S07.E07: The Dragon And The Wolf

[WindyNights]

2 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I, for one, think she made the right choice. Of course, it meant I got to see the glory that is Jon's ass, so I might be a tad biased. 

I would like to go on record as saying the worst thing the showrunners have ever done is made that sex scene so damned short. There was so much pretty in such a quick moment. I can handle more, show, really I can! 

Never got the appeal of Kit Harrington but his skinny legs looked awakened. Don't skip leg day, Kit.

[MadMouse]

54 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

I agree with the last bit, but don't see how her going North alone to save multiple people while ultimately leaving behind the guy she's actually into is an example of this. It looked pretty selfless to me. She was willing to let him die to save everyone else, including all the people in the kingdom looking to her as their leader. On the other hand, much as I think she/Jon were right about the fact that it would look better for them to arrive at Winterfell together, rather than her atop a dragon, I'd say that was her more selfish choice. She wanted the time on the boat with him; the war could wait a little bit.

If she goes North out of her selfish desire about Jon and ends up leaving him behind because of what she sees and the greater good, is the perfect example of this. Thats why they had the scene of her standing on top of the wall afterwards, obviously she was heartbroken about Viserion but in her mind she just sacrificed the man she went for in the first place.

Boat Trip was completely selfish I agree, just look at her mannerisms after the disapproving Jorah look. Everyone knew what it meant, even Theon.

Edited September 2, 2017 by MadMouse

[TarotQueen]

40 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I, for one, think she made the right choice. Of course, it meant I got to see the glory that is Jon's ass, so I might be a tad biased. 

I would like to go on record as saying the worst thing the showrunners have ever done is made that sex scene so damned short. There was so much pretty in such a quick moment. I can handle more, show, really I can! 

No shit.

If I play Smokey Robinson's 'Cruisin' against the sex scene, it doesnt even make it through the whole first verse! 

The eye play was hot, but there ahould have been more build up ino.

[GrailKing]

On 8/30/2017 at 2:52 PM, VCRTracking said:

Maybe. That scene though would have telegraphed to viewers right away they were setting Littlefinger up. They would have known Bran would have told Sansa everything. Because if you believe Sansa was falling for it why would she need Bran's help? To just be at a trial?

Here's how the trap had to have gone down. The siblings met privately with the key Vale lords like Yohn Royce and Bran told them secrets about themselves that noone else ever could have known and that convinced them his visions were legit. 

Also the lords of the Vale always suspected Littlefinger killed Lysa but didn't have proof and so Sansa finally confessed like "Yeah, Littlefinger did it." My feeling why they weren't that upset Sansa kept the secret and was technically an accomplice is Bran told them their aunt Lysa and Littlefinger conspired to murder her husband and the Vale bannermen were far more loyal to Jon Arryn than his batshit crazy wife.

Bran's only involvement prior to this was probably giving his sisters the info how Littlefinger started the War of the Five Kings. Then was like "You guys go deal with him. I'll be busy warging and doing my Three Eyes Raven stuff". Then when Littlefinger made his move by trying to convince Sansa to get rid of Arya the sister made their move and needed Bran's help.

Here's a nice article that details how it could have been possible Arya and Sansa could have been playing Littlefinger the whole time(or at least since Episode 5):

Game of Thrones: Did the Winterfell subplot actually make any sense?
Read more at http://www.nme.com/blogs/tv-blogs/game-of-thrones-arya-sansa-plot-littlefinger-bran-2129881#8qMzWrPUgLbjmeDq.99

I agree the scene where they're in front of Ned's crypt(where nobody could possibly be around) contradicts their scenes in future episodes. Arya doesn't hold Ned's death against Sansa at all and if she did she wouldn't have needed a letter to suddenly bring it out in the open. The scenes of tension between Arya and Sansa however felt very real so either they were both great actors in-universe and had to make it look really good for whoever was listening or they were still being manipulated. The scene with Sansa and Littlefinger where he tells her to assume a person's worst motive, in hindsight felt like Sansa was playing along and pretending to listen to Littlefinger. It could just be Sophie Turner and Maisie Williams didn't know it was all a ploy until they got the script for the finale and playing their characters arguing for real.

I think the arguments were real, LF was playing Arya, and in 7-3 and 7-4 is where Sansa and Lf each started their game, when Sansa asked wolcum about worst weather , and he said he had to check Lewins records; LF antennas were vibrating. Then we had Arya mentioning Brienne's vows and both Sansa and LF picked up on that, Sansa thought LF could use that to split the girls and take Brienne out of the picture, because she would be forced to choose.

Lf then brings it up later with the scroll reveal and Sansa sends Brienne to KL, now LF has to find another plan.

It all came together for the girls in Arya's bedroom, trust was established they get missing info from Bran that augments what each sister knew of their own situations.

 LF last Lesson Sansa plays along ( if Sansa felt that Arya wanted to kill her she be much more emotional ) almost robotic actually gives him enough rope to hang himself.

As I said upthread, if they wanted us to buy Sansa putting her sister on trial, she be entering unarmed and in a woolen smock.

[SimoneS]

2 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

I think this will be a more fitting end than the "Dany dies giving birth to Jon's pure-blood Targaryen son" speculation that seems to be so popular these days. 

Now that so many people expect Dany to be pregnant, I don't understand that she will die in childbirth speculation at all. Given the warp speed of season 7, I cannot imagine that the show is going to stretch out the final six episodes over 8 months so that Dany can give birth in the finale.

Edited September 3, 2017 by SimoneS

[GraceK]

http://www.makinggameofthrones.com/production-diary/nikolaj-coster-waldau-confesses-which-jaime-moment-hes-been-waiting-for

 

really good interview with Jaime

[madam magpie]

17 minutes ago, SimoneS said:

Now that so many people expect Dany to be pregnant, I don't understand that she will die in childbirth speculation at all. Given the warp speed of season 7, I cannot imagine that the show is going to stretch out the final six episodes over 8 months so that Dany can give birth in the finale.

For me, it's the only way to reconcile two things: she will die, and she and Jon will have a baby. Personally, I'd rather she die in battle, but she can't do that if she hasn't had the baby...

Havent years passed on the show already? Wasn't Jon at Dragonstone for a few months? I just always assume a lot of time has passed.

Edited September 3, 2017 by madam magpie

[SimoneS]

14 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

For me, it's the only way to reconcile two things: she will die, and she and Jon will have a baby. Personally, I'd rather she die in battle, but she can't do that if she hasn't had the baby...

Havent years passed on the show already? Wasn't Jon at Dragonstone for a few months? I just always assume a lot of time has passed.

I just don't see how Dany will discover she is pregnant, overcome the conflict over Jon's true identity, and marry him in the middle of two wars so that she gives birth and die in episode six. How exactly do you see that playing out? And why are you so certain that Dany will die? I do not think that either Dany or Jon will die.  
 

