[Spoilers] Rant & Rave without Repercussions - First We Take King's Landing Edition

[TepidHands]

11 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I'm late to the party as usual, but I'm also saltier than a rescued cast away who's first meal back on dry land is a tin of sardines. Brace yourselves - this is going to be a long and angry one.

 

Starting on an upbeat point - I go gangbusters for fantasy libraries. The design and layout of Oldtown in general looked great and I really enjoyed it. This might be because it wasn't connected to anything else - no hateful plots, no idiotic context ruining all the effort put into the production design, just a well devised visual treat which we and Sam can croon over. Would that GOT could offer this more often instead of the morally bankrupt, multi-million dollar titan of narrative incoherence it has become.

I'll be honest - I've almost totally given up on every story-line except the North at this point. I didn't watch episodes 5, 6, 7 or 8 and I'm not going to. I don't give a shit about Cersei or her inconsequential fight with the faith. I don't give a shit about the training of Arya that occurred in its entirety off screen. I definitely don't give a shit about Dany's inexorable rise to absolute power on the back of faux feminist pandering. I don't give a shit about Peter Dinklige essentially giving up on this role (and with so little to do, who can blame him?) I don't give a shit about the hound coming back and continuing to do exactly what he was doing before. It#s hard to quantify how little I give a shit about Dorne.

But the North? I still have a little investment in it. And that investment simply causes me pain.

"The North remembers" is just about the lousiest adaption to a theme from the book the show has ever delivered, and that's saying something. A nice little scene from Lyanna Mormont (a fan favorite mainly because she hasn't been twatted with the "plot related idiocy" stick) is great without context, but infuriating with it. As both books and show have demonstrated in the past, "words are wind". The northern lords pledging their allegiance here is meaningless - the Vale support the Starks, which means the new status quo has already been established. Declaring Jon King of the North here and now is an act of self preservation, nothing more. The Starks are in charge because they have an army; their qualities as leaders are completely irrelevant. The legacy of Ned Stark is dead, and the show considers this positive.  

Jon continues to be an idiot. He is bland, I do not find him interesting, and his military capabilities are pathetic - this man is now responsible for fighting a war against the world ending white walkers. Be very afraid.

But worse than anything else, this was a "three strikes and you're out" for the character and plot lines of Sansa Stark.

1. As I expected, the speculation about why Sansa didn't tell Jon about LF and his army was all pointless. Sansa didn't tell Jon about the imminent cavalry for the most straight forward reasoing imaginable: because the writers wanted to surprise those few audience members dumb enough to not see the resolution to the battle coming, but even for fans of this show that must be a very small number. The bare bones in-universe reason is simply "she didn't trust him" a mistake which is settled in a single line of dialogue. "We should trust each other more". I'm sorry, but no. This cannot be dismissed or ignored like this - the only reason the battle went the way it did was because Sansa, once again deprived of common sense (and in this case human decency), failed to tell her brother about vitally important reinforcements that would decide the battle. This shit should matter. Handled differently it would become a campaign where Ramsay is outwitted and outfought by a superior foe - and could even have spared the life of RIckon. It's a betrayal of  her family, her cause and of the men who are risking their lives to fight for her (however small they are in numbers) and it is pushed aside like it's nothing to spend any time thinking about at all.

2. Her rejection of LF. I suppose we should see it as a moment of strength, but it's completely hollow in every possible sense. She has rejected LF before, only to go back to him two episodes later. It's difficult to get angry about this at least - Sansa does what the narrative needs her to do. If characterization is the process by which a character grows (or shrinks) dependent on the decisions they make, then Sansa Stark has conclusively proved to be utterly incapable of doing so, because her decision making is driven by what makes things easiest for the writers. 

She turns down LF's army for no better reason other than we can get a "will the Starks survive?" end to a battle. She doesn't tell Jon about that army for the same idiotic reason. She agrees to marry into her enemies because that is where the narrative demands she goes. She saves LF from the Vale lords because LF can't die yet, not because Sansa is actually thinking about what is best for herself. She is silent when the question of who should be in charge of the north is raised, so that she can be resentful about it later to Jon. And here she turns down LF's dream of him on the Iron throne and her ruling next to him because at some point this will be raised again and maybe she will, maybe she won't go along with it in future, so god forbid she show hate or disgust at the idea even as she nixes it... for the time being.    

