Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

[Prof. Cecily]

8 hours ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

Sansa's actions hasn't made sense since season 5 when she decided to marry her enemy for revenge.  

The writers lost her motivation then and have not gotten it back since.

Ahhh. That reminds me of Robert Graves' Livia.

Claudius asks her: Why did you kill you beloved husband, Augustus Caesar?

Livia answers: I never forgot whose daughter I was.

 

Unfortunately, our Sansa is not a Livia in the making. She should have killed the lovely Miranda immediately, if possible in front of Ramsey and gone from there.

 

26 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Honestly, the fact that Littlefinger is given freedom to roam around Winterfell is baffling to me. The Knights of the Vale are Robins, not LF's, so the fact that there isn't someone keeping tabs on him strikes me as really foolish, especially since Jon knows that he's responsible for Sansa's marriage to Ramsay.

Indeed. I've never understood why Lord Baelish didn't give Nestor Royce a clap on the shoulder, praising him to the skies for his able leadership of the Knights of the Vale, entrust the Protectorship of our hero Robin to him and take ship for Braavos.

 

 

 

[Meera of Tarth]

57 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Honestly, the fact that Littlefinger is given freedom to roam around Winterfell is baffling to me. The Knights of the Vale are Robins, not LF's, so the fact that there isn't someone keeping tabs on him strikes me as really foolish, especially since Jon knows that he's responsible for Sansa's marriage to Ramsay.

That's why it's called Winterhell

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Actually this bit worked for me. First, Ramsay's superiority to Jon in the cruelty and manipulation department are so obvious that no deep knowledge of either Ramsay or Jon is needed for Sansa's advice to ring true.

Cruelty yes, but about manipulation, what is Ramsay's grand achievement in that department? I think you're confusing books with the show. In the books, Ramsay was able to save himself by manipulating people in ACOK (not that Jeyne Poole would necessarily know about it), but in the show there was no such thing. He only manipulated Theon, but only when Theon was already a prisoner of his.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Then, of course Sansa knows what Ramsay is capable of; she spent time with him, saw him in action.

What manipulating action of Ramsay did she saw? did anyone in the show actually called Ramsay great manipulator?

1 hour ago, kimim said:

She tries to warn Jon in that conversation but it all falls apart when he refuses to believe that Ramsay is better than he is at manipulating people.

Jon managed to infiltrate the wildlings and live to tell about it. What did Ramsay do that can match it? 

1 hour ago, kimim said:

The way I read this conversation was as a test. Sansa was giving Jon an opportunity to show that he would respect her advice.

What advice? "Ramsay is more cunning than you and he'll make you fall into unspecified trap" is hardly advice. It's not even a proper warning. What is there for Jon to respect?

1 hour ago, kimim said:

He fails the test when he refuses to realize an obvious truth about himself and his enemy. He thinks only in terms of protecting her; she's his little sister, no more than that.

What obvious truth? May I remind you that Ramsay's grand manipulation eventually came down to giving Rickon more than a fair chance to escape. As manipulations go, that one was as stupid as they come. It required both Jon and Rickon to act like complete idiots, which they eventually did, but that's D& for you.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

I think she understands that with him in control, she'll be relegated to being the sad, traumatized lady of WF, while he is the decider. So when he mocks her with "what should we do, then," she's silent about the Vale She says she'll save herself--ie., she's got the biggest army in the North working for her, not him, and she'll keep it that way.

He didn't mock her, his question was fair, actually his question is the most realistic thing D&D wrote in years. Any normal person would ask the same: "Okay, if Ramsay is as dangerous as you say, what should we do?", but she doesn't answer for... reasons, I guess. And I don't know where did this "Sansa won't have agency under Jon" conclusion came from. Certainly not from the show, where it was Sansa who made Jon change his mind about retirement. There isn't a single thing that signals that he's going to relegate her. Not even the war council, because she was there all the time, and in the end when two of them were alone he did say that he was wrong not to ask her advice and then - he actually asks her for advice. But she doesn't give any!

I'm really struggling to see any logic in that mess.

[Liver and Onions]

Fight every battle everywhere always in your mind, huh? I think I'm going to watch the show always everywhere in my mind. Who needs HBO? I'll make up my own adaptation.

6 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Ahhh. That reminds me of Robert Graves' Livia.

Claudius asks her: Why did you kill you beloved husband, Augustus Caesar?

Livia answers: I never forgot whose daughter I was.