Edited September 3, 2017 by SimoneS

[Mabinogia]

7 minutes ago, doram said:

By the customs of this verse, Dany was ordering that children be spared. 

Yes, I think it's as simple as the age she gave as a cut off is what this universe considers to be the age a child becomes an adult. It would make no sense for her to pick 12 if kids weren't considered adults until 14 or 16 or whatever. Why 12 then? Simplest reason is, that is the age that is considered an adult in the world she lives in. 

1 minute ago, SimoneS said:

I think that either Dany or Jon will die.

I wish it weren't true, but I fear it is. I love them both and don't want them to die, but this show being the downer it is, I can't see them both living happily ever after. 

[SimoneS]

3 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I wish it weren't true, but I fear it is. I love them both and don't want them to die, but this show being the downer it is, I can't see them both living happily ever after. 

In all sci fantasy novels, there is death and heartbreak along the journey and in the fight against the enemy. Maybe because I am a fan of the genre, I have a different perspective on the story and the show. 

[madam magpie]

2 hours ago, SimoneS said:

I just don't see how Dany will discover she is pregnant, overcome the conflict over Jon's true identity, and marry him in the middle of two wars so that she gives birth and die in episode six. How exactly do you see that playing out? And why are you so certain that Dany will die? I think that either Dany or Jon will die.  
 

I feel like Dany declaring her intentions at the start of the series and marching to ultimate victory in the end is much, much too easy. (Then again, writers can be lazy and often write themselves into plot corners they can't get out of.) The story has already flipped plot structure once by killing the guy who looked like the protagonist at the end of season one. But that was a dramatic choice. Having your declared queen fight some people and then win is like...zzzzzzzz...from a writing standpoint.

I've thought Dany would die in the end for a long time, but when she gave that speech to Jon when she met him where she said she was born to sit on the Iron Throne and then spit out, "and I will,"  I was like, "ohhhhhhh Dany, no, you won't."

As for the baby, the foreshadowing is so obvious. If there's no baby, that will also be a letdown and a violation of the rules of storytelling. Good writers don't foreshadow something that important that clearly and then drop it.

How it all plays out exactly over six episodes, I have no idea. But listen, if I'm wrong and she lives and wins and hooks up with Jon to free slaves, unite kingdoms, and bring prosperity, I'll be perfectly happy. I'll call George R. R. Martin a lazy, soapy type, but I'll be thrilled. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by madam magpie

[WindyNights]

47 minutes ago, doram said:

Um, actually Joffrey had rights enough to order the execution of the Warden and Lord Paramount of the North and have his orders obeyed in defiance of the so-called Queen "Regent".  He was old enough not to have a whipping boy like Tomnen, and old enough to be expected to lead men into battle. 

Robb Stark was 15 when he was crowned King in the North without a Regent. Daeron I was crowned at 14 and his uncle made a point that he'd have no regents because of the disaster that was the Regency of Aegon II. Lyanna Mormont holds court in her own rights in the show, and in the books pens her own responses to King Stannis. Sansa was to be wed as soon as she saw her period (12/13) to a boy a year older. Catelyn Stark was 14 when she married Ned Stark, and ought to have wed Brandon earlier.  In Essos, Daenerys at 13 was considered old enough to wed.

And to emphasise that this doesn't only apply to the aristocracy - a 10-year-old was considered mature enough to be elected Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. 

There's no "official" age of adulthood in Westeros. If we're going to use real-world parallels, even 16-year-olds are considered children (and for good reason). In context of the customs of this verse, Dany ordered that children be spared during the sack of Astapor. Being unhappy with how children are defined in Planetos is an issue with GRRM's world-building not with this specific character's actions. 

Here's the thing. Joffrey might not be adult but he still has power. The same way an 8 year old Bran has power at Winterfell. Ilyn Payne could've not gone through with it because he had more loyalty towards Cersei but he did it anyway. And no, he was not old enough expected to lead an army. He wasn't even in command at the Battle of Blackwater.

 

Lyanna Mormont penning a response towards Stannis does not denote that she has ultimate power. We're not even sure if she actually wrote the thing.

 

But anyways the age of majority is 16 in Westeros:

 

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs

 

Women who have flowered but are under 16 are considered child-women. I'm sure that would be the same with the males so 12-15 are child-men.

 

But regardless, Daenerys allowed 12 year olds to be killed. She didn't extend a blanket of protection over them. I dont hate Daenerys for it. I'm just pointing out that she's done some pretty dark things. 

 

And I mean she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on anyway since she conducted a class massacre reminiscent of the worst parts of Revolutionary France.

[ShellsandCheese]

Quote

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.  

Robert may have for Lyanna. At the very least I think Robert husband of Lyanna would have been a very different man then Robert husband of Cersei.

There’s a great scene in Season One that I’ll neber forget. Conversation between Cersei and Robert and Robert basically admits that a lot of his behavior, screwing around, drinking, Seven kingdoms, etc was all about trying to fill a hole / void (Lyanna) and admits that it’s never worked. It’s the same scene where he admits he doesn’t even remember what Lyanna looked like. What is it someone said earlier? Ideal  of something/someone  is better than reality. Same could be said of Littlefinger and his love for Catelyn, he had an idealized / romanticized version of her stick in his psyche. 

Robert never moved on from Lyanna because he was stuck in the past and thinking what if. That’s a sad place for anyone to be in, so it’s no surprise that he was a nasty nasty man.

In regards to Ned resigning over Roberts order to kill a pregnant Dany, I’m torn. Part of me thinks this was more of Ned not wanting Dany dead because at the very least it gave Robert something to focus on. Let’s say he kills the last Targaryean and because he still isn’t over Lyanna starts to obsess over other details and then before you know it he finds out about Jon.

Making sure Dany stayed alive and as a focus of Robert’s vengeance/obsession was very smart.

Edited September 3, 2017 by ShellsandCheese

[screamin]

7 hours ago, Misplaced said:

Interesting thought.  Although ....

After this last episode, I read the "all I'd have to do is take your face" scene as (i) Arya playing the game of faces and realising Sansa is not lying -- which is why she flicks the knife over to Sansa, and (ii) Sansa realising, when Arya hands her the knife, that Arya isn't going to kill her, which really -- having seen ick! ick! FACES! and watching that very sharp Valeryian steel knife and listening to her little sister threaten to carve her like a chicken -- is a really serious and heartfelt realisation.  I am not sure the writing quite got us there, but I am happy to think that is where we should have got, at least in hindsight.  Because it's only later that Sansa plays Littlefinger's little game (creepy enough in its own callback to Season 6) and it seems totally, totally clear to me, at that moment when Sansa understands the Little(finger) Game leads to Arya as Lady of Winterfell, Sansa fully understands LF is manipulating everyone.  I do think she twigged when Arya gave her the knife in the last ep, but that's the point when everything becomes crystal-clear (even without Bran).  

