S07.E07: The Dragon And The Wolf

[Oscirus]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

That's exactly when I think it would have kicked in for Littlefinger to try to find a reason why they'd feel like they'd need him. My entire point still stands, as the Littlefinger I know would have been trying to find an angle -- any angle -- to have them recognize, "Oh wait, we do need him, after all."

This show never had a handle on littlefinger  past season 4 so I stopped  even trying with him. I'm surprised  they didn't have Littlefinger pissing himself at the end.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Oscirus

[stillshimpy]

6 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

Why would Sansa know about the faceless men at all, until Arya spilled the beans?  I found that to be sort of shocking, as if the cult of the FM was common knowledge in Westeros.  Are the FM one of the things about which all people say "it is known"?  I never got that impression, from either the series or the books, either.

That's what startled me.  That she knew about them being assassins, when she said to Littlefinger, "Do you know what the Faceless Men are?" because that seemed to imply more knowledge than Arya's oddly menacing speech conveyed.    

Edited August 31, 2017 by stillshimpy

[Blonde Gator]

10 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Quoted for truth.  That friendship makes zero sense, particularly knowing that Robert was engaged to his sister and was the JFK of Westeros in the pants department only, the guy claimed he'd have debilitating headaches if he didn't have sex daily and apparently never heard of yanking it.

I liked screen Robert before I read the books because Mark Addy is an awesome actor.  I read the books and was horrified.  

Ned was the one who took the marriage proposal for Lyanna to his father.  Jon Arryn had nothing to do with it.   Ned and Robert were best friends, "closer than brothers".  They grew up together, and were only a year apart.  Robert Baratheon was bigger than life, in a culture that admires the "noble warrior" culture.   Revisit the way Cersei described seeing him on her wedding day. 

Of course, reality never lives up to an idealized image, does it?

[stillshimpy]

4 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

Ned was the one who took the marriage proposal for Lyanna to his father.  Jon Arryn had nothing to do with it.   Ned and Robert were best friends, "closer than brothers".  They grew up together, and were only a year apart.  Robert Baratheon was bigger than life, in a culture that admires the "noble warrior" culture.   Revisit the way Cersei described seeing him on her wedding day. 

Of course, reality never lives up to an idealized image, does it?

I have no idea why you just brought up Jon Arryn, I just said it didn't make any sense in the books.  Their friendship doesn't make sense to me because Robert was everything Ned disapproved of in life.  

Also, in reality, most people who have an objection to men frequenting prostitutes wouldn't be likely to then be all "Here, marry my sister!" unless they weren't fond of their sister and we know Ned was. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by stillshimpy

[Francie]

8 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

This is how all political leaders are. Some are more diplomatic than others, but "support my vision or get out" is how ALL governments are run.

It sounds like what you're saying is that because Dany hasn't laid out a plan for every battle, she has no plan. Obviously, I don't agree with that.

Our First Amendment is the complete antithesis of your first statement.  

No -- my point is that Dany's checklist looks like this:

1.  Conquer Westeros and make them (all? Dorne?) bend the knee.

2. Ummmmmm..............

[Blonde Gator]

6 minutes ago, Francie said:

A. Dany had other weapons. She had a whole host of weapons, from Dorthraki swords for beheading to rope and a nearest tree for hanging.  In fact, Tyrion thought she was going for a beheading when she decided to use her dragons.

B. What you are describing as "supremely effective" is terrorism. Demoralization. Fear.  That makes Dany a tyrant. 

Really?  What weapon does Dany wield herself, other than dragons?  Does Dany know how to use a Dothraki sword, or how to tie a hangman's knot? 

That was my point.  Dany "swung the sword herself".  In the Northern, Ned Stark way, if you will.  She didn't pronounce the sentence, and then have someone else do her killing.

Game, set, match to Dany, even though it horrifies people.  No one else on the Planet can cause another human being to be killed by Dragon.  Only Daenerys Targaryan can do that.  It makes a difference.

[Francie]

2 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

Really?  What weapon does Dany wield herself, other than dragons?  Does Dany know how to use a Dothraki sword, or how to tie a hangman's knot? 

That was my point.  Dany "swung the sword herself".  In the Northern, Ned Stark way, if you will.  She didn't pronounce the sentence, and then have someone else do her killing.

Game, set, match to Dany, even though it horrifies people.  No one else on the Planet can cause another human being to be killed by Dragon.  Only Daenerys Targaryan can do that.  It makes a difference.

If you wish to put aside the terrorism aspect and how that renders her no better than her father, and if you further would like to see a pet animal as an extension of oneself, there's no one who would be able to stop you.

But don't expect the rest of the audience to go along with you on that argument. 

[madam magpie]

4 minutes ago, Francie said:

Our First Amendment is the complete antithesis of your first statement.  

No -- my point is that Dany's checklist looks like this:

1.  Conquer Westeros and make them (all? Dorne?) bend the knee.

2. Ummmmmm..............

Dany is a monarch. The First Amendment was written for a (basically, but not totally) democracy. That said, if you think the US govt is going to stand for insurrection, especially when it comes to prisoners of war, based on the First Amendment, I'd suggest you read up a bit on the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

So it's not that she doesn't have a plan; it's that you don't like her plan? That's fair. I don't mind her plan given the circumstances of the world she lives in. Is she trying to establish a democracy? Of course not. Would that be even better than Dany's form of better? Probably, though I suppose Cersei could always be legitimately elected by a flawed electoral system and then they'd be in real trouble.

