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

[Lady Ren]

@Newstar If GRRM doesn't like Sansa, why didn't he just follow through with his initial plan? Why make her suffer and yearn for home?

At the end of Season 4 the only spoilers coming from the showrunners were centred around how how un-Stark Sansa is, and how she and Littlefinger are this super duo. That lasted for about 2 episodes into season 5. I'm not saying LF won't get into her head for a moment, just that she won't die trying to betray her family.  

If she does go out, she will go out for her family. 

I don't know. I could be wrong. I usually am about this show. But ever since Sansa's taking over Jeyne Poole's storyline was brought to light, she stopped being a wildcard to me.  

Cersie and Sansa's kill scenes were interesting definitely. But while Sansa let Ramsey's dogs kill him, she stood removed. Cersei on the other hand waterboarded the "shame shame" lady with wine herself, and arranged for slow torture. Pain is pain, I get it. But Cersei always goes too far. Not to mention the mass murder she committed on the side. 

It's possible that my bias is making me a little blind. I really don't like Cersei. I felt for her in her scenes with Tywin, and when she was imprisoned. Her saving grace is supposed to be her love for her children. But she only ever loved them as extensions of herself. "My children. My son" blah blah. She may very well have stunted emotional and mental development, but at no point have I ever seen this woman actually try to be other than what she is.  She's so consumed with anger and hate. She wallows in it and finds strength in it. Whatever heart she had she lost a long time ago. I feel sympathy for Cersei in that she is very clearly lost, but I don't feel for her as an individual. Because nobody's home there. 

So off track lol. But yes, I really really hope that that is not where Sansa is headed. 

[Bear Claw]

6 hours ago, Newstar said:

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.

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.

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.

I see many people say she is the least Stark. Her direwolf died and she lived so she isn't a real Stark. I also know GRRM said something like Sansa was created to bring some conflict into the Starks. I can see that Season One, but I really haven't seen it in the subsequent seasons. Why cry after the Red Wedding? It should be good news because now she is the heir. Why initially protest against the Bolton marriage because "they betrayed my family"? Maybe she is disappointed that they beat her to it? Why be angry with Theon for "betraying my family"? Also, why give her the Starkest of Stark lines "Winter is here"? She also told Jon that Brienne saw Arya. Why tell him that if she is out for herself? Keeping him in the dark for now could buy her some time to get rid of both him and Arya. The less he knows the better.   I see the conflict early on, but now I see her as very loyal to her family and Winterfell. I think this compares more to Jaimie than Stannis. The show has gone kind of back and forth with him and Cersi. The book gives him a more clear arc. If Sansa is the betraying kind then I am sure GRRM will shape that arc clearly in the next book (I could see her present situation in the book progressing that way).However the show offers us the opposite portrayal of Sansa. The ultimate example:  Why light candles for Aunt Lyanna in the crypt if she doesn't care about her family? People who visit tombs/cemeteries of family are showing a great deal of honor/loyalty/respect for their family. The show hasn't given me the set up for betrayal. 

[a black swan]

12 minutes ago, Bear Claw said:

I see many people say she is the least Stark. Her direwolf died and she lived so she isn't a real Stark. I also know GRRM said something like Sansa was created to bring some conflict into the Starks. I can see that Season One, but I really haven't seen it in the subsequent seasons. Why cry after the Red Wedding? It should be good news because now she is the heir. Why initially protest against the Bolton marriage because "they betrayed my family"? Maybe she is disappointed that they beat her to it? Why be angry with Theon for "betraying my family"? Also, why give her the Starkest of Stark lines "Winter is here"? She also told Jon that Brienne saw Arya. Why tell him that if she is out for herself? Keeping him in the dark for now could buy her some time to get rid of both him and Arya. The less he knows the better.   I see the conflict early on, but now I see her as very loyal to her family and Winterfell. I think this compares more to Jaimie than Stannis. The show has gone kind of back and forth with him and Cersi. The book gives him a more clear arc. If Sansa is the betraying kind then I am sure GRRM will shape that arc clearly in the next book (I could see her present situation in the book progressing that way).However the show offers us the opposite portrayal of Sansa. The ultimate example:  Why light candles for Aunt Lyanna in the crypt if she doesn't care about her family? People who visit tombs/cemeteries of family are showing a great deal of honor/loyalty/respect for their family. The show hasn't given me the set up for betrayal. 