 

Unfortunately, our Sansa is not a Livia in the making. She should have killed the lovely Miranda immediately, if possible in front of Ramsey and gone from there.

 

I need to read the book, but you have put me in mind of the mini-series with Sian Phillips as Livia... and how she'd run marathons around the cast in their current state.  

[Prof. Cecily]

8 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

Fight every battle everywhere always in your mind, huh? I think I'm going to watch the show always everywhere in my mind. Who needs HBO? I'll make up my own adaptation.

I need to read the book, but you have put me in mind of the mini-series with Sian Phillips as Livia... and how she'd run marathons around the cast in their current state.  

The mini-series was excellent, yes.

The books are superb.

[kimim]

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

...What manipulating action of Ramsay did she saw? did anyone in the show actually called Ramsay great manipulator?

Jon managed to infiltrate the wildlings and live to tell about it. What did Ramsay do that can match it? 

I'm not defending the show Sansa. The show doesn't make sense when it comes to this character. It flirts with "the new Sansa," without ever specifying what that is. Battle of the Bastards Sansa, though, does work. I see this discussion as an example of this "new Sansa" (assuming this is a gamer Sansa) giving Jon a last chance to be worthy of the Vale, which he fails to do.

Re "what manipulating action of Ramsay did she see," you're right that Sansa never saw Ramsay take WF, but she also never saw Jon infiltrate the wildlings; your conditions go both ways. What she knows of Ramsay: he's the guy who took WF, defeated Stannis, killed Roose, captured Rickon. Jon's her mopey bastard brother who allowed himself to be assassinated. Is Ramsay, who consistently wins, manipulative? Why yes, he is: Sansa is LF's pupil. LF's definition of winning is winning through manipulation; for Sansa, the two things go hand in hand. 

Quote

 

...May I remind you that Ramsay's grand manipulation eventually came down to giving Rickon more than a fair chance to escape. As manipulations go, that one was as stupid as they come.

 

A terrified, unarmored boy is running straight down an open field, no cover, daylight, with archers aiming for him. Odds of killing him would be excellent. Ramsay forces Jon to either move forward to save his brother, or watch as his brother is killed. From Ramsay's pov, it's no biggie. He'll kill Rickon whether Jon goes for him or not, and win the battle as he outnumbers the wildlings who have never fought against armored folk anyway. Releasing Rickon is just a cruel trick which works. As for Jon's survival: tell that to the novels, and the multiple times Tyrion survives near-certain death.
 

Quote

 

He didn't mock her, his question was fair, actually his question is the most realistic thing D&D wrote in years. Any normal person would ask the same: "Okay, if Ramsay is as dangerous as you say, what should we do?", but she doesn't answer for... reasons, I guess. And I don't know where did this "Sansa won't have agency under Jon" conclusion came from. Certainly not from the show, where it was Sansa who made Jon change his mind about retirement. There isn't a single thing that signals that he's going to relegate her. Not even the war council, because she was there all the time, and in the end when two of them were alone he did say that he was wrong not to ask her advice and then - he actually asks her for advice. But she doesn't give any!

I'm really struggling to see any logic in that mess.

 

Again, I'm not seeing logic in this mess either. I would see logic if the show allowed Sansa to play the game consistently, but consistency is an alien concept when it comes to her. I think this discussion and Battle of the Bastards in general is an example of the show keeping to the concept of a new Sansa, and doing a decent job of it. Here's the beginning:
 

Quote

 

JON SNOW: Aye, and what have I been doing all my life? Playing with broomsticks? I fought beyond the Wall against worse than Ramsay Bolton. I’ve defended the Wall from worse than Ramsay Bolton.
SANSA: You don’t know him.
JON SNOW: All right, tell me. What should we do? How do we get Rickon back?
SANSA: We’ll never get him back. Rickon is Ned Stark's trueborn son, which makes him a greater threat to Ramsay than you, a bastard, or me, a girl. As long as he lives, Ramsay’s claim to Winterfell will be contested, which means he won’t live long.
JON SNOW: We can’t give up on our brother.
SANSA: Listen to me, please. He wants you to make a mistake.
JON SNOW: Of course he does. What should I do differently?
SANSA: I don’t know! I don’t know anything about battles! Just don’t do what he wants you to do.

