Why Did LF marry sansa off to Ramsay?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

 

 

To get the rape they claim to have planned for 3 + years. Well, now, they have to "deal with it".

 

 

Because D&D said so

 

 

To make Sansa go through something bad enough to push her to Jon. More specifically to get some on screen heat between Sophie & Kit! Yes I went there...

 

 

Bad writing 

Useful... 

[TheCasualObserver]

It's genuinely futile to question why this happened within the context of the story. I've never seen a single argument that adequately put in black and white what LF gained from marrying Sansa to Ramsay that he could not have gotten by guile. Sansa was never going to be able to manipulate men like Roose and Stannis (regardless of who won their fight) and Cersei had no idea about the marriage until LF told her, so why he didn't just lie for her support I'll never know. And the kicker of course is that Cersei's "support" is unlikely to amount to anything at all anyway - because LF is trying to sink her with the Tyrells. He is trying to keep all sides fighting, but Sansa in winterfell doesn't do much to promote this. 

 

I posted the real reasons why this happened a while ago:

 

1. Cost.

Since Hardhome quite clearly swallowed a huge amount of the budget this year, the showrunners were looking for places that could be cut. Arya is a fan favorite, her chapters have lots of violence, take place in relatively few locations and with a limited number of characters, so she was safe. Bran’s plot is mostly mystical and crosses over in too much TWOW territory, so he is cut. Sansa’s OTL plot would require the Vale as a viable location, multiple castings for several prominent Vale figures, and props and sets galore. Removing her was easy for D and D.

2.Theon and narrative economy.

Theon needs a female character to be imperiled so he can redeem himself (he's also one of D and D's favorite characters, so no chance of his role being cut). Sansa handily fits the bill, and having cut her Vale plot, is now looking for something to do. Additionally, this places the locus for Stannis, Brienne, the Boltons, Theon and Sansa at Winterfell; five characters dealt with in a single location.

3. Sophie Turner.

Unlike Isaac Hempstead-Wright, Sophie is quickly becoming a fully fledged film star. Since the Vale story was simply one location too many, they needed something for her to do – what better than a shocking a dramatic rape scene? Lots of exposure for one of the casts’ rising stars and a chance to once again show case her misery face.

4.Constraints upon LF.

A possibly unintended side effect of Sansa’s arc in season 4 was that she effectively held LF dead to rights. One word from Sansa to the Vale lords about Lysa’s death and LF is missing his head. No more manipulations, no more social climbing. At best he runs back to Cersei, at worst he is eaten by the crows. Since book LF has plenty more scheming to do, his show counterpart must also have freedom to manipulate. Therefore Sansa cannot be kept in the Vale in order for the plot (as the showrunners have written it) to continue unimpeded.

5. Shock factor.

GOT is the show where horrible things happen to good people. It is the general populace’s understanding of the series, and what it has become famous for. The rape of a main character is shocking, therefore that should be something that happens.

You can try and rationalize LF’s bizarre plan or Sansa’s apparent idiocy all you want; none of it matters. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy, empowerment, characterization or context.

Sansa was raped because the way the show has been made demanded it.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

 

1. Cost.

Since Hardhome quite clearly swallowed a huge amount of the budget this year, the showrunners were looking for places that could be cut. Arya is a fan favorite, her chapters have lots of violence, take place in relatively few locations and with a limited number of characters, so she was safe. Bran’s plot is mostly mystical and crosses over in too much TWOW territory, so he is cut. Sansa’s OTL plot would require the Vale as a viable location, multiple castings for several prominent Vale figures, and props and sets galore. Removing her was easy for D and D.

2.Theon and narrative economy.

Theon needs a female character to be imperiled so he can redeem himself (he's also one of D and D's favorite characters, so no chance of his role being cut). Sansa handily fits the bill, and having cut her Vale plot, is now looking for something to do. Additionally, this places the locus for Stannis, Brienne, the Boltons, Theon and Sansa at Winterfell; five characters dealt with in a single location.

3. Sophie Turner.

Unlike Isaac Hempstead-Wright, Sophie is quickly becoming a fully fledged film star. Since the Vale story was simply one location too many, they needed something for her to do – what better than a shocking a dramatic rape scene? Lots of exposure for one of the casts’ rising stars and a chance to once again show case her misery face.

4.Constraints upon LF.