Perhaps you may have scrolled right by this incredibly articulate and thoroughly accurate summation of reality vs. the distortion some fans put on certain characters:

On 24/08/2016 at 11:52 PM, Darksky said:

This is what's irritating about the undeserved credit Sansa has been given by lots of fans on various sites. She really did very little for the Winterfell campaign. Let's break it down

1. Reality = Sansa shows up at Castle Black all battered and exhausted. Gives Jon a speech about retaking Winterfell. Jon is unconvinced. They remain at CB. The letter arrives, which turns out to be the prime motivator for Jon (Rickon, the threat to the Wildlings, the NW, Sansa and himself). 

Fan's perception = Sansa arrives like a boss, makes big speeches and lights a fire under Jon's ass, giving him purpose.

2. Reality = Sansa misjudges the North, mainly Karstarks. Believes they'd all come running at the mere mention of a Stark name. Disregards the North's war weariness, ravaged military resources and mindset after King Robb's series of failures.

Fan's perception = Sansa is so knowledgeable and smart, she is a great politician.

3. Reality = Sansa confronts Littlefinger, threatens him but lets him live. Takes him at his word (regarding Riverlands), let's him play on her feelings, let's him plant a seed of doubt about the only person that deserves her unconditional trust. Rejects his offer of help due to the grudge she holds. Doesn't even think of going behind his back and securing the Vale on her own.

Fan's perception = Sansa mistrusts Littlefinger, no longer lets him manipulate her, severs his control of her, keeps him around to use him if need be.

4. Reality = Sansa keeps her meeting with LF and his offer a secret. Lies about the Riverlands. The reason = she wants to have a few cards up her sleeve too.

Fan's perception = She is justified in lying. She's doing it to protect Jon.

5. Reality = Sansa sends a great trusted warrior away, operating on LF's misinformation.

Fan's perception = Sansa knows what she's doing. She is no fool, she doesn't trust LF.

5. Reality = Sansa fails to secure any Northern House's loyalty. Manages to piss off one Lord. Mocks Davos' fruitful efforts even though her own resulted in big fat nothing.

Fan's perception = Sansa is a diplomat who has extensive knowledge of the politics. She adapts to any situation.

5. Reality = Desperate Sansa pleads for help from the man who had offered it to her. Writes a simple SOS letter. Keeps it a secret for no good reason.

Fan's perception = Sansa uses her cunning and smarts to get Littlefinger to do her bidding.

6. Reality = Sansa contributes nothing to the war council. Gives Jon vague advice that isn't very helpful. Is bitter about not being treated as the #1 source of input, proceeds to offer no valuable input when requested. Still fails to disclose vital information about the Vale army. Yells at Jon for underestimating Ramsay when she herself did so until her wedding night. Underestimates the threats Jon has faced.

Fan's perception = Sansa gives great advice, makes valid points.

7. Reality = Against overwhelming odds Jon and his men manage to obliterate Ramsay's cavalry (with Ramsay's help) and do damage to his infantry before getting encircled by the remaining Bolton soldiers. A few hours into the battle, Sansa arrives with LF and the Arryns. She stays on the sidelines, while the intact Vale army uses the element of surprise, their numerical superiority, their 'horsepower' and opportunity to attack from behind the shield wall (weak spot) to finish off Ramsay's damaged and distracted infantry. Jon manages not to die thanks to his skills, sheer luck, Davos/his cavalry, Tormund and the Vale Knights. Then he frees himself and together with Wun Wun and Tormunds breaches Winterfell. He disarms, beats up and detains Ramsay.

Fan's perception = Sansa saves Jon, wins the battle. 

Radical fan's perception = Sansa wins the battle all on her own. As if Jon and the rest did absolutely nothing.

8. Reality = Jon puts bloodied and chained Ramsay in the kennel. That coupled with Ramsay having starved his hounds leads to Ramsay's death. Prior to that, Sansa walks up to the locked kennel, has a chat with Ramsay, watches as the hounds start eating Ramsay, leaves shortly after. Doesn't command the dogs, doesn't do anything to rile them up, doesn't do anything to Ramsay herself. Is basically just a witness.

Fan's perception = Sansa kills Ramsay.