There is not even the faintest whiff of a real character here. Sansa Stark is nothing more than a walking plot point and Sophie Turner's cry face - that is all.

3. LF's plan. Ah yes, the pièce de résistance. LF acknowledges to Sansa that his end goal is to control the Iron Throne and have Sansa by his side.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? For a year we've gone back and forward on this forum arguing the particulars of LF's plan in season 5. And all of it was predicated on LF seeing Sansa as a politcal tool, not a potential wife. His Gatsby like desire to go back in time and marry the Catelyn of the past was removed in the show in order to make sense of sending Sansa alone to winterfell to be raped.

WELL GUESS WHAT'S COME BACK NOW? His Gatsby like desire to go back in time and... you get the idea.

All those outraged feminist sites, all those column inches dedicated to explaining the writer's decision making, all those sickening justifications from Bryan Cogman, all that grief and anguish visited upon the audience, and doubly so on those who dared speak against it - NONE OF IT FUCKING MATTERS. THIS WAS A CUL DE SAC OF STORYTELLING IN THE EXTREME.

What has Sansa learned? Don't marry your enemies? Thanks for that little gem, Cogman. What else? Don't trust LF? Well, she still sees the idea of marrying him appealing and when he told her not to trust Jon she gets thousands of her own supporters killed... and still doesn't trust Jon.  She has learned nothing, gained nothing and achieved nothing. I consider the last twenty episodes utterly pointless in every concievable way for Sansa Stark and the worst part is that the writers seem to agree. On to her dealings with LF and Robin Arryn, which she could have, would have and absolutely should have done at the start of season 5.

And that's the end of season 6. Well done Game of Thrones; I say without exaggeration that I have never come to loathe a piece of media this much since I watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games. And at least he had a point to make.

Fuck all of this. 

worth the wait...

[Tinker Tanner]

This show is going to mop up all the Emmys again isn't it? Even though it has plot holes you could fly Drogon through!

[Aryya Stark]

17 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

I absolutely hate that the show has deliberately ignored in-world etiquette in the previous two seasons. All they care about now is rushing to the end without having to think about the intricacies of the system of rule, hence all the quick and easy travelling, the complete disintegration of societal norms, and the mass character deaths.

Indeed! Part of what draws the reader into the story is the in-world etiquette. The enormity of what the Freys did at the Red Wedding was not just betrayal and mass killings but a violation of guest right, which made their crime abhorrent to the rest of the realm. I don't think the TV Show audience understand this or even cares.

 

Another thing that bothers me is how they do not connect the past to events occurring now. My cousin just watches the show and has never read the books. The way he raves about how he can't live without the show is hilarious. I asked him once if he had come up with the R+L=J theory and he asked me "who is Rhaegar?"....lol

[Aryya Stark]

18 minutes ago, Tinker Tanner said:

This show is going to mop up all the Emmys again isn't it? Even though it has plot holes you could fly Drogon through!

Yes.

[Sir Loin Steak]

6 hours ago, lostcause said:

Given the mindset of D&D I think it is as good as certain we'll see Dany and Cersei in the same scene. They both played Sarah Connor - no way are they going to miss out on the chance to have SC 1.0 and 2.0 face each other so they can talk about how geniously meta they are being.

Heresy!

Linda Hamilton was the first (and best) Sarah Connor.

But I agree they that D&D have no discipline as writers so yeah that probably will happen because they want it to.

[a black swan]

Interviewer: In the scene, Sansa tells Jon that only a fool would trust Littlefinger. Later, she meets with Littlefinger, and he paints this picture of himself on the Iron Throne, with Sansa at his side. She rejects him in the moment, but when Jon is crowned King in the North, Sansa and Littlefinger exchange a look with one another. What is Sansa thinking about Littlefinger’s pitch by the end of the episode?

Sophie: As you say, she rejects him in the beginning, but there’s definitely something in her that's… it’s kind of a jealousy toward Jon. He’s getting all of the credit for basically Sansa saving his ass. Obviously he played a huge part in the Battle of the Bastards, but Sansa really saved him.There’s a bit of jealousy there. She looks at Littlefinger knowing that he would have put her as Queen in the North, and given her the credit she deserves. I don’t think she’s gunning for the Iron Throne anytime soon, but she realizes that Littlefinger might be a better ally than she thought, a more trustworthy ally than she thought.

