S07.E06: Beyond the Wall

[Katsullivan]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Even if we assume it is "bad". a person doing one bad thing, especially under such extreme conditions, like Sansa was under, does not necessarily mean they are going to spiral into darkness and embrace evil or cruelty as a way of life.   

But to argue that it would cast no shadow over Sansa, or over the way Jon and the North regard her? That's not true to life or even true to the way this story is told - or at least, was being told. The running theme of this tale has always been "Actions Have Consequences". From Robb's decision to wed Jeyne/Talisa to Catelyn arresting Tyrion to Dany saving Mirri ad nauseum. But this action of Sansa has zero consequences on her. It has none on her personality. it has none on the way she's regarded. It might as well have never happened. Ramsay might as well have just been beheaded or hung from the neck for all the "point" his grotesque and monstrous death caused. 

It's almost as if that scene, like a lot of things to do with Sansa after the show started changing her book arc, was created purely for fan service without any tangible connection to the larger nature of the story, or even Sansa as a character.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, Katsullivan said:

But to argue that it would cast no shadow over Sansa, or over the way Jon and the North regard her? That's not true to life or even true to the way this story is told - or at least, was being told. The running theme of this tale has always been "Actions Have Consequences". From Robb's decision to wed Jeyne/Talisa to Catelyn arresting Tyrion to Dany saving Mirri ad nauseum. But this action of Sansa has zero consequences on her. It has none on her personality. it has none on the way she's regarded. It might as well have never happened. Ramsay might as well have just been beheaded or hung from the neck for all the "point" his grotesque and monstrous death caused. 

It's almost as if that scene, like a lot of things to do with Sansa after the show started changing her book arc, was created purely for fan service without any tangible connection to the larger nature of the story, or even Sansa as a character.

I think the way she handled Ramsey might have earned her respect with many of the Northerners.  

[FnkyChkn34]

20 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

You admittedly cannot stand the character and caution others taking a middle ground approach to be careful not to make her a saint.  Yet you see no room to move off sadist and that's objective and fair? 

It's still my opinion, so in this instance, no.  She got so much pleasure from killing Walder Frey and then the rest of his family, that I still stand by my OPINION.  Of course others are free to have their opinions as well!  I'm not telling anyone that they are wrong! and that they must! agree with me; I'm simply giving facts (the definition of sadism) that support why I think what I think.  

I conceded that her hitting Joffrey was acceptable because he needed to be stopped, didn't I?  I'm still just saying that I don't think she's any angel for having done so.

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Katsullivan said:

But to argue that it would cast no shadow over Sansa, or over the way Jon and the North regard her? That's not true to life or even true to the way this story is told - or at least, was being told. The running theme of this tale has always been "Actions Have Consequences". From Robb's decision to wed Jeyne/Talisa to Catelyn arresting Tyrion to Dany saving Mirri ad nauseum. But this action of Sansa has zero consequences on her. It has none on her personality. it has none on the way she's regarded. It might as well have never happened. Ramsay might as well have just been beheaded or hung from the neck for all the "point" his grotesque and monstrous death caused. 

It's almost as if that scene, like a lot of things to do with Sansa after the show started changing her book arc, was created purely for fan service without any tangible connection to the larger nature of the story, or even Sansa as a character.

How do you know it hasn't changed her?  It's not as if onscreen we have the luxury of seeing into her thoughts the way it's possible on the page -- let alone having the luxury of time at this point to explore that type of nitpick.  It's clear the writers are going hell for leather at this point simply to get the broad brushstrokes played out.  

[Tikichick]

Just now, FnkyChkn34 said:

It's still my opinion, so in this instance, no.  She got so much pleasure from killing Walder Frey and then the rest of his family, that I still stand by my OPINION.  Of course others are free to have their opinions as well!  I'm not telling anyone that they are wrong! and that they must! agree with me; I'm simply giving facts (the definition of sadism) that support why I think what I think.  

I conceded that her hitting Joffrey was acceptable because he needed to be stopped, didn't I?  I'm still just saying that I don't think she's any angel for having done so.

I get that it's your opinion.  That's absolutely fine.  I absolutely believe you should stand by your opinion.

I do think it's a bit disingenuous to turn around and caution someone else taking a much more measured look not to make her a saint, which is not at all what they were doing.

