Katerine459

[SPOILERS thru S7] Where did the show go wrong?

70 posts in this topic

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Words have to have meaning. Either in its common usage or by its dictionary definition fan fiction does not mean what your saying it means. 

And i think thinking of this as fan fiction leads to an analytical mistake. 99% of people who watch the show will never read the books so its actually not that important for the show as its own work of art that the characters reflect the books. They can be changed for what the show needs them. The established world they have to respect is not the established world of the books but rather that of the show. 

What is important is that the characters are internally consistent in the world of the show. A character who acts a certain way in one season needs to act similarly in another season unless there is a moment of character growth explaining the change. That is the inportant thing.

That has nothing to do with being a good fan fiction writer though and more to do with just being a good writer. 

First, the thing I disagree on:

I agree that words must have meanings. But I would contend that the definition I gave ("Fanfic: any work by fans based on a world and/or characters that the fans did not invent (and is not real life), that goes beyond the realm of pure adaptation") is the correct one, and is the commonly-accepted definition anywhere that's not... here. It's the definition that's usually bandied about here ("Fanfic: sucky, amateurish wish-fulfillment writing") that's wildly incorrect, and is very akin to defining "anime" as "porn." (Certainly there is a lot of porn anime, but that definition ignores the wide, diverse category of anime-that-is-not-porn.)

Anyway, about the rest: in retrospect, I agree that the GOT world's primary responsibility is to remain internally faithful to the world and characters as established in the show, not in the books. And I fully agree about character consistency within the show, and how that's really just about being a good writer. I guess it was just thinking in terms of how the show started out as an adaptation, and is now moving beyond that, that made me think that the show's responsibility is to be faithful to the characters and world as portrayed in the books, even if it makes some changes to the plot here and there.

That said... Littlefinger's actions still make no sense. :) He wanted Sansa for himself. And he didn't want Cersei to suspect him of having anything to do with the Purple Wedding. Both of those are excellent motivations for not giving Sansa to the Boltons. You listen to the interviews with the writers, and they just shrug it off as Littlefinger being a sociopath... as though that explains everything. It doesn't. It explains nothing. The truth is, they just wanted Sansa to have a more interesting storyline than she had in the books, and they didn't care how she got there. The truth is, this is just one example of many, of the writers prioritizing plot over characters, which is always the wrong approach. Characters drive the plot, not the other way around.

Anyway, sorry about that little tangent. Except for your definition of "fanfic," I completely agree with you.

 

12 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Totally agree. The characters have now become slaves to plot points rather than acting on their own motivations. The plot demands the White Walkers get a dragon to get through the wall and so all characters act in a bizarre fashion in order to make that happen. These Occurrences are happening regularly now.

As for the fan fiction classification, it’s always used as an insult, because it’s deemed amateurish and non canon. I wouldn’t go as far as that , the writing is based on plot points Martin has laid out and is a retelling of his story. It’s an adaptation. That is not how I view fan fiction 

Yes (to the first paragraph). Characters should always drive the plot. Not the other way around. :) 

Edited by Katerine459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Katerine459 said:

First, the thing I disagree on:

I agree that words must have meanings. But I would contend that the definition I gave ("Fanfic: any work by fans based on a world and/or characters that the fans did not invent (and is not real life), that goes beyond the realm of pure adaptation") is the correct one, and is the commonly-accepted definition anywhere that's not... here.

...

Yes (to the first paragraph). Characters should always drive the plot. Not the other way around. :) 

Your definition is still much too wide. You must include some type of "license" there, as without it, every adaptation of a work without the involvement of the original creator is fan fiction. There is no such thing as a "pure adaptation." All adaptations change something, and trying to figure out how much "impurity" is allowed in order to point out what is "fanfic" and what is not is a fruitless exercise. 

Re characters driving the plot: There is no such rule that I'm aware of for "good fiction." Fan fiction, I agree, is intensely character driven, mostly because in my experience of the genre, the fan fiction author is writing in the first place because they are fascinated by a certain character/couple/group of characters in the original work. There's no need to move from there to a place where that becomes the definition of acceptable fiction.  

Asoiaf, at its best, is beautifully paced, plot driven, with character development and plot extraordinarily well linked. Where Feast and Dance fail for me is that GRRM loses the plot while introducing/developing too many characters. The show fails in the opposite way, forcing characters to act in ways that are false to them in order to achieve a certain plot point. Neither is an ideal for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kimim said:

Your definition is still much too wide. You must include some type of "license" there, as without it, every adaptation of a work without the involvement of the original creator is fan fiction. There is no such thing as a "pure adaptation." All adaptations change something, and trying to figure out how much "impurity" is allowed in order to point out what is "fanfic" and what is not is a fruitless exercise. 

