D&D reveal: Jon will face "selfish individuals" and overcome "dishonorable enemies" in s7

[MoreOrLess]

10 hours ago, MakeWesterosGreatAgain said:

Maybe I'm alone in this but I took the ending to season 6 as Sansa growing up and keeping LF at arm's length while siding with Jon completely. She looked genuinely happy when Jon was KitN and her rejection of LF appeared real.

IDK, I think people are looking for controversy and will be pleasantly surprised by Sansa being Jon's right hand going forward.

I definitely think the show doesn't hype up resentment against Jon at the end of season 6 however I would say her look at LF to me does seem to indicate not just worry about what he might do but worry about what he represents, the idea that yes she is going to need to get her hands dirty and play a ruthless political game.

To me that seems like the most natural way for disagreement between them to rise, not because Sansa is hungry for power for itself but that she thinks they need to play cold hearted politics to the south to survive where as Jon will be looking to defend the north against the WWs. A conflict could start like that and potentially become very extreme with Sansa and LF potentially trying to take power.

An alternative of course could be Cersei, possible that she moves against the Starks although for me this would be making the story a bit too complex this late in the day.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

53 minutes ago, Runaway Penguin said:

Both E09 and E10 had bad ones fighting bad ones alongside the good ones, for whatever reasons - and good ones going very objectionable pathways (feeding Ramsey to dogs; Planning a genocide against slaver cities; LF coming to assist; Sansa joining again with LF; heck in both cases also hordes of thieves, murderers and rapers helping the good).

I'm speaking about general feeling, don't get me wrong. You pointed out the right things but they somehow get lost in the clicheed presentation. "Good" Jon fights with "evil" Ramsay and saved by a miracle (The Vale), "evil" harpies siege Mereen and "good" Daenerys saves the day, "evil" Cersei kills everyone. it's so easy to pick up sides there.

[Runaway Penguin]

Well you are supposed to pick sides. Ramsey, the slavers and Cersei are undeniably evil - it is kinda like claiming that the Allies vs. Nazis is cliched as one side is overall utterly evil  The real issue comes when those on the side of good have to choose what to do. Stannis went the dark path (at least in the series definitely) and lost - Dany is balancing on the dark side all the time, feeding people to dragons, burning them alive - in both cases it is justifiable, kinda, but it makes everyone recall the Mad King - and her plan for Slaver's Bay was basically to depopulate cities like Valyrians did to Old Ghis - and she has to be stopped by her advisor (and for a moment it looks like she's ready to feed him to Drogon when he defies her). Jon also had to make some dark and tough choices, from murdering Halfhand to executing Thorne et al.And I think that many people are especially uneasy with both Stark girls - and with Bran and Hodor. It definitely is not a clear cut of shining heroes vs. dark villains - the real drama is in how far will the protagonists go and whether they'd avoid falling into the trap of darkness. And often... Often they can avoid this fall only with help of others. For example... Would Stannis burn Shireen, if Davos was around?

[Lady Ren]

12 hours ago, Newstar said:

snip

Nice, those are some interesting parallels. 

I do think then that Sansa is most definitely in conflict with herself.  I'm not denying the Sansa and Cersei parallels you set out, but let's also not forget: "if/when I am queen I will make them love me". Sansa does think and act like some of the evil players. But the point at which she uses those tricks, and the circumstances that surround her when she makes tough calls (i.e.: Rickon is dead, no one can protect anyone) are really different: 

Cersei killed the Septon because she wanted too. Sansa killed Ramsey because that was essential to taking back Winterfell and without Winterfell they'd never be safe: "You'll watch while my men rape your sister". 

"Didn't it occur to you that I may have some insight": Cersei never has insight so Twyin never listens. Sansa has insight (possibly), but Jon doesn't listen to understand, so we never get that sharing of insight. Just some yelling and then some lamenting. Not exactly the same as Cersei and Tywin. 