Like you said. It's Jon who Tormund and Davos used in their speeches to make their cases and secure loyalty. Not Sansa. The Northern/Wildling army rallied behind Jon. The Vale army rallied behind Sweetrobin and LF. Sweetrobin decided to help Sansa due to their familial connection, not because of Sansa's value as a human, her personality or deeds. LF helped Sansa because he wants her as his trophy wife, considers her a means to get closer to the Iron Throne and is still bitter over Catelyn, not because of Sansa's value as a human, her personality or deeds.

Any rebuttal? I haven't seen anything that even touches the logic above. A viewpoint shared by many many people outside this forum. How strange?

 

[Bear Claw]

 

 

I must have missed this post, but  it offers me no clarity. The whole LF  thing presents a desperate Sansa, but not a dark/betraying one. The main point here is the second War Council. She knew Jon was going to fall into a trap.   If she is against him, then she really shouldn't warn him. She should just smile and tell him what great plans he has. What is the purpose in trying to warn him???? She knows LF is coming. Let Ramsay get rid of him.  It doesn't make sense. Also, the whole Ramsay dog scene makes no sense. Someone had to put Ramsay in there and then unlock the kennels. Wouldn't the dogs immediately charge out and kill/maim anyone in there? Why did the dogs all of a sudden wake up while Sansa was talking to Ramsay? That whole scene made no sense. I am telling you the story they are giving us makes no sense.

 

[Colonel Green]

2 hours ago, DutchArya said:

Any rebuttal? 

As I pointed out, that argument is, for the most part, less a case of fan distortion than it is poking holes in the show's plot, because the intent of the writers is clearly that Sansa be a skilled game player and a major contributor to Ramsay's defeat.  The plot they constructed to convey this point fails to hold up to rudimentary logical scrutiny, unfortunately.

[principenoprometido]

hace 42 minutos, Futuro Null Infinity dijo:

Su agresividad pasiva es infantil

Estoy Bastante Seguro de Que nadie Al menos en reddit Créé en la supuesta traición, simplemente Porque en TODAS LAS Entrevistas del Sr. Harington, la Sra Turner y el Sr. Cunningham o D + D, Nunca Dijeron Una palabra Sobre Una traición a la ONU Sansa Jon, esta Historia de la traición es inventado por algunos adj adj Enemigos, no hay Indicios de que 0 , Y Todo El Mundo Recuerda "Jon esta muerto" del Año Pasado

De Hecho, la Mayoría de la Gente Fuera de Este foro (Usted Piensa Que Usted es leen el unico En Este Foro Que sobre Dieron en Todo el Internet?) Piensa (por El estilo de "jardinero" de la Historia) Que Sansa no se Se adapta a Invernalia y ella IRA ONU Rey con Baelish simplemente Porque "jalousy" se le PUEDE Llamar o Desembarco del "decepción" lo Como llamo yo (o La voluntad de Robb en Los libros) Que no Encontró su hogar definitivo en Invernalia

Que se ve, hay algo muy Conocido en la forma en la Historia de Sansa este escrito, Es Una Historia de la Chica Que No Puede ENCONTRAR Un Hogar definitivo, Que esta en busca de Un Hogar Al Igual Que Jon y Arya (ALGUNAS personajes estan fallando para ver este aspecto m m Tal Vez Porque del profundo desconocimiento de la historia)

Esto Es Una Falta de respeto! , ¿Estás Diciendo a la Gente Lo Que Deben Pensar? Usted Piensa Que Son Más Inteligentes Que Ellos? La Mayoría de la gente ve la Historia y la ficción characaters y Tratar de entendre Las Cosas, Como tal, Piensan pecado Arya o hijo Sansa personajes reales Como Tú!

Usted Piensa Que La Historia Es Una Historia de una Competición? Jon quien Dębe Casarse O que Dębe Sentarse En La TI? SI Usted Lee Los Libros Y Eso Es Todo Lo Que entenderse A partir de la historia me creen el col Lloraré

Because she go and trust the little finger garbage? that would be stupid.

[principenoprometido]

10 hours ago, Newstar said:

Los spoilers fin de temporada son casi nunca se confunde con una sola evidente y fácilmente se explica excepción (la muerte de Jon). Los escritores tienen un buen historial de creación de la próxima temporada en el último (o penúltimo) episodio de la temporada anterior y lanzar indirectas en las entrevistas / Dentro de la Episodios cuanto a lo que serán los próximos arcos temporada.

