Jump to content

The North storyline is worse then Dorne


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Ser Gareth said:

No they didn't.  If you actually look at how much screen time each subplot gets it's not much.  And it would have meant introducing a whole load of new characters which at this stage of the story is a very bad idea.

Yep, 10 episodes per season has never been enough. You just don't have time to do the worldbuilding part when the narrative dictates that you tell 10 different stories each season. It just doesn't work. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rubicante said:

Because then this would give the audience a reason to get behind Stannis, which is forbidden from D & D.  Instead they wanted to make Sansa into a "player" who would ultimately be responsible for Winterfell being retaken.

As for Stannis, I just cannot get over how badly adapted this character was.  So I wanted to take this opportunity to complain about the following scenes, even though this has been done a thousand times on this forum.

1. Stannis having sex with Melisandre because she promised him a son (because you know, Stannis would be totally okay with a bastard son)

2. Stannis telling Melisandre that "he wants her" on the shores of Dragonstone (because you know, Stannis is a sexually lustful man)

3. Stannis being passive about Melisandre killing Gendry, then needing to be convinced not to kill Gendry by Davos, and then agreeing to kill Gendry when only one of three kings dies (because you know, Stannis can easily be convinced to kill innocent people)

4. Stannis going to the Wall only because Melisandre told him to (because you know, it's not like he took good advice that he needed to save the kingdom to win throne, instead of winning the throne to save the kingdom)

5. Stannis burning three banner men because they were "infidels" (because you know, Stannis is a religious fanatic)

6. Stannis constantly rubbing it in Davos' face how he is irritated he set Gendry free (because you know, finding a better option than burning an innocent alive would deprive Stannis of being evil)

7. Stannis playing grab ass with Melisandre in a tent (because again, he is a sexually lustful man)

8. Stannis, a competent and experienced military commander, having all of his siege weapons and food supplies destroyed by Ramsay Bolton and his 20 good men without catching any of them (reasonable, because Ramsay knows the lands better than him)

9. Stannis agreeing to burn his only heir alive because his army is stuck in some mild snow (which apparently Ramsay had no problem going through to get to Stannis, yet Stannis is forbidden to pass through)

10. Stannis marching on Winterfell with no scouts and having no clue he is about to be attacked (because you know, why have scouts when you can live life on the edge and hope you don't get ambushed)

Did I miss anything?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I should note though, I didn't have a problem with stannis desiring Melisandre, its just the way it was shown that was wrong. Stannis is a really proud man who is inhibited and awkward about expressing his feelings. Stannis would not fawn over Melisandre, he's the kinda guy who would act like he's not interested in Melisandre until she herself would initiate physical contact, but the show made it seem like he was just waiting to grab her ass at a moments notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is clear to me is this - back in season 5, Roose Bolton thought that controlling the North was too difficult to accomplish without a Stark figurehead and was willing to give up the authority and legitimacy of the crown to get it. This is not a small decision; King Tommen legitimized Ramsay and made Roose Warden of the North.

There is obviously a disconnect between Roose's actions there and how the North is behaving now. If the only house actually in open rebellion against him is a little girl and her 62 men, giving the middle finger to the King of the seven kingdoms just to control her seems ludicrous. Bear in mind, Roose made this decision when still legally the Warden of the West. Now Ramsay isn't even that, yet has no problem keeping all but Lyanna Mormont in line.

It suits the show's understanding of politics (and builds narrative tension for the battle in ep 9) to have the Stark cause be utterly doomed here. Clearly, loyalty, honesty and integrity in the GOT universe are fundamentally bad characteristics for a political leader to have. And conversely, dishonesty, deceitfulness and cruelty are what is required to succeed in any way, which is why LF will be pivotal to resolving this situation and why Ramsay is still a threat in spite of his callous idiocy. An insurgent group dedicated to avenging the crimes of the Red wedding and upholding the legacy of Ned Stark fundamentally clashes with this viewpoint, so it is naturally purged from the story.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Yeah and as I point out it was set up by a guy named dropped in the first season

Black Sails does the same thing. They have the same random background actors across seasons. You may not know or remember their names, but I recognize their face and it just makes it more real and grounded.

Take the pirate of Flint's crew that was murdered by Anne Bonny in S2 from which Max learns about the Urca wreck and location. It's the same, jolly guy that welcomes John Silver into the crew and introduces him to "Blackbeard" at the brothel in S1.

