless they are Lannisters (praticularly Cersei), and he hasn't even expressed the book character's wish to actually become that Knight he once wanted to be.  Even his Riverrun scene's motivation was changed completely.

[YaddaYadda]

About Doran, I think more than Ariane, he threw Elia Sand at fAegon. Honestly, fAegon is a character I feel extremely sorry for. 

About Jaime, he's a character I've come to really enjoy and love. One of my favorite POVs of his is when he's a squire, I think, and meets the Blackfish for the first time at Riverrun and is so awestruck and wants to hear all these stories from him because he idolized him. I think the show has done well enough by Jaime, I just wish they'd cut him from that cancerous sister of his. 

One of the things I'm looking forward to in the book and the show is him seeing Bran again and how that will go.

[whateverdgaf]

2 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

 Even his Riverrun scene's motivation was changed completely.

I don't see how. He wanted to avoid as much bloodshed as possible, and he succeeded. Yes his desire to be back with Cersei was also a factor, but the fact remains that he did everything he could to avoid innocents dying. It's not like the Freys would have happily backed down if Jaime left the Tullies in charge of Riverrun, the Riverlands would have once more been caught up in more fighting and innocents would have died in what would have probably been a pointless war.  Jaime wanted to prevent as much death as possible, and this was the way to do it. 

For all of Jaime's talk of being willing to destroy the castle in order to get back to Cersei, he never actually acts on these words. And in the exact same speech he stated that he didn't care if he had to kill everyone in the castle in get back to Cersei. Only we know he was lying about that because he had previously shown that he really wanted to avoid fighting Brienne, so we know that isn't true. Jaime tried to treat with them honorably, and when that didn't work, he used his own terrible reputation to make Edmure believe in his threats against his son.

I actually think Jaime's efforts to improve his reputation and become a true knight are present in these interactions. That is why he tries to get Edmure and Blackfish to trust him (and tries to rescue Maergery). That is also why he resents Walder Frey comparing the two of them in episode ten. Jaime wishes to do what is honorable and be recognized for doing so, but he finds that his reputation is so beyond repair that he cannot. So he allows his reputation to become even more smirched in order to save lives and avoid having to fight.

So, in regards to the Riverlands plot, Jaime still wants to avoid bloodshed, as he does in the book, his desire to get back to Cersei (whose life is potentially in danger) is just another motivation, not his only one. So his motivations haven't completely changed. 

I think the main difference between the Jaimies is that show Jaime is still in love with Cersei, which people seem to misinterpret as him supporting her in all of her actions. As a result, people sympathise with him less. The main criticism aimed at Jaime is that he is Cersei's lapdog.  However, the majority of the immoral acts Cersei commits are made without Jaime even present, her support of the Sparrows and the destruction of the Sept for example. Furthermore,  when Jaime helped rescue Tyrion and tried to do what he could for Sansa (even allowing the Tullies to fight for the Starks which considering that Sansa was still wanted for Joffrey's murder would have been considered treason and would potentially have placed the Lannisters greatest enemies in power), he proved how despite loving Cersei, he is still capable of acting against Cersei's wishes. 

Plus, show Jaime is in a very different situation to book Jaime. Book Jaime last saw Cersei at the height of her power, just after becoming aware of her infidelities, whereas Cersei's infidelities in the show are unknown to him and Cersei has just been imprisoned and humiliated, as well as having just lost her daughter which Jaime feels guilt for. It's natural he is going to be more sympathetic to her.

So, basically, I still find Jaime a sympathetic character. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by whateverdgaf

[nikma]

23 hours ago, SilverStormm said:

Don't you mean 'bad poosey'? ;) FWIW, I hated that they turned Prince Doran into an idiot when book!Doran is one of the better long-term players of the game (so far at least).

At which long-term plan Doran succeeded in the books? For me he is just an overhyped reactor to the events, there is nothing intelligent about anything that he has done in the books.  So far. 

 

Show!Ellaria is better master-planner than book!Doran. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by nikma

[GreyBunny]

17 hours ago, YaddaYadda said:

About Doran, I think more than Ariane, he threw Elia Sand at fAegon. Honestly, fAegon is a character I feel extremely sorry for.

Elia is a bastard. Doran wants a marriage alliance with a Targaryen and there's no way the alleged son of Rhaegar is going to consider her, nor would Doran permit it in favor of his own trueborn daughter.

[YaddaYadda]

6 hours ago, GreyBunny said:

Elia is a bastard. Doran wants a marriage alliance with a Targaryen and there's no way the alleged son of Rhaegar is going to consider her, nor would Doran permit it in favor of his own trueborn daughter.

I know what Elia is and what Doran's plans are. Rhaegar didn't run off with Lyanna and Robb didn't marry Jeyne Westerling instead of one of the Frey girls. Best laid plans and all. I just find the dynamic he might have created knowingly or unknowingly interesting. In any case, it won't matter until Winds is out.