[Happy Harpy]

45 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

But she sent Brienne away BEFORE that scene in Arya's room where she scared the living shit out of her saying she would cut off her face. She wasn't afraid Arya would kill her then, just read the letter to the Northern Lords. Afterwards she was probably kicking herself for sending the person most loyal to her and who could protect her away. Why she did though is open to debate.

Yes, and reading the letter to the Northern lords would have made them "not think much of Lady Sansa", which was clearly expressed and not denied. So if she wasn't afraid for her life, she sent Brienne away only in order to protect her position as the Lady of Winterfell. I personally don't believe she was that power-hungry but on the contrary, had a dim worry that she could be on Arya's list (because of the Nymeria/Joffrey incident) since the moment she realized that it was no joke. She asked, Arya didn't answer. We know that Sansa wasn't on that list, but Sansa herself couldn't have any certainty.

BTW, I don't think that her protests about "Jon/the alliance" were completely hypocritical either. Part of her truly wanted to do the right thing. But maintaining the alliance served her interests no matter what, and she was tempted. Her motivations were complex.

OTOH, I don't believe for one second that Sansa sent Brienne away for her own protection because onscreen, Brienne and Sansa discussed the clear and present danger of going to KL. Jaime treating her honorably before was Sansa's only "pro" in favor of Brienne's safety. I can't believe that anyone who "knows Cersei better than anyone else" thought it was enough; and even less after the pre-parlay scenes, especially the Sandor/Tyrion one. There was no indication that Sansa was kicking herself for her decision, since she was still discussing the Arya issue with LF after she found the faces.

4 hours ago, anamika said:

I don't think she has fully killed her ambitions. Just because LF is dead, those feelings are not going to go away. She wants to rule an independent North. She was not pleased about the news of Jon bending the knee and was actively contemplating deposing Jon and making herself queen. That's why the topic of Arya comes up in her conversation with LF. I still don't see Sansa actively supporting Jon against the Northern lords if they protest next season - she has never supported his decisions or agreed with him on anything. 

True, I don't know what's in store for her next season. That's how I took the trial scene, her exchange with Arya before she accused Littlefinger seemed to support that idea.  So I hope it's how it will play out.

[Tikichick]

Westeros won't be found on any modern day or ancient maps of any part of the planet Earth.  It gets so tedious when people drag in all the real world baggage into the discussion.  The genre of the show is fantasy.

[Blonde Gator]

6 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

I have no idea why you just brought up Jon Arryn, I just said it didn't make any sense in the books.  Their friendship doesn't make sense to me because Robert was everything Ned disapproved of in life.  

Also, in reality, most people who have an objection to men frequenting prostitutes wouldn't be likely to then be all "Here, marry my sister!" unless they weren't fond of their sister and we know Ned was. 

My point was that it was likely Ned's idea to join houses with his "brother", not Jon Arryn's, nor Rickard Stark's idea. 

They were boyhood friends.  An 8 year old doesn't make friends based on anything other than based on common interests, in this case, both being fostered by Jon Arryn, tutored in the fine art of nobility and learning to be noble warriors (as Ned must be as a 2nd son of a great house).  Robert was a year older, bigger and stronger, imbued with all of the traits that an idealized man of the age.  AND Robert became Lord of Storms End in his own right before he left the Eyrie.

Children, and even teenagers, do not make friends based on value/moral judgements.  Adults might.  But Ned loved Robert as his brother for many years, and only came to question that love much later in his life.   Trying to find fault with Ned's lifelong friendship and loyalty to Robert based on 21st century mores and culture is what makes no sense in this regard.

[Francie]

4 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

So it's not that she doesn't have a plan; it's that you don't like her plan? That's fair. I don't mind her plan given the circumstances of the world she lives in. 

What plan? She has absolutely no plan. You say you like it -- so what IS it? 

[Blonde Gator]

8 minutes ago, Francie said:

If you wish to put aside the terrorism aspect and how that renders her no better than her father, and if you further would like to see a pet animal as an extension of oneself, there's no one who would be able to stop you.

But don't expect the rest of the audience to go along with you on that argument. 

Truthfully, I didn't see your line about terrorism, until after I'd posted my reply, and quite frankly, I think your equivalency is a non-sequitur. 

"Burning them all" because you have snakes in your brain is an entirely different thing than executing two men by dragon.  How is executing a  person by dragon fire any different than tying them to a stake and lighting a fire with a match?  Stannis did that twice, you know, but I haven't seen anyone accuse him of terrorism. 

Terrorism is the threat of burning King's Landing.  Not one person as a form of execution. 

Obviously, you disagree.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

My point was that it was likely Ned's idea to join houses with his "brother", not Jon Arryn's, nor Rickard Stark's idea. 

They were boyhood friends.  An 8 year old doesn't make friends based on anything other than based on common interests, in this case, both being fostered by Jon Arryn, tutored in the fine art of nobility and learning to be noble warriors (as Ned must be as a 2nd son of a great house).  Robert was a year older, bigger and stronger, imbued with all of the traits that an idealized man of the age.  AND Robert became Lord of Storms End in his own right before he left the Eyrie.

Children, and even teenagers, do not make friends based on value/moral judgements.  Adults might.  But Ned loved Robert as his brother for many years, and only came to question that love much later in his life.   Trying to find fault with Ned's lifelong friendship and loyalty to Robert based on 21st century mores and culture is what makes no sense in this regard.