A possibly unintended side effect of Sansa’s arc in season 4 was that she effectively held LF dead to rights. One word from Sansa to the Vale lords about Lysa’s death and LF is missing his head. No more manipulations, no more social climbing. At best he runs back to Cersei, at worst he is eaten by the crows. Since book LF has plenty more scheming to do, his show counterpart must also have freedom to manipulate. Therefore Sansa cannot be kept in the Vale in order for the plot (as the showrunners have written it) to continue unimpeded.

5. Shock factor.

GOT is the show where horrible things happen to good people. It is the general populace’s understanding of the series, and what it has become famous for. The rape of a main character is shocking, therefore that should be something that happens.

You can try and rationalize LF’s bizarre plan or Sansa’s apparent idiocy all you want; none of it matters. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy, empowerment, characterization or context.

Sansa was raped because the way the show has been made demanded it.

1) The Vale storyline is about a bunch of Z list characters and a girl babysitting a snotty retard kid. Its an easy decision to ditch it. The alternative is basically keeping one of your main characters in narrative jail where she doesn't affect the main plot even slightly and doesn't progress.

2) Why would you cut Theon/ Reek? He clearly has an effect on the plot and has been there since the beginning. Thats not because hes a 'FAVE'  (please stop using that term, its so childish and illogical) Once Sansa was put into a position where she married Ramsey, the plot worked out how it naturally would, the rape was kind of inevitable and Theons narrative arc and connection to her makes the story more compelling. 

3) Nonsense point based on emotion and no evidence. The real point is that shes a major character in the story and the alternative was to simply leave her out. 

4) Again leaving her in the Vale is narratively an awful idea, not really for the reasons you mention but because its like a literal dead end.

5) Again very silly point, I dispute entirely anyone saying that GoT is there for shock factor, its more that you are easily shocked by events and want to believe that hows writers work. LFs plan might not make a lot of sense at the moment but it wasn't done for shock factor or to get people raped, anyone saying that she permanently locate themselves in the R&R thread where logic and critical thinking isn't a desirable trait.



 

[TheCasualObserver]

1) The Vale storyline is about a bunch of Z list characters and a girl babysitting a snotty retard kid. Its an easy decision to ditch it. The alternative is basically keeping one of your main characters in narrative jail where she doesn't affect the main plot even slightly and doesn't progress.

2) Why would you cut Theon/ Reek? He clearly has an effect on the plot and has been there since the beginning. Thats not because hes a 'FAVE'  (please stop using that term, its so childish and illogical) Once Sansa was put into a position where she married Ramsey, the plot worked out how it naturally would, the rape was kind of inevitable and Theons narrative arc and connection to her makes the story more compelling. 

3) Nonsense point based on emotion and no evidence. The real point is that shes a major character in the story and the alternative was to simply leave her out. 

4) Again leaving her in the Vale is narratively an awful idea, not really for the reasons you mention but because its like a literal dead end.

5) Again very silly point, I dispute entirely anyone saying that GoT is there for shock factor, its more that you are easily shocked by events and want to believe that hows writers work. LFs plan might not make a lot of sense at the moment but it wasn't done for shock factor or to get people raped, anyone saying that she permanently locate themselves in the R&R thread where logic and critical thinking isn't a desirable trait.

1) She only has three chapters in AFFC, and I would certainly argue that she progresses. If they felt they could cut Bran entirely, why is a smaller role for Sansa such an awful idea?

 

2)Q: Do you have one character you like most?

 

David: It’s like trying to decide your favorite foster kid—I can’t say kids because they’re really George’s children—but if there’s one in the second season that we really loved, I’d say Theon Greyjoy. His arc over the course of the second is just so fascinating, and Alfie Allen brings it to lie wonderfully. I truly do love them all, but Theon is particularly captivating. 

 

3) Sophie Turner is a bigger star than Isaac Hempstead Wright. The show wanted to give her a bigger role to capitalize on that. Don't we agree on this point?

 

4) I'm trying to put together a picture of all the factors involved in the decision. Problems with how Sansa in a stronger position affects LF is one of them.

 

5) It's not the entire reason, but shock factor has been hugely helpful for the show. It's no coincidence that the show has grown steadily from the Red wedding onward and the show added the death of Talisa to further elicit that response, even though it doesn't happen in the book. This season has been particularly heavy handed with the tactic and typically it pays off. It gets people talking about the show, videoing each other reacting to the show and generally builds on the hype train. Sansa's rape was no exception. 

 

Be honest with yourself - do you truly believe this decision was based solely upon trying to create the best possible story? With all the massive issues it raises? When in its defensive the best you can say is "LFs plan might not make a lot of sense at the moment" and just hope for the best? I don't find it surprising that it upset people when the logic behind is woolly (from the internal consistency of the story) or the height of cynicism (from D and D).  