[FnkyChkn34]

15 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

My position is that brutally taking revenge on a horribly evil and brutal person is not necessarily "bad".  For example, I was totally OK with Dany crucifying the Masters who has crucified the innocent children.  It served justice and as a deterrent to other people who would torture and kill children or other innocent people.

 Even if we assume it is "bad". a person doing one bad thing, especially under such extreme conditions, like Sansa was under, does not necessarily mean they are going to spiral into darkness and embrace evil or cruelty as a way of life.   

I agree with the part I bolded, and I don't find Sansa to be evil and bad.  But, and as I'm sure everyone can tell, I do think this about Arya.  She spiraled and embraces cruelty as a way of life.  Just the way she mocked Sansa in this episode shows cruelty.

[GraceK]

3 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

But to argue that it would cast no shadow over Sansa, or over the way Jon and the North regard her? That's not true to life or even true to the way this story is told - or at least, was being told. The running theme of this tale has always been "Actions Have Consequences". From Robb's decision to wed Jeyne/Talisa to Catelyn arresting Tyrion to Dany saving Mirri ad nauseum. But this action of Sansa has zero consequences on her. It has none on her personality. it has none on the way she's regarded. It might as well have never happened. Ramsay might as well have just been beheaded or hung from the neck for all the "point" his grotesque and monstrous death caused. 

It's almost as if that scene, like a lot of things to do with Sansa after the show started changing her book arc, was created purely for fan service without any tangible connection to the larger nature of the story, or even Sansa as a character.

I'm not sure what consequences it's supposed to have. Do you want her to feel guilty? Tormented for killing him? Do you want the north to despise her for it? I don't think that's realistic. If anyone deserved to die a death like that it was Ramsay Bolton. Didn't he feed his newborn brother to his dogs? A character so  evil, sadistic and repulsive I have rarely seen. Why should giving him his just desserts have any effect on Sansas psyche? I think his torment and abuse of her had more of a psychological effect, not her retribution. And why should the North care how Ramsey bit it? They just  fought a war against him , they are pretty hardened people themselves.

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

I get that it's your opinion.  That's absolutely fine.  I absolutely believe you should stand by your opinion.

I do think it's a bit disingenuous to turn around and caution someone else taking a much more measured look not to make her a saint, which is not at all what they were doing.

Well, it's also just a saying or phrase, like a cliche or term of art.  I guess it's sometimes hard to tell on an internet forum.  

[mac123x]

13 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Meryn Trant?  Oh, you mean the guy who killed Syrio, tortured Sansa and regularly tortured and raped little girls?  Yeah, she was pretty rough on him.

You asked for an example of her sadism.  Gouging out his eyes and tormenting him was sadistic. The attributes of her victim have no bearing on whether her actions were sadistic or not.  Moving goal posts is boring.

[TaurusRose]

30 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sadism does not require your victims to be innocent.  Does she get gratification or pleasure from inflicting pain or killing those people on her "list"?  Yes.  Therefore, in my opinion, she's sadistic.

It's also your opinion that she gets pleasure inflicting pain, that's not been implied by anything Arya has done, in my opinion. I think she feels satisfaction when she brings justice to those who have harmed her and hers. Look, I get it.  You don't like Ayra, but the people she's killed needed killing. Joffrey was sadistic. I hope you see a difference if you compare Arya to him.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, GraceK said:

I'm not sure what consequences it's supposed to have. Do you want her to feel guilty? Tormented for killing him? Do you want the north to despise her for it? I don't think that's realistic. If anyone deserved to die a death like that it was Ramsay Bolton. Didn't he feed his newborn brother to his dogs? A character so  evil, sadistic and repulsive I have rarely seen. Why should giving him his just desserts have any effect on Sansas psyche? I think his torment and abuse of her had more of a psychological effect, not her retribution. And why should the North care how Ramsey bit it? They just  fought a war against him , they are pretty hardened people themselves.

I don't see many people living in Sansa's actual time and place being likely to step up and criticize her for killing someone who raped and tormented her and murdered her youngest brother before her eyes by giving him a dose of his own medicine.  That doesn't even begin to address the other awful acts we know about from what we saw on screen. 

I sure as hell don't see a jury of her peers convicting her of anything regarding him.

[Bryce Lynch]

11 minutes ago, mac123x said:

You asked for an example of her sadism.  Gouging out his eyes and tormenting him was sadistic. The attributes of her victim have no bearing on whether her actions were sadistic or not.  Moving goal posts is boring.