Actually I raised the issue, and nothing to do with 21st century mores and culture.  I base it on their personalities within that world, not ours.  The extreme lengths Ned went to prevent his best friend from realizing his "son's" true heritage, not wanting to serve as Hand to his friend, etc.

Not to mention the disgust Ned had for Robert's treatment of Cersei, his horror at his friend's paranoia about killing all Targaryens, even children, his distaste for Robert's unwillingness to serve the realm he ruled, his distaste over Robert's gluttonous eating and drinking.  

[SimoneS]

5 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

Dickon honored his loyalty to his father and was actually troubled by killing his friends.  He had conflicting loyalties there and chose his family.  He chose his family in death too.  

How did he choose his mother and sister in death? They are his family also. With Dickon gone and the Tarly bannermen decimated, his mother and sister are now alone and will lose their rights to their home and lands with no one to protect them in a society where women have a low status.  Dickon betrayed them even more than he betrayed Olenna and Daenerys. He really was a disloyal fool.

Edited August 31, 2017 by SimoneS

[MissLucas]

The only plan I ever heard Dany mentioning was 'breaking the wheel' so that it won't crush those on the ground. That can mean a lot of things, she said it after Tyrion mentioned the different houses of Westeros so let's assume it simply means re-establishing Targaryen rule. Not that that makes much sense when she keeps repeating that she won't have any children. It could also mean she wants to push for something more drastic living up to that whole 'breaker of chains' thing. But that also remains to be seen. (I'm also still waiting for her plans for the Dothrakis and the Unsullied - but that's another topic).

Edited August 31, 2017 by MissLucas

[Blonde Gator]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

Actually I raised the issue, and nothing to do with 21st century mores and culture.  I base it on their personalities within that world, not ours.  The extreme lengths Ned went to prevent his best friend from realizing his "son's" true heritage, not wanting to serve as Hand to his friend, etc.

Not to mention the disgust Ned had for Robert's treatment of Cersei, his horror at his friend's paranoia about killing all Targaryens, even children, his distaste for Robert's unwillingness to serve the realm he ruled, his distaste over Robert's gluttonous eating and drinking.  

You and I agree on ALL of this, my point was being made to a poster who was questioning why Ned was friends with Robert at all!  I must have missed your posts on this at a prior time, but hey, we're only at page 24 on this episode, LOL.

I was going to mention your exact points about every single one of your points in my own, which all occurred years after the friendship had been cemented.  And even after all that, Ned forgave Robert.  Which is, of course, the true nature of friendship.  But I was trying to focus my points on the beginnings of the friendship, since that was the question.

[Oscirus]

11 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

Truthfully, I didn't see your line about terrorism, until after I'd posted my reply, and quite frankly, I think your equivalency is a non-sequitur. 

"Burning them all" because you have snakes in your brain is an entirely different thing than executing two men by dragon.  How is executing a  person by dragon fire any different than tying them to a stake and lighting a fire with a match?  Stannis did that twice, you know, but I haven't seen anyone accuse him of terrorism. 

Terrorism is the threat of burning King's Landing.  Not one person as a form of execution. 

Obviously, you disagree.

Stanis is a religious  fanatic who burned his daughter alive. I'm pretty  sure nobody would disagree with the fact that he was a terrorist or that what Cersei did to the sept was terrorism. Doesn't  change the fact that killing a pow by dragonfire is a terrorist act.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Oscirus

[SimoneS]

8 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

The only plan I ever heard Dany mentioning was 'breaking the wheel.'

Since Astophor, Daenerys has been talking about freeing slaves and giving the people a chance at a better life. Stopping the Dothraki and Iron Born from raiding and raping is included. The Iron Bank has heard of Dany's plan which is why it isn't happy and Cersei pointed out that she is a revolutionary. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by SimoneS

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Oscirus said:

Stanis is a religious  fanatic who burned his daughter alive. I'm pretty  sure nobody would disagree with the fact that he was a terrorist or that what Cersei did to the sept was terrorism. Doesn't  change the fact that killing somebody by dragon is a terrorist act.

I don't understand, are you saying that about killing someone or is it simply the deployment of dragonfire to do so that requires the label for you?  Would beheading have been appropriate?

[stillshimpy]

21 minutes ago, Blonde Gator said:

My point was that it was likely Ned's idea to join houses with his "brother", not Jon Arryn's, nor Rickard Stark's idea. 

They were boyhood friends.  An 8 year old doesn't make friends based on anything other than based on common interests, in this case, both being fostered by Jon Arryn, tutored in the fine art of nobility and learning to be noble warriors (as Ned must be as a 2nd son of a great house).  Robert was a year older, bigger and stronger, imbued with all of the traits that an idealized man of the age.  AND Robert became Lord of Storms End in his own right before he left the Eyrie.

Children, and even teenagers, do not make friends based on value/moral judgements.  Adults might.  But Ned loved Robert as his brother for many years, and only came to question that love much later in his life.   Trying to find fault with Ned's lifelong friendship and loyalty to Robert based on 21st century mores and culture is what makes no sense in this regard.

Ah! I see what you meant.  That's true, Ned could have thought Robert would settle down and be a loyal, good husband because that's how he wanted to view his friend, so he believed it.  