Edited April 16, 2017 by YaddaYadda

[GreyBunny]

If Elia making out with Feathers gains her access to the ravens and she sends a false message to Doran committing Dorne to war prematurely and Arianne doesn't find out about it until it's too late, I could see something like that happening.  JonCon will probably push for fAegon to wait for Dany to marry her, fAegon will likely snub this idea and marry Arianne or think he can have it all and want to marry both Arianne and Dany.  I doubt Elia will be a contender for marriage, unlike Lyanna and Jeyne, I don't think it would move the story forward.

Quote

I don't mind all the changes they have done with Tyrion,

I don't like that they seem to have stripped Tyrion of his motivation.  In the books he's hit a low and wants bloody vengeance and will use Dany and has used fAegon to get it.  I think he will initially appeal to Dany's worst instincts and be one of the catalysts that sends her on the blood and fire warpath (though ultimately I think they both pull back from the brink or they stop before they've gone over permanently).  In the show I understand the need to compress time and skip over his nihilistic low to show him being introduced to Dany with a more measured mindset, but he's just become Dany's helpmate.  I want to see what he wants out of it, what his goals are, and not just be a bird on Dany's shoulder.

Edited April 17, 2017 by GreyBunny

[WindyNights]

On 3/12/2017 at 10:17 PM, OhOkayWhat said:

If that happens, it happens very few times. I suspect many times it is D&D thinking an actor/actress is the right one to carry a new written plot on screen.

Not really. D & D don't care about Dorne. They wrote the Dornish sub-plot to keep Indira Varma on for season 5. They loved her and crammed in Dorne at the last minute as a result 

[WindyNights]

On 4/2/2017 at 0:15 PM, OhOkayWhat said:

It is not we cannot compare the show with the books or to say this or that storyline is better or worse, the question is: under what standards we are judging or comparing both? 

It is a bad narrative move to transport Tyrion feelings from ADWD to the last seasons of GoT, simply because he has his own feelings from the beginning.

And I do not see a narrative problem with Tyrion's motivation change. This change makes him a dynamic character. Certainly he cared about people beyond himself before,  maybe he cared about all the people living in KL and beyond, but even that was subject to a continuous tranformation: it is possible that all the things Tyrion told the people in his trial (season 4) was true. It is also important to remember one of his main motivations was to prove Tywin that he was wrong about him. In other words he changes and I find very interesting to watch him rebuilding and also to see dissent inside Dany crew.

By the way, to include fAegon only to have a Tyrion with a different motivations or more things to do is a bad move within the narrative of the show. It is a shift so big within the show plot that the consequences obviously will not be limited to Tyrion. With only 73 hours planned to finish the story, to include fAegon it is not a good move, even if we forget problems as schedule or budget.

Besides that, I do not think we need another character looking for vengueance, money or power, we have characters doing that already.

Here's the problem with Show Tyrion: he's boring.

He'a one of the main characters and he doesn't have a story arc anymore in the show. He's just there. I mean where does his belief in Daenerys stem from? How did she make him believe in life again? They only had like a couple scenes together before.

He's pretty much the same character he was in season 1. There is no change. He's maybe slightly softer now. Even his quips aren't funny anymore. He's just neutered.

whoever said he was Varys 2.0 was right 

[OhOkayWhat]

7 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Not really. D & D don't care about Dorne. They wrote the Dornish sub-plot to keep Indira Varma on for season 5. They loved her and crammed in Dorne at the last minute as a result 

As I said, it happens very few times. Maybe Dorne is one of these few times, maybe it is not. The rest of the cases, I think, it works like this: They trust an actor to carry a certain storyline. Ok. Then they think they have more storylines to put on screen. If they see that the same actor is a good choice to carry one more storyline, then he will do that. 

 

7 hours ago, WindyNights said:

Here's the problem with Show Tyrion: he's boring.

He'a one of the main characters and he doesn't have a story arc anymore in the show. He's just there. I mean where does his belief in Daenerys stem from? How did she make him believe in life again? They only had like a couple scenes together before.

He's pretty much the same character he was in season 1. There is no change. He's maybe slightly softer now. Even his quips aren't funny anymore. He's just neutered.

whoever said he was Varys 2.0 was right 

About Tyrion, his character changes. He is not the same guy that he was in the second half of season 4. If currently he is boring or not, it is a matter of opinion. And we must remember it is a 73 hour long movie and Tyrion story arc continues.

Edited April 22, 2017 by OhOkayWhat

[YaddaYadda]

On 4/15/2017 at 8:30 AM, YaddaYadda said:

About Doran, I think more than Ariane, he threw Elia Sand at fAegon. Honestly, fAegon is a character I feel extremely sorry for. 

About Jaime, he's a character I've come to really enjoy and love. One of my favorite POVs of his is when he's a squire, I think, and meets the Blackfish for the first time at Riverrun and is so awestruck and wants to hear all these stories from him because he idolized him. I think the show has done well enough by Jaime, I just wish they'd cut him from that cancerous sister of his. 

One of the things I'm looking forward to in the book and the show is him seeing Bran again and how that will go.

I just wanted to correct something, because I was giving the sample chapters another go. It's Ellaria who sends Elia with Ariane on her mission, not Doran.