Cersei (unlike Catelyn) had a bad hand in childhood and then even worse luck with her husband.  I'm not denying that your experiences dictate a large part of who you are. But I don't think that's the sole reason why Cersei is the way she is. Her hubris is her greatest fault. She never learns from her downs, and when she's up she is unable to foresee how things can turn against her. Like Tywin said, she acts rashly and without thought for consequences. Sansa does not:

Yes, Sansa lied about the possibility of the Vale in 6x05, but because Littlefinger burned her badly and it was going to take a lot (ex: North (except Lyanna) abandoning the Starks) before she relied on him again.

Yes, She lied again in 6x09, possibly because it wasn't a sure thing or because she didn't trust Jon as a leader. In 6x10 she apologized (kind of). When has Cersei ever even tried to do that?

Yes, the North does remember, but they remember the good and the bad. The Starks basically starved them: took their oaths and unwittingly denied reciprocation. When Sansa turned Ramsey's dogs on him in 6x09 this was obviously a lesson she took to heart. No more strut in 6x10 - just caution. 

I see the parallels, but more often than not they just highlight their differences. Right now, anyway. 

Edit:

Sansa doesn't pray anymore. But she does sit in the godswood for solitude. She no longer beleives in an external god, but she's gained an important connection with herself. 

[Newstar]

7 hours ago, Ashes Of Westeros said:

I would take everything that D&D say with a pitch of salt. Why would they spill the beans about the most popular TV shows ever? What D&D do is stzrring up fan speculations and boost interest while the new season is in production. The production is expensive, the actors becoming stars so thez don't want to loose their audience.

Last time before the s6 kicked off, the showmakers and the actors told in all the interviews that Jon is dead, dead, dealier than dead. All the trailers for s6 featured Jon's dead body. But for most people it was clear that Jon isn't gone. Now when D&D and co. hint as subtile as an elephant that Sansa will conflict with Jon. I'm not buying it again and I don't appreciate treating the audience like fools. But with a lack of time, budget and GRRM's source material I fear that the GoT will slide in a fairytale direction with "good" ones fighting the "bad" ones, what we've already seen in s6e9 and s6e10.

Jon's death is not representative of their general tendency to provide hints about the upcoming season, for very obvious reasons. D&D as well as the cast have often dropped hints about the upcoming season before it has aired. D&D revealed after Season 4 that Tyrion would be heading east and teaming up with new people, which is exactly what happened. Sophie Turner and Alfie Allen dropped hints in interviews before Season 5 that allowed fans to predict Sansa marrying Ramsay. Liam Cunningham hinted that it wouldn't be as straightforward as Davos immediately being at Melisandre's throat over Shireen's death. And so on. There's no reason to discount everything that they're saying or will say about upcoming seasons--which has proven correct in the past--because of the one instance of not wanting to ruin the Jon cliffhanger.

D&D have made it very, very clear that Jon and Sansa will be butting heads in Season 7; this "selfish individuals" reference is only one of a number of clues. "But they lied about Jon!" isn't an argument to the contrary.

Quote

Sansa doesn't pray anymore. But she does sit in the godswood for solitude. She no longer beleives in an external god, but she's gained an important connection with herself. 

The point is that her loss of interest in religion mirrors Cersei's mockery of Sansa's prayers in 2x09: "The gods have no mercy. That's why they're gods."

Quote

Cersei killed the Septon because she wanted too. Sansa killed Ramsey because that was essential to taking back Winterfell and without Winterfell they'd never be safe: "You'll watch while my men rape your sister".

Whatever she told Unella, Cersei clearly killed the High Sparrow first and foremost out of self-preservation, since if she didn't she would be found guilty at the trial and likely executed; that killing him felt good was just a bonus. Sansa went after Ramsay out of self-preservation as well, but she enjoyed killing him as much as Cersei enjoyed killing the High Sparrow.