[MissLucas]

Just now, SimoneS said:

Since Astophor, Daenerys has been talking about freeing slaves and giving the people a chance at a better life. Stopping the Dothraki and Iron Born from raiding and raping is included. The Iron Bank has heard of Dany's plan which is why it isn't happy and Cersei pointed out that she is a revolutionary. 

There are no slaves in Westeros and things in Slaver's Bay don't look good either - it just disappeared in the show's rear-view mirror. And for a whole season I've been wondering what's in for the Dothraki and why they followed her, same goes for the Iron Born - two cultures shown as not into trade or crafts yet just meekly accepting her new rules. How long is this going to hold? What are they going to do once the war they came to fight is over?

[OhOkayWhat]

45 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

This show never had a handle on littlefinger  past season 4 so I stopped  even trying with him. I'm surprised  they didn't have Littlefinger pissing himself at the end.

I think the last scene of Petyr is very consistent with what we know about him from the beginning of the show.

[stillshimpy]

19 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Actually I raised the issue, and nothing to do with 21st century mores and culture.  I base it on their personalities within that world, not ours.  The extreme lengths Ned went to prevent his best friend from realizing his "son's" true heritage, not wanting to serve as Hand to his friend, etc.

Not to mention the disgust Ned had for Robert's treatment of Cersei, his horror at his friend's paranoia about killing all Targaryens, even children, his distaste for Robert's unwillingness to serve the realm he ruled, his distaste over Robert's gluttonous eating and drinking.  

You know, I think @Blonde Gator raised a good point:   The vision of Robert that Ned had prior to the war could be one thing, you can convince yourself of a lot as a young person and it doesn't need to be true. 

That it didn't remain his vision of Robert is actually covered in the books.  Robert and Ned parted company on killing the Targaryen children and there was a chance that they'd never speak again over it.  So, I guess the book did try to render it sensical.  

By the time we meet up with them again in the first book and in the series, Ned's affection for Robert is only partially intact and he knows him well enough to warn Cersei that she needs to get her kids out of town (dumb move, Ned) or Robert will kill them. 

Ned was anti-child death, so it always kind of intrigues me that people say Ned would have killed Theon if his father had joined an uprising.  I always wondered if Ned fostered him to protect Theon from precisely that fate since he and Robert disagreed to the point of acrimony on the issue of killing your foe's kids. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by stillshimpy

[SimoneS]

Just now, MissLucas said:

There are no slaves in Westeros and things in Slaver's Bay don't look good either - it just disappeared in the show's rear-view mirror. And for a whole season I've been wondering what's in for the Dothraki and why they followed her, same goes for the Iron Born - two cultures shown as not into trade or crafts yet just meekly accepting her new rules. How long is this going to hold? What are they going to do once the war they came to fight is over?

How is this about Dany's plan? Or is this a change of subject? Or are you including the Dothraki and Iron Born in her plan? 

[Bryce Lynch]

14 hours ago, anamika said:

The problem is that in this fandom, Dany is usually damned if she does and damned if she does not. In season 5, she got a ton of criticism because she had Daario execute Mossador instead of doing it herself - mainly because that scene was followed by Jon taking off Slynt's head and it showed that he was the better leader because the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword and all that. But then she actually executes people herself using her weapons and she is deemed too cruel or mad.

I did think her choice was alright.  She got everyone else there to immediately bend the knee.  Tyrion's arguments made no sense to me in that scene.

Yes, let's blame Sansa idiotically trusting in LF on Jon, Arya and Bran. What's new!

Sansa trusting in LF and giving him free reign in WF was what led to LF knowing where to find the letter that he then used to manipulate Arya. Brienne kept trying to warn her, but dumb Sansa could not see past her own ego and take the advice because she thinks she knows better than everyone else.

Good point about Dany.  If she had personally beheaded Mossador, she probably would have Theoned it.  While Ned's motto makes sense when the one passing the sentence is an expert with a sword, it is needlessly brutal and gruesome when the judge doesn't know what he/she is doing.  

Personally, I think Dany probably should have beheaded the Tarlys to avoid bad publicity, but the dragonfire did make a strong statement.  It might have saved lives in the future, as enemies would hear about it and be quicker to surrender and kneel.

The whole Sansa/Arya/LF story was poorly written, so I don't know exactly what was going on in her head. But, I don't think she really trusted LF.  IMO, she was keeping him around because a) she thought he might be useful, b) she did not want to unnecessarily start at conflict with the Knights of the Vale, who were critical to the security of Winterfell.  As evil and manipulative as LF was, that was a dangerous game to play, but I don't think she was so stupid as to still trust him.  She might also have thought she would might need his help if things went south with Jon or Arya.  She hadn't seen either of them for years, and probably didn't know how much she could trust them, especially Arya.  

[Blonde Gator]

7 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Ah! I see what you meant.  That's true, Ned could have thought Robert would settle down and be a loyal, good husband because that's how he wanted to view his friend, so he believed it.  

Exactly.  I can count on one finger of one time I've discarded a lifelong friend for egregious acts.  It's as hard of a decision as ending a marriage, maybe even harder.  Truly, it's too bad youth (and sturdy, beautiful bodies) is wasted on they young.......they know so much that isn't so!

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

You know, I think @Blonde Gator raised a good point:   The vision of Robert that Ned had prior to the war could be one thing, you can convince yourself of a lot as a young person and it doesn't need to be true. 