IIRC, Sansa didn't actually make any statements in that scene that Arya could judge as truth or lies; Sansa only asked questions that Arya answered. So I don't think the handing over of the knife necessarily meant a cessation of hostilities on her part - why then? To me it looked like it could just as easily be a taunting gesture on Arya's part, like, "Here, take this knife I threatened you with while I turn my back on you and walk away. I'm not afraid of you - you don't have the skill or the nerve to use it." I couldn't blame Sansa for being frightened and unsure.

[madam magpie]

9 minutes ago, screamin said:

IIRC, Sansa didn't actually make any statements in that scene that Arya could judge as truth or lies; Sansa only asked questions that Arya answered. So I don't think the handing over of the knife necessarily meant a cessation of hostilities on her part - why then? To me it looked like it could just as easily be a taunting gesture on Arya's part, like, "Here, take this knife I threatened you with while I turn my back on you and walk away. I'm not afraid of you - you don't have the skill or the nerve to use it." I couldn't blame Sansa for being frightened and unsure.

This is absolutely how that scene came across to me.

Edited September 3, 2017 by madam magpie

[TaurusRose]

8 hours ago, GraceK said:

I disagree. Sansa brought the Vale which turned the battle in their favor absolutely, thanks to her they won. I agree with that. However, none of the houses wanted to align with them when Sansa was seeking out reinforcements. She assumed her name of Stark would have the  North rally around her , but instead the fact that she was married to 2 enemies of the the North worked against her. Glover and Lyanna Mormont threw it in her face. Secondly, just showing up looking gorgeous on the battlefield doesn't entitle you to "winning" the battle. Jon, the wildings and the Vale fought, and Jon himself fought down and beat Ramsey Bolton. Yes, Sansa deserves respect and credit for her intervention, but to think that the North would proclaim a woman Queen just for that reason, instead of the Male "blood of Ned Stark",who fought and almost died on the battlefield himself is ridiculous. Also, if Sansa had worked with Jon and told him about those soldiers, many of Jons forces might have not died. Before she got there in the nick of time, Jon and his men fought pretty damn bravely themselves. She also can't use " Widow of Lord Bolton" as an reason to claim any rights when she herself called him a usurper and keeps announcing how she was forced into marriage with him. It doesn't connect. She can't  claim Widow privileges.

 

also to add, Jon didn't steal her birthright. Her birthright was never Queen of the North. If anything it would be Lady of Winterfell, which she is.

@Katsullivan What she said.

[rmontro]

2 hours ago, madam magpie said:

I feel like Dany declaring her intentions at the start of the series and marching to ultimate victory in the end is much, much too easy.

I have thought for a long time that Daenerys would die in the end, for a lot of the same reasons.  Also, with GRRM saying the ending would be bittersweet, it seemed like her death would be the most heartbreaking in many ways.  It's only here lately that I've changed my mind and started to think that Jon Snow will die instead.  It's got to be one of those two who dies.  I guess Dany could have the baby, get killed, and Jon could raise it while sitting on the Iron Throne.  And that might happen.  But Jon has already died once.  His purpose in life seems to be to defeat the Night King, while Dany's has been to regain rule of Westeros and break the wheel.  

[madam magpie]

32 minutes ago, rmontro said:

I have thought for a long time that Daenerys would die in the end, for a lot of the same reasons.  Also, with GRRM saying the ending would be bittersweet, it seemed like her death would be the most heartbreaking in many ways.  It's only here lately that I've changed my mind and started to think that Jon Snow will die instead.  It's got to be one of those two who dies.  I guess Dany could have the baby, get killed, and Jon could raise it while sitting on the Iron Throne.  And that might happen.  But Jon has already died once.  His purpose in life seems to be to defeat the Night King, while Dany's has been to regain rule of Westeros and break the wheel.  

See...it's that he's already died once that makes me think it won't be him. Where's the drama in that? We've seen it already. Who cares? But if Dany dies? Whew! We've just watched eight seasons of the hero marching forward with laser focus, freeing slaves, raising armies, suffering horribly, learning, falling in love, growing into her own ego, etc. only to be cut down right before victory. 

Jon is a reluctant, everyman hero. He doesn't want the throne or the glory. Those guys often win in literature. Dany is a tragic hero. Those rarely win. And this show has all the elements of a tragedy.

Edited September 3, 2017 by madam magpie

[ulkis]

I wouldn't be surprised if her pregnancy were magically accellerated somehow. "You're gonna give birth in a week because that's a side effect of the wall crumbling!"

[screamin]

1 hour ago, madam magpie said:

This is absolutely how that scene came across to me.

Another possibility I just thought of - Arya could have given Sansa the knife as a test, to see if she's really as treacherous and backstabbing (literally) as Arya thinks she is and has accused her of being, trusting in her own reflexes and training to win against Sansa if Sansa does try to kill her. So Sansa could be said to have 'passed' that test by not attacking her.

I still think that the uncertainty of the message conveyed justifies Sansa's unease.

[GrailKing]

On 8/30/2017 at 2:53 PM, MadMouse said:

Maybe its because I'm getting old, I've seen my share of boobs and ass so the passionate looks works for me. Not that I wouldn't want to see more of Emilla's assets, that woman is perfection.

I don't know how anyone could find faults with any of the females ( well Masie is bit young, good acting though, I like to see sophie when she hits 30 ) .

I can't say much on guys, but I agreed with the wife Kit's buns would make many women smile.

[skiracing12]

Personally, I can't see Jon or Dany dying at any point. Yes, this show loves to kill important characters but always for a reason that adds to or complicates the story. Without Ned dying we don't have a War of the 5 Kings (at least not the same war), without Robb dying we don't have Jon ascending to power so he can fight the Others. I know lots of people see Dany's role as the one to come, beat the Others, give Jon and heir, and then die somehow but that has been clearly shown to be Jon's destiny while Dany's is to rule. Dany's death would also clear Jon's path to the IT, but as many people have said Jon (probably) doesn't want it and likely (in my opinion) wouldn't be good at it, or at least as good as Dany. Killing either at this point feels like it would be mostly for the shock value, which seems out of character of GRRM if he has any say. Also, as I've seen mentioned, GRRMs original plan from 1993 says that Jon, Dany, Arya, Bran, and Tyrion will survive. Yes, i know that huge parts of this original plan have changed drastically, but never have those changes effect the overall main plotpoints of the show. Yes, Robb isn't betrayed at at the red wedding, but he still dies, Jon and Arya aren't in love, but they still have a special connection, Sansa is not pregnant by Joffery, but she still regrets choosing him over family etc. They haven't killed any of those main 5 yet either, which gives me hope that the writers are attempting to stay true to this point, especially because it seems very central. These are 5 main characters, the reason we see so much focus on them is because we are intended to see their journey from the start of the series to the end, or as GRRM says "growing from children to adults and changing themselves and the world in the process". I can also think of many other way that the ending could be bittersweet other than the death of one of the main two characters. Anyway, this might all be wishful thinking but I hope that if they do decide to kill of Jon or Dany they at least make that arc rock solid. Pretty disappointed with the writing this season and don't want any of that with such a huge event. 