 

Jon opens the discussion with Rickon, interesting given what happens at the beginning of the battle. Sansa tells Jon to specifically give up on Rickon, as "we'll never get him back." It's dark advice, and Jon won't accept it. She then segues from Rickon to Ramsay wanting them to make a mistake. There's clearly a connection to Rickon here, which Jon won't see. He asks "what should I do differently," when she's just told him: give up Rickon. She's trying to point out places where he can be manipulated, with Rickon as the key, but he wants battlefield strategy. He's placed her in a frustrating position. He says that he'll listen, but doesn't, then demands info they both know she can't give.

Pretend this is the "new Sansa," debating with herself the night before the battle: should she tell Jon about the Vale army? If she does, he wins. What does Sansa get out of that? Should this unreasonable, depressed bastard lead her house?

She decides he's unworthy and unreliable. She'll take care of herself. She watches him fall into the Rickon trap, the exact thing she warned him about. She waits until he loses a good portion of his support and disappears under a pile of bodies (she may believe he's dead) then enters with the Vale, destroying Ramsay, whom she then feeds to his own dogs. She is dark in this episode.

...and "dark" is the only way I can make sense of Sansa in season 6. Sadly, Battle of the Bastards is not the entirety of the season. Mostly, the script for Sansa consists of her looking troubled and saying idealistic crap that's immediately disproved (North remembers; Glover does not). She makes huge decisions in dead silence, as she does when she writes to LF. It's all incomprehensible without some hint as to who she is now and what's driving her. In this episode, there is an explanation, but not in any of the others.

Truly, the script sucked. The Battle of the Bastards was one place where it did not.

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, kimim said:

I'm not defending the show Sansa. The show doesn't make sense when it comes to this character. It flirts with "the new Sansa," without ever specifying what that is. Battle of the Bastards Sansa, though, does work. I see this discussion as an example of this "new Sansa" (assuming this is a gamer Sansa) giving Jon a last chance to be worthy of the Vale, which he fails to do.

I'm sorry, but I already wrote that either of the two Sansas in Season 6 could maybe work on her own and in complete isolation, but in perspective Sansa's Season 6 "arc" just shows how little D&D think about what they're writing. And just to be clear, there is no "gamer Sansa" to speak of. She's just manipulated by Littlefinger and eventually, no matter what she says, her actions show that she trusts Littlefinger more than she trusts Jon. And after everything she's been through because of trusting Littlefinger, that is just ridiculous.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Re "what manipulating action of Ramsay did she see," you're right that Sansa never saw Ramsay take WF, but she also never saw Jon infiltrate the wildlings; your conditions go both ways.

Well in the show we have no idea how did Ramsay take Winterfell. In the books it was through series of manipulations and trickery, but in the show it was never revealed how did he do it. But okay, for the sake of argument let's say that you are right and that Ramsay taking WF is comparable to Jon surviving the wildlings. Well that is my whole point: saying that Ramsay is great manipulator is like saying that Jon is great manipulator.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

What she knows of Ramsay: he's the guy who took WF, defeated Stannis, killed Roose, captured Rickon. Jon's her mopey bastard brother who allowed himself to be assassinated.

I think that you're actually proving my point, because none of Ramsay's accomplishments is actually about manipulating people or fooling people into falling in his traps. Even if Sansa knew all the details about Ramsay's accomplishments, which she clearly doesn't and couldn't, there's nothing there that speaks of his manipulative skills. Maybe D&D wanted to write him as a great manipulator, but then they failed because nowhere in the show is that seen.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Is Ramsay, who consistently wins, manipulative? Why yes, he is: Sansa is LF's pupil. LF's definition of winning is winning through manipulation; for Sansa, the two things go hand in hand. 

To be fair, in argument with Jon before the battle Sansa says two things of Ramsay: that he plays with people and that he lays traps. The first part is true, he does play with people, but not in any way that is important for the battle. He plays with people that he has under full control by tricking them into thinking there is a way out when actually there isn't because he is controlling the situation entirely. That is vicious but not very manipulative, and it has no meaning for the battle. Theoretically it could be useful information for Jon, to use Ramsay's tendency for wicked games against him, but I'd never expect something so sophisticated from D&D.

About the second part, that is complete nonsense. What traps did Ramsay ever lay? None that I can remember. That is just D&D writing without thinking what they wrote or didn't wrote before.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

A terrified, unarmored boy is running straight down an open field, no cover, daylight, with archers aiming for him. Odds of killing him would be excellent. Ramsay forces Jon to either move forward to save his brother, or watch as his brother is killed. From Ramsay's pov, it's no biggie. He'll kill Rickon whether Jon goes for him or not, and win the battle as he outnumbers the wildlings who have never fought against armored folk anyway. Releasing Rickon is just a cruel trick which works.