Sansa y Cersei son diferentes en muchos aspectos, pero mi punto es que en este aspecto específico, tenían escenas casi idénticas ventilaron casi espalda con espalda (final de 6x09 / 6x10 primera mitad). Los escritores se nos llama la atención a las similitudes entre los personajes. Es razonable suponer que eso era deliberada.

Creo que el conflicto vs. Jon Sansa / LF se creó más que adecuadamente. Es sólo que muchos fans están ignorando porque va en contra de lo que quieren que suceda - Jon y Sansa vs LF - y lo que es probable que presagia (caída de Sansa y probablemente la muerte).

Creo que es similar a la situación Shireen quema Stannis; un montón de fans ignora los signos, algunos de los cuales fueron telegrafió bastante crudamente en mi opinión, y luego grito en el cielo cuando lo que pasó y lo que quería que sucediera demostrado ser dos cosas diferentes, mientras que aquellos de nosotros que lo vio venir una milla de distancia se dejaron agitando la cabeza.

Sansa no es nada favorita de GRRM. Se concibe como el Sansa Stark traidor en conflicto con su familia, y la temporada 7 de todas las indicaciones se va a tomar su punto de partida para sus Stark-entregaba, raíces conflictos fomentando.

you do not know what will happen next season so I can not claim to be a traitor sansa.

[Wilnova]

8 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

As I pointed out, that argument is, for the most part, less a case of fan distortion than it is poking holes in the show's plot, because the intent of the writers is clearly that Sansa be a skilled game player and a major contributor to Ramsay's defeat.  The plot they constructed to convey this point fails to hold up to rudimentary logical scrutiny, unfortunately.

I do agree that some of their scenes were written and framed in such a way that we are supposed to come out siding with Sansa. For example the Jon-Sansa argument before BOB, where Sansa could have spoken up without being asked to, but Jon apologizes for not asking her opinion - telling us that Jon is wrong and Sansa is right.

But i would think that the intent of the writers is also that Jon is a good leader who has a great story this season going from being dead to being King. I don't see any fans blindly supporting this. Jon got so much criticism for doing almost nothing this season, for his resurrection being anti-climatic, Battle of the bastards (BOB), for having PTSD. Sansa got all the credit. As much as it was the writers intent to prop up Sansa as some great game player, I don't think they intended to show that Jon was unfit to be a leader- how would that justify their KITN plot?

Most forums, fans and blogs damned Jon Snow as a horrible commander after Battle of Bastards and praised Sansa for actually holding back information about the Vale because Jon would have wasted the advantage. The mental gymnastics that went into explaining Sansa's actions by almost everyone even went so far as to equate Sansa to the second coming of Tywin, using Jon and the wildlngs as bait to draw out Ramsay and then use the Vale army. And she got praised for doing that!! And after all that, according to Sophie, the idea behind holding back the info was just because she wanted the credit and it looked good on screen.

I think Sansa has a special group of fans who, like the actress who plays her, tend to exaggerate and add hyperbole to anything she does. This is true of her books fans as well who often claim she is a far better player and political expert than people like Jon and Dany, who have been groomed to rule, and yet fail to justify these claims when questioned on the text. They take for granted that she will be some super diplomat and power player sometime in the next two books, take that as accepted fact and then continue to argue from there. Despite Sansa having done absolutely nothing in 5 books and 6 seasons to demonstrate that she is skilled game player or politician.

Next season we will have Sansa siding with LF, and we will still have fans justifying her actions and supporting it because Jon's too dumb or something.

[Winter's Cold]

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

As I pointed out, that argument is, for the most part, less a case of fan distortion than it is poking holes in the show's plot, because the intent of the writers is clearly that Sansa be a skilled game player and a major contributor to Ramsay's defeat.  The plot they constructed to convey this point fails to hold up to rudimentary logical scrutiny, unfortunately.

I think that the writers clearly intended to show that there is a rift between Sansa and Jon. She lies to him and chooses not to tell him about the Vale army. It's also clear that Sansa wants a position of power or importance. Why else would she be upset that Jon was listening to Davos' advice or that he was not asking her opinion on military matters?

Sansa's behavior last season fits the behavior of a 'selfish individual'. She's shown that she's willing to deceive and manipulate her own family members to accomplish her goals. Due to this it's quite likely that there will be conflict between Sansa and Jon next season. The resolution of that conflict is unknown but it will happen.