[GrailKing]

On 8/31/2017 at 9:00 AM, Happy Harpy said:

There was Brienne. Brienne who saved her life, Brienne whom she could entirely trust to protect her, Brienne who is one of the strongest warriors in Westeros. Brienne whom Sansa chose to not confide in. Brienne whom Sansa. Sent. Away.

Just after LF reminded her that Brienne would have been forced to intervene if "any of [the sisters] planned to hurt the other".

She sent her away for 2 reasons: LF had plans to use Brienne to intervene, (LF does things for his benefit not anyone else ) that's why they made an issue of the Vow Brienne made to Cat, Jamie, Sansa and Sansa's vow to Brienne not to ask anything of her that could bring her dishonor and Jamie's so many vows which to choose. Having to choose one sister over another would seem to Brienne as a failed vow, and since she is Sansa's sworn sword; Arya is on the outside looking in.

So when that fortuitous letter came from KL Sansa got to keep Brienne's and her own vows intact, removed LF play and still have Winterfell represented without arousing suspicion in LF on her motive. Sansa then's sits down with that worry pose like in her wedding night, wondering if she made the right decision, She was going to trust Arya, until Arya came out of no where with "all I need is to take your face" at that point Sansa had no real choice but to go to Bran.

Waiting until that last game and Q & A to see Bran would be and is BS, if this was the case where is the dagger, it wasn't in Sansa's room, it would have been a prominent prop for us to see, especially if Arya was to use it to kill Sansa. Another question, how did Sansa learn the faceless men were assassins, hired killers?, Arya only said she trained with a group called FM, she didn't tell her what they did, Sansa even said what does that mean and all Arya said it allows her to become someone else, she made no mention of killing for pay; so Sansa had to learn that off screen with Bran, or Arya or both. So again this final lesson does not hold continuity, hence BS.

Good thing they did drop it, it would have thrown at least four seasons in a waste basket.

[MarySNJ]

17 hours ago, doram said:

Don't have a bone in this fight but I've got to counter that what is really ridiculous is that the same Lords who depend on legitimate birth as their own claim to power, to set a precedent where bastards are crowned above their true-born sibling s. 

Which is what makes sense and what works for this world. 

There is a precedent for choosing a victorious warlord as King.

I think it has to do with who the Lords think earned it. Recall that Robert was not heir to the Iron Throne. He was named King through victory in battle in which he demonstrated personal valor, defeated Rhaegar, and had a maternal line Targaryen ancestor. Robert eventually pardoned some of the Noblemen whose forces fought against him, and while his victories required the strong support of nobles such as Ned Stark, Robert was named King. Jon was named King through victory in battle in which he demonstrated personal valor, defeated Ramsay, and has a presumed paternal line Stark ancestor. Jon eventually pardoned some of the Noblemen whose forces fought against him and forgave others who denied him, and while his victory required the strong support of Sansa who brought the Vale forces, it was Jon who was named King. 

 I think the main point for the Lords was that Jon fought for it on the field of battle. He would have lost it all if Sansa hadn't called for the Vale forces*, but it was Jon's valor that showed that we willing to put his own life on the line for the North. 

* If Sansa had confided in Jon about the Vale forces before the battle started, fewer Northmen would have died and the battle might have ended sooner. I understand that Sansa was suffereing PTSD after years of harm in Kings Landing and the horrors of being married to Ramsay Bolton, but it's still unclear to me why she didn't confide in Jon who had shown that he would never hurt her. 

[Shimmergloom]

On 9/1/2017 at 4:13 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

A woman in Westeros or say in medieval Europe, who was part of an arranged political marriage might not see having sex with the husband she was forced or pressured into marrying as "rape".  She might just feel it was her lot in life.  A woman who was raised being told, she will marrying the man her parents choose and will give him babies, is not necessarily going to see things the same way a modern woman would.  

 I think Sansa probably would have seen herself as performing a very unpleasant duty.   Thankfully, Tyrion spared her from that. 

We know this isn't true in Game of Thrones, because Dany, Sansa and Cersei have all said they were raped by their husbands.  They knew what rape is and don't just see forced marriage sex as their 'duty'.  Even Dany who we have been told loved Drogo said she was raped this season.

And like has been said, Sansa had no duty to Tyrion.  She was forced to marry him as a captive.  This isn't a situation where Ned had arranged a marriage for her.  She was a hostage who had no choice and was the Lannisters were not acting in her best interest.

We also have book examples of Jeyne Poole, Lyssa Arryn(Tully) bot knowing they were being raped.  And a Jamie chapter describes how he wanted to stop King Aerys from raping his wife, but other Kings Guards stopped him.

At the end of the day, I think most people know when they are being raped or when they are raping someone.  The don't need a law to tell them.

[Katsullivan]

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

I disagree. Sansa brought the Vale which turned the battle in their favor absolutely, thanks to her they won. I agree with that. However, none of the houses wanted to align with them when Sansa was seeking out reinforcements. She assumed her name of Stark would have the  North rally around her , but instead the fact that she was married to 2 enemies of the the North worked against her. Glover and Lyanna Mormont threw it in her face.

Just as none of the houses wanted to align with Sansa for being a Stark, neither did they want to align with Jon for being Ned Stark's son.... Until Lyanna Mormont very conveniently remembers that he's Ned Stark's son and uses that as a basis for declaring him King??? 

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

Secondly, just showing up looking gorgeous on the battlefield doesn't entitle you to "winning" the battle. Jon, the wildings and the Vale fought, and Jon himself fought down and beat Ramsey Bolton. Yes, Sansa deserves respect and credit for her intervention, but to think that the North would proclaim a woman Queen just for that reason, instead of the Male "blood of Ned Stark",who fought and almost died on the battlefield himself is ridiculous.

32 minutes ago, MarySNJ said:

There is a precedent for choosing a victorious warlord as King.

Then Sansa should have been crowned Queen because she won the battle of the bastards. Sansa didn't show up looking gorgeous in a battlefield. She showed up looking gorgeous with an army and saved a losing battle in a battlefield.

By that logic, did the House of Mormont decide to depose Lyanna Mormont since she wasn't knee-deep in the mud, hacking at men with a sword she could barely lift? By that logic, they should rally to give the Lordship to Jorah then.

 

 

32 minutes ago, MarySNJ said:

I think it has to do with who the Lords think earned it. Recall that Robert was not heir to the Iron Throne. He was named King through victory in battle in which he demonstrated personal valor, defeated Rhaegar, and had a maternal line Targaryen ancestor. Robert eventually pardoned some of the Noblemen whose forces fought against him, and while his victories required the strong support of nobles such as Ned Stark, Robert was named King. Jon was named King through victory in battle in which he demonstrated personal valor, defeated Ramsay, and has a presumed paternal line Stark ancestor. Jon eventually pardoned some of the Noblemen whose forces fought against him and forgave others who denied him, and while his victory required the strong support of Sansa who brought the Vale forces, it was Jon who was named King. 