Now, both of them were arguably justified in enjoying the deaths of the people who had orchestrated their humiliation and suffering, as well as enjoying the suffering of Ramsay and Unella (two people who had abused them), but the parallel remains.

Quote

Cersei (unlike Catelyn) had a bad hand in childhood and then even worse luck with her husband.  I'm not denying that your experiences dictate a large part of who you are. But I don't think that's the sole reason why Cersei is the way she is.

It's true that unlike Sansa, Cersei has always been a nasty piece of work (although Season 1 Sansa definitely had her rough edges as well, like talking smack to her septa). With that said, we know that Cersei was once just like Sansa in that she was obsessed with a romantic dream of becoming queen and of marrying a handsome prince. We also know that Cersei has been incredibly embittered by her unhappy, abusive marriage and has become incredibly jaded and cynical, mocking Sansa's innocence and idealism a good deal along the way. We also know that Sansa has also become very jaded and cynical, repudiating attitudes she once held back in Season 2 (dismissing religion, dismissing Jon's claim that he can protect her, etc.). Finally, we see Sansa in 6x09 taking pleasure in her abusive husband's death, much as Cersei tells Unella in the very next episode that she killed her abusive husband because "it felt good to be rid of him."

D&D are not subtle. There were a lot of ways Sansa could have offed Ramsay, and they framed the scene in very similar fashion to Cersei/Unella in 6x10: introducing the instrument of pain (dog/Frankengregor), walking away with a serene smile while the tormenter screams in the background. It's not a coincidence, in my estimation.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

@Newstar I see your point. I'm not saying  that everything that D&D say is a total lie, I just think they are trying to play this Jon card again. Hinting some plot development once or twice is fine, but insisting on it all over again in different interviews or GOT election campaign is a different thing.

Regarding Tyrion heading east, it was already stated in the books that he will. So basically anyone who read the books or Wikia could know it. Of course, D&D could re-write his whole arc, but such a huge change would be unlikely and at the time of s4 the show followed the books more accurately.

[MoreOrLess]

4 hours ago, Newstar said:

Jon's death is not representative of their general tendency to provide hints about the upcoming season, for very obvious reasons. D&D as well as the cast have often dropped hints about the upcoming season before it has aired. D&D revealed after Season 4 that Tyrion would be heading east and teaming up with new people, which is exactly what happened. Sophie Turner and Alfie Allen dropped hints in interviews before Season 5 that allowed fans to predict Sansa marrying Ramsay. Liam Cunningham hinted that it wouldn't be as straightforward as Davos immediately being at Melisandre's throat over Shireen's death. And so on. There's no reason to discount everything that they're saying or will say about upcoming seasons--which has proven correct in the past--because of the one instance of not wanting to ruin the Jon cliffhanger.

D&D have made it very, very clear that Jon and Sansa will be butting heads in Season 7; this "selfish individuals" reference is only one of a number of clues. "But they lied about Jon!" isn't an argument to the contrary.

The point is that her loss of interest in religion mirrors Cersei's mockery of Sansa's prayers in 2x09: "The gods have no mercy. That's why they're gods."

Whatever she told Unella, Cersei clearly killed the High Sparrow first and foremost out of self-preservation, since if she didn't she would be found guilty at the trial and likely executed; that killing him felt good was just a bonus. Sansa went after Ramsay out of self-preservation as well, but she enjoyed killing him as much as Cersei enjoyed killing the High Sparrow.

Now, both of them were arguably justified in enjoying the deaths of the people who had orchestrated their humiliation and suffering, as well as enjoying the suffering of Ramsay and Unella (two people who had abused them), but the parallel remains.