I also don't think that the writers believe that Sansa is a skilled game player but failed to convey it properly. The writers can easily portray characters as capable when they want to. Littlefinger's manipulation of both Lord Royce and Sweetrobin showed how he controlled the Vale. Davos gave sound political and military advice to Jon and even managed to convince a Northern house to join the cause. Sansa failed soundly in the negotiations with both Northern houses. She was able to manipulate Jon though.

 

[Colonel Green]

41 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

I think that the writers clearly intended to show that there is a rift between Sansa and Jon.

Yes, certainly.  I never said otherwise.

Quote

I also don't think that the writers believe that Sansa is a skilled game player but failed to convey it properly. The writers can easily portray characters as capable when they want to. Littlefinger's manipulation of both Lord Royce and Sweetrobin showed how he controlled the Vale. Davos gave sound political and military advice to Jon and even managed to convince a Northern house to join the cause. Sansa failed soundly in the negotiations with both Northern houses. She was able to manipulate Jon though.

Littlefinger is actually a good example:  the show clearly believes he is a genius, but even a cursory review of his actual plans shows he is an idiot, and his success mostly comes because everybody else also becomes an idiot whenever they're around him.

Regarding the Northern houses, yes, she didn't succeed there -- that's meant to be the mid-season conflict to heighten the stakes of her arc and set up the finale, that being, bringing in the Vale troops, which the show positions as a genius plan that insures victory.  Hence, her appearance at the end of the Battle of the Bastards, with numerous shots of her cooly eying the battlefield (and the camera is centered on her), triumphal music swelling, and the final scene being her having Ramsay eaten by his dogs.  All of this is the show framing the resolution in big neon lights as Sansa's big moment.

This falls apart under even the most cursory examination, but the show just wants you to go with the general vibe they're putting out, and the vibe is unmistakable (hence, why most viewers, reviewers, etc. all echoed this theme).

The whole Northern plot is Season 6 is a gigantic mess where merging several different storylines and character and thematic imperatives produced a hodgepodge that didn't really serve anyone in it.  It's meant to end with Jon being crowned king, even though he barely does anything all season and his major contribution at the big battle is blowing his own plan and falling into Ramsay's trap.  It's meant to show Sansa as a player, even though the larger plot structure they've put in place (and in particular the need to put her back in Littlefinger's orbit after completely ripping Sansa out of her own storyline in Season 5) means her big player move is taking Littlefinger up on his preexisting offer to do what he was already going to do.  It's meant to pay off several seasons worth of hints that Ramsay's gratuitous brutality will ultimately have consequences (Roose says as much literally right before he dies), but in fact, there aren't any; Ramsay only loses because of Littlefinger, who was going to attack regardless.  Most of all, the writers wrote the whole season around the need to have the Stark army on the verge of annihilation only to get saved by the Valemen at the last second, and this was the only way they could think of to do it (there are, in fact, several others that would have been better), even though that required that both Jon and Sansa be totally incompetent and completely sacrificed "the North remembers" and the notion that Ramsay would face the consequences of his actions, both the latter being drums that they show had been beating for several years.

[Lady Ren]

9 hours ago, DutchArya said:

snip

 

Again I don't really disagree with anything Darksky said. 

If Sansa's stupid and nothing but a complete bystander then there is no way that she's is the selfish individual in Jon's group. Because she would have to be more active in order to take on that role.

I would say that the showrunners' goal was to portray both "fan" perception and "reality". Sansa is somewhere in the middle between being active (making big moves) and inactive (continuing to be a pawn). That is why they keep encouraging us to believe that she could betray Jon, not that she most definitely will or won't.

-

I said it many times before and I'll say it again, Sansa's lying about the Vale was not a part of some big master plan to deceive and betray Jon. It started as a small white lie and became a slippery slope. We literally see this happen. The Vale was a power move against Ramsey that ended up working out. But that could still be dangerous, right?

Since Cersei seems to be a popular choice to contrast Sansa with - let's go with that: 

Cersei evidences an inability to foresee consequences, and her level of negligence is unmatched in Game of Thrones."I'll kill everyone - including my son's wife - but make sure he's not in the building. It's not my responsibility what he does to himself". When has Sansa ever, on any level, made those types of decisions? It's not even a question of degree or scale. 