That it didn't remain his vision of Robert is actually covered in the books.  Robert and Ned parted company on killing the Targaryen children and there was a chance that they'd never speak again over it.  So, I guess the book did try to render it sensical.  

By the time we meet up with them again in the first book and in the series, Ned's affection for Robert is only partially intact and he knows him well enough to warn Cersei that she needs to get her kids out of town (dumb move, Ned) or Robert will kill them. 

Ned was anti-child death, so it always kind of intrigues me that people say Ned would have killed Theon if his father had joined an uprising.  I always wondered if Ned fostered him to protect Theon from precisely that fate since he and Robert disagreed to the point of acrimony on the issue of killing your foes kids. 

The quote @Blonde Gator originally gave regarding Robert recalling his first kill made all of the reasons Robert Barratheon is so odious to me come flooding back -- along with the realization he was clearly an ass as a young man, back in the time Ned and Robert were extremely tight friends.  I just cannot wrap my brain around why that would be so.  Maybe you're right, Ned was simply young and oblivious.  I just have a difficult time reconciling it with the man we know -- particularly considering the temperaments of the children he was raising.

[Oscirus]

13 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I don't understand, are you saying that about killing someone or is it simply the deployment of dragonfire to do so that requires the label for you?  Would beheading have been appropriate?

If you must execute a prisoner than yes not using dragonfire  would be reccomended. Didn't  lysa get shit for her extreme way of killing people?

12 minutes ago, OhOkayWhat said:

I think the last scene of Petyr is very consistent with what we know about him from the beginning of the show.

Perhaps. I guess I expected at least some hatred on his face and in his words. I always felt underneath it all that he really truly hated the Starks and the tullys. I expected his death to reflect that.

[Bryce Lynch]

22 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

There are no slaves in Westeros and things in Slaver's Bay don't look good either - it just disappeared in the show's rear-view mirror. And for a whole season I've been wondering what's in for the Dothraki and why they followed her, same goes for the Iron Born - two cultures shown as not into trade or crafts yet just meekly accepting her new rules. How long is this going to hold? What are they going to do once the war they came to fight is over?

I think the Dothraki probably see her as some sort of goddess after she burned all the Khals to death and emerged from the temple unburnt.  They also follow strength (as Mormont told Dany early in series) and Danerys is strong.  

I believe the Iron Born following her is largely due to Yara's leadership.  I also get the idea that their kingdom has been in decline for a long time, which would make them more open to seeking different ways.

I think Dany left the Bay of Dragons (no longer Slaver's Bay) in pretty good shape.  After the masters of the 3 cities broke the deal the Tyrion had brokered and attacked Meereen by sea, Danerys destroyed the masters' fleet with her dragons and I believe the Dothraki took care of the remaining Sons of the Harpy.  

While there are officially no slaves in Westeros, there are hundreds of thousands living in squalor in Flea Bottom and thousands more subject to the whims of cruel Lords.  The Lords might even be more quick to kill their subjects than the Masters, because the Masters don't want to destroy their own "property".   

Edited August 31, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Tikichick]

13 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

If you must execute a prisoner than yes not using dragonfire  would be reccomended. Didn't  lysa get shit for her extreme way of killing people?

Perhaps. I guess I expected at least some hatred on his face and in his words. I always felt underneath it all that he really truly hated the Starks and the tullys. I expected his death to reflect that.

If I get to pick, I'll go down by dragonfire over beheading.  So maybe you need to leave more room for personal preferences regarding what consists as terrorism.  I'll keep to myself my thoughts about the irony of not labeling beheading a form of terrorism since I really dislike the dragging of modern mores into the discussion.

I agree about LF.  Tremendously disappointed that all of the build up led to almost a literal whimper in the end.

[VCRTracking]

1 hour ago, Happy Harpy said:

6 hours ago, anamika said:

I don't think she has fully killed her ambitions. Just because LF is dead, those feelings are not going to go away. She wants to rule an independent North. She was not pleased about the news of Jon bending the knee and was actively contemplating deposing Jon and making herself queen. That's why the topic of Arya comes up in her conversation with LF. I still don't see Sansa actively supporting Jon against the Northern lords if they protest next season - she has never supported his decisions or agreed with him on anything. 

True, I don't know what's in store for her next season. That's how I took the trial scene, her exchange with Arya before she accused Littlefinger seemed to support that idea.  So I hope it's how it will play out.

First of all I think the Northern Lords will be too busy about the army of whitewalkers that just broke through the wall! Also if they do protest, they might have legit concerns over Jon's decision-making skills wonder they wonder "How did the Night King get a dragon?!" Second, It depends on if and how Sansa reacts to the news that Jon is not only not her brother, but her cousin and the rightful heir to the Iron throne. It's a no-win scenario. If she supports him now, people will say she suddenly likes and agrees with him because he's not really a bastard and is ambitious to get close to the true heir. If she doesn't, they'll say she's jealous of his new position and higher status. "He's no longer the bastard she looked down on all these years and now it's killing her!" She could bring the things people here have brought up about how Dany is an unfit ruler and Jon would be the better king, and she'd still get shit for it because they will never not question her motives.

Ever since the incident with the butcher's boy she has been pilloried for doing dumb things because they were based on weakness and fear.  Jon(and before him Ned) get a pass by most people for their dumb actions that have terrible consequences because they were based on honor. "They may have been idiots but they were doing the honorable thing"! She can't even be excused because of her young age because you have Arya in comparison and later Lyanna Mormont who are little badasses that fans cheer.