Can Sansa actually trust Littlefinger, or would their working relationship be skeptical at best?

Yes, I think she’ll forever be wary of Littlefinger. But I think she realizes now that he’s more loyal to her than she initially thought. He’s tried to prove that. If he truly is loyal to her, then he’s a wonderful, wonderful ally to have. But she’ll forever be skeptical and wary of his motives. She’s not stupid enough to follow him blindly. 

[Sir Loin Steak]

2 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I'm late to the party as usual, but I'm also saltier than a rescued cast away who's first meal back on dry land is a tin of sardines. Brace yourselves - this is going to be a long and angry one.

[Fantastic rant]

 

Excellent rant.

[Aryya Stark]

8 minutes ago, DutchArya said:

Interviewer: In the scene, Sansa tells Jon that only a fool would trust Littlefinger. Later, she meets with Littlefinger, and he paints this picture of himself on the Iron Throne, with Sansa at his side. She rejects him in the moment, but when Jon is crowned King in the North, Sansa and Littlefinger exchange a look with one another. What is Sansa thinking about Littlefinger’s pitch by the end of the episode?

Sophie: As you say, she rejects him in the beginning, but there’s definitely something in her that's… it’s kind of a jealousy toward Jon. He’s getting all of the credit for basically Sansa saving his ass. Obviously he played a huge part in the Battle of the Bastards, but Sansa really saved him.There’s a bit of jealousy there. She looks at Littlefinger knowing that he would have put her as Queen in the North, and given her the credit she deserves. I don’t think she’s gunning for the Iron Throne anytime soon, but she realizes that Littlefinger might be a better ally than she thought, a more trustworthy ally than she thought.

Can Sansa actually trust Littlefinger, or would their working relationship be skeptical at best?

Yes, I think she’ll forever be wary of Littlefinger. But I think she realizes now that he’s more loyal to her than she initially thought. He’s tried to prove that. If he truly is loyal to her, then he’s a wonderful, wonderful ally to have. But she’ll forever be skeptical and wary of his motives. She’s not stupid enough to follow him blindly. 

This just proves that Sansa has learnt nothing... I hope LF marries her off to Euron this time! Saved Jon's ass? Jon didn't even want to go to war with Ramsey...she is the one who said they had to save Rickon and then she didn't mention that she had communicated with LF....Really...this is turning into a bad soap. Fuck D&D! 

[kissdbyfire]

Bad soap is right. And now that we have Carol and Sheryl (sp?) there's also potential for a sitcom. Sheryl shouldn't wear the blonde wig but Heady's natural brunette, it would be just like Samantha & Serena in Bewitched.

[thehandwipes]

50 minutes ago, Aryya Stark said:

This just proves that Sansa has learnt nothing... I hope LF marries her off to Euron this time! Saved Jon's ass? Jon didn't even want to go to war with Ramsey...she is the one who said they had to save Rickon and then she didn't mention that she had communicated with LF....Really...this is turning into a bad soap. Fuck D&D! 

And then immediately gave him up for dead and told Jon he should also.

[rosehustle1]

2 hours ago, DutchArya said:

Interviewer: In the scene, Sansa tells Jon that only a fool would trust Littlefinger. Later, she meets with Littlefinger, and he paints this picture of himself on the Iron Throne, with Sansa at his side. She rejects him in the moment, but when Jon is crowned King in the North, Sansa and Littlefinger exchange a look with one another. What is Sansa thinking about Littlefinger’s pitch by the end of the episode?

Sophie: As you say, she rejects him in the beginning, but there’s definitely something in her that's… it’s kind of a jealousy toward Jon. He’s getting all of the credit for basically Sansa saving his ass. Obviously he played a huge part in the Battle of the Bastards, but Sansa really saved him.There’s a bit of jealousy there. She looks at Littlefinger knowing that he would have put her as Queen in the North, and given her the credit she deserves. I don’t think she’s gunning for the Iron Throne anytime soon, but she realizes that Littlefinger might be a better ally than she thought, a more trustworthy ally than she thought.