Again, I think she took pleasure in getting revenge, not in inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain.  The latter is abhorrent to her and makes her want to do the former.  

I'm not moving the goal posts.  I think we just disagree about where the goal posts are.  

Edited August 24, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[FnkyChkn34]

18 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

It's also your opinion that she gets pleasure inflicting pain, that's not been implied by anything Arya has done, in my opinion. I think she feels satisfaction when she brings justice to those who have harmed her and hers. Look, I get it.  You don't like Ayra, but the people she's killed needed killing. Joffrey was sadistic. I hope you see a difference if you compare Arya to him.

I do definitely see a difference.  But it doesn't mean that they both can't fall under the same or similar definition at different levels.  (Satisfaction is a form of pleasure.) 

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Katsullivan said:

Sansa's killing of Ramsey is one of the most  brutal things that has ever been done by one of the "good guys" on this show. Period. Even more horrifying is the clear glee she takes from witnessing it. It was sadistic and grotesque and would have signaled that Sansa had "become the monster to fight monsters". It would have made the entire Lady Sansa Bolton arc worthwhile if the show had intended to follow through on that. But apparently, that was supposed to be a "girl power" moment with no repercussions or long-term ripple effects. Sansa committed this action and moved on with her psyche perfectly intact. The rest of the North and Jon, who apparently knew about this action of Sansa, are not appalled at her capability for cruelty, nor do they question her sanity.  It might as well have never happened. 

I say relief and satisfaction, and the sentence did fit his crimes and she was a victim of said crimes.

Losing side would cry cruelty and the winning side call it justice.

 I call justice, no one else suffered from her momentary lapse, Wolcum's still living.

[jeansheridan]

11 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Inability to resist nitpicking? Desire to know more than the writers? Unwilling to accept this is fantasy? Hellbent on sucking all the fun and enjoyment out of GoT?

May I second your comment? I almost stopped reading this thread because of the joyless nitpicking but nitpicking implies a deep love. Everyone wants their beloved show to be the best it can be. And this ep wasn't the best. But it was way better than Jaime and Bronn sneaking around in the Water Gardens with no plan. And I am truly blown away by the complexities of filming in Iceland and on a sound stage and making it all blend together. And showing us dragons that are 99% believable on screen.  And a zombie bear. It is quite an achievement. 

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

• If you're a discussing a character's general motivations, traits, past actions and want to dissect whether that makes them a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' - this type of discussion belongs in their character topic.
• Unsurprisingly, speculation belongs in speculation topics, i.e. Who will Sansa marry? Who will kill X? Will X die? 
• How Sansa is or isn't still married to Tyrion is absolutely not pertinent to this episode topic, moreover, there are multiple other topics where it would be suitable; Sansa's own topic being one of them.

These are not difficult concepts to grasp. We're going to start handing out posting restrictions and suspensions for continued and repeated violators; you know who you are.

Multiple posts have been removed for these reasons.

If you want to avoid running the risk of not being able to post after the finale it's easy: you're strongly urged to consider where you are posting and whether it's relevant to the topic, aka THINK TWICE, POST ONCE.

[WebosFritos]

I was a little bit disappointed when Tormund said that a lot of people died because of Mance's pride. I guess he was referring to Hardhome but if Mance had bent the knee, the free folk would have had to join Stannis's army and a lot of them would have died anyway. It always made sense to me that he refused to take part in the "southern wars". Mance made a lot of mistakes but he wasn't thinking about his pride, he was thinking about his people. At least that's what I got from the show.

 

17 hours ago, arjumand said:

The thing is, while it's a cliche, if it wasn't like this, the human race would be finished. They could never win, because if the wights just keep going forever, they could kill more people faster than the living could kill them.

On the other (heh) hand, I just rewatched Hardhome, and didn't notice any wights collapsing when Jon ice-cubed that White Walker. Hmm. Now I don't know anymore.

The Night King probably made the majority of the wights. There were so many of them at Hardhome they probably wouldn't have noticed if some of them collapsed. It always made sense to me that if they could get rid of the Night King, then the magic that surrounds him would disappear as well.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, WebosFritos said:

It always made sense to me that if they could get rid of the Night King, then the magic that surrounds him would disappear as well.