Edited August 31, 2017 by VCRTracking

[TaurusRose]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

If you wish to put aside the terrorism aspect and how that renders her no better than her father, and if you further would like to see a pet animal as an extension of oneself, there's no one who would be able to stop you.

But don't expect the rest of the audience to go along with you on that argument. 

Dany's dragons are not pets. She's never referred to them as pets, they are her children. Just saying.

[Bryce Lynch]

12 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

If I get to pick, I'll go down by dragonfire over beheading.  So maybe you need to leave more room for personal preferences regarding what consists as terrorism.  I'll keep to myself my thoughts about the irony of not labeling beheading a form of terrorism since I really dislike the dragging of modern mores into the discussion.

I agree about LF.  Tremendously disappointed that all of the build up led to almost a literal whimper in the end.

I'd pick the way Tyrion wants to die first. :)  But if the choices are beheading and dragonfire, I would definitely go with beheading. I believe beheading is  considered the most humane and merciful form of execution in Westeros, with the possible exception of  painless poison, (Olenna) but I don't think that is an official method.  I think my rankings among the methods shown in the series would be:

1) Beheading (Unless Theon is swinging the sword)

2) Moon Door (at least you get a nice view)

3) Throat cut

4) Dragon fire (seems much quicker than regular fire)

5) Hanging

6) Burned at the stake

7) Flaying

8) Eaten alive by Ramsay's hounds.  

Edited August 31, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[GraceK]

6 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

Dany's dragons are not pets. She's never referred to them as pets, they are her children. Just saying.

Agreed. It's been specifically shown to us that they consider her their mother and she her children....not to mention she and Drogon seemed to be deeply connected to one another.  Referring to them as " pets" pretty much goes against the entire story.

[AshleyN]

21 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

However, keeping Jon so close and claiming him as his own rather than figuring out where to send him, or coming up with anything else, "We had to put flame to a tavern to drive out Targaryen loyalist, this was the child of a cook who perished in that conflagration, totally innocent.  I'm having the blacksmith raise him."  Would have kept Jon close to hand and provided a cover story that wouldn't have infuriated Cat.  

...

A more skill liar would have figured out a story that involved one of his men who died, someone who did like to spread it around so it wouldn't have felled the honor of a dead man, and say simply that he owed it to Ser Got It Plenty to raise the boy in a noble house. 

Not sure those stories would have held up when (Book)Jon turned out to be the spitting image of Ned, looking more like him than any of his actual children save Arya. And that was the best case scenario, the worst was him taking after his father -- although I've seen it pointed out that that might be why Ned allowed the Ashara Dayne rumour to flourish.

I'd also say that in most scenarios, but especially in one's like Ned's where he's not a skilled liar, the simplest lie is generally going to be the best one. The more variables and outside factors you introduce the harder it is to maintain the lie. And it should be pointed out that his ruse was successful, he accomplished exactly what he intended and not only kept Jon safe and secret, but for the most part gave him a very good life.

53 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

Ah! I see what you meant.  That's true, Ned could have thought Robert would settle down and be a loyal, good husband because that's how he wanted to view his friend, so he believed it.  

IIRC, Ned has a flashback in the book (the one where Lyanna says she doesn't believe he'll ever stick to one bed) where he tells her just that.

[madam magpie]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

What plan? She has absolutely no plan. You say you like it -- so what IS it? 

I laid it out above already. Others have added to it.

Edited August 31, 2017 by madam magpie

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'd pick the way Tyrion wants to die first. :)  But if the choices are beheading and dragonfire, I would definitely go with beheading. I believe beheading is  considered the most humane and merciful form of execution in Westeros, with the possible exception of  painless poison, (Olenna) but I don't think that is an official method.  I think my rankings among the methods shown in the series would be:

1) Beheading (Unless Theon is swinging the sword)

2) Moon Door (at least you get a nice view)

3) Throat cut

4) Dragon fire (seems much quicker than regular fire)

5) Hanging

6) Burned at the stake

7) Flaying

8) Eaten alive by Ramsay's hounds.  

Oh yes, Tyrion did have some thoughts on it, didn't he?  

Beheading may be widely considered the most humane in Westeros, but I think your list rather proves my point that it's rather in the eye of the beholder.  For me it seems dragon fire gets it done in the flashest of flashes, no worry of the executioner botching it on first try or poor blade.  Ironically you put the Moon Door as number two, which I believe the poster who called dragon fire terrorism considered quite inhumane. 

I think maybe the smart play in Westeros is declare you want your sentence to be carried out by Jamie Lannister -- after you've had the chance to reassure him you had no hand in the deaths of ANY of his loved ones of course, and then tell him you'll have what Olenna had, please and thank you.

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, GraceK said:

Agreed. It's been specifically shown to us that they consider her their mother and she her children....not to mention she and Drogon seemed to be deeply connected to one another.  Referring to them as " pets" pretty much goes against the entire story.

I don't think the show has done a great job showing the mother/child relationship between Dany and her dragons.  She is largely shown ignoring Viserion and Rhaegal  and while she is clearly shown to love Drogon, she often seems to treat him like a pet and a tool.  She seemed to get over Viserion's death very quickly.    A lot of lip service is given to them being her children, but I wish they would show more evidence of it.  