Odds of killing someone with an arrow are great at a ten meters distance, but not nearly so on a 100 meters distance. That's just plain physics. We're not talking about simple killing, but about precise execution. Ramsay's not shooting arrows into a charging army, where he doesn't care who is going to be hit with the arrow. He has to hit a specific moving target which is ridiculous on that distance if the target doesn't want to get hit. Just ask yourself how would it look like if Ramsay shot Jon right after Rickon. He was standing there, at the same spot where Rickon was hit, so by your logic Ramsay could easily take him off.  And let me tell you, that would be simply ridiculous, because in reality you have to be a moron to get shot by an arrow from 100 meters or so. And not to mention that all Jon had to do to save Rickon was to warn him that Ramsay fired another arrow.

All this is far worse than your typical "suspension of disbelief" situation, because it requires both Jon and Rickon to act like complete morons. And that begs another question: why would Ramsay ever do something so reckless and so dependent on his opponents' idiocy? And we're back again to "20 good men" nonsense, in the sense that Ramsay does something that can only succeed if everyone else acts as morons, but eventually he succeeds because yes everyone does act like morons. That's just lame storytelling. D&D want Ramsay to be some super-villain but they really don't know how to make him like that in any believable way, so they end up doing what they do best: writing unrealistic situations for characters with unrecognizable motives and covering all that with a lot of "action" that prevents viewers from actually processing what they're watching.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

As for Jon's survival: tell that to the novels, and the multiple times Tyrion survives near-certain death.

Sorry but this is just biased. I don't have to tell anything to the novels in that regard, because Tyrion survives two battles along with dozens of other warriors beside him. Because yes, some members of winning armies usually survive, and Tyrion happens to be one of them. Yes he is a dwarf and therefore an easier target for opposing forces, but dwarfs can still survive large scale battles and by the way in both battles he was protected by expert warriors (Bronn and the Kingsguard respectively). Jon surviving a cavalry attack, actually two cavalry attacks from opposing sides, is an entirely different level of "suspension of disbelief", but honestly, I didn't have a problem with that so I don't know why did you even bring it up.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Again, I'm not seeing logic in this mess either. I would see logic if the show allowed Sansa to play the game consistently, but consistency is an alien concept when it comes to her. I think this discussion and Battle of the Bastards in general is an example of the show keeping to the concept of a new Sansa, and doing a decent job of it. Here's the beginning:
 

Jon opens the discussion with Rickon, interesting given what happens at the beginning of the battle. Sansa tells Jon to specifically give up on Rickon, as "we'll never get him back." It's dark advice, and Jon won't accept it. She then segues from Rickon to Ramsay wanting them to make a mistake. There's clearly a connection to Rickon here, which Jon won't see. He asks "what should I do differently," when she's just told him: give up Rickon. She's trying to point out places where he can be manipulated, with Rickon as the key, but he wants battlefield strategy. He's placed her in a frustrating position. He says that he'll listen, but doesn't, then demands info they both know she can't give.

I explained why the actual scene doesn't make sense and how unrealistic Rickon's death is. But please, create any scenario in which Rickon can be believably used as a bait for Jon to fall into some trap. And when you don't, just like I think you can't because it's impossible, you'll see how truly ridiculous Sansa's "warning" actually is.

1 hour ago, kimim said:

Pretend this is the "new Sansa," debating with herself the night before the battle: should she tell Jon about the Vale army? If she does, he wins. What does Sansa get out of that? Should this unreasonable, depressed bastard lead her house?

You just described a despicable person. Are you sure that that is what D&D actually wanted Sansa to be?

1 hour ago, kimim said:

She decides he's unworthy and unreliable. She'll take care of herself. She watches him fall into the Rickon trap, the exact thing she warned him about. She waits until he loses a good portion of his support and disappears under a pile of bodies (she may believe he's dead) then enters with the Vale, destroying Ramsay, whom she then feeds to his own dogs. She is dark in this episode.

...and "dark" is the only way I can make sense of Sansa in season 6. Sadly, Battle of the Bastards is not the entirety of the season. Mostly, the script for Sansa consists of her looking troubled and saying idealistic crap that's immediately disproved (North remembers; Glover does not). She makes huge decisions in dead silence, as she does when she writes to LF. It's all incomprehensible without some hint as to who she is now and what's driving her. In this episode, there is an explanation, but not in any of the others.