It's true that unlike Sansa, Cersei has always been a nasty piece of work (although Season 1 Sansa definitely had her rough edges as well, like talking smack to her septa). With that said, we know that Cersei was once just like Sansa in that she was obsessed with a romantic dream of becoming queen and of marrying a handsome prince. We also know that Cersei has been incredibly embittered by her unhappy, abusive marriage and has become incredibly jaded and cynical, mocking Sansa's innocence and idealism a good deal along the way. We also know that Sansa has also become very jaded and cynical, repudiating attitudes she once held back in Season 2 (dismissing religion, dismissing Jon's claim that he can protect her, etc.). Finally, we see Sansa in 6x09 taking pleasure in her abusive husband's death, much as Cersei tells Unella in the very next episode that she killed her abusive husband because "it felt good to be rid of him."

D&D are not subtle. There were a lot of ways Sansa could have offed Ramsay, and they framed the scene in very similar fashion to Cersei/Unella in 6x10: introducing the instrument of pain (dog/Frankengregor), walking away with a serene smile while the tormenter screams in the background. It's not a coincidence, in my estimation.

One key area I think they differ though is that Cersei was badly damaged mentally by her mothers death as a child. I'm no physiatrist but I would say that she not only shows signs of sociopath but also stunted emotional growth. She's obviously very clever but compared to Jamie and Tyrion I think she's much more impulsive and driven by her emotions. Even moreso I think that scene with Jamie last season where she talks about her attachment to her mother and childrens bodies is very deliberate, again I'm not expert but it seems to be showing someone who is still working on a childlike level emotionally, having that attachment to a loved ones physical body and not differentiating it from their consciousness.

Sansa has been put though just as much or more emotional distress than Cersei but had a much more stable early childhood and whilst now rather cynical and ruthless does not show the same kind of personality disorders Cersei does, most obviously she's much more self aware than Cersei is.

I think a key difference there is that Cersei and Jamie have never really operated on the same emotional level, he seems to care about her much more deeply and indeed cared about there children more selflessly without even an open acknowledgement he was there father. Jon and Sansa on the other hand I think operate much more on the same level, not that there identical in there personally/world view but on a basic level there much closer to Jamie and Cersei for me.

Being on a more similar level emotionally does I think make it much harder to have conflict between them which is more likely to been to be driven by political considerations I'd say.

 

[NutBurz]

A Soup Opera of Thrones ^^

 

I can only imagine, and shed a tear, for the ghost of the beautiful plans some people probably had made for Robb The Young Wolf. He would defeat the Lannisters and bring peace to Westeros until Dany arrived with ther dragons, then he would discover Jon is Targaryen and then both of them would be Kings and they would defeat the White Walkers and Jon would marry Dany.

 

It took me a while, but I see now how Sansa has always been a great character. It´s in our nature to love beautiful songs.

[GhostNymeria]

7 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

For the most part, as I said, it's the fans getting the impression from the general feel of the show, as they are meant to (not all, of course; in soem respects, as with all characters, they're just trying to put the best spin on things).  Hence, it's canon to the show that Sansa was a major part of defeating Ramsay and is now a formidable player, because that's how the writers view it.

Yeah I agree that the writers views it that way. Unfortunately they couldn't translate that to the screen.

[MoreOrLess]

1 hour ago, NutBurz said:

A Soup Opera of Thrones ^^

I can only imagine, and shed a tear, for the ghost of the beautiful plans some people probably had made for Robb The Young Wolf. He would defeat the Lannisters and bring peace to Westeros until Dany arrived with ther dragons, then he would discover Jon is Targaryen and then both of them would be Kings and they would defeat the White Walkers and Jon would marry Dany.

It took me a while, but I see now how Sansa has always been a great character. It´s in our nature to love beautiful songs.

I would say the opposite, a soap opera tends to be cheap drama without real depth to it.

I'm not saying that some conflict isn't going to happen between Jon and Sana, just that if it does then it will likely take a rather different form to than between Cersei and Jamie due to the differences in the characters, not just that the lannisters are lovers either.

[NutBurz]

6 minutes ago, MoreOrLess said:

a soap opera tends to be cheap drama without real depth to it.