So no game of thrones being played up north then. Hmmm, maybe Cercei should consult with him. He seems to have a lock on the crown in his parts. If I die you all die is a pretty surefire way to make sure no one kills you. lol

[dragonsbite]

44 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

So no game of thrones being played up north then. Hmmm, maybe Cercei should consult with him. He seems to have a lock on the crown in his parts. If I die you all die is a pretty surefire way to make sure no one kills you. lol

Wasn't that The Mad King's M.O. before Jaime executed him?

Edited August 25, 2017 by dragonsbite
"execute" sounds better than "killed"

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, dragonsbite said:

Wasn't that The Mad King's M.O. before Jaime executed him?

I would happily see Cercei meet the same fate as the Mad King so I think she should take a page out of his book and give it a go.

[spaceghostess]

On 8/21/2017 at 0:56 PM, iMonrey said:

I am just way too emotionally invested in the dragons. There needs to be a disclaimer in the closing credits that reads "no dragons were harmed in the making of this episode." I literally have to remind myself there aren't really any dragons. But honestly, they could kill off just about any human character left on this show, and it wouldn't affect me in the same way that killing a dragon did. I've been dreading it all season and thought maybe we dodged that bullet after the Scorpion didn't quite work. Never saw the Night King's spear coming, but as soon as he got it out I just had this sinking feeling. That was emotionally painful and draining to watch. And "turning" the dragon didn't even occur to me.

Like I say . . . way too invested in the dragons. 

You and me both. When Viserion went down, I said out loud--to nobody in particular . . .  my cats?--"That's the worst thing that's ever happened on this show". (And they've set a pretty high bar for "worst things".) Then I took it back when he was zombified. What an abomination. Fuck you, Night King.

FWIW, and in response to those who didn't think Daenerys looked upset enough, I disagree. She was in absolute shock. I've been in that state, and you don't necessarily do what people think you would. Years ago, I was hit by a car a few  blocks from my apartment (no broken bones, but a concussion, contusions, etc.), and passed out briefly. I then proceeded to get up and try to walk home. Because my boyfriend and I had an appointment to hate-watch the Melrose Place season finale. That's what I was thinking about as blood streamed down my face and the poor guy who hit me freaked out. Just put one foot in front of the other. The police had to stop me and make me sit down until the ambulance came. This obviously in no way compares to the devastation of losing a child--dragon or human--but it seemed to me Dany just went on autopilot from the shock, and I get that. It's actually a good thing she did, otherwise they'd all be dead. I thought Emilia acted it really well, and she also did a great job emoting without hysterics when talking to Jon later.

Edited August 26, 2017 by spaceghostess
Because spelling characters' names right is never wrong.

[TaurusRose]

10 minutes ago, spaceghostess said:

When Viserion went down, I said out loud--to nobody in particular . . .  my cats?--"That's the worst thing that's ever happened on this show". (And they've set a pretty high bar for "worst things".) Then I took it back when he was zombified. What an abomination. Fuck you, Night King.

 

Truer words have not been spoken.

Edited August 25, 2017 by taurusrose

[Rockstar99435]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:53 AM, FnkyChkn34 said:

They did have dragonglass weapons.

But what I want to know is where Rhaegal went.  He just peaced out on his own after Viserion was hit.  Dany waits with everyone on Drogon and then takes off, but Rhaegal was already half way back to Eastwatch.  Some loyal dragon he is...

I thought Rhaegal was going to swoop down when Jon was climbing out of the water, and give him a ride back to Eastwatch. Not only would this help explain how Jon didn't get hypothermia (1-a dragon is way faster than a horse and 2-I assume dragon bodies are hot which would warm up Jon), but it would also make way more sense for Dany to be tearfully waiting for her missing dragon to come back, since she last saw him when Viseryon died and for all she knows, he was also killed. The last time she saw Jon, he fell through ice into frozen water while surrounded by zombies. She would have no reason to believe he could survive that. But if Rhaegal were missing, she would definitely want to wait for him, believing he was still alive. 

 

On 8/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, arjumand said:

I'm starting to think they're acting separately, each not trusting the other - and I don't blame Sansa one little bit.

She's been nothing but welcoming and happy with each sibling arriving at Winterfell, and they both replied with a resounding "Fuck you and your reunion!" I don't blame her for being resentful that she went through horrible things, just like they did, but she still manages to keep up the human being facade, while Bran is Data without his emotions chip and Arya's HAL (I'm afraid I can't do that, Sansa).