GRRM has said in multiple interviews, that people (and his characters) are made up of good and evil, and that it is the decisions they make that define them. 

[Darksky]

3 hours ago, Wilnova said:

I do agree that some of their scenes were written and framed in such a way that we are supposed to come out of siding with Sansa. For example the Jon-Sansa argument before BOB, where Sansa could have spoken up without being asked to, but Jon apologizes for not asking her opinion - telling us that Jon is wrong and Sansa is right.

But i would think that the intent of the writers is also that Jon is a good leader who has a great story this season going from being dead to being King. I don't see any fans blindly supporting this. Jon got so much criticism for doing almost nothing this season, for his resurrection being anti-climatic, Battle of the bastards (BOB), for having PTSD. Sansa got all the credit. As much as it was the writers intent to prop up Sansa as some great game player, I don't think they intended to show that Jon was unfit to be a leader- how would that justify their KITN plot?

Most forums, fans and blogs damned Jon Snow as a horrible commander after Battle of Bastards and praised Sansa for actually holding back information about the Vale because Jon would have wasted the advantage. The mental gymnastics that went into explaining Sansa's actions by almost everyone even went so far as to equate Sansa to the second coming of Tywin, using Jon and the wildlngs as bait to draw out Ramsay and then use the Vale army. And she got praised for doing that!! And after all that, according to Sophie, the idea behind holding back the info was just because she wanted the credit and it looked good on screen.

I think Sansa has a special group of fans who, like the actress who plays her, tend to exaggerate and add hyperbole to anything she does. This is true of her books fans as well who often claim she is a far better player and political expert than people like Jon and Dany, who have been groomed to rule, and yet fail to justify these claims when questioned on the text. They take for granted that she will be some super diplomat and power player sometime in the next two books, take that as accepted fact and then continue to argue from there. Despite Sansa having done absolutely nothing in 5 books and 6 seasons to demonstrate that she is skilled game player or politician.

Next season we will have Sansa siding with LF, and we will still have fans justifying her actions and supporting it because Jon's too dumb or something.

So true. I've noticed (mostly on tumblr) the overwhelming trend of overrating such characters like Sansa and Arya, to the point of actually Mary Sue-ing them. It comes from shippers mostly. Sansa shippers especially. She's paired up with almost every significant male character. And in those relationships, she's always the one wearing the pants, she's this great beauty no one can resist, a highly competent politician, a sharp-witted player, a compassionate individual, sometimes even a warrior woman (not in the sense of wielding a weapon and fighting, but being at the head of an army, doing the rallying speeches, acting as the inspiration and so on). Fanfic Sansa being given other characters' traits is quite common. It's like not even her fans think much of the real Sansa hence they create an AU Sansa and then proceed to project themselves on her.

I've never seen the appeal of Sansa's character, book or show wise. She's done nothing of interest to me, especially in the books where she's little more than a camera offering the reader a view into Littlefinger, she's done nothing to show she could be an accomplished player in a game of thrones, she's not a deep thinker, she relies on others too much, she could have done with a sense of humour at least but she doesn't even have that, she can't even claim one redeeming quality ie her story being 'epic'.

People (including the actors) like to say she's a survivor, but in reality she has had help every step of the way. Without other characters, she would be long dead. I prefer characters who can take care of themselves, who can do things on their own and don't always have to rely on others.

Sophie Turner really goes to town with overestimating Sansa and her credit, to the point of warping reality. But she's not the only one. Maisie can be the same with Arya. In her latest Variety interview she claims Arya would be just as effective on the battlefield as Jon, which is perplexing. Jon has had extensive swordsmanship training and has tremendous experience. Arya? She has never wielded a regular sized sword, let alone a long sword. Who's to say she'd be able to? She's small in stature for starters. She has never fought armed, skilled soldiers. A battle/melee is a different kind of beast to anything she's experienced. It's fast-paced, brutal, chaotic, requires extreme stamina and strength, demands an ability to adapt quickly, instincts have to be sharp and on alert without even a second of lapse, one has to have eyes around one's head because opponents can come at one from all directions and so on.

That's why Tyrion being in a battle and surviving was such an eyeroll-inducing moment.  tsk tsk Martin. 

Is Kit the only one from the main cast who doesn't overrate his character and can openly talk about his weaknesses?