[TaurusRose]

9 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Also, they might have legit concerns over Jon's decisions if they wonder "How did the Night King get a dragon?" Second, It depends on if and how Sansa reacts to the news that Jon is not only not her brother, but her cousin and the rightful heir to the Iron throne. It's a no-win scenario. If she supports him now, people will say she suddenly likes and agrees with him because he's not really a bastard and is ambitious to get close to the true heir. If she doesn't, they'll say she's jealous of his new position and higher status. "He's no longer the bastard she looked down on all these years and now it's killing her!" She could bring the things people here have brought up about how Dany is an unfit ruler and Jon would be the better king, and she'd still get shit for it because they will never not question her motives.

Ever since the incident with the butcher's boy she has been pilloried for doing dumb things because they were based on weakness and fear.  Jon(and before him Ned) get a pass by most people for their dumb actions that have terrible consequences because they were based on honor. "They may have been idiots but they were doing the honorable thing"! She can't be excused because of her young age because you have Arya in comparison and later Lyanna Mormont who are little badasses that fans cheer.

Right.  They might as well ask how their army got so big and blame that on Jon, too. Sansa's current title is Lady of Winterfell. She has no authority one way or another, so her reaction means jack. If she cared about Jon at all or has any loyalty to him, his true identity shouldn't change anything. But she really is a wildcard, isn't she? Her loyalty is still in question as well as her judgment.  I expect this of Arya and Bran (feelings to remain true). But Sansa not so much. She's Cersei lite. WRT fear and weakness, everyone has been there, the difference is Jon and Ned never threw someone under the bus because they wanted to be a king and sit on a throne. And no, that's not the only questionable thing Sansa has done. She gets the knocks she deserves. She's as stupid as her mother.

[OhOkayWhat]

36 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Perhaps. I guess I expected at least some hatred on his face and in his words. I always felt underneath it all that he really truly hated the Starks and the tullys. I expected his death to reflect that.

Some elements of his personality and some of his acts usually are focus of discussion, because we do not know a lot about them.

[Tikichick]

3 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

Right.  They might as well ask how their army got so big and blame that on Jon, too. Sansa's current title is Lady of Winterfell. She has no authority one way or another, so her reaction means jack. If she cared about Jon at all or has any loyalty to him, his true identity shouldn't change anything. But she really is a wildcard, isn't she? Her loyalty is still in question as well as her judgment.  I expect this of Arya and Bran (feelings to remain true). But Sansa not so much. She's Cersei lite. WRT fear and weakness, everyone has been there, the difference is Jon and Ned never threw someone under the bus because they wanted to be a king and sit on a throne. And no, that's not the only questionable thing Sansa has done. She gets the knocks she deserves. She's as stupid as her mother.

IMO Sansa feels true regret about her attitude towards Jon in his younger years -- and directly addressed it with him.  I believe she sincerely meant it and I think she sees a value in things now that she never understood as a silly girl dreaming of a courtly life away from dreary old Winterfell. 

[Hana Chan]

1 minute ago, taurusrose said:

Sansa's current title is Lady of Winterfell. She has no authority one way or another, so her reaction means jack. If she cared about Jon at all or has any loyalty to him, his true identity shouldn't change anything. But she really is a wildcard, isn't she? Her loyalty is still in question as well as her judgment.  I expect this of Arya and Bran (feelings to remain true). But Sansa not so much.

Jon did have full authority to make the decision regarding an alliance with Dany and wasn't under any kind of obligation to clear it with Sansa first. He was always ambivalent about being KITN as a whole and didn't see the title as any kind of affirmation of his worth. He'd kind of gotten beyond that and I wouldn't be surprised if he fully expects not to survive the coming war (which would make the point moot anyway). The fact that he signed his letter to Sansa with the title Warder of the North shows where his focus and priorities really are. He is the shield to protect the people from what's about to come pouring out from behind the Wall. Yes, there probably will be at least some carping and complaining, but Jon isn't unpersuasive and can rally men to his cause. And Sansa, my guess is, will stand behind Jon. Especially when she sees what this alliance is going to benefit them.

My guess is that once the northernmost houses fall to the NK, the northern lords will get the message pretty damn quick and will fall in line. And be damned grateful that their leader wasn't so invested in his own political status that he turned down an alliance that brought not just two dragons, but an army of Unsullied and Dothraki to aid them.

[TaurusRose]

12 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

IMO Sansa feels true regret about her attitude towards Jon in his younger years -- and directly addressed it with him.  I believe she sincerely meant it and I think she sees a value in things now that she never understood as a silly girl dreaming of a courtly life away from dreary old Winterfell. 

I saw her lips moving and heard her talking, but her interactions with Jon since then (behavior, attitude, tone) tell a different story. 

[Tikichick]

6 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

I saw her lips moving and heard her talking, but her interactions with Jon since then (behavior, attitude, tone) tell a different story. 

So you think the fact he specifically declared he was leaving her in charge while he was gone meant nothing to her and didn't further solidify their relationship on her end?

[TaurusRose]

Just now, Tikichick said:

So you think the fact he specifically declared he was leaving her in charge while he was gone meant nothing to her and didn't further solidify their relationship on her end?

Correct. Sansa's complaining to LF about the KiTN, expecting to be consulted on every decision as if she and Jon were co-rulers, and failure to strongly support Jon when Royce and Glover were playing her had the opposite effect on me. 