Re characters driving the plot: There is no such rule that I'm aware of for "good fiction." Fan fiction, I agree, is intensely character driven, mostly because in my experience of the genre, the fan fiction author is writing in the first place because they are fascinated by a certain character/couple/group of characters in the original work. There's no need to move from there to a place where that becomes the definition of acceptable fiction.  

Asoiaf, at its best, is beautifully paced, plot driven, with character development and plot extraordinarily well linked. Where Feast and Dance fail for me is that GRRM loses the plot while introducing/developing too many characters. The show fails in the opposite way, forcing characters to act in ways that are false to them in order to achieve a certain plot point. Neither is an ideal for me. 

Ok. Fanfic: any work by fans based on a world and/or characters that the fans did not invent (and is not real life), that goes beyond the realm of pure adaptation, that isn't specifically licensed by the original work's creator. That's about as far as I can take it, while still including works where there are broad licenses by creators who love when their work inspires creativity from their fans. :)

Pure adaptation: a work that's primarily focused on retelling a story that's been told before, which credits the source material. Variations do not exclude works from this category; only going past, or wildly diverging from, the source material would cause something to be excluded from this category.

Characters drive the plot (as opposed to the other way around) in all "good fiction," because that mirrors real life. That is probably the biggest thing, in fantasy especially - that, and world consistency - that enables readers/viewers to suspend disbelief, and to care about the characters. Without suspending disbelief and caring about the characters, there's boredom. Boredom = death for the show.

I agree that plot is important. But it should always come from the characters and the world (which is also a character, in a way) and its history. Never from the Hand of the Writer imposing its will. :) 

Edited by Katerine459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Katerine459 said:

First, the thing I disagree on:

I agree that words must have meanings. But I would contend that the definition I gave ("Fanfic: any work by fans based on a world and/or characters that the fans did not invent (and is not real life), that goes beyond the realm of pure adaptation") is the correct one, and is the commonly-accepted definition anywhere that's not... here. It's the definition that's usually bandied about here ("Fanfic: sucky, amateurish wish-fulfillment writing") that's wildly incorrect, and is very akin to defining "anime" as "porn." (Certainly there is a lot of porn anime, but that definition ignores the wide, diverse category of anime-that-is-not-porn.)

I don't know if that is true: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-promise-and-potential-of-fan-fiction

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanfiction

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan fiction

Looking at all that, your definition seems unusually broad and not at all standard. 

Quote

Anyway, about the rest: in retrospect, I agree that the GOT world's primary responsibility is to remain internally faithful to the world and characters as established in the show, not in the books. And I fully agree about character consistency within the show, and how that's really just about being a good writer. I guess it was just thinking in terms of how the show started out as an adaptation, and is now moving beyond that, that made me think that the show's responsibility is to be faithful to the characters and world as portrayed in the books, even if it makes some changes to the plot here and there.

That said... Littlefinger's actions still make no sense. :) He wanted Sansa for himself. And he didn't want Cersei to suspect him of having anything to do with the Purple Wedding. Both of those are excellent motivations for not giving Sansa to the Boltons. You listen to the interviews with the writers, and they just shrug it off as Littlefinger being a sociopath... as though that explains everything. It doesn't. It explains nothing. The truth is, they just wanted Sansa to have a more interesting storyline than she had in the books, and they didn't care how she got there. The truth is, this is just one example of many, of the writers prioritizing plot over characters, which is always the wrong approach. Characters drive the plot, not the other way around.

The Littlefinger question is a tricky once since he is truly an inscrutable character. More a plot device than anything else. He never tells anyone that he wants Sansa for himself other than Sansa. We don't get scenes with him with people who he is not actually trying to manipulate other than two: his scenes with the prostitutes in 1x07 and his scenes with Varys. Also, what does it even mean for Littlefinger to want Sansa for himself? I always got the sense he just wants her because that is just another way he can "fuck them". She is more a trophy to him than anything. If he can temporarily lend out his trophy in return for a big return such as becoming Warden of the North he might do it sure as long as he thinks he can get her back. 

I think what was weird to me about the marrying to the Boltons idea was not that he gave her up but figuring out if the whole thing actually made sense and he was going to gain from it. 