The thing about soup opera is that the drama doesn´t matter, the endings are always the same happy and unrealistic nonsense. You can pretty much just skip the drama because it basically doesn´t interfere with the happy ending you´ll certainly get. Characters that were good and happy in the beginning will be good and happy in the end, except for Sean Bean who will be dead.

 

That´s the story I see told by oh so many people here if they were in charge of the script.

[Bear Claw]

9 hours ago, Newstar said:

Jon's death is not representative of their general tendency to provide hints about the upcoming season, for very obvious reasons. D&D as well as the cast have often dropped hints about the upcoming season before it has aired. D&D revealed after Season 4 that Tyrion would be heading east and teaming up with new people, which is exactly what happened. Sophie Turner and Alfie Allen dropped hints in interviews before Season 5 that allowed fans to predict Sansa marrying Ramsay. Liam Cunningham hinted that it wouldn't be as straightforward as Davos immediately being at Melisandre's throat over Shireen's death. And so on. There's no reason to discount everything that they're saying or will say about upcoming seasons--which has proven correct in the past--because of the one instance of not wanting to ruin the Jon cliffhanger.

D&D have made it very, very clear that Jon and Sansa will be butting heads in Season 7; this "selfish individuals" reference is only one of a number of clues. "But they lied about Jon!" isn't an argument to the contrary.

The point is that her loss of interest in religion mirrors Cersei's mockery of Sansa's prayers in 2x09: "The gods have no mercy. That's why they're gods."

Whatever she told Unella, Cersei clearly killed the High Sparrow first and foremost out of self-preservation, since if she didn't she would be found guilty at the trial and likely executed; that killing him felt good was just a bonus. Sansa went after Ramsay out of self-preservation as well, but she enjoyed killing him as much as Cersei enjoyed killing the High Sparrow.

Now, both of them were arguably justified in enjoying the deaths of the people who had orchestrated their humiliation and suffering, as well as enjoying the suffering of Ramsay and Unella (two people who had abused them), but the parallel remains.

It's true that unlike Sansa, Cersei has always been a nasty piece of work (although Season 1 Sansa definitely had her rough edges as well, like talking smack to her septa). With that said, we know that Cersei was once just like Sansa in that she was obsessed with a romantic dream of becoming queen and of marrying a handsome prince. We also know that Cersei has been incredibly embittered by her unhappy, abusive marriage and has become incredibly jaded and cynical, mocking Sansa's innocence and idealism a good deal along the way. We also know that Sansa has also become very jaded and cynical, repudiating attitudes she once held back in Season 2 (dismissing religion, dismissing Jon's claim that he can protect her, etc.). Finally, we see Sansa in 6x09 taking pleasure in her abusive husband's death, much as Cersei tells Unella in the very next episode that she killed her abusive husband because "it felt good to be rid of him."

D&D are not subtle. There were a lot of ways Sansa could have offed Ramsay, and they framed the scene in very similar fashion to Cersei/Unella in 6x10: introducing the instrument of pain (dog/Frankengregor), walking away with a serene smile while the tormenter screams in the background. It's not a coincidence, in my estimation.

If they are so open about giving us hints about upcoming events, then why do they hide the titles of upcoming episodes until a week before airing? I found that to be ridiculous. Also, their episode synopses are cryptic at best.  The show runners are being more and more secretive as each season goes by. 

[MoreOrLess]

9 hours ago, NutBurz said:

The thing about soup opera is that the drama doesn´t matter, the endings are always the same happy and unrealistic nonsense. You can pretty much just skip the drama because it basically doesn´t interfere with the happy ending you´ll certainly get. Characters that were good and happy in the beginning will be good and happy in the end, except for Sean Bean who will be dead.

That's not what I'm predicting to happen though, just that I don't think Sansa and Cersei are THAT direct a parallel, similar in some ways but different enough that anyconflict with there "brothers" is likely to unfold in a very different way.