The pirate captain who tries to sell a bad copy of a painting (tits-tits, fruit-fruit) to the exchanger in S1, eventually become Eleanor's partners in her new consortium. That pirate captain still remains a background character, but it just makes it real and grounded that there's some pre-existing character. And the exchanger becomes important enough that he suggests to Eleanor to have Max and Rackham assassinated, and eventually sells Eleanor's tavern to Max.

Etc, etc...

BTW I recognized the slaver when Tyrion dealt with them immediately. Again, wouldn't know and remember his name, but he was recognizable.

They don't live in cities with millions of people. And especially nobles know each other. They visit, they communicate. They don't just appear out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, good girl said:

 

If anyone has their doubts they would be welcome to come to Winterfell and confirm it themselves. No need to be at the actual wedding, crossing hundreds of miles in a blizzard no less.

What blizzard?  We never saw a blizzard. They couldn't even be bothered to give us a blizzard.

Way back when, when they were still doing an adaptation of the books, they took time over these details - we saw Maege Mormont  http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Maege_Mormont, we saw Manderly's son at the Red Wedding http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Wendel_Manderly.  This was when continuity still mattered.  To say that there's no time for this or no-one will remember is just nonsense.  As easily as they showed the Northern Lords previously, they could have shown them again in season 5.  All these details feed into the narrative continuity and could have been easily achieved.  

For their own reasons they wanted to tell a different story that meant the mystery of the Winterfell arc (who was the hooded man?  is there  a conspiracy of Northern Lords?) was dumped in favour of dumping Sansa there in place of Jeyne Poole and having the whole arc be about her rape and Ramsay Sue and his girlfriend.  Ramsay's unfortunate bride was D&D&C's focus, not the larger Winterfell narrative.  And yet, somehow, they clearly want to bring the Vale army and so they created another logic-free storyline in which Sansa/the plot goes into all manner of contortions to obtain it by trusting LF, the architect of her family's misfortune including the failed Sansa Marriage Strike.  Rather than ... oh, I don't know ... having her be in the Vale to manipulate LF or SR for it.  

In the meantime, Jon's assassination and frankly just weird resurrection at the behest of Davos (!!) mean nothing and are never mentioned, not even to give a reason for what should be seen as his desertion from the Night's Watch. 

Now all their contrivances are making the Northern plot lumpen and turgid.  Nothing flows because there is no narrative underpinning the leaden plot points they make.

So, re. the OP, is the Northern plot worse than Dorne?  For me, it is.  Dorne was cartoonishly stupid.  The North plot is just brainless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pecan said:

Yep, 10 episodes per season has never been enough. You just don't have time to do the worldbuilding part when the narrative dictates that you tell 10 different stories each season. It just doesn't work. . 

Indeed.  And also one of the biggest criticism the show gets is that it's already too slow paced, especially S4 & S5.  If the show had followed the books religiously I highly doubt it would have ever been completed.  It would have been cancelled as people turned off in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thehandwipes said:

Yeah, you gotta wake up pretty early in the morning to beat Dorne.

But to throw two Starks together after so many years and have them do nothing but stare at each other and talk about soup before stealing Stannis's ADWD story is even more frustrating though it might technically be a better story.  There were no characters as interesting as Lyanna Mormont in Dorne.  Hopefully they'll kill her (shock) before they ruin her.

 

LOL! Yes!!!

The fact is that Lyanna Mormont was much much better than the Starks! and she was 10!!!!! It's a bit laughable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

One thing that is clear to me is this - back in season 5, Roose Bolton thought that controlling the North was too difficult to accomplish without a Stark figurehead and was willing to give up the authority and legitimacy of the crown to get it. This is not a small decision; King Tommen legitimized Ramsay and made Roose Warden of the North.

There is obviously a disconnect between Roose's actions there and how the North is behaving now. If the only house actually in open rebellion against him is a little girl and her 62 men, giving the middle finger to the King of the seven kingdoms just to control her seems ludicrous. Bear in mind, Roose made this decision when still legally the Warden of the West. Now Ramsay isn't even that, yet has no problem keeping all but Lyanna Mormont in line.