 I think the main point for the Lords was that Jon fought for it on the field of battle. He would have lost it all if Sansa hadn't called for the Vale forces*, but it was Jon's valor that showed that we willing to put his own life on the line for the North. 

Robert was named King because he won. All that valour and glory would have been for zilch if Rhaegar had killed him on the Trident. And Robert was a legitimate son. A Lord of his own rights to the Storm Lands. It simply isn't possible for Lords that, as @doram pointed out, depend on the laws of legitimacy and for their own power to go about crowning bastards who lose battles. 

 

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

also to add, Jon didn't steal her birthright. Her birthright was never Queen of the North. If anything it would be Lady of Winterfell, which she is.

The King in the North belongs to House Stark of Winterfell. It is Sansa's birthright as much as the Iron Throne that Dany's ancestor built can be considered her birthright. It has not now or ever been a democratically elected position. The Boltons self-styled themselves the Red Kings and have tried to win that title from the Starks by conquest over the years and failed. 

If the North had crowned Jon the President of the North, we won't be having this discussion. If Lyanna Mormont had not evoked Ned Stark's blood as a reason to crown Jon, that would be an entirely different thing. But they evoked Ned Stark's name to crown his bastard over his trueborn daughter.

Now that Jon has bent the knee, he is now Warden of the North, another title that belonged to House Stark until the Boltons temporarily seized it. 

Book!Jon understood this when Stannis offered to legitimise him and give him Winterfell. Show!Jon just stole his sister's inheritance from under her nose and acted all humble and bashful about it.

 

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

She also can't use " Widow of Lord Bolton" as an reason to claim any rights when she herself called him a usurper and keeps announcing how she was forced into marriage with him. It doesn't connect. She can't  claim Widow privileges.

This is the opposite of the common argument that has been used to "discount" Dany's claim to the Iron Throne so it's so amusing to see it twisted around here. For one thing, Robert's claim to the Iron Throne even though it was through conquest was also through his Targaryen grand-mother yet the argument persists that Dany isn't the rightful Queen as the IT has been won by Conquest by House Baratheon. Well by that logic, therefore the Starks have no claim to Warden of the North because it was won by conquest by the Boltons. And either way, Sansa inherits it. 

Since Sansa is Ned Stark's last trueborn child (at the time) and the widow of the man who won the North by Conquest, she has a double claim to the title. I don't see what's so hard to understand here. 

53 minutes ago, MarySNJ said:

* If Sansa had confided in Jon about the Vale forces before the battle started, fewer Northmen would have died and the battle might have ended sooner. I understand that Sansa was suffereing PTSD after years of harm in Kings Landing and the horrors of being married to Ramsay Bolton, but it's still unclear to me why she didn't confide in Jon who had shown that he would never hurt her. 

19 hours ago, GraceK said:

Also, if Sansa had worked with Jon and told him about those soldiers, many of Jons forces might have not died. Before she got there in the nick of time, Jon and his men fought pretty damn bravely themselves. 

And so what? The Northern Lords also don't know that Sansa "betrayed" Jon, so that wasn't a factor in their crowning Jon. As far as they knew, Sansa might even have told Jon that she was bringing in the Vale and he was the idiot who refused to wait for reinforcements to come. 

And enough with all this "Jon fought so bravely that the North bowed to him" argument. Robb Stark won every battle and still is called the King Who Lost the North. Since when did the North (in the show) care about Brave Losers? 

 

Look, this is so annoying because I don't even like Sansa. I think her keeping the intel about the Vale army was shady af and I wish the show had simply made her turn villain from her paranoia than have the two of them (Jon & Sansa) hand wave that with a hug and kiss. But that's not the point here.  D & D did some seriously shady hand-waving to make Jon Snow King in the North despite her sitting right there next to him and that is not something I can pretend not to notice as much as I dislike her. I have no problem with Jon being crowned King in the North. But there was a logical way to do it - Robb's will, legitimising Jon and dis-inheriting Sansa - and not this stupid nonsense where a woman wins the Crown three times over (by conquest, by inheritance - twice) and is discredited because she doesn't have a penis.

[GraceK]

21 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Just as none of the houses wanted to align with Sansa for being a Stark, neither did they want to align with Jon for being Ned Stark's son.... Until Lyanna Mormont very conveniently remembers that he's Ned Stark's son and uses that as a basis for declaring him King??? 

Then Sansa should have been crowned Queen because she won the battle of the bastards. Sansa didn't show up looking gorgeous in a battlefield. She showed up looking gorgeous with an army and saved a losing battle in a battlefield.

By that logic, did the House of Mormont decide to depose Lyanna Mormont since she wasn't knee-deep in the mud, hacking at men with a sword she could barely lift? By that logic, they should rally to give the Lordship to Jorah then.

 

 

Robert was named King because he won. All that valour and glory would have been for zilch if Rhaegar had killed him on the Trident. And Robert was a legitimate son. A Lord of his own rights to the Storm Lands. It simply isn't possible for Lords that, as @doram pointed out, depend on the laws of legitimacy and for their own power to go about crowning bastards who lose battles. 

 

The King in the North belongs to House Stark of Winterfell. It is Sansa's birthright as much as the Iron Throne that Dany's ancestor built can be considered her birthright. It has not now or ever been a democratically elected position. The Boltons self-styled themselves the Red Kings and have tried to win that title from the Starks by conquest over the years and failed. 

If the North had crowned Jon the President of the North, we won't be having this discussion. If Lyanna Mormont had not evoked Ned Stark's blood as a reason to crown Jon, that would be an entirely different thing. But they evoked Ned Stark's name to crown his bastard over his trueborn daughter.

Now that Jon has bent the knee, he is now Warden of the North, another title that belonged to House Stark until the Boltons temporarily seized it. 

Book!Jon understood this when Stannis offered to legitimise him and give him Winterfell. Show!Jon just stole his sister's inheritance from under her nose and acted all humble and bashful about it.

 

This is the opposite of the common argument that has been used to "discount" Dany's claim to the Iron Throne so it's so amusing to see it twisted around here. For one thing, Robert's claim to the Iron Throne even though it was through conquest was also through his Targaryen grand-mother yet the argument persists that Dany isn't the rightful Queen as the IT has been won by Conquest by House Baratheon. Well by that logic, therefore the Starks have no claim to Warden of the North because it was won by conquest by the Boltons. And either way, Sansa inherits it. 

Since Sansa is Ned Stark's last trueborn child (at the time) and the widow of the man who won the North by Conquest, she has a double claim to the title. I don't see what's so hard to understand here. 

