[BOOK SPOILERS] Discussing Sansa XIX - The season with no reason

[TheCasualObserver]

We may not like the change, but lets not misrepresent what was changed. If they wanted a more exciting show then Alayne I wasn't indicative of Sansa getting an exciting plot in the next book

They made the change, separate from the books. So the onus is on the show to deliver a more interesting or more exciting plotline compared with Sansa's plot in AFFC and beyond.

This was the result. Sansa has no immpact on the battle or the broader context of the war, no impact on Ramsay and isn't even directly responsible for her own escape. There's nothing here to justify cutting Sansa's AFFC material and even less to justify the rape.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Well, I waited until the end of the season to see if there was a possibility that this story arc would not have been in vain. I'm still waiting for something that was not in vain.

The entire Wintefell arc could easily have made for riveting television had they chosen to use what was actually written: dramatic tension galore, people losing their tempers, some history of the Stark family which is pretty unsettling, mysterious deaths, people long expected have mysteriously not arrived yet, everyone eating pie.

How is that not fabulous television?

Sorry, but when the most plausible summation of the story arc is "everything is horrible in this place where I had no need nor reason to be in the first place so my only option is to escape and get out of it", then that's not only terrible writing, it's completely bankrupt imagination.

[Faint]

I try to imagine the meeting in the scripting room where they decided that in Season 5 Sansa would be at Winterfell. I wonder whether they even tried to come up with a justifiation for that, or just decided that if they included some rape, beatings and sadism no one would bother with asking.

I believe their thought process went something like this: We need to conserve resources (i.e., money). She is heading there anyway. This was there is one less location to film and many less actors we have to cast (and pay). We can spend more time on less locations, rather than less time on more locations. This will simplify the story.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I believe their thought process went something like this: We need to conserve resources (i.e., money). She is heading there anyway. This was there is one less location to film and many less actors we have to cast (and pay). We can spend more time on less locations, rather than less time on more locations. This will simply the story.

Then they really should have worked on their plot, because as it is, it's so full of holes.

[Faint]

Then they really should have worked on their plot, because as it is, it's so full of holes.

I am not really speaking to the merits of their decision or the execution, those are wholly separate issues. But I can understand the reasoning behind it.

One thing to consider, if they had tried to adapt Sansa's somewhat faithfully, that would be five to eight minutes less screen time everywhere else, for six to eight episodes at the very least.

[Tagganaro]

I am not really speaking to the merits of their decision or the execution, those are wholly separate issues. But I can understand the reasoning behind it.

One thing to consider, if they had tried to adapt Sansa's somewhat faithfully, that would be five to eight minutes less screen time everywhere else, for six to eight episodes at the very least.

Which of Sansa's story? Her book or her show story? In light of all the time the show has seen fit to waste on show-invented completely useless and go-nowhere plots (i.e. the entirety of Dorne), the argument that the show needed to condense things falls a little flat.

It would have been far easier, from a "saving time" perspective, had the show been willing, to simply cut Sansa's screen time to 3-4 episodes and tell her book story in the Eyrie.

[Pies are coming]

Then they really should have worked on their plot, because as it is, it's so full of holes.

It's not full of holes - after all, teenagers do overestimate themselves. It's lacking in conflict, in character development, in resolution and, worse, it's based in some of the best parts of ADWD

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I am not really speaking to the merits of their decision or the execution, those are wholly separate issues. But I can understand the reasoning behind it.

One thing to consider, if they had tried to adapt Sansa's somewhat faithfully, that would be five to eight minutes less screen time everywhere else, for six to eight episodes at the very least.

I'd actually be happy if they had cut Sansa completely of the season, as they did Bran. And considering what her storyline became, I'd be more than happy to cut those minutes. Especially from everything related to Dorne.

I guess the silver lining is Winterfell was only the second worst storyline this year. You can't really beat Dorne.

[Faint]

The decision to throw out Jaime's story in A Feast for Crows and The Winds of Winter was made for much the same reasons. They did not want a separate location, more characters, more money, less time at each location, and so forth.

It was executed horribly of course, but the reasoning was the same.

[Tagganaro]

The decision to excise Jaime's story in A Feast for Crows and The Winds of Winter was made for much the same reasons. They did not want a separate location, more characters, more money, less time at each location, and so forth.

It was executed horribly of course, but the reasoning was the same.

Except they did exactly that. They excised Jaime's story to show a separate location with more characters and more money. Considering what happened in Dorne this season (nothing but tits and Myrcella getting poisoned), the show could have EASILY cut out Dorne entirely had it wanted to. Since nothing happened, they could go back there next year had they so needed when things actually needed to happen (i.e. "Fire and Blood" speech).