Truly, the script sucked. The Battle of the Bastards was one place where it did not.

If you cut out the nonsense about "Ramsay is going to make you fall into his famous traps", yes Sansa in The Battle of the Bastards can work, but only as a sick and twisted and even vile person. Do you really think that that was D&D's goal?

[TheCasualObserver]

7 hours ago, kimim said:

<snip>

I'm not sure I fully understand the sequencing of the battle. As memory serves, Sansa send a letter to LF in an act of desperation and she doesn't know if he can arrive to affect the result of the battle, nor does she know when Jon will actually fight. This uncertainty continues up to the night before the battle, as far as the audience is shown - we're not given any indication that Sansa knows where LF is until the morning after, which is too late from a strategic perspective. Timing is actually hugely important here, because whether Sansa is callously sacrificing Jon and Rickon for her own ambition or not, LF's army still has to smack Ramsay down before his whole army can retreat back into winterfell and survive a miserable siege. They have to catch him out in the open or the plan doesn't work. Leaving it to chance is terrible decision making and serves no particular purpose. Sansa smugly riding away during the battle is also dumb (she doesn't know how long mopping up Jon's army will take) and the whole set up is terrible even if Jon is just bait because the smart play is trying to draw Ramsay and his army as far from winterfell and safety as possible for the one-two punch.

Ultimately, accomplishing what Sansa wants is far easier with co-ordinating Jon and LF's armies. Her actions here aren't reliant on strategy or planning - they are dependent entirely upon the narrative convention that the cavalry always arrives in time. 

Her decision making as a whole this season is hopelessly flawed, and never more so in her meeting with LF. She doesn't attempt to hide her feelings when she sees him, makes no effort to get his help anyway and also fails to consider the possibility of talking to Sweet Robin and the Vale Lords directly for help. If Sansa is a woman who still ultimately loves her family then she is incompetent at it. If she has become a dark and vicious character irretrevably hardened by her experiences, then she's incompetent at that too.

I really hate season 6. 

[TheCasualObserver]

On 6/22/2017 at 6:59 PM, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

Tbh I gave Littlefinger the benefit of the doubt and interpreted the opening line as being about focusing on the bigger picture and trying to take advantage of every battle and war rather than just one or two short or medium term military goals. I thought it was an explanation of sorts of how Littlefinger is so successful, he fights every battle everywhere always in his mind. Any takers?  

I can't say that sounds much like LF to me. His big move in season 1, which gets the plot moving, is telling Catelyn that the knife was Tyrion's. This does accomplish things he wants - it makes Catelyn trust the Lannisters even less and increases the likelihood that peace will continue - but it was Catelyn meeting Tyrion at the inn and arrets him which really kicks things off, and that's an eventuality which LF couldn't have anticipated. In season two he goes off to sell the Joffrey marriage to the Tyrells and profits from it, but he didn't know that was on the cards until Renly died - again, not something he could have anticipated. LF stirs shit up and then reacts to what happens. He's smart (prior to season 5) but I certainly wouldn't describe him as a "chess master" type.  

[TheCasualObserver]

On 6/23/2017 at 7:09 AM, kimim said:

I agree. Problem started back in season 6, with the show refusing to make Sansa's motivation clear. That means we're entering season 7, with Sansa behaving in ways that are unresolved, mysterious. If the show remembers what Sansa did, and if the show explains why she did it, great. However, I'm not sure if the show has the time to manage that.

 

It only works (imo!) if Sansa knows LF is waiting and will arrive in time, and if she is deliberately working against Jon. If Sansa were anyone but Sansa, there wouldn't be a hell of a lot of mystery: she hides the Vale because she wants Ramsay to take out Jon, after which she can enter and take out Ramsay. She gets rid of the bastard, becomes the great power of the North, lady of WF. She's LF's pupil as much as Bran is Bloodraven's, and Arya is the FM's. It's as fitting that she would behave this way as it's fitting that Arya would kill.

But she's Sansa, hence she's good, and innocent, and long-suffering. It's inconceivable that she'd go this dark (for no reason other than that she's Sansa) despite the fact that, honestly, I can think of no other reason for her series of decisions in season 6.

But how does she know he will arrive in time? That's what bugs me. It's a massive strategic oversight. Also, as I've said before, any commander in history will tell you that communication between forces is vital. If you are trying to trap one army with two armies, they have to be in contact. 