D and D didn't do balance well in season 6. They suddenly propped up all those female characters (Sansa, Daenerys, Cersei, Margaery, Yara) at the expense of the male ones (Jon, Theon, High Sparrow, Loras, Tyrion, even Jorah and Daario). To an extent even Arya and Jaqen. 

Nothing against propping up female characters, but why does it have to come about by putting down male ones? This is my big fear about season 7, that this trend will continue. Especially with regard to Jon and Sansa. Making it seem that Sansa is somehow justified in her potential actions to undermine Jon and take his place as the ruler (despite it being wartime and her not being equipped to govern the North during the Long Night/WWs' eventual invasion), by making him totally incompetent and naive. I understand having Jon be trusting of people and do questionable things in seasons 1/2/3 but not when it's the final act and he's an endgame player (unlike Sansa).  What Jon has seen and gone through, one would think he wouldn't be able to trust anyone fully, like Sansa doesn't. And that he would be more acute to people scheming and their potential ill will towards him. The sooner Sansa vanishes from Jon's orbit the better for Jon and his arc.

[Lady Ren]

10 hours ago, Bear Claw said:

I see many people say she is the least Stark. Her direwolf died and she lived so she isn't a real Stark. I also know GRRM said something like Sansa was created to bring some conflict into the Starks. I can see that Season One, but I really haven't seen it in the subsequent seasons. Why cry after the Red Wedding? It should be good news because now she is the heir. Why initially protest against the Bolton marriage because "they betrayed my family"? Maybe she is disappointed that they beat her to it? Why be angry with Theon for "betraying my family"? Also, why give her the Starkest of Stark lines "Winter is here"? She also told Jon that Brienne saw Arya. Why tell him that if she is out for herself? Keeping him in the dark for now could buy her some time to get rid of both him and Arya. The less he knows the better.   I see the conflict early on, but now I see her as very loyal to her family and Winterfell. I think this compares more to Jaimie than Stannis. The show has gone kind of back and forth with him and Cersi. The book gives him a more clear arc. If Sansa is the betraying kind then I am sure GRRM will shape that arc clearly in the next book (I could see her present situation in the book progressing that way).However the show offers us the opposite portrayal of Sansa. The ultimate example:  Why light candles for Aunt Lyanna in the crypt if she doesn't care about her family? People who visit tombs/cemeteries of family are showing a great deal of honor/loyalty/respect for their family. The show hasn't given me the set up for betrayal. 

Nice. Particularly the italicized. Not to mention, just because Sansa and Jon haven't crossed paths in the books yet (giving Sansa opportunity to apologize and redeem herself - although her having to do that at all is a little debatable) doesn't mean they won't. 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the book and the show are going to do the same thing ultimately. 

[Future Null Infinity]

6 hours ago, principenoprometido said:

Because she go and trust the little finger garbage? that would be stupid.

And what's the problem with LittleFinger? he is a character of the story that we saw for six seasons, a character that represent the ultimate intelligence, if the writers decide to write about Sansa in Winterfell then what she will do there? hanging with Davos and Tormund? or watch Jon fighting the WW from a balcony?

Baelish was always a part of Sansa's story and he's the only character can give the best momentum to her arc  and to political intrigue of the story, I will choose the duo Sansa/Baelish over Sansa/Jon/Davos/Tormund anyday

[Darryk]

Damn straight. When winter comes, who you gonna turn to: a Jon Snow or a Littlefinger?

Btw, why are people assuming Sansa is the selfish one being referred to? Surely the obvious answer is Cersei and the Lannisters.

[Winter's Cold]

59 minutes ago, Darksky said:

Sophie Turner really goes to town with overestimating Sansa and her credit, to the point of warping reality. But she's not the only one. Maisie can be the same with Arya. In her latest Variety interview she claims Arya would be just as effective on the battlefield as Jon, which is perplexing. Jon has had extensive swordsmanship training and has tremendous experience. Arya? She has never wielded a regular sized sword, let alone a long sword. Who's to say she'd be able to? She's small in stature for starters. She has never fought armed, skilled soldiers. A battle/melee is a different kind of beast to anything she's experienced. It's fast-paced, brutal, chaotic, requires extreme stamina and strength, demands an ability to adapt quickly, instincts have to be sharp and on alert without even a second of lapse, one has to have eyes around one's head because opponents can come at one from all directions and so on.