And so what? The Northern Lords also don't know that Sansa "betrayed" Jon, so that wasn't a factor in their crowning Jon. As far as they knew, Sansa might even have told Jon that she was bringing in the Vale and he was the idiot who refused to wait for reinforcements to come. 

And enough with all this "Jon fought so bravely that the North bowed to him" argument. Robb Stark won every battle and still is called the King Who Lost the North. Since when did the North (in the show) care about Brave Losers? 

 

Look, this is so annoying because I don't even like Sansa. I think her keeping the intel about the Vale army was shady af and I wish the show had simply made her turn villain from her paranoia than have the two of them (Jon & Sansa) hand wave that with a hug and kiss. But that's not the point here.  D & D did some seriously shady hand-waving to make Jon Snow King in the North despite her sitting right there next to him and that is not something I can pretend not to notice as much as I dislike her. I have no problem with Jon being crowned King in the North. But there was a logical way to do it - Robb's will, legitimising Jon and dis-inheriting Sansa - and not this stupid nonsense where a woman wins the Crown three times over (by conquest, by inheritance - twice) and is discredited because she doesn't have a penis.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you here. You have valid points,  I just pretty much disagree with all of them. :)

[GrailKing]

On 8/31/2017 at 11:03 AM, Oscirus said:

To be fair to Littlefinger, he was legit shocked. He went from spectator watching his puppet do what he wanted to becoming a suspect in a trial for things that nobody should've known in the blink of an eye. I don't suspect most people would have been prepared for such an occasion.

It was glorious all the same, to see the smug go.

[GrailKing]

On 8/31/2017 at 2:28 PM, stillshimpy said:

One of the things that startled me was Sansa's familiarity with the Faceless Men because what would have occurred to me, didn't seem to occur to her, or perhaps it did:  What if that isn't Arya but simply someone wearing her face?  

We know it's Arya because we watched her journey.  It was a missed opportunity to help clarify that muddy plot if the reason Sansa was spooked was she realized there was a possibility that wasn't Arya at all.  Arya flat out told her all she'd need to be Sansa was her face, it then follows all that someone would need to pretend to be Arya would be her face. 

This is another reason;  why it was after this scene she ran to Bran, dagger, fear and WTF all ,would make the most sense.

[GrailKing]

On 8/31/2017 at 2:47 PM, 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.

Just another reason to see Bran first, not later.

[Macbeth]

On 9/1/2017 at 0:23 AM, doram said:

On a less shallow note, I will always hate this show for killing off Rakharo and Irri. There's absolutely no reason why those two should not be alive now and why Rakharo should not  be a member of her small council. 

 

This is a huge problem that the D&D continue to whitewash.  You have a white savior - you better have people of color on your war council.  Especially the generals of your 2 armies who are made up of people of color.

I just watched the 1st war council when Oleanna was there.  They were very smart to have most of the players standing.  Who's on the war council and who isn't?   Grey Worm is there, but does he really have a voice, or is he there to take orders.  Given that he doesn't speak - I think he is there to take orders.

Of course there was no Dothraki there.  I know the Dothraki are known to rape and pillage, but so do the Iron Born and Yara was there giving advice.

There really has been no attempt since Rakharo and Irri to humanize the Dothraki, and that has been very problematic for me.  People of color continue to be seen as other.

Jorah is not being much use as a war-time consiglieri (Varys is a peacetime consiglieri as is Tyrion).  His decisions are also being influenced by his love of Dany and the desire to keep her safe.  So he is as conflicted with his love of her as Tyrion is conflicted with his love for Jaime. 

Granted Grey Worm and the General of the Dothraki don't know the best way to deal with the families ruling Westeros - but they are the ones in charge of leading the troops - so they should have a say on the best way to use the troops.

[Happy Harpy]

10 hours ago, GrailKing said:

She sent her away for 2 reasons: LF had plans to use Brienne to intervene, (LF does things for his benefit not anyone else ) that's why they made an issue of the Vow Brienne made to Cat, Jamie, Sansa and Sansa's vow to Brienne not to ask anything of her that could bring her dishonor and Jamie's so many vows which to choose. Having to choose one sister over another would seem to Brienne as a failed vow, and since she is Sansa's sworn sword; Arya is on the outside looking in.

So when that fortuitous letter came from KL Sansa got to keep Brienne's and her own vows intact, removed LF play and still have Winterfell represented without arousing suspicion in LF on her motive. Sansa then's sits down with that worry pose like in her wedding night, wondering if she made the right decision, She was going to trust Arya, until Arya came out of no where with "all I need is to take your face" at that point Sansa had no real choice but to go to Bran.

Waiting until that last game and Q & A to see Bran would be and is BS, if this was the case where is the dagger, it wasn't in Sansa's room, it would have been a prominent prop for us to see, especially if Arya was to use it to kill Sansa. Another question, how did Sansa learn the faceless men were assassins, hired killers?, Arya only said she trained with a group called FM, she didn't tell her what they did, Sansa even said what does that mean and all Arya said it allows her to become someone else, she made no mention of killing for pay; so Sansa had to learn that off screen with Bran, or Arya or both. So again this final lesson does not hold continuity, hence BS.

Good thing they did drop it, it would have thrown at least four seasons in a waste basket.

1) Sorry, your first paragraph doesn't make much sense to me. First contradiction that I see: You say that Sansa sent Brienne away in order to spare her from failing her vow. But Brienne was the only person in Winterfell whom Sansa could trust -she said before sending her away that no loyalty was to be expected from the Norther lords, and she was supposed not to trust LF, right?- and the strongest warrior hands down. So there would be no one who could protect Sansa as well. Sending her away would therefore put Brienne in a position to fail her vow to Catelyn, which is actually the reason that Brienne gives onscreen to object to going to KL. Sansa, being so smart, was certainly able to envision it.

2) Second contradiction, if I understood well what you said: If Brienne is first and foremost sworn to Sansa, and Arya is "on the outside looking in", there was no dilemma to start with. And even more important for Sansa to keep Brienne around so that she wouldn't feel guilty had anything happened to her. So, added with the fact that Brienne would have been in danger in KL, I think it dismissed the theory of "Brienne sent away for her own good".

3) The first thing that Sansa said when Arya surprised her in her room was "I have hundreds of men here in Winterfell, all loyal to me". Exact quote. Not something you say to someone you trust. Something defensive to say to someone you're afraid of (and desperate because Sansa just said to LF that no loyalty should be expected from the lords). Moreover Arya had only threatened her with showing her old letter to the Northern Lords so far. Why would Sansa be afraid of Arya then  if she trusted her?

4) And if Sansa trusted Arya, why did she search her room to start with -before Arya threatened her to take her face? She had no need to look for the letter, or anything else actually, since she would have trusted Arya to make the right decision. And her search mirrored Arya searching LF's room, no less. Sansa wanting to trust or trusting Arya is pure BS, because what was showed onscreen expressly contradicts it. (Again, I don't say she had no logical reason to be afraid.)