[MissLucas]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

How is this about Dany's plan? Or is this a change of subject? Or are you including the Dothraki and Iron Born in her plan? 

No, it's not a change of subject at all. It's about how Dany is written. She makes great pronouncements and the show fails to deliver to show the consequences of those pronouncements. We still don't know how exactly the situation in Slaver's Bay was resolved - how can it be in 'good shape'? The whole economic system was destroyed - how do people survive? Who is farming the land?  Who is in charge of redistributing the wealth the slaver's accumulated? Or are they allowed to keep it and pay wages? And what about the ruling system of these places? The legal system. There's a ton of admittedly boring stuff for a tv show that has never been addressed. We just have to assume that Daario has suddenly turned from mercenary to king Salomon.

The Dothraki and the Iron Born were told that they can no longer raid and pillage - but how are they going to survive? How will they be incorporated into Dany's new world? How is the complete restructuring of their cultures going to work?

As for the down-trodden of Flea Bottom etc. - Dany never made any explicit pronouncements that she intends to change their fate. And if she intends to free them from their Lords then she's once again faced with all the same dilemmas she just left behind. Plus a new one - she's also a Lord. 'Breaking the Wheel' is just  cool line but we have no idea what it's supposed to mean. The arrival of the NK and his army is actually a blessing for Dany's plot - because it allows the writers to present her as willing to fight for 'her' people, protect and save them without having to deal with pesky questions of political change, redistribution of property, legal reforms and what have you not.

[herbz]

Was Sansa's anger at Jon bending the knee to Daenerys having not consulted her genuine or played up for Littlefinger? I still have no idea how to read most of what went on in Winterfell this season.  

[GraceK]

17 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

The Dothraki and the Iron Born were told that they can no longer raid and pillage - but how are they going to survive? How will they be incorporated into Dany's new world? How is the complete restructuring of their cultures going to work?

I have to admit Ive wondered this myself. I am a staunch Dany supporter but honestly, how are the Dothraki going to fit in with this  new world of Westeros? As much as I despise Randall Tarly, his view of the "savages" and foreign invaders is probably a view that many of the people of Westeros share. I think Dany is a little idealistic about this idea that Westeros is going to welcome her with open arms. I also agree with the  last  part of your post that this Great War with the NK is actually pretty fortunate. If she and Jon win, they are the saviors of mankind.

My personal opinion is that the REAL destiny of Dany and her Dragons was never to claim the iron throne, but to help defeat the NK. That's what her road was really leading her to, was this ultimate battle. That was the point of her gathering armies and hatching Dragons and eventually of course, meeting up with her counterpart, Jon. Those 2 together are what will stop the NK. JMO :)

Edited August 31, 2017 by GraceK

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

No, it's not a change of subject at all. It's about how Dany is written. She makes great pronouncements and the show fails to deliver to show the consequences of those pronouncements. We still don't know how exactly the situation in Slaver's Bay was resolved - how can it be in 'good shape'? The whole economic system was destroyed - how do people survive? Who is farming the land?  Who is in charge of redistributing the wealth the slaver's accumulated? Or are they allowed to keep it and pay wages? And what about the ruling system of these places? The legal system. There's a ton of admittedly boring stuff for a tv show that has never been addressed. We just have to assume that Daario has suddenly turned from mercenary to king Salomon.

The Dothraki and the Iron Born were told that they can no longer raid and pillage - but how are they going to survive? How will they be incorporated into Dany's new world? How is the complete restructuring of their cultures going to work?

As for the down-trodden of Flea Bottom etc. - Dany never made any explicit pronouncements that she intends to change their fate. And if she intends to free them from their Lords then she's once again faced with all the same dilemmas she just left behind. Plus a new one - she's also a Lord. 'Breaking the Wheel' is just  cool line but we have no idea what it's supposed to mean. The arrival of the NK and his army is actually a blessing for Dany's plot - because it allows the writers to present her as willing to fight for 'her' people, protect and save them without having to deal with pesky questions of political change, redistribution of property, legal reforms and what have you not.

I don't think she has to have all the details of how she will reign worked out.   As many characters in GOT have stated in different ways, the world in Westeros and Essos pretty much sucks for most people.  If she can make it suck 20% less, that would be a great accomplishment.  She can probably do better than that.   

The way the show works, Dany's greatest plans are usually a mystery to the audience and often to those around her until she pulls them off. For example: Hatching the dragon eggs in Drogo's funeral pyre. "Stealing" the Unsullied, having them kill the Master and then freeing them.   Getting the slaves in Yunkai and Meereen to turn on the Masters.  Killing all the Khals by burning the temple and becoming the undisputed leader of the Dothraki.  

Just because we don't know Dany's plans, it doesn't mean she doesn't have any.  Even if she hasn't figure most of the details out, a strong, just ruler, with wise advisers, strong armies and dragons, would stand an excellent chance of making a great deal of positive change.   In the Bay of Dragons cities, she tried different things.  Some worked, some didn't, but eventually she freed the slaves and apparently left the region fairly stable and better off than it was.  

It's not like she has a tough act to follow given that the last 5 rulers of Westeros have been the Mad King,  a drunk who didn't care about ruling and ran up a huge national debt, a psychopath, bastard of incest, who was a "vicious, idiot King", a weak boy who wasn't ready to rule and The Mother of Madness, Cersei Lannister.