I was confused by that statement as well. It makes me wonder if these are the actresses' real thoughts or if they're being told to say these things by other people. Arya on a battlefield makes zero sense honestly. Perhaps she could serve as an archer but even that would be unrealistic. Arya's main strength would be preventing Jon from getting betrayed and stabbed to death again. 

I also don't think that Arya is overrated. A lot of people might feel that she can kill anyone but that's less about Arya and more about the exemplary skill of the faceless men. There is significant group that believes that Arya is doomed. That she is too damaged to stay in Winterfell with her siblings or that she can't ever have a normal happy life. If anything I'd call her underrated.

[Darryk]

1 minute ago, Winter's Cold said:

I was confused by that statement as well. It makes me wonder if these are the actresses' real thoughts or if they're being told to say these things by other people.

All the actors stick up for their characters (except Iwan Rheon of course), it's part of the fun of it.

[a black swan]

3 hours ago, Winter's Cold said:

I was confused by that statement as well. It makes me wonder if these are the actresses' real thoughts or if they're being told to say these things by other people. Arya on a battlefield makes zero sense honestly. Perhaps she could serve as an archer but even that would be unrealistic. Arya's main strength would be preventing Jon from getting betrayed and stabbed to death again. 

I also don't think that Arya is overrated. A lot of people might feel that she can kill anyone but that's less about Arya and more about the exemplary skill of the faceless men. There is significant group that believes that Arya is doomed. That she is too damaged to stay in Winterfell with her siblings or that she can't ever have a normal happy life. If anything I'd call her underrated.

Some exaggeration from Maisie. lol But she did describe it better with the covert CIA agent analogy. If Jon needs to take out specific target, Arya would be best suited - but will Jon let her? That is a VERY intetesting dynamic to explore. Can Jon risk putting her in any kind of danger? 

I agree, Arya would be very useful as a King’s Councillor as well. Something she always wanted to do since King's Landing. 

I can picture Arya in a commanding role leading attacks as soldiers fight. Queen Nymeria was never a warrior but a Leader and Commander similar to Tywin Lannister. Speaking of Nymeria, hopefully Arya finds Nym and brings her own army to Winterfell. Grrm said he is going to use that super pack, D&D better as well. 

 

[illinifan]

Here are my thoughts.  First, when have either Dany or Jon shown great leadership? The whole subversion of the Dany-Jon plot is that they suck in formal leadership roles.  Neither of them were groomed to be leaders. Dany spent her entire childhood in exile with her abusive brother and it would actually be offensive to Cat if Ned was seen grooming Jon for a leadership role.  Rather than being awesomely awesome as leaders, both end up failing at it.

Second, other than the hardcore fanboys and fangirls, I do not think that anyone thinks Sansa came out smelling like roses this season.  Most critics were really confused by her decision to hide the Vale army from Jon.  

Third, you can actually like a character while understanding that they are not perfect.  That is the whole point of ASOIAF.  The protagonists are real people, not one dimesional Mary Sues.  In fact, give me a flawed protagonist over a hero who does nothing wrong.  Personality free characters like FAegon annoy me more than a protagonist who does something dumb.

[Mandzipop]

How do we know that this has anything to do with Sansa? If Bran turns up she has even less power so betrayal will be off the cards.

He could agree to a marriage pact with Dany, after that Daario turns up and she has a one night stand with him. Technically that is a betrayal. Littlefinger could get a kitchen wench to try and bed Jon to dig some dirt. Technically that is a betrayal. Littlefinger could tell Cersei (extremely likely) and come to some plan for Jon's downfall. That is a betrayal.

The northern storyline isn't going to be isolated from the rest of Westeros unlike previous years. We know that because of the set up for Dany considering political alliances via marriage next season. If Jon isn't on that list of eligible bachelors then I'll eat my hat.

I'm expecting Sansa to be Littlefinger's downfall. And to do that she might have to betray Jon at times to keep Littlefinger's trust. Jon needs the Lords of the Vale. If Jon just gets rid of Littlefinger, they will go back to the Vale. They will be even more keen to go back once word reaches them of Dany and her dragons arriving in Westeros. I think the opening scene with Waymar Royce getting killed will become an important part of season 7.

The only known aspect of the season 7 northern storyline is that at least Sansa finds out about Jon's parentage.