5) Arya named the Faceless Men. Sansa didn't need to go to Bran to know who they were. She could plainly ask or research -always that pesky timeline. Assassins, no matter how secret on their inside workings,  need to recruit clients so they need people and especially high-borns who can pay for them to know about them. It at least seemed so in the book, with "the whore is pregnant" scene, but I think they dropped it on the show.

6) I see no reason why the dagger should have been in Sansa's room, visible to all. It was a subtle hint (not so visible at first) that things weren't what they seemed at the beginning of the trial. Actually, I'd rather question why it wasn't the first thing that LF noticed when Arya came in the great hall -I'll take from the fact that onscreen, it was in Arya's room, that she didn't parade around wearing it on her side in Winterfell prior to the trial.

Like I said, if one stops to want Sansa to "win" and be a perfect princess genius, if every fact isn't twisted and what was actually onscreen ignored, the storyline made much more sense. Sansa said herself she's a slow learner. She made her biggest mistake imo, staying with LF instead of following Brienne, in S5 so if "throwing 4 seasons in a waste basket" meant her growth, nope it wasn't. People mess up while growing up. People's flaws lead them to do stupid things whereas they should know better. And further responding would be really really really beating a dead horse so no matter how much I like exchanging, I'll stop here :) (or I'll try; oops.)

Edited September 3, 2017 by Happy Harpy

[Calamity Jane]

22 hours ago, Blonde Gator said:

I really miss Stephen Dillane.  And his "fewer" quips.

At least we have Davos picking it up where Stannis left off.  My daughter and I both shouted when he corrected Jon.  

[Macbeth]

19 minutes ago, doram said:

@Macbeth the books did this so much better. There was this young Khaleen that Dany met in the Dosh Khaleen in season 6 that looked like she would be around going forward but she just appeared in the one episode. ::Sighs::

I know Doram - I remember  her.  One episode and she was gone.  D&D continue to fail in this problem.

[Blonde Gator]

4 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I know Doram - I remember  her.  One episode and she was gone.  D&D continue to fail in this problem.

And a sad missed opportunity it was.  The young Dosh Khaleen (not a native Dothraki) could have been used onscreen in many different ways....she knows the Dothraki culture, speaks the Common Tongue (as well as Dothraki).  Daenerys really needed to keep herself surrounded by loyal advisers she picked up along the way, and have all them give her input.  I am so disappointed that we do not have a "lead" Dothraki in this regard, at her war councils.  The Dothraki are a super efficient warrior culture, with a totally different style of battle than the Unsullied (who are also unique and expert in warfare).  Even Jaime Lannister was positively stunned at the Dothraki in the field.  Yet we see neither of these two groups of warriors have any leadership input whatsoever into the war councils, when in truth, their numbers are far greater than the entire army of the North (and probably the Lannister army as well).

It's kind of one of my issues with this series, we've been given many "blah blah blah" scenes, as fillers (for example, most of the Sansa/Arya to do this season), when that time could have been used to flesh out some of the minor characters, even if those characters don't have a prominent role to play in the end game.   So many wasted opportunities to provide a richer and more balanced view of the various camps, instead of endless crazy Cersei and her over-emoted final words-Zah! 

[Neko]

On 8/30/2017 at 7:26 AM, MissLucas said:

I thought Cersei (who did notice the missing dragon and drew the right conclusion)

See, I would argue that Cersei didn't come to the right conclusion, at all.  Of course she has no way of knowing that the Night King revived Viserion and made him ten times more dangerous than he was, before, but Cersei just assumed that he was simply dead and no longer an issue.  She was only half right, there.

[Oscirus]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Jon's a dumbass who committed the North to a war that he didn't have to.  If I was a Northerner, I'd be pissed right now. He went down there to get help and dragon glass,  came back giving up their independence when he didn't even have to.

[Oscirus]

Just now, doram said:

What do you think would happen after Cersei defeats Dany? 

Nothing.  Kings don't mess with the North for a reason. 

Not to mention the fact that Dany doesn't need the North's help anyway.  Cersei barely has an army as it is.

[WindyNights]

20 hours ago, doram said:

The bolded is a very good example of why it's pointless to continue to use contemporary morals to judge Dany. In "our" reality, an 8 year old cannot be in charge of a house-hold, much less a political territory. A 10-year-old cannot declare war or order men into battle. A 10-year-old cannot be executed as punishment. In our reality, a child of any age cannot consent to sex with an adult. 

In our reality, "child-man/woman" is an oxymoron. And in our reality, men don't "flower". 

And here's the fact-check on the AWOIAF article: It's apocrypha from Martin's interviews and it's not supported by the text of the books. I mean, he literally says "the Watch will not give the oath to a boy that is 12 years old..." but in the books, Sam points out that the oldest Lord Commander was 10. As @Mabinogia pointed out earlier, for Dany to specifically state 12 then that was the age that was considered the age of adulthood, Martin's interviews notwithstanding.* It won't be the first time an author has lost track of his own continuity. 

I'm not going to nitpick the last because I feel it's part of the same "double standard" that is applied to Dany exclusively, and not the male characters who perform the same actions. Soldiers under Robb Stark looted and raped as mercilessly as every other soldier in battle, and there's no evidence that Robb did anything to curtail them, unlike Dany who expressly ordered any soldier of hers caught raping to be gelded. Yet Dany is described as a "dark" character while Robb, Talisa/Jeyne notwithstanding, is generally regarded as noble. 

 

(*Otherwise it won't have made any sense since there's no follow up to that in-text. It's taken simply as a matter of course. It's not the same as when Dany crucified the Masters (all guilty in the books, unlike the show) and it bothers her later. Or the back-and-forth she had with Shavepate over his interrogation methods. If we were meant to be scandalised or have misgivings at her "Cut-off" margin in Astapor, the text did a bad job of showing that.)

On the contrary, I think we're meant to judge them by contemporary morals. When we read books, we should be meant to bring our viewpoints and morals in. 

I didn't bring Robb Stark because he's already dead but I do agree that a lot of people ended up rape or killed because of Robb Stark same with Daenerys (but I don't think he actually ever conducted a class massacre)

Robb Stark isn't regarded as  a dark character though mostly because he hasn't done anything as dark as Daenerys but also because GRRM is building Daenerys to become a more brutal character. "Fire and Blood", "Dragons plant no trees" etc. 

 

Like the first book/season ends with her sacrificing another human being by burning her. MMD was pretty sympathetic. Killed a warlord for massacring her village and raping her friends and family.

 

And even the show is trying to at last make the audience question her morality this past season.

[Oscirus]

7 minutes ago, doram said:

Theon Greyjoy must have missed that memo.

If Dany loses half her army fighting the NK while Cersei gains a shiny new mercenary army and a score of Scorpions, I don't think the outcome of the war is as cut and dried as you think.