As it stands, we just wasted a boatload of time on a new location with new characters all for the purpose of poisoning Myrcella and getting Trystane to KL. Easily cuttable material where you can just not have Dorne, have Myrcella get poisoned whilst in KL, and have Trystane show up randomly.

[Faint]

I'd actually be happy if they had cut Sansa completely of the season, as they did Bran. And considering what her storyline became, I'd be more than happy to cut those minutes. Especially from everything related to Dorne.

I guess the silver lining is Winterfell was only the second worst storyline this year. You can't really beat Dorne.

That was one option, I suppose. Just have Sansa show up with the Vale's armies next season. Although, to keep her under contract, they would have had to pay Sophie to sit for a year basically. Not sure the general audience (or Sophie herself, for that matter) would have liked that choice.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

The decision to throw out Jaime's story in A Feast for Crows and The Winds of Winter was made for much the same reasons. They did not want a separate location, more characters, more money, less time at each location, and so forth.

It was executed horribly of course, but the reasoning was the same.

So they made Dorne instead, which was a separate location, more characters, more money and less time at each location?

*is confused*

[Faint]

So they made Dorne instead, which was a separate location, more characters, more money and less time at each location?

*is confused*

They, for whatever reason, liked Dorne (although, it really boggles the mind to know that considering what they did to it). They did not like Lady Stoneheart. Once they decided to do away with her, they could either invent completely new material for Jaime and Brienne, or stick them in other ongoing storylines. They decided on the latter.

[The Rat Kook]

I bet that scene was unscripted. Sophie and Alfie just had it with that shitty plotline and jumped to their deaths.

I laughed so loudly. Didn't think I'd be doing much of that today after watching this episode. Cheers.

[Saltire Knight]

I think the biggest problem with Sansa's story this season was that she agreed to marry Ramsay in the first place.

I know the rape was what got most people talking, but everything which happened to Sansa in season 5 seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the fairly inexplicable decision her character makes.

I don't know what goes on in other people's heads but I think some people view the character arcs in this fashion:

Character now------>necessary character development---->character's future behaviours

And the above ties in with the plotting and how the plot moves forwards and who the character needs to be for X,Y or Z to happen down the line according to their own fantasy of where the story is going.

They then complain that the rape scene isn't necessary when in fact its Sansa agreeing to marry Ramsay that makes little sense. All we know for certain is that in the book it doesn't happen, so it is certainly not necessary for book Sansa.

Conversely, if you view the story less in terms of character development and more in terms of plot boxes-to-tick the rape scene becomes obvious and absolutely has to happen.

Start with the conceit:
Q. If Sansa married Ramsay what then?

You're left with very little room for manoeuvre if you want to keep the events which happen at Winterfell even remotely believable. Sansa gets abused and raped? Well, duh!

The driving force behind putting Sansa at Winterfell was not to develop her character at all but to condense two plots into one (saving time, money) and give Sophie Turner more to do. The important character in this plot isn't Sansa at all, but Theon.

I think that's what people mean when they say Sansa's rape wasn't necessary (not for her character anyway) but they're talking at cross purposes to a decision making process which places her at Winterfell in the first place.

Ultimately this is a long way of saying that if you put a character's hand in a lion's mouth they're going to have to have it bitten off. That absolutely MUST happen. Watching their hand being bitten off perhaps isn't very pleasant but trying to explain why they did it is another matter.

[Mister Stoneheart]

Wrong thread. Sorry.

[Tagganaro]

I think the biggest problem with Sansa's story this season was that she agreed to marry Ramsay in the first place.

I know the rape was what got most people talking, but everything which happened to Sansa in season 5 seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the fairly inexplicable decision her character makes.

I don't know what goes on in other people's heads but I think some people view the character arcs in this fashion:

Character now------>necessary character development---->character's future behaviours

And the above ties in with the plotting and how the plot moves forwards and who the character needs to be for X,Y or Z to happen down the line according to their own fantasy of where the story is going.

They then complain that the rape scene isn't necessary when in fact its Sansa agreeing to marry Ramsay that makes little sense. All we know for certain is that in the book it doesn't happen, so it is certainly not necessary for book Sansa.

Conversely, if you view the story less in terms of character development and more in terms of plot boxes-to-tick the rape scene becomes obvious and absolutely has to happen.

Start with the conceit:

Q. If Sansa married Ramsay what then?

You're left with very little room for manoeuvre if you want to keep the events which happen at Winterfell even remotely believable. Sansa gets abused and raped? Well, duh!