Thank you. I like both sisters and don't want to take sides, but Arya has no reason to be this aggressive and cruel. Plus her complaints don't make any sense. "You always did like nice things." We haven't seen Sansa do anything that would look materialistic or vain. No scenes of her trying on a bunch of outfits or even fixing her hair/make-up in front of the mirror. Or terrorizing the small folk. Or acting like she's better than them. Or really anything that would lead Arya to believe that Sansa is planning on betraying Jon in the middle of a war and winter in order to get the bigger bedroom. Sansa's been spending her time repairing Winterfell and preparing to save everyone, rich and poor, from winter. We've also never seen Sansa do anything aggressive, or passive-aggressive, to Arya. She sent Brianna away, which I think is more about removing her from Littlefinger's plan than any totally-top-secret-never-before-heard-of-plan to murder Arya. The whole fight better be a secret plan to take out Littlefinger or I'm going to be super pissed. 

[rmontro]

8 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

You and me both. When Viserion went down, I said out loud--to nobody in particular . . .  my cats?--"That's the worst thing that's ever happened on this show". (And they've set a pretty high bar for "worst things".) Then I took it back when he was zombified. What an abomination. Fuck you, Night King.

FWIW, and in response to those who didn't think Daenerys looked upset enough, I disagree. She was in absolute shock. 

Agree with you about Viserion.  I've been dreading something happening to a dragon for awhile now.

Not sure if Daenerys looked upset enough, but it doesn't matter, Jorah behind her did a good enough a job of emoting for her..

[Isazouzi]

12 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

You and me both. When Viserion went down, I said out loud--to nobody in particular . . .  my cats?--"That's the worst thing that's ever happened on this show". (And they've set a pretty high bar for "worst things".) Then I took it back when he was zombified. What an abomination. Fuck you, Night King.

After the episode, I sat down for a long while saying out loud to no one "This is horrible, this is horrible". And then I couldn't fall asleep for a long time that night. To me it's not just the death of Viserion, it's everything it represents. Like there's no hope left. I remember feeling that in Harry Potter too. Utter despair.

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

Not sure if Daenerys looked upset enough, but it doesn't matter, Jorah behind her did a good enough a job of emoting for her..

I thought Emilia played shock very well. In the room with Jon, it was clear that she was trying really hard not to cry. It was very true to life, how you don't even speak because you know that you'll immediately end up bawling.

[Bill1978]

Super late to the discussion but just needed to get a few things of my chest.

Firstly, I was disappointed with the battle beyond the wall. Maybe because I had hyped myself up so much for the awesomeness that may be coming after the Hardhome and The Door episodes. But I just felt flat throughout the fight and didn't really care about what was happening (well except for Tormund, I was invested during that bit).  Even though my anticipation was high, I think the real reason why I was disappointed was the lack of urgency. Don' get me wrong, there was an urgency to survive but what was presented in this episode was just another battle. And I think the writers were wrong to just have them stuck on a rock. In the other episodes I referenced the 'battles' involved the main characters running away towards a safe place. There was a level of urgency to get away from the Walkers and their Stans, and there was an end point to achieve. I felt more nervous for Gendry completing his marathon back to Eastwatch. In fact, when he fell over in the snow I thought he was doomed and would be caught by some chasing wrights. Which corresponds to my feeling that I find the Walkers more scary and intense when people are running away from them. I guess I'm just a person who zones out in busy battle sequences in movies and TV. With previous encounters I've been on the edge of my seat, with this one I was sitting there wondering when Dany would swoop in and save them all.

And I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I didn't really feel sad with the dragon's death. And the way the show treated the death with the response from all the characters I felt Viserion's death was Game of Throne's Ewok/Dobby Death moment. Too much focus on a secondary character, when other more important character's have died with less fanfare. I'm actually happy that the Night King killed and resurrected a dragon. For ages, I've been wondering how the series could make the battle between good and evil closely fought if Dany could just use her dragons to wipe out the wights. Now the playing field is a little more even, I'm looking forward to the upcoming contests. By big question is, if the writers made up the wight hunt for the TV show, does this mean no dragons are killed in the books, or does it happen later and why? But at the moment, I'm happy with what I'm getting with the story. 

As a late comer to the series, and very little book knowledge, I found the Sansa/ Arya bedroom scene to be extremely tense. More tense that the Rock Battle in fact. for a while there I though Arya was going to do the unthinkable and stab Sansa.