It suits the show's understanding of politics (and builds narrative tension for the battle in ep 9) to have the Stark cause be utterly doomed here. Clearly, loyalty, honesty and integrity in the GOT universe are fundamentally bad characteristics for a political leader to have. And conversely, dishonesty, deceitfulness and cruelty are what is required to succeed in any way, which is why LF will be pivotal to resolving this situation and why Ramsay is still a threat in spite of his callous idiocy. An insurgent group dedicated to avenging the crimes of the Red wedding and upholding the legacy of Ned Stark fundamentally clashes with this viewpoint, so it is naturally purged from the story.   

I couldn't have said it better myself. It really is a testament to how utterly and completely D&D misundertsands the northern storlyline from the books. The books have a grim worldview, sure, and there are many selfish characters, but the northeners have always been portrayed as being more honourable and less cunning or deceitful than the rest of the realm. 

The idea itself that the Boltons, or even freaking Ramsay would have little to no trouble controlling the stronger northern houses is absurd and contradicts what has been established so far, even if we only look at the show. But in the show kinslaying is also not a big deal, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second...why did Sansa send Brienne to Riverrun to deliver a letter in person to the Blackfish out of fear of Ramsay "intercepting a raven", but then she is okay with sending a letter via raven to Littlefinger (?) when they are actually now closer to Winterfell?  Shouldn't she still be worried about Ramsay shooting down a raven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rubicante said:

Wait a second...why did Sansa send Brienne to Riverrun to deliver a letter in person to the Blackfish out of fear of Ramsay "intercepting a raven", but then she is okay with sending a letter via raven to Littlefinger (?) when they are actually now closer to Winterfell?  Shouldn't she still be worried about Ramsay shooting down a raven?

show logic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rubicante said:

Wait a second...why did Sansa send Brienne to Riverrun to deliver a letter in person to the Blackfish out of fear of Ramsay "intercepting a raven", but then she is okay with sending a letter via raven to Littlefinger (?) when they are actually now closer to Winterfell?  Shouldn't she still be worried about Ramsay shooting down a raven?

Ssshhhh, my sweet summer child. The more you think about the show, the less it makes sense. 

Apparently, as I have been told, we are to turn our brains off and just watch. And it will ALL make sense in the last episode of the series. :rolleyes:

It's just like Ramsay sent Ravens to the northern houses letting them know "the enemies" killed Roose and nobody questions it, and then follow Ramsay???, even though Ramsay flayed the members of house Cerwyn in S5. I guess that bit of info was not shared amongst the northern families??? And why Sansa decided to skip that house when she and Jon had their beggar discussion???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rubicante said:

Wait a second...why did Sansa send Brienne to Riverrun to deliver a letter in person to the Blackfish out of fear of Ramsay "intercepting a raven", but then she is okay with sending a letter via raven to Littlefinger (?) when they are actually now closer to Winterfell?  Shouldn't she still be worried about Ramsay shooting down a raven?

She had no one she could trust to hand deliver the letter?  She took a chance in sending it because she was desperate for more men?  Not hard to think of an explanation if you use your brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rubicante said:

Wait a second...why did Sansa send Brienne to Riverrun to deliver a letter in person to the Blackfish out of fear of Ramsay "intercepting a raven", but then she is okay with sending a letter via raven to Littlefinger (?) when they are actually now closer to Winterfell?  Shouldn't she still be worried about Ramsay shooting down a raven?

I actually think that letter, with the seal on the inside and not on the outside, holding it together is for Jon. I think Sansa is headed out of that camp and headed to LF t down to Moat Cailn and get the Vale troops with LF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, good girl said:

I guess I just dreamt that snow storm that stopped Stannis marching on Winterfell

They said but they certainly didn't show it.  There's barely any snow on the ground when "20 good men" strike.  They don't understand "show, don't tell."

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

She had no one she could trust to hand deliver the letter?  She took a chance in sending it because she was desperate for more men?  Not hard to think of an explanation if you use your brain.

Trouble is that this supposed "explanation" is inconsistent.  This riddles the show's plotting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I can't believe you guys think that having like 5 guys standing at the wedding saying:

"Hey I'm Galbart Glover and I WITNESS THY WEDDINGING"

just to introduce him for his his real intro 11 episodes later would make the show better.

Absolutely it would make the show better.