Two big things changed geopolitically at the end of Season 4. Tywin died and Stannis is now at the wall. There are a few possibilities: 

1.) Stannis beats the Boltons but then loses against the Lannisters 

2.) Stannis beats the Boltons but then beats the Lannisters

3.) Stannis loses against the Boltons and the Lannisters stay in power 

4.) Stannis loses against the Boltons but the Lannisters struggle to hold on to power in the aftermath of Tywin's death. 

In 1.) and 2.) I don't quite see how having married Sansa to the Boltons helped in the case of Stannis winning in the North. Which probably means LF was planning on turning on a weakened Stannis. 

In 3.) and 4.) Lf def comes out on top. As the Boltons are still there and he now has the blessing of the crown to take them out and become Warden of the North. In 4 he has the option of seeing how he can look to weaken the Lannisters even further which he could depend on his Tyrell alliance. 

So based on the above, I think LF was always counting on 3.) or 4.) to happen and then attacking the Boltons or attacking Stannis in the oft chance he 1.) and 2.) played out. That way he ends up as Warden of the North and recovers Sansa in all scenarios. 

Is that really that much more of a crazy convuluted plan that getting the Starks and Lannisters to fight in the hope of ending up on top somehow someway by having your benefactor killed by his wife and having his wife lie to her sister? Not sure. 

 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

The Littlefinger question is a tricky once since he is truly an inscrutable character. More a plot device than anything else. He never tells anyone that he wants Sansa for himself other than Sansa. We don't get scenes with him with people who he is not actually trying to manipulate other than two: his scenes with the prostitutes in 1x07 and his scenes with Varys. Also, what does it even mean for Littlefinger to want Sansa for himself? I always got the sense he just wants her because that is just another way he can "fuck them". She is more a trophy to him than anything. If he can temporarily lend out his trophy in return for a big return such as becoming Warden of the North he might do it sure as long as he thinks he can get her back. 

I think what was weird to me about the marrying to the Boltons idea was not that he gave her up but figuring out if the whole thing actually made sense and he was going to gain from it. 

Two big things changed geopolitically at the end of Season 4. Tywin died and Stannis is now at the wall. There are a few possibilities: 

1.) Stannis beats the Boltons but then loses against the Lannisters 

2.) Stannis beats the Boltons but then beats the Lannisters

3.) Stannis loses against the Boltons and the Lannisters stay in power 

4.) Stannis loses against the Boltons but the Lannisters struggle to hold on to power in the aftermath of Tywin's death. 

In 1.) and 2.) I don't quite see how having married Sansa to the Boltons helped in the case of Stannis winning in the North. Which probably means LF was planning on turning on a weakened Stannis. 

In 3.) and 4.) Lf def comes out on top. As the Boltons are still there and he now has the blessing of the crown to take them out and become Warden of the North. In 4 he has the option of seeing how he can look to weaken the Lannisters even further which he could depend on his Tyrell alliance. 

So based on the above, I think LF was always counting on 3.) or 4.) to happen and then attacking the Boltons or attacking Stannis in the oft chance he 1.) and 2.) played out. That way he ends up as Warden of the North and recovers Sansa in all scenarios. 

Is that really that much more of a crazy convuluted plan that getting the Starks and Lannisters to fight in the hope of ending up on top somehow someway by having your benefactor killed by his wife and having his wife lie to her sister? Not sure. 

 

Skipping the fanfic thing, because I've already modified the definition in my post to kimim. :)

I'm a bit confused. Didn't the Boltons side with the Lannisters and conspire with them in the Red Wedding? And the Boltons had the Lannisters' blessing to take Winterfell? Why would Littlefinger have the Lannisters' blessing to take out the Boltons, if the Boltons had then defeated Stannis?

Most of Littlefinger's behavior towards Cat and later Sansa indicated that he was indeed in love with Cat (in a way), and then viewed Sansa as a viable substitute now that Cat was gone. At least... that's what it looked like to me. Especially given all the lessons he taught Sansa about how to be more cunning... like he was training his future wife to become more like him. I really do think he loved Sansa in a way, and he definitely wanted her for himself, even if you're right and the motive wasn't love.