Even though I have been critical of the main action sequence, I did enjoy this episode. Especially the humour between the Wight Hunters and the lack of Cersei. I actually groaned when Cersei appeared in the upcoming preview.

[MarySNJ]

4 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

Super late to the discussion but just needed to get a few things of my chest.

...

By big question is, if the writers made up the wight hunt for the TV show, does this mean no dragons are killed in the books, or does it happen later and why? But at the moment, I'm happy with what I'm getting with the story. 

As a late comer to the series, and very little book knowledge, I found the Sansa/ Arya bedroom scene to be extremely tense. More tense that the Rock Battle in fact. for a while there I though Arya was going to do the unthinkable and stab Sansa.

This short answer is - we don't know yet. The show has moved far beyond where the books leave off and there's no way to know what was strictly invented for the show vs. what is based on GRRM's outline for the conclusion. Some of this probably will happen in the books, because D&D are supposedly trying to end up in the same place that GRRM plans, although how they get there may be different. I think for the show, the loss of a dragon to the Night King adds an important element of conflict (emotional and physical) to the future war for the Dawn. 

I read an interesting analysis about the Arya/Sansa bedroom scene. The theory is that Arya was playing the game of faces with Sansa and everything she said was a lie. She lied about wanting to wear pretty dresses and be Lady Stark, and the basic threat to take her face. It's just that Sansa doesn't know the rules of that game and sees this as a genuine threat. When Arya gave Sansa the dagger, it was a tell that she trusts Sansa. I don't like how Arya went about it, but given her level of trauma and her training at the House of B&W it's the way she shows her strength.  Anyway, I'd like to think that's true.

[lucindabelle]

How I wish trhe winterfell scene was some kind of test or play but time and again the writing has been just what it seemed. They really did give arya stomach wound she survived for example

and there were complicated theories about that.

 

its bad writing not helped by one note malevolent bad acting too.

 

arya fell for LF plot and Sansa sent brienne away for her own safety.

[spaceghostess]

On 8/21/2017 at 4:42 PM, paramitch said:

 

• Speaking of Dany, I think this season has by far been Emilia Clarke's best from a performance standpoint. I really bought her pain and loss at Viserion's death here, and I also was very moved by the final scene with Jon. And yeah: I ship it. Why not. They're both gorgeous and I am absolutely that shallow.

 

This is me. I ship it so hard, and The New Yorker's Sarah Larson pretty much sums up my own half-assed rationale when she says, in her recap:

"He calls her Dany; she laughs; he says, “How about my Queen?” He offers to bend the knee. She protests a bit. This I like—two people not acting like jerks. She cries and says she hopes she deserves it; more tender hand-holding in the fur. “You do,” he says. O.K., I’ve made a decision here: they should have sex. Yes, they’re secretly aunt and nephew, but, hey, I didn’t invent this creeped-out world."

Exactly. Then again, I'd watch Jon Snow do it with my local yellow pages. But I do think there's palpable chemistry between these two, and ITA that Emilia Clarke is killing it this season.

Edited August 26, 2017 by spaceghostess

[domina89]

I think the thing that is bugging me the most about the battle scene and just the entire plan in general is- why didn't they have an archer among the group?  I mean, dragonglass arrowheads would be able take out the whitewalkers from a distance theoretically, right?  I can fanwank that maybe they weren't prepared this time because they didn't know dropping the WWs individually will kill all the wights they created, but if they don't have multiple archers for the next battle, it's just bad writing- no excuses.  Did D&D NEVER play video games as kids?  You always keeps your distance from a boss 10 opponent if possible and hit them with everything you have from a safe distance.  Their approach makes the characters seem really brave, but really dumb as well, and that insults me on behalf of these great characters.

ETA- Did Gendry seem younger in this episode to anyone other than me?  Since his (re)introduction, he has seemed really eager, and in the walking scenes with the others, he gets good natured ribbing from the "older, wiser" guys.  However, he should have had enough life experience by now to be fairly mature- especially since he's been on his own for so long- so this didn't ring true for me.  I'm wondering if this "aging down" is to make a potential romance with Arya more acceptable.  Thoughts?