The driving force behind putting Sansa at Winterfell was not to develop her character at all but to condense two plots into one (saving time, money) and give Sophie Turner more to do. The important character in this plot isn't Sansa at all, but Theon.

I think that's what people mean when they say Sansa's rape wasn't necessary (not for her character anyway) but they're talking at cross purposes to a decision making process which places her at Winterfell in the first place.

Ultimately this is a long way of saying that if you put a character's hand in a lion's mouth they're going to have to have it bitten off. That absolutely MUST happen. Watching their hand being bitten off perhaps isn't very pleasant but trying to explain why they did it is another matter.

Yes. This is why the decision to exclude all the Northern Lords (Manderley, Dustin, etc.) makes no sense. Because if they're included, then you can have a scenario in which you actually can play out Sansa's book arc in the Vale while also condensing her to Winterfell. Have LF do a quick scene running down the Lords present in WF who might have a grudge against the Boltons and be willing to ally with Sansa. Then send her inside to "play the game" and try to get revenge on the Boltons from the inside.

Instead, the show cut all that out and had Sansa be an idiot, going to WF to marry her enemy for no reason other than the vague promise of revenge. How? What? What was she gonna do, ninja murder everyone? Be the Hooded Man/Woman? Mance and his spearwives?

[Jojosh]

They have basically ruined so many characters by combining storylines this season.

I at least hope they get back to book sansa's storyline next season although hopefully without littlefinger

[TheCasualObserver]

I think the biggest problem with Sansa's story this season was that she agreed to marry Ramsay in the first place.

I know the rape was what got most people talking, but everything which happened to Sansa in season 5 seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the fairly inexplicable decision her character makes.

I don't know what goes on in other people's heads but I think some people view the character arcs in this fashion:

Character now------>necessary character development---->character's future behaviours

And the above ties in with the plotting and how the plot moves forwards and who the character needs to be for X,Y or Z to happen down the line according to their own fantasy of where the story is going.

They then complain that the rape scene isn't necessary when in fact its Sansa agreeing to marry Ramsay that makes little sense. All we know for certain is that in the book it doesn't happen, so it is certainly not necessary for book Sansa.

Conversely, if you view the story less in terms of character development and more in terms of plot boxes-to-tick the rape scene becomes obvious and absolutely has to happen.

Start with the conceit:

Q. If Sansa married Ramsay what then?

You're left with very little room for manoeuvre if you want to keep the events which happen at Winterfell even remotely believable. Sansa gets abused and raped? Well, duh!

The driving force behind putting Sansa at Winterfell was not to develop her character at all but to condense two plots into one (saving time, money) and give Sophie Turner more to do. The important character in this plot isn't Sansa at all, but Theon.

I think that's what people mean when they say Sansa's rape wasn't necessary (not for her character anyway) but they're talking at cross purposes to a decision making process which places her at Winterfell in the first place.

Ultimately this is a long way of saying that if you put a character's hand in a lion's mouth they're going to have to have it bitten off. That absolutely MUST happen. Watching their hand being bitten off perhaps isn't very pleasant but trying to explain why they did it is another matter.

I agree completely. To go from Sansa having considerably more control and influence over her surroundings than she does in the books to this nonsense is unforgivable.

It's why I've found all these arguments about "Did GOT go too far" and trying to justify it with historical context on clickbait websites so ludicrous. Many reviews leading up to ep 6 lauded the decision, then about faced when confronted with the reality of it. It's a bizarrely minocular focus on each episode at a time rather than observing the broader path of the character.

She shouldn't have been there in the first place. At the start of the season she trusts LF implicitly even though that trust was founded on a "better the devil you know" basis at the end of Season 4. It's just so dumb for her to behavior like this and through her natural advantage in the Vale away for nothing.

[shaggy_rick]

I must say, did it occur to no one filming to show how high the snow should have been so they didn't just jump off the wall.

I've already talked to one friend who only watches the show and two randoms online to explain that Sansa and Theon did not in fact jump to their deaths together.

Eighter way - it makes no sense.

If they survive - it is not convincing:

• There wasn't much snow to be seen, that could have softened the fall.

Due to Shereen's burning there is no reason to assume that there is significant amount of snow left. They even showed the melting icicles.

If they are not dead immediately - the Boltons should find them soon enough. Amongs being a genious strategist and battle commander Ramse is also good at hunting girls. Remember? A Sansa with a broken leg or two shouldn't be too difficult for him

If they die - their story arcs were completely pointless.