The Northern storyline from the books was crawling with tension. People seething, people plotting, whispering in corners; questions arising as to what people were doing and why (why is everybody ignoring the suffering of the battered bride?). Mysterious murders. Mysterious pies.

Tailor-made for great television. Why would they skip the chance to adapt that storyline? (Rhetorical question; I know why they skipped it.) But that decision makes no sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, just reading about the Northern storyline in the show is disappointing as hell. It's disheartening to hear about what they chose to adapt and how they're trying to backtrack and attempt to create sense out of it.

10 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

One thing that is clear to me is this - back in season 5, Roose Bolton thought that controlling the North was too difficult to accomplish without a Stark figurehead and was willing to give up the authority and legitimacy of the crown to get it. This is not a small decision; King Tommen legitimized Ramsay and made Roose Warden of the North.

There is obviously a disconnect between Roose's actions there and how the North is behaving now. If the only house actually in open rebellion against him is a little girl and her 62 men, giving the middle finger to the King of the seven kingdoms just to control her seems ludicrous. Bear in mind, Roose made this decision when still legally the Warden of the West. Now Ramsay isn't even that, yet has no problem keeping all but Lyanna Mormont in line.

It suits the show's understanding of politics (and builds narrative tension for the battle in ep 9) to have the Stark cause be utterly doomed here. Clearly, loyalty, honesty and integrity in the GOT universe are fundamentally bad characteristics for a political leader to have. And conversely, dishonesty, deceitfulness and cruelty are what is required to succeed in any way, which is why LF will be pivotal to resolving this situation and why Ramsay is still a threat in spite of his callous idiocy. An insurgent group dedicated to avenging the crimes of the Red wedding and upholding the legacy of Ned Stark fundamentally clashes with this viewpoint, so it is naturally purged from the story.   

Yes. Why avenge the Red Wedding if none of the Northern Lords care? Sure, the show distilled the body count down to Cat, Robb, and Talisa (at least for the main murders), oh, and Grey Wind, where the books made it clear that a lot of houses had a member present who was cut down. Sansa and Jon care, but in order to create tension, it has to seem like they're oh-so alone. If the Northern Lords decide to help out at the last minute, well, that's not how oaths work. In Westeros, if you enter the battle late, people remember. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the OP, it is and it isn't.

The Northern story should be one of the most compelling plots in the series, we started with the Starks, have been following the Starks for 6 years now, and until the TOJ abomination, all we heard from anyone was what a great guy and great lord Ned Stark was.  So it would stand to reason, that MAYBE the North would be interesting in restoring the Starks, and getting rid of the mad dog.  So, having it not only be depopulated of Northern Lords, but when they finally show up, they're all anti Stark, and the two Starks, Sansa and Jon are woefully incompetent at motivating anyone...that seems like a huge waste and some very strange choices by the show.

There was less upside to Dorne, because it was never as rich or interesting or important as the North.  It's still hard to believe they took a weak plot and made it 100x more weak and cartoonish.

Objectively, Dorne would be worse because the acting, plot, choreography, everything was awful and silly.  And even though the North has become a shadow of what it could have been, and gets sillier all the time, we still aren't seeing a slapping game or Sansa talking about the bad pussy.

Tough call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Quork said:

They said but they certainly didn't show it.  There's barely any snow on the ground when "20 good men" strike.  They don't understand "show, don't tell."

Trouble is that this supposed "explanation" is inconsistent.  This riddles the show's plotting.

It is not inconsistent at all.  She was clearly in  a desperate situation when she wrote the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Absolutely it would make the show better.

The Northern storyline from the books was crawling with tension. People seething, people plotting, whispering in corners; questions arising as to what people were doing and why (why is everybody ignoring the suffering of the battered bride?). Mysterious murders. Mysterious pies.

Tailor-made for great television. Why would they skip the chance to adapt that storyline? (Rhetorical question; I know why they skipped it.) But that decision makes no sense.

 

In seasons 1 to 3.  Not this late in the TV series and sadly not this late in the novels either.  The "Northern" Conspiracy is by far the biggest over rated thing that came out of ADWD and possibly the entire ASOIAF series.  That's even if there is one.  Right now it's just fan speculation.

Also GRRM may not have an ending to it himself.  If that's the case then the show wouldn't have been able to put it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...