Are you sure you want to use theon? Ignoring the fact that he used his familiarity with the Starks to infiltrate and that the Starks were in the middle of a war at the time, how long did it take for the Boltons  to take it right back from him?

If all that happens, the Northern army sure as hell ain't pushing the odds back in Dany's favor.

[Mabinogia]

5 minutes ago, doram said:

I think if anyone were truly applying contemporary morals fairly across board, they'd have given up on this Crapsack World 'verse midway in the first season.

Seriously. I mean, if we are looking at this through contemporary eyes then heroic Jon is a child murderer because I'm pretty sure we modern, civilized types don't pass out death sentences to kids. In today's society Arya would be a vigilante serial killer. Also, by modern standards, Ned, Robert, pretty much every male married nobleman are basically slave owners for having wives who had no say in marrying them or no say in having sex with them and no right to leave them. Nothing about this show should be judged by contemporary morals because these characters live in a different world. 

There are many fans who seem to pick and choose which of their modern sensibilities are going to be offended based on what characters are committing the modern crimes.

[Katsullivan]

7 hours ago, GraceK said:

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you here. You have valid points,  I just pretty much disagree with all of them. :)

LOL. Fair enough.

23 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

29 minutes ago, doram said:

Assuming he agreed that the North stayed neutral: What do you think would happen after Cersei defeats Dany?

Nothing.  Kings don't mess with the North for a reason. 

Let's hope the King in the North doesn't have any Red Weddings to attend in the future.

2 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Are you sure you want to use theon? Ignoring the fact that he used his familiarity with the Starks to infiltrate and that the Starks were in the middle of a war at the time, how long did it take for the Boltons  to take it right back from him?

And that there aren't any fair-weathered Northern Lords that can be persuaded to turn against their King...

Oh wait.

[Oscirus]

7 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

and that there aren't any fair-weathered Northern Lords that can be persuaded to turn against their King...

And why did the Boltons turn on  Robb?

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was disillusionment in their king.

[Katsullivan]

14 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

And why did the Boltons turn on  Robb?

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was disillusionment in their king.

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was that the Lannisters made the Boltons an offer they couldn't refuse. 

[Oscirus]

1 hour ago, Katsullivan said:

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was that the Lannisters made the Boltons an offer they couldn't refuse. 

Then you haven't been paying attention since the whole lead up to red wedding was about Robb's leadership choices slowly but surely disillusioning his men. 

The North Remembers.  

[Calamity Jane]

3 minutes ago, Oscirus said:

Then you haven't been paying attention since the whole lead up to red wedding was about Robb's leadership choices slowly but surely disillusioning his men. 

The North Remembers.  

No doubt Robb's choices factored in, but I think Tywin seized an opportunity to break the north and the Tullys, and I think we'll never know if Bolton would have, ahem, bolted without the temptation of being made Warden in the North.  

[Pogojoco]

1 hour ago, Katsullivan said:

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was that the Lannisters made the Boltons an offer they couldn't refuse. 

Yeah, though there was probably some "disillusionment" but  it was Roose Bolton recognizing the disillusionment of House Karstark and realizing Robb had lost the long held loyalty of that family. So when Tywin approached him,  Bolton saw the opportunity for his own house to be the great house in the North and could get a house like the Karstarks to support him. It's not a "I have issues with your leadership, Robb and I no longer believe you make a great king." situation for Bolton. 

Also, getting rid of the Ironborne from the North would win Roose a lot of points. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Pogojoco

[Calamity Jane]

Thanks, everyone, for being here and still chipping in with good commentary.  I'm experiencing severe GOT withdrawal symptoms this evening, don't know where I'd be without someplace like this.  

[Dev F]

21 hours ago, ulkis said:

I wouldn't be surprised if her pregnancy were magically accellerated somehow. "You're gonna give birth in a week because that's a side effect of the wall crumbling!"

No, someone will just tell her, "You will give birth within a fortnight," and we'll never get any explanation for why everything is happening so quickly.

On 9/1/2017 at 9:29 PM, anamika said:

In fact I think the writers hesitation to commit to character arcs is because they don't want these characters to get hate. The prime example being Sansa. David and Dan have come out and said that they don't like that Sansa gets hate. It's why their take on Sansa is so wishy washy and why she is so inconsistently written. This is a character created by GRRM to create conflict among the Starks and you can see that the showrunners want to go there from all their interviews and script outlines where they want to write her as some Machiavellian schemer who is constantly considering screwing over her family, but it never comes across on screen. Even with the Battle of the Bastards, her not telling Jon about the Knights of the Vale is a plothole than a deliberate scheme and is shrugged off with an apology and a kiss. In this season, the script mentions in every scene that she wants to rule over the North instead of Jon, Arya recognizes this and that's what fuels their feud. But they don't seem to want to commit to it.

Exactly. This also raises another issue with how the showrunners have been running things since they got ahead of the books: for all the talk about how they're still working toward some preplanned endpoint, it's pretty clear that they're winging it with a lot of the character arcs. Like, if one of the most important character beats of season 7 is going to be that Littlefinger stokes suspicion between Sansa and Arya based on Sansa's past actions, wouldn't it have been helpful if the writers had spent the previous couple seasons having Sansa actually commit questionable acts, so they wouldn't have to reach all the way back to season 1 for some weaksauce betrayal?

For instance, I always thought that a better Sansa/Ramsay arc in season 5 would've been one in which Ramsay was a moral rather than a physical threat to his bride. That is, since it had already been established that show!Ramsay was primarily attracted to women like Myranda who shared his sadism, it would've made sense if he saw Sansa as a potential partner in his brutality instead of a victim. And I could imagine an arc in which he persuaded Sansa to behave less than honorably toward Myranda, her husband's jealous former lover, and Theon, the man who supposedly murdered her brothers, before finally she realized that she could never be a monster like Ramsay and helped Theon escape. And now it occurs to me that this would not only have avoided most of the egregious "Sansa as helpless victim . . . again" stuff, but also given the writers actual compromising material for Littlefinger to use to drive a wedge between Sansa and Arya.

But Sansa's actual Winterfell arc was not remotely about her doing morally questionable things, and neither was her arc last year. Which suggests to me that the showrunners had no idea that it would be such a major point this season, so when the time came they had to scramble and make do with "Cersei forced Sansa to write a bad letter one time." Now, that kind of scrambling isn't unusual in series TV -- heck, even a series as prestigious as Breaking Bad was pretty much made up as the writers went along -- but, crucially, it's not how this show used to work. Back when the writers were taking their cues directly from the books, the series was all about the long game, setting up characters and story points years in advance. There's no reason the writers had to stop doing that just because they ran out of book material; they were totally free to plan out their own arcs ahead of time, but they chose to start flying blind instead. And in doing so, they sacrificed a large part of what made the series compelling and distinctive.

[Macbeth]

 

I can't believe my man Edd survived the season.  I had 50 to 1 odds that he would die this season.

I would be thrilled if he actually did survive.