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

A

18 minutes ago, TheCasualObserver said:

But how does she know he will arrive in time? That's what bugs me. It's a massive strategic oversight. Also, as I've said before, any commander in history will tell you that communication between forces is vital. If you are trying to trap one army with two armies, they have to be in contact. 

Never mind how an army made it past the Neck and all the way to Winterfell without Ramsay knowing.

[TheCasualObserver]

2 hours ago, The Scabbard Of the Morning said:

A

Never mind how an army made it past the Neck and all the way to Winterfell without Ramsay knowing.

Absolutely true, but at least Sansa wasn't responsible for that.

LF showing up is a blatant example of the writers forcing something to happen - fair enough, that's what all fiction is - but the situation is so dumb it infuriates me. What makes it egregious is that they made Moat Cailen important in season 4; Ramsay used Theon to get it back from the Ironborn and was rewarded by Roose by becoming his heir, so the castle even has emotional value to him. Come season 6, you can't argue that Moat Cailen would be undefended - early in the season Roose is worrying about an invasion from the south by Cersei. Then Ramsay murders his mother in law, who's relatives live closest to Moat Cailen. There's no way it would be left undefended in those circumstances. It's ridiculous. We also have to consider the stark contrast between Ramsay of season 5, a man so knowledgeable in the layout of the north he can somehow make an entire armies supplies go up in smoke without ever being seen, and Ramsay of season 6, who's shanghaied in the middle of his own terriotry by a massive army of horsemen he had no idea existed. The two are totally contradictory.

One argument I've heard is that LF and Ramsay are allies, so he just let LF occupy his fort and march north under the impression that he was coming to help. This is also dumb. The shady alliance was between Roose and LF; and Ramsay has subsequently killed Roose. So why would the alliance still be viable? In fact, the last time we saw Ramsay and LF together he was promising that he wouldn't hurt Sansa. So he does hurt Sansa, she escapes, and then shortly after LF shows up on his doorstep with an army. Are we assuming that Ramsay didn't find that suspicious at all? A rational person would assume that LF had come for revenge - he actually hadn't and was planning to do this anyway, but how else could Ramsay view it? I guess he just read the script. 

[Le Cygne]

It's that thing where the show doesn't make sense, so viewers try to make sense of it for them. It's always going to be an incomplete story, because 20 viewers can come up with 20 different ways to write the story for them, since they didn't bother.

[The Bard of Banefort]

32 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

It's that thing where the show doesn't make sense, so viewers try to make sense of it for them. It's always going to be an incomplete story, because 20 viewers can come up with 20 different ways to write the story for them, since they didn't bother.

Honestly, this is the right answer for just about everything connected to the show at this point. After the trainwreck that was season five, anyone could claim that something was a plot leak, and it would be nearly impossible to disprove them. Someone could claim that Sansa gives birth to the Night King's lovechild and I wouldn't immediately discount it. 

[Liver and Onions]

Yeah, that sounds about right. When a show/movie/whatnot is like this, the explanation is either the writing is bad or they deliberately intended the characters to be dumb/stupid/evil. 

[The Fattest Leech]

Ok, I have purposely been avoiding any show info for several months because the show just doesn't make any sense within it's own world.

However, I just caught a longer HBO commercial by mistake that showed more scenes than the other clip that was forced upon me about two weeks ago. 

Um, the Mountain's armor???? 

https://goo.gl/images/G1iFGP

That armor makes him look like an "evil" Orko from the cartoon He-Man 

https://goo.gl/images/ZxXkkF

[Ser Quork]

5 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

<>

Um, the Mountain's armor???? 

https://goo.gl/images/G1iFGP

That armor makes him look like an "evil" Orko from the cartoon He-Man 

https://goo.gl/images/ZxXkkF

OMG!

[Rhollo]

He looks like a dickhead, literally.

[The Dragon Demands]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 1:51 PM, sweetsunray said:

The male director cut that scene, and instead somehow inserted a non-scripted scene about an actress criticising the author of the play. It's gotten so mysoginistic that male directors have to cut out scripted scenes and ad-lib their own to make sure that they don't provoke the female audience in the season that was called "women on top".

(sheepish grin) I *suspected* that line was an ad-lib, but I haven't confirmed it....

[sweetsunray]

the poll on which leaked plot annoys you is still open:

https://nl.surveymonkey.com/r/HWKXFJ6

I have had 123 voters so far