Sansa may have become more cynical and hardened but morally she's still obviously well above Cersei and as I said also a lot more self aware/critical. That's why I think it will be more politics driving any division, Sansa potentially believing that playing LF's games to gain power further south is the best course of action for the Starks

[Lady Ren]

On 25/08/2016 at 7:58 AM, Newstar said:

 snip

The possibility of Sansa going Cersei  2.0 was definitely addressed with the parallels. But it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Sansa can have her own triggers and limits. 

The same things often drive Cersei and Sansa (i.e.: women at the mercy of sadistic people, desire to be Queen), but what they do in response is actually poles apart: 

Sansa wanted to be Queen, life happened, she changed her mind. Cersei wanted to be Queen and she was, and then she was again.

Sansa sacrificed solders, still lives and that does matter, but different because they "chose" to fight. Cersei committed mass murder (terrorist level bombing), killing (i don't even know how many) civilians, including her own blood.  

The reason I think that the only way Sansa would betray Jon would be as a pawn, is because didn't she already waver and lie this past season? And then she picked him.

If Sansa goes against him in a big way (like tries to kill him or something) then she'll die. You win or you die, right? She can't win against someone who will only come back to life.

Lets say by a huge stretch of imagination that Sansa has the power to take out Jon, and that she wants to take out the bro who fought her battle for her. If a tragic ending is what they're going for: how would her betraying the undisputed hero of the show be tragic? Tragedies are mourned, not rejoiced

The season end spoilers are largely misleads. Or they execute their promise in an unforseen way. Which is why I think the Starks will rally no matter what they pull on each other. 

[A Ghost of Someone]

We know Littlefinger is the most despicable and dishonorable person in Jon's Hemisphere right now. However, there might be some lower Vale Lords present there that are on his payroll and of course Sansa, whom by now, on the show, cannot be trusted to stay in any consistancy, scene to scene, season to season. In other words, she changes on a dime, all the time. They will make of Jon's new Court what they want. For dramatic and creative satisfaction of course.

[Bear Claw]

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Ren said:

The possibility of Sansa going Cersei 2.0 was definitely addressed with the parallels. But it's not an all or nothing thing.

Sansa can be a different level of nutso. Parallels can display differences too.

The same things often drive Cersei and Sansa (i.e.: women at the mercy of sadistic people, desire to be Queen), but what they do in response is actually poles apart. Sansa wanted to be Queen, life happened, she changed her mind. Cersei wanted to be Queen and she was, and then she was again. Sansa sacrificed solders, still lives and that does matter, but different because they "chose" to fight. Cersei committed mass murder (terrorist level bombing), killing (i don't even know how many) civilians, including her own blood. Margaery was in Cersei's position too, but dealt with the Septon differently. As an aside, at first I thought Margaery's death didn't make sense, that she should have sensed trouble sooner. But even Margeary (a freaking Tyrell) could not fathom Cersei's level of greed. 

The reason I think that the only way Sansa would betray Jon is unknowingly and as a pawn, is because didn't she already waver and lie this past season? And then she picked him. All her betrayals (except the lying to Jon) have been unintended. If Sansa goes against him in a big way (like tries to kill him or something) then she'll die. Win or die, right? No losers. And she can't win against someone who will only come back to life. For me show has other, much more convincing villains. Or of a tragic ending is what they're going for, there are other more fitted ways for her to die - like taking out Littlefinger. Or there is another chaptet of will.she wont she, but she again sticks with her family - as she has been doing since season 2. 

On the spoilers - We knew Tyrion was going to Bravos because at the end of the season he stowed away in Varys' box. Telling us he may interact with Dany doesn't give away what happens when they get together. Season 4 finale behind the scenes hinted at something completely different for Sansa. Sophie and Alfie did tease at it once they got their scripts. Sophie got hers for the next season a week back I think, and she's singing a different tune now.