Can Sansa actually trust Littlefinger, or would their working relationship be skeptical at best?

Yes, I think she’ll forever be wary of Littlefinger. But I think she realizes now that he’s more loyal to her than she initially thought. He’s tried to prove that. If he truly is loyal to her, then he’s a wonderful, wonderful ally to have. But she’ll forever be skeptical and wary of his motives. She’s not stupid enough to follow him blindly. 

How is he a wonderful ally? He sold her to a psychopathic rapist. He only helped her  with the battle so he could use her for his own devices, once again.  Sophie really irritates me. She really knows nothing about book Sansa or Littlefinger. Did everyone on this show forget that Littlefinger sold out Ned? Or that he orchestrated the rift between the Starks and Lannisters by having Lysa send those letters? Bunch of morons.

[Dolphy's Lunch]

I don't mind Sophie Turner. Her job is to play Sansa, which means that she has to come up with a plausible reason for Sansa to be the she is - or, more accurately, the six different ways she switches between being according to the whims of the writers. She CAN'T come up with a plausible show Sansa because no such creature exists, except possibly at the quantum level.

But her job is to try. I don't blame her for trying. I blame the show for foisting this nonsensical character on her.

[The Wull]

1 hour ago, Dolphy's Lunch said:

I don't mind Sophie Turner. Her job is to play Sansa, which means that she has to come up with a plausible reason for Sansa to be the she is - or, more accurately, the six different ways she switches between being according to the whims of the writers. She CAN'T come up with a plausible show Sansa because no such creature exists, except possibly at the quantum level.

But her job is to try. I don't blame her for trying. I blame the show for foisting this nonsensical character on her.

While that's all true, it's still annoying that things are coming out in interviews like hers that are never shown in the show.  The writers rely on these interviews to clear things up because they can't write coherently.  All that crap she said about LF we were supposed to get based off one look?  I didn't get any of that when I watched.  She was smiling at Jon one moment and the next she's jealous and reconsidering LF's offer?  Everybody thinks they're watching one thing, and then twenty minutes after the episode airs we're told something completely different.  It's ludicrous.  I'm tired of the ol' bait-and-switch.

[Neds Secret]

15 hours ago, TepidHands said:

Normally I'd say they reintroduced him to kill him, but he's already dead. 

Ha ha ha streamlining at its very best, that's perhaps the ultimate achievement of Benioffand Wiess, ruthless efficiency with the Benjen character, they didn't have to bring him back to kill him, he was already dead!!!!!

[Neds Secret]

They bought Benjen back to NOT kill him! Classic! well done D$D! 

[Darkstream]

26 minutes ago, The Wull said:

While that's all true, it's still annoying that things are coming out in interviews like hers that are never shown in the show.  The writers rely on these interviews to clear things up because they can't write coherently.  All that crap she said about LF we were supposed to get based off one look?  I didn't get any of that when I watched.  She was smiling at Jon one moment and the next she's jealous and reconsidering LF's offer?  Everybody thinks they're watching one thing, and then twenty minutes after the episode airs we're told something completely different.  It's ludicrous.  I'm tired of the ol' bait-and-switch.

Well my friend, if your tired of the ol' bait-and-switch, the best advice I could give is to not read any other interviews. If we were to get one of the d's takes on this issue, rest assured that it would contradict both what can be gathered from the show, and Sophie's understanding. And hey, I'm sure if someone were to ask the director what was meant to be portrayed in these scenes, we could get even a forth interpretation.  

Bloody Seven Hells,  "I think you've got to start wondering what the hell is this plot."

[bemused]

3 hours ago, Aryya Stark said:

This just proves that Sansa has learnt nothing... I hope LF marries her off to Euron this time! Saved Jon's ass? Jon didn't even want to go to war with Ramsey...she is the one who said they had to save Rickon and then she didn't mention that she had communicated with LF....Really...this is turning into a bad soap. Fuck D&D! 

I simply hated the end of her arc in season four... hated "I know what you want." .. hated the "Dark Powah!" dress, hated the sashaying down the stairs with a knowing smirk, etc.. It was so over the top; far too much, too soon. It gave me a queasy feeling about where they would take her next, but I never imagined the travesty that was to come in season 5.