[Farerb]

1) She only has three chapters in AFFC, and I would certainly argue that she progresses. If they felt they could cut Bran entirely, why is a smaller role for Sansa such an awful idea? 

Two of her chapters were in season 4, and I don't think an entire season seeing her riding on a mule would have been very interesting to casual viewers.

[TheCasualObserver]

Two of her chapters were in season 4, and I don't think an entire season seeing her riding on a mule would have been very interesting to casual viewers.

Maybe, but that certainly doesn't mean that pushing her into Jeyne's role was the right move by any stretch of the imagination. But the point of this thread is to decide why LF married Sansa to Ramsay and I will accept that "narrative economy" was a factor. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1) Bran is an entirely different story, hes stuck underground, and will probably be a bit different the next time we see him. Its a very logical character to lose for a season, plus theres nothing for him to do. Do that with 2 characters and thats a problem too, it was bad enough in the books just cutting out storylines and making people wait. This way at least by the start of season 6 Sansa is at a point where she can affect the storyline, instead of a year of wiping a kids nose.

2) Just because they like a character doesn't mean they change the show or the stories to make him more likable. Thats childish thinking.

3) Sansa is a big character, end of. You don't just hide her away for a year. Nothing to do with the actress, please find evidence of this.

5) Tulisa was introduced because it helped illustrate why Robb made that decision which was a huge factor in the events of westeros. If you just did what the book did you'd hinge the entire plot on an offscreen romance that you were mostly unaware of. Her death illustrates how tragic it all was, not because it was shocking. Its not Saw 5 we watched. 

I truly believe most of the decisions that are made are due to having to fit storylines into a huge puzzle so that the right events happen at the right time and making seasons seasons have an arc and a flow and its not just a bunch of random events. The books don't have that, they jump back and forth, lead you off in random directions and dont explain where they are going. 

The writers also have to think about logistical issues and contracts and budget.

Saying they make decisions based on personal preference for characters or how much rape quotas there are defies logic.

[TheCasualObserver]

1) Bran is an entirely different story, hes stuck underground, and will probably be a bit different the next time we see him. Its a very logical character to lose for a season, plus theres nothing for him to do. Do that with 2 characters and thats a problem too, it was bad enough in the books just cutting out storylines and making people wait. This way at least by the start of season 6 Sansa is at a point where she can affect the storyline, instead of a year of wiping a kids nose.

2) Just because they like a character doesn't mean they change the show or the stories to make him more likable. Thats childish thinking.

3) Sansa is a big character, end of. You don't just hide her away for a year. Nothing to do with the actress, please find evidence of this.

5) Tulisa was introduced because it helped illustrate why Robb made that decision which was a huge factor in the events of westeros. If you just did what the book did you'd hinge the entire plot on an offscreen romance that you were mostly unaware of. Her death illustrates how tragic it all was, not because it was shocking. Its not Saw 5 we watched. 

I truly believe most of the decisions that are made are due to having to fit storylines into a huge puzzle so that the right events happen at the right time and making seasons seasons have an arc and a flow and its not just a bunch of random events. The books don't have that, they jump back and forth, lead you off in random directions and dont explain where they are going. 

The writers also have to think about logistical issues and contracts and budget.

Saying they make decisions based on personal preference for characters or how much rape quotas there are defies logic.

I'll say again - even if the economics of television demand that Sansa not be missing for a year, this does not make pushing her into Jeyne's role a good idea. When you started this thread dozens of alternatives were suggested.

 

I'm saying that there were a myriad of reasons for Sansa being in Winterfell and all of them were governed by forces outside of the story. Sophie Turner has high profile, another location would have been too much, the show has a reputation for shocking people, ect.  

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I agree there were a lot of reasons, and yes there were good suggestions in that thread and also poor ones that didn't take account how other plots fit together . The storyline could have been done better, no doubt. But having her there solved a lot of problems as well.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

It's worth pointing out if it hasn't been already that according to D&D, in the show universe, Littlefinger has no idea that Ramsay is a sadistic, psychopathic rapist, even though he definitely would have in the book universe.

 

My take on this? Apparently when they're not burning food and making kings go filicidal, the 20 Good Men are a first class PR team who cover Ramsays tracks.

 

Or just another reflection of D&Ds inexplicable Ramsay boner. More likely the latter.

