• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About TheCasualObserver

  • Rank
    Council Member
  1. Sophie Turner was definitely robbed

    She might feel that way, but doesn't that prove she's just a stooge again? Has she changed at all?
  2. Sophie Turner was definitely robbed

    The problem with that argument is that her response barely counts as "taking control" at all. Having Ramsay violently put to death is something, but she already hated him and his father long before she married him. She briefly rails against LF, then goes straight back for his help after she fails to get any support herself and in the final episode it seems that she is once again considering another of his plans. And I have to agree with LadyofWhispers. If I can't tell what a character is thinking and feeling without a "Behind the episode" to explain it to me, there has to be a problem somewhere between Actor, Director and script.
  3. You're right to say that it was inevitable, as this piece from tv guide points out. GOT's budget, acting and directing are all aspects which deserve to be lauded, but it's the massive exposure the show has which will continue to win awards at the Emmy's.
  4. Who Will Be The New Sadistic Tormentor?

    It's a bit depressing how absolutely right you are. You would think an apocalyptic ice zombie horde and their overlord would be enough threat...
  5. Robb & Jeyne vs. Robb & Talisa

    Talisa is clearly anachronistic and designed to be a character "worthy" of Robb. I am unconvinced as to how successful that attempt was. I was also distracted by her presence at the Red Wedding. Think about it - let's say you cheated on your girlfriend with someone else. Then a few months later your now-ex calls and says she wants to clear the air. But when you go to meet her, you bring your new girlfriend - the person you cheated on your ex with. Put in a modern context like that, this is more than just a social faux par - it's blatant idiocy. So on the same principle, why would Robb take Talisa to a wedding designed to apologize to the Freys for marrying Talisa in the first place? It makes no goddam sense. In the context of the show it's so the audience can get the money shot of Talisa being stabbed and then a wounded Robb cradling her body, but for the character it makes no sense at all.
  6. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    Doesn't that seem simplistic though? I don't believe that is an accurate representation of life in the Medieval era.
  7. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Is it even deep down though? Roose was the sole noble survivor of the massacre and is immediately given the wardenship of the north by the enemy. The existence of collusion is common sense.
  8. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Did we watch the same episode? Ramsay's army was far larger than Jon's and was comprised of his own and the two other largest Houses in the north. He mentions needing Karstarks, Umbers and Manderlys to control the north and he gets two out of three. Jon was literally trampled underfoot in the battle. That was a thing which happened, because it was all going so badly. LF showing up at the last minute to stab Ramsay in the back with his fat stack of knights was the only thing which brought Ramsay down and it had nothing to do with his political decisions.
  9. Counterpoint: It was smart of Balon to attack Robb

    Some nice ideas, but I have to disagree on a couple of points. If Balon is eager to see the return of the old way, he is presumably planning for this long term. But the war can't possibly go on forever; eventually someone has to win and whoever does will do one of two things: establish a new realm of just a handful of kingdoms, or resume control of all seven kingdoms as high king. Of the five kings who started the war, Renly, Stannis and Joffrey all supported the latter option. Balon and Robb support the former. "Breathing room" is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Any king capable of uniting the continent will always have more ships, more men and more money than the iron islands, so in the long term, Robb is the only sensible choice. Admittedly, he's an all or nothing choice, but that's better than a couple of years plundering the tough land of the North before being smashed once again by the winning faction.
  10. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Yes, but disaster for plot reasons, not political ones. Militarily and political speaking, Ramsay goes from strength to strength in early season 6 when logic dictates he should be floundering. Murdering his father, mother-in-law and brother is welcomed by his bannermen and he receives the support of the two strongest houses in two successive episodes, without really needing to do anything to get them. You can argue that Ramsay's position was weak, but the show provides no evidence of that being the case - quite the opposite. In the end, neither Ramsay's bloodthirsty nature, nor his political mistakes contribute in any way to his downfall. He loses because LF teleports thousands of enemy knights onto the battlefield. Before that his power was shown to be supreme, which is what I take issue with.
  11. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    Well, in this instance it wasn't Ramsay who was figuratively feeding them for the last twenty odd years - it was Roose, who Ramsay murdered. And Ramsay is the rightful inheritor and Lord of the Dreadfort through royal decree... which he spat on when he married Sansa. How much allegiance do the Bolton men really owe him when he is not trueborn and murdered his father?
  12. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    "Status quo is not a trivial thing". It certainly was trivial in season 6 of Game of Thrones! The point to be made here is that I have no idea why Ramsay was STILL the status quo in season 6. He sacrificed his legal right to the North from the Iron throne (and presumably his own legitimacy) when he married Sansa, in the hope that Stark legitimacy was more valuable. Then he loses Sansa and becomes a violent, unpredictable, despot who even murders his own father. Why is anyone following him at this point? Because they are scared of him? He is neither charismatic, nor physically intimidating. Realistically his own soldiers would have been trying to shank him, let alone other northern lords trying to join him.
  13. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    You didn't address my points about what Ramsay actually does.There is no real reason why anybody would follow Ramsay.
  14. Trying to understad the northern lords : saying is not doing

    My biggest issue with the end of the season is that Ramsay had any political power at all. His actions were a cavalcade of idiocy which should have isolated him from both his allies and his men. Marrying Sansa broke the Bolton/Lannister alliance, removing any legal reason why the Bolton's specifically should be in charge of the North. Ramsay then spent his time trying to cow the Northmen into submission by flaying them alive in their own castles - hardly a popular policy on tax. He then loses his wife (a hugely embarrassing moment for a feudal lord, proving he cannot control his own household) which removes what little authority or legitimacy he had left. Finally, he murders his father, mother in law and baby brother making him a kinslayer, the most reviled type of criminal in Westerosi society. The question of realism might well be asked in regard to the book plot's "Grand Northern conspiracy" or the Northmen fighting for "The Ned's little girl", but Ramsay's continuing hold on power is still a far more egregious break from reality. It's a mistake to think that simply because Ramsay is a bad guy, that makes the show gritty and realistic when he starts winning. Rasmay's actions are presented in the show because the writers wanted the audience to hate him, but really, it just turns him into a cartoon. There may be monsters like Ramsay in the real world, but none of them have the capacity to wield political power.
  15. Stark name will cease to exist - Spoilers

    If the series ends with Jon on the throne then he will have no choice other than to take the Targ name. I think I mentioned upthread that Bael's son isn't exactly a good legal precedent; it happened millennia ago and we have no reason to suspect it's true at all - it was a story Ygritte used to flirt with Jon. The naming conventions of an entire society cannot change on a whim.