Edited August 26, 2017 by domina89

[dosodog]

On 8/24/2017 at 1:54 PM, GraceK said:

I'm not sure what consequences it's supposed to have. Do you want her to feel guilty? Tormented for killing him? Do you want the north to despise her for it? I don't think that's realistic. If anyone deserved to die a death like that it was Ramsay Bolton. Didn't he feed his newborn brother to his dogs? A character so  evil, sadistic and repulsive I have rarely seen. Why should giving him his just desserts have any effect on Sansas psyche? I think his torment and abuse of her had more of a psychological effect, not her retribution. And why should the North care how Ramsey bit it? They just  fought a war against him , they are pretty hardened people themselves.

And not for nothing. 

The dogs hadn't been fed for a week.  

2 birds, one stone. 

Dogs got fed and Ramsey is dead.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, dosodog said:

And not for nothing. 

The dogs hadn't been fed for a week.  

2 birds, one stone. 

Dogs got fed and Ramsey is dead.

She was just being efficient, which is an important qualify for a Lady of a great house to possess. I would think if the other lords of the north knew how Ramsey died they'd be patting her on the back and giving her high fives. I know I was, in spirit anyway. 

[Lemuria]

I thought one thing that Beric said to Jon was more than a little ominous:  "You and I won't find much joy while we're here but we can keep others alive."  I'm not sure Jon's ending will even be Martin's "bittersweet."

 

There was a major game changer in this ep, IMO, and I don't mean Viserion.  With Viserion, we get a change in the odds but this other thing changes what is needed for victory.  Before "Beyond the Wall" I thought the endgame of the War for the Dawn would be army vs. army, the undead vs. the living armed with dragonglass and Valaryian steel.  Now I think we will still see army vs army, but in end, their purpose will be to ensure that the two antagonists make it to the final battle.  We learned that taking out the NK will bring down the entire WW/undead army.  The stare-off--the second one the two of them have had--narrowed (for me) the deciding battle down to Jon and the NK.  

Edited August 28, 2017 by Lemuria

[benteen]

Great episode, very exciting.  I love the interaction between the group beyond the Wall.

[GraceK]

What makes me sad is the blind  trust the dragons have with Dany, cause she's their mother. It's heartbreaking, because she rushes off to save Jon and they follow her, and Viserion, the most gentle and passive child dies as a result. All they want is to help her and it costs him his life.  It's really upsetting to me :(

Edited September 18, 2017 by GraceK

[John Potts]

By the Lord of Light, I love the Hound ("He's died seven times and you don't hear him whinging!"). Jon - it's very noble to offer Longclaw back to Jorah but shouldn't you sort that out before you left Eastwatch? And just where did Thoros get his drink from (did the Wildlings donate some rum before he left)? Though I did love the way that the White Walkers headed unerringly for the party healer and the Redshirts. And I had to laugh when they went "Fall back!" - to where? You were already completely surrounded! And it's lucky that Jon doesn't just have Plot Armour, he has a Plot Aqualung as well.

However, the only way that mission might have made sense was if Danny had been in on it from the start. They could have had Danny unsure about it but be prepared to do a "fly-by" until she saw the Army of the Dead. Then the plan could have been to have the Seven Snowmurai as the bait and then Drogon snatch one into the air to take it on a tour of Westeros to convince anyone and everyone about the threat from the North. You're never going to convince Cersei, but you could convince the Maesters and at least some of the Lords.

Danny is right - in a feudal society, you can't win without (at least a degree of) fear. But she was wrong to ignore the problems of not having a successor - there's a reason that armies and states have an order of succession to avoid chaos should the worst happen.

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:26 AM, dargosmydaddy said:

why would you leave your unconscious, nearly frozen-to-death friend half naked in bed???

Standard rules for hypothermia - get the victim out of their wet clothes as water is a great coolant. Next step is to have somebody get into bed next to them - I guess Danny might volunteer for that (or maybe Tormund!)?

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 12:38 PM, cambridgeguy said:

OK, Jon hasn't sent a single raven to Winterfell in weeks given all that's happened?

I couldn't believe that. And not even when you were (relatively) local at Eastwatch (or presumably, Whiteharbour) either?

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:04 AM, Francie said:

Looks like one of Oppenheimer's deadly toys just fell into the hands of the Soviets.

The Night King said he will bury you.

But I don't subscribe to that point of view. 

Believe me when I say to you. 

I hope the White Walkers love their children too!

Well, they do go a long way to adopt their children.

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:13 AM, Skeeter22 said:

So Faceless Men just carry their faces around in their luggage?

Must be the devil to get them through Customs!