[TheCasualObserver]

It's worth pointing out if it hasn't been already that according to D&D, in the show universe, Littlefinger has no idea that Ramsay is a sadistic, psychopathic rapist, even though he definitely would have in the book universe.

 

My take on this? Apparently when they're not burning food and making kings go filicidal, the 20 Good Men are a first class PR team who cover Ramsays tracks.

 

Or just another reflection of D&Ds inexplicable Ramsay boner. More likely the latter.

I'm still not sure if the show wants us to believe that or not though, mainly because we've never been given any indication that Ramsay is any more secretive than book Ramsay other than the writers just outright telling us. In the very episode that LF makes his pitch to Sansa, Ramsay is flaying a northern lord alive as an example to others. You would think that virtually any spy work done in the North would turn up that Ramsay is the baddest of bad eggs.

 

But you're right. I mock the capabilities of the Twenty Good Men at my peril.

[The Stranger.]

What did LF gain from this? Why not keep Sansa close by. 

LittleFinger: ' The last time the east and the north combined their power they took down one of the most powerful dynasties in Westeros'

To me that seems like an indirect way of saying 'If we get together we can take the Iron Throne'

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I'm still not sure if the show wants us to believe that or not though, mainly because we've never been given any indication that Ramsay is any more secretive than book Ramsay other than the writers just outright telling us. In the very episode that LF makes his pitch to Sansa, Ramsay is flaying a northern lord alive as an example to others. You would think that virtually any spy work done in the North would turn up that Ramsay is the baddest of bad eggs.
 
But you're right. I mock the capabilities of the Twenty Good Men at my peril.

Not to mention said action was done so in front of his wife and his son. Also, just last year, in Moat Caitlin, where Sansa and LF passed, Ramsay flayed 63 Ironborn.

[Annara Snow]

Useful... 

 

One of the words that will never be used to describe Sansa's marriage to Ramsay.

[Annara Snow]

Two of her chapters were in season 4, and I don't think an entire season seeing her riding on a mule would have been very interesting to casual viewers.

 

She did a lot more than ride a mule. You should know that if you actually read any of those chapters, or the chapter that has already been released from TWOW. 

 

But I'm sure you're right that the type of audience they're going for would much prefer to see her raped for an entire season.

[TheCasualObserver]

LittleFinger: ' The last time the east and the north combined their power they took down one of the most powerful dynasties in Westeros'

To me that seems like an indirect way of saying 'If we get together we can take the Iron Throne'

Yes, but how exactly did marrying Sansa to Ramsay accomplish that? The North is already loyal to a child of Ned Stark (not that we're ever shown that) and the Vale is under his protectorate. If an alliance between North and East is the key then why not marry Sansa to Robin Arryn? Whilst Stannis and Ramsay slaughter each other, the Knights of the Vale prepare to make war on who ever wins in order to claim the North as Sansa's dowry. That's how a real political marriage should work.

[Farerb]

 
She did a lot more than ride a mule. You should know that if you actually read any of those chapters, or the chapter that has already been released from TWOW. 
 
But I'm sure you're right that the type of audience they're going for would much prefer to see her raped for an entire season.

I have critism about Jeyne being replaced by Sansa mainly because it a regression for Sansa's character.
However, I am sure they didn't decide to do it because they wanted Sansa being raped. They wanted to do it because they wanted her to have more prominent role in season 5.
Screaming "Sansa Rape" everytime just to shit on the writers and not critisize it reasonably is just childish and ridiculus. Sansa being raped is an effect of their decision, not the cause of it.

[TheCasualObserver]

I have critism about Jeyne being replaced by Sansa mainly because it a regression for Sansa's character.
However, I am sure they didn't decide to do it because they wanted Sansa being raped. They wanted to do it because they wanted her to have more prominent role in season 5.
Screaming "Sansa Rape" everytime just to shit on the writers and not critisize it reasonably is just childish and ridiculus. Sansa being raped is an effect of their decision, not the cause of it.

Again, then we get into the problem of what they were thinking if the only way to give her a more prominent role was to place her in that position in first place.

[Farerb]

Again, then we get into the problem of what they were thinking if the only way to give her a more prominent role was to place her in that position in first place.

Limited time, limited budget and limited source material.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Screaming "Sansa Rape" just to shit on the writers and not critisize it reasonably is just childish and ridiculus. Sansa being raped is an effect of their decision, not the cause of it.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that storyline was written after the decision to rape Sansa, not before of it. hence, why it's full of holes and downright idiotic characterization for everyone involved. The rape was the main scene, the rest was written around it.