Since her father's death, she has been showing concern for her family (crying when they died, hating Jof/Cersi, even disliking Tyrion for being a Lanister). She hated Theon and the Boltons for killing her family. She has displayed concern that I  would translate to loyalty to her family. Why did she keep info from Jon??? It could have been many reasons that have nothing to do with disliking Jon.  They never explained her motivation, and I am not sure if the show even knows what her motivation was. If they do move forward with a dark/betraying Sansa, then I really don't think they have set up for it very well. If I had only watched the show, I would have no idea that betrayal was afoot. I don't think what they say outside the show is correct, and it really is not right for them to talk so much about something that was not portrayed in the show. It makes me feel like the time and money I put into watching this show is not being respected. 

[Lady Ren]

5 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

If they do move forward with a dark/betraying Sansa, then I really don't think they have set up for it very well. If I had only watched the show, I would have no idea that betrayal was afoot. I don't think what they say outside the show is correct, and it really is not right for them to talk so much about something that was not portrayed in the show. It makes me feel like the time and money I put into watching this show is not being respected. 

I feel you. I think it's partly because the showrunners don't want to give away more of George's secrets before they have to. I really think Sansa is George's (new) favourite underdog. I think D&D are trying to be respectful (another reason for the split seasons), but also they don't want to spoil their own show. If it makes you feel better Sophie Turner has now changed tunes is is saying that Jon and Sansa would be great as "King in the north and Queen in the North". She know wants them to rule together as a team lol.

But you're right. Sansa reaffirms her loyalty to her home and her family every season: I would argue that she did it in season 1 as well. How much did she beg for Ned's life? She was so worked up she freaking fainted. In the 2nd season she was just grace under fire. Looking back, I'm shocked at the things she would say to the Lannisters sometimes. In the 3rd, she did not accept Tyrion. It didn't matter how good he was to her. In the 4th she lied to protect Littlefinger in the Eryie. But this was just after she was in that courtyard: Winterfell's music playing in the background, her eyes filling with tears, she very carefully made what she remembered of her home, and then she fiercely guarded it. In the 5th she married a freaking Bolton for Winterfell. And in the 6th she charged Jon with fighting for "their" home. She then passed on the freaking thrown. 

Sophie does a great job of portraying her. Sansa wavers, but it's not her loyalty that wavers, it's her mind. "I'm just a stupid little girl, I don't know anything". She's smart, but she lets those fears and those thoughts get to her. You see this confusion, and it's not inconsistent with who she is.

All this talk of how she's some cold conniving bitch, but she's not. She's pragmatic. She's artistic. She's a sharp student. She's a little dainty. She's loud. She's quiet. People want to box her up in one space or another. But the truth is,  a character's growth, like a real persons growth, is riddled with steps forward and steps backward. And each character, just like each real person, is going to end up in a different place. It's called being an individual.

That's freaking good writing! Inconsistent my foot. While she flirts with the "cold conniving" line sometimes, she's the same trusting fool she always was. Every time she gets burned she gets the tiniest bit wiser, but just by the smallest smidgen. Because at her core, that naivety and hopefulness is still there. It's always been that way. 

She's not some orchestrator of destruction. She didn't freaking kill Ramsey. Jon beat him comatose and then either he or Sansa had men tie him up in the kennels. She didn't "set" the dogs on him. She simply watched. 

Also, why oh why, if she was sooo selfish and soooo Cercei-like would she give up a sure thing with Jon to side with pimp/rape arranger/used to love her mother/doesn't even have a thrown yet/creepy as hell Littlefinger? "Me on the iron thrown and you at my side". Well, um, excuse me, but isn't she at a King's side already? She made her choice. It's done. 

[RhaenysBee]

On 2016. augusztus 25. at 1:20 AM, Darksky said:

Jon has never been and can never be Ned 2.0 because he has compromised his honor and duty (mostly for the greater good) a bunch of times, he has never been a stickler for rules (he bent them when he was a steward and then LC), he has been flexible in his means, he is pragmatic. He is honourable and duty-bound but is not blinded by honour and the need to adhere to the rules/traditions and preserve the laws as Ned was. And even Ned's moral code wasn't pure.