They can rationalize all they want, I'm convinced she was in the north simply to be the rape victim.. Theon could have found the courage to escape as he did in the books. Don't try to tell us the audience wouldn't have cared about a minor, or invented character... As others have rightly said, look at Lyanna Mormont; look at Karsi. And book readers could predict that having put Sansa in the north, they'd only have to take her right out again .. even if they're only keeping the barest of bones from George's work.

If they were intent on mangling the northern storyline (which is abundantly clear) why not cut the rape? Surely 4 writers could come up with some other motivation for Theon to escape? They clearly have no compunctions about changing characters' motivations in countless other instances.

No, you can't blame Sophie for passing on how she's been told to interpret things in her interviews.. but I wholeheartedly agree with this..

7 minutes ago, The Wull said:

While that's all true, it's still annoying that things are coming out in interviews like hers that are never shown in the show.  The writers rely on these interviews to clear things up because they can't write coherently.  All that crap she said about LF we were supposed to get based off one look?  I didn't get any of that when I watched.  She was smiling at Jon one moment and the next she's jealous and reconsidering LF's offer?  Everybody thinks they're watching one thing, and then twenty minutes after the episode airs we're told something completely different.  It's ludicrous.  I'm tired of the ol' bait-and-switch.

Oh, she's not being given credit for saving Jon's ass ? What about endangering his ass in the first place ? What about being responsible for causing the deaths of hundreds of men who were willing to fight for the Starks.. Why, I wonder, are D&D not pointing out that she's very lucky none of the northerners (including Jon) are calling her out on this ?

I was going to segue into a long rant about Jon that's been simmering all season, but I'm going to do it off-page/screen and come back with it..

[Darkstream]

19 minutes ago, Neds Secret said:

They bought Benjen back to NOT kill him! Classic! well done D$D! 

Wait, what? I thought benjen was dead, and then brought back to life off screen, just so he could be killed next season. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, as I was probably drifting off while watching, but wasn't his hair cut shorter than when we saw him back in season one?

[Neds Secret]

7 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I'm late to the party as usual, but I'm also saltier than a rescued cast away who's first meal back on dry land is a tin of sardines. Brace yourselves - this is going to be a long and angry one.

 

Starting on an upbeat point - I go gangbusters for fantasy libraries. The design and layout of Oldtown in general looked great and I really enjoyed it. This might be because it wasn't connected to anything else - no hateful plots, no idiotic context ruining all the effort put into the production design, just a well devised visual treat which we and Sam can croon over. Would that GOT could offer this more often instead of the morally bankrupt, multi-million dollar titan of narrative incoherence it has become.

I'll be honest - I've almost totally given up on every story-line except the North at this point. I didn't watch episodes 5, 6, 7 or 8 and I'm not going to. I don't give a shit about Cersei or her inconsequential fight with the faith. I don't give a shit about the training of Arya that occurred in its entirety off screen. I definitely don't give a shit about Dany's inexorable rise to absolute power on the back of faux feminist pandering. I don't give a shit about Peter Dinklige essentially giving up on this role (and with so little to do, who can blame him?) I don't give a shit about the hound coming back and continuing to do exactly what he was doing before. It#s hard to quantify how little I give a shit about Dorne.

But the North? I still have a little investment in it. And that investment simply causes me pain.

"The North remembers" is just about the lousiest adaption to a theme from the book the show has ever delivered, and that's saying something. A nice little scene from Lyanna Mormont (a fan favorite mainly because she hasn't been twatted with the "plot related idiocy" stick) is great without context, but infuriating with it. As both books and show have demonstrated in the past, "words are wind". The northern lords pledging their allegiance here is meaningless - the Vale support the Starks, which means the new status quo has already been established. Declaring Jon King of the North here and now is an act of self preservation, nothing more. The Starks are in charge because they have an army; their qualities as leaders are completely irrelevant. The legacy of Ned Stark is dead, and the show considers this positive.  

Jon continues to be an idiot. He is bland, I do not find him interesting, and his military capabilities are pathetic - this man is now responsible for fighting a war against the world ending white walkers. Be very afraid.

But worse than anything else, this was a "three strikes and you're out" for the character and plot lines of Sansa Stark.

1. As I expected, the speculation about why Sansa didn't tell Jon about LF and his army was all pointless. Sansa didn't tell Jon about the imminent cavalry for the most straight forward reasoing imaginable: because the writers wanted to surprise those few audience members dumb enough to not see the resolution to the battle coming, but even for fans of this show that must be a very small number. The bare bones in-universe reason is simply "she didn't trust him" a mistake which is settled in a single line of dialogue. "We should trust each other more". I'm sorry, but no. This cannot be dismissed or ignored like this - the only reason the battle went the way it did was because Sansa, once again deprived of common sense (and in this case human decency), failed to tell her brother about vitally important reinforcements that would decide the battle. This shit should matter. Handled differently it would become a campaign where Ramsay is outwitted and outfought by a superior foe - and could even have spared the life of RIckon. It's a betrayal of  her family, her cause and of the men who are risking their lives to fight for her (however small they are in numbers) and it is pushed aside like it's nothing to spend any time thinking about at all.

2. Her rejection of LF. I suppose we should see it as a moment of strength, but it's completely hollow in every possible sense. She has rejected LF before, only to go back to him two episodes later. It's difficult to get angry about this at least - Sansa does what the narrative needs her to do. If characterization is the process by which a character grows (or shrinks) dependent on the decisions they make, then Sansa Stark has conclusively proved to be utterly incapable of doing so, because her decision making is driven by what makes things easiest for the writers. 

She turns down LF's army for no better reason other than we can get a "will the Starks survive?" end to a battle. She doesn't tell Jon about that army for the same idiotic reason. She agrees to marry into her enemies because that is where the narrative demands she goes. She saves LF from the Vale lords because LF can't die yet, not because Sansa is actually thinking about what is best for herself. She is silent when the question of who should be in charge of the north is raised, so that she can be resentful about it later to Jon. And here she turns down LF's dream of him on the Iron throne and her ruling next to him because at some point this will be raised again and maybe she will, maybe she won't go along with it in future, so god forbid she show hate or disgust at the idea even as she nixes it... for the time being.    

There is not even the faintest whiff of a real character here. Sansa Stark is nothing more than a walking plot point and Sophie Turner's cry face - that is all.

3. LF's plan. Ah yes, the pièce de résistance. LF acknowledges to Sansa that his end goal is to control the Iron Throne and have Sansa by his side.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? For a year we've gone back and forward on this forum arguing the particulars of LF's plan in season 5. And all of it was predicated on LF seeing Sansa as a politcal tool, not a potential wife. His Gatsby like desire to go back in time and marry the Catelyn of the past was removed in the show in order to make sense of sending Sansa alone to winterfell to be raped.

WELL GUESS WHAT'S COME BACK NOW? His Gatsby like desire to go back in time and... you get the idea.

All those outraged feminist sites, all those column inches dedicated to explaining the writer's decision making, all those sickening justifications from Bryan Cogman, all that grief and anguish visited upon the audience, and doubly so on those who dared speak against it - NONE OF IT FUCKING MATTERS. THIS WAS A CUL DE SAC OF STORYTELLING IN THE EXTREME.

What has Sansa learned? Don't marry your enemies? Thanks for that little gem, Cogman. What else? Don't trust LF? Well, she still sees the idea of marrying him appealing and when he told her not to trust Jon she gets thousands of her own supporters killed... and still doesn't trust Jon.  She has learned nothing, gained nothing and achieved nothing. I consider the last twenty episodes utterly pointless in every concievable way for Sansa Stark and the worst part is that the writers seem to agree. On to her dealings with LF and Robin Arryn, which she could have, would have and absolutely should have done at the start of season 5.

And that's the end of season 6. Well done Game of Thrones; I say without exaggeration that I have never come to loathe a piece of media this much since I watched Michael Haneke's Funny Games. And at least he had a point to make.

Fuck all of this. 

Bravo!

[Neds Secret]

7 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Wait, what? I thought benjen was dead, and then brought back to life off screen, just so he could be killed next season. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, as I was probably drifting off while watching, but wasn't his hair cut shorter than when we saw him back in season one?

It's got me beat, we get "what is dead may never die" but can it? Who knows?