True enough. But then I wonder what's the point in making a point of Jon being "the honorable" good guy around here? (Which he still is,imo, even though you're right that he's far "less" honorable than Ned) 

I mean I really hated Sansa this season and I guess nobody needs convincing to see Littlefinger as an enemy, but what's the point in portraying Jon as the "honorable" one against "dishonorable" opponents? If the story was a folk tale and was about honor winning over dishonor it would have ended at season 1 after Ned Stark successfully sat Stannis on the Iron Throne. So what's the deal? Ned was honorable and lost, but Jon is honorable and wins because he is Jon the Chosen Prince Who Lived? Or there are different levels of honor and Ned was too honorable, while Jon is just the right amount of honorable to win? Why make "honor" a keyword when Game of Thrones has long taught us that honor doesn't make you bulletproof...? 

 

Or am I just reading way too much into this and dishonorable enemies is just a choice of words and D&D never really thought that much about the message of what they said because they are sick and tired AF of GoT and just want it to be over quickly and easily? 

[Newstar]

15 hours ago, Lady Ren said:

The possibility of Sansa going Cersei  2.0 was definitely addressed with the parallels. (...)

The season end spoilers are largely misleads. Or they execute their promise in an unforseen way. Which is why I think the Starks will rally no matter what they pull on each other. 

The season end spoilers are almost never misleads with only one glaring and easily explained exception (Jon's death). The writers have a good track record of setting up the next season in the last (or second to last) episode of the preceding season and dropping hints in interviews/Inside the Episodes as to what the next season arcs will be.

Sansa and Cersei are different in many ways, but my point was that in this specific respect, they had almost identical scenes aired almost back to back (end of 6x09/first half of 6x10). The writers were drawing our attention to the similarities between the characters. It's fair to assume that that was deliberate.

14 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

If they do move forward with a dark/betraying Sansa, then I really don't think they have set up for it very well.

I think the Jon vs. Sansa/LF conflict was set up more than adequately. It's just that many fans are ignoring it because it flies in the face of what they want to happen--Jon and Sansa vs. LF--and what it likely portends (Sansa's downfall and likely death).

I think it's similar to the Stannis burning Shireen situation; a lot of fans ignored the signs, some of which were telegraphed pretty crudely in my opinion, and then cried foul when what happened and what they wanted to happen proved to be two different things, while those of us who saw it coming a mile away were left shaking our heads.

8 hours ago, Lady Ren said:

I feel you. I think it's partly because the showrunners don't want to give away more of George's secrets before they have to. I really think Sansa is George's (new) favourite underdog.

Sansa isn't GRRM's favourite anything. He conceived Sansa as the traitorous Stark in conflict with her family, and Season 7 from all indications is going to be taking her full circle to her Stark-betraying, conflict-fomenting roots.

[NutBurz]

Remember when, in the first book, Arya and Sansa only didn´t manage to escape King´s Landing because Sansa went behind Ned´s back to tell Cersei that they were leaving? Which, in the end, was the reason why Ned "confessed" to be a traitor, and the reason why Joffrey was "allowed" to execute him, certainly under the whispers of LF (even though Sansa doesn´t objectively know this part, but she surely blames herself).

Remember when Sansa spends days weeping for her father and when she gets a chance to talk to the Queen, she absolutely forgets about Arya?

The show, the way I see it, is trying to "justify" Cersei, by showing that a person doesn´t have to intimally be a monster to look like one through their actions. Cersei has always had way more practical power than Sansa, and thus her capability of dealing far more damage, but their motivations are very alike - nothing much deeper than selfishness. They don´t plan to screw things up, they simply don´t really see it coming, and when it does, they don´t find it whitin themselves to care that much.