I don't know. Maybe you're right. If so, it wasn't properly explained... or really explained at all... in the show. It looked extremely random. And not at all in keeping with Littlefinger's established motivations. And I still don't get why Cersei didn't just demand that Sansa be turned over, along with any information about how she got to Winterfell, the second she found out where Sansa was. Other than, you know, plot. :angry2:

Not that I wanted a first-season-with-the-prostitutes type scene again. Ever. Again. (God, that scene was awful. There was absolutely no reason for Littlefinger to pour out all his secrets about how he was going to fuck Ned Stark to a northern prostitute he'd just met, and who he was in the process of training. It was just weird, and it took me way out of the story). *ahem* Sorry. Got a little carried away on a tangent there. But anyway, surely they could have found some way to show us his motivations, so it didn't just seem like, "Let's give Sansa to the Boltons, because plot." Like, what if the Boltons somehow found out about Sansa and blackmailed Littlefinger, so he figured out this way around it? That would actually have been in character for everybody concerned.

Anyway. Sorry. I'm just ranting now. :) 

Edited by Katerine459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Katerine459 said:

Ok. Fanfic: any work by fans based on a world and/or characters that the fans did not invent (and is not real life), that goes beyond the realm of pure adaptation, that isn't specifically licensed by the original work's creator. That's about as far as I can take it, while still including works where there are broad licenses by creators who love when their work inspires creativity from their fans. :)

Pure adaptation: a work that's primarily focused on retelling a story that's been told before, which credits the source material. Variations do not exclude works from this category; only going past, or wildly diverging from, the source material would cause something to be excluded from this category.

Characters drive the plot (as opposed to the other way around) in all "good fiction," because that mirrors real life. That is probably the biggest thing, in fantasy especially - that, and world consistency - that enables readers/viewers to suspend disbelief, and to care about the characters. Without suspending disbelief and caring about the characters, there's boredom. Boredom = death for the show.

I agree that plot is important. But it should always come from the characters and the world (which is also a character, in a way) and its history. Never from the Hand of the Writer imposing its will. :) 

I still find this an all-encompassing definition of fan fiction. If the author is dead, obviously she can't license the adaptation, which places every adaptation of a dead author potentially in the realm of fan fiction. Adapting from the written genre into visual involves huge changes and additions, casting actors who rarely resemble the characters in the original. Again, every such adaptation is potentially fan fiction.How much diversion qualifies as "wild" diversion? How to define "variation"? It's too uncertain and subjective, and erases fan fiction as a genre.

Your definition of character driven fiction is also too broad in that I can think of no work of fiction, of any quality, that does not fit. Characters do things and x happens. X happens (this fits, as you include setting as a character) and characters do things, and that leads to other characters doing other things. Possibly what you mean is that you're less interested in characters "doing" things than in characters just being or developing. I find this a deeply subjective take on what makes for great fiction, but then I don't believe that there's a definition of great fiction. If you ask me what work will be remembered in the future, I'd say hope for an afterlife in which to find out. There's no way of telling right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimim said:

Your definition of character driven fiction is also too broad in that I can think of no work of fiction, of any quality, that does not fit. Characters do things and x happens. X happens (this fits, as you include setting as a character) and characters do things, and that leads to other characters doing other things.

That is in fact how it's supposed to work. That would be my point. :) It doesn't work when characters don't act consistently with their history and their motivations, in order to more easily further the plot, which is usually referred to as "plot driving the characters." That's what's bad.

Well-written characters, like the ASOIAF characters, have minds of their own. If you try to write them doing something they wouldn't do in that situation, a good author can feel resistance to the idea, and will heed it. A good author will prioritize knowing the characters, and staying faithful to them (faithful in the sense that they don't write them doing something they wouldn't do, or saying something they wouldn't say), over plot. Not that plot doesn't matter, but it must evolve naturally from the characters doing what they would do. That's what it means to have the characters drive the plot.

It sometimes means giving up on plots, or taking a longer road to them, if the characters don't want to comply right away. Characters come first. Always.

Quote

Possibly what you mean is that you're less interested in characters "doing" things than in characters just being or developing.

I get the feeling this is all based on a misunderstanding. This is character-centric fiction, and you're right; that's subjective. What I'm talking about is the distinction between "characters driving the plot" (good) vs. "plot driving the characters" (bad), and the thought processes, on the part of the writer, that lead to each of those scenarios.

Edited by Katerine459
removed quoted text to make it clearer what I was replying to, and added a section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Skipping the fanfic thing, because I've already modified the definition in my post to kimim. :)

I'm a bit confused. Didn't the Boltons side with the Lannisters and conspire with them in the Red Wedding? And the Boltons had the Lannisters' blessing to take Winterfell? Why would Littlefinger have the Lannisters' blessing to take out the Boltons, if the Boltons had then defeated Stannis?

There is a scene in 5x06 between Cersei and LF where he “informs” Cersei that the Boltons have betrayed the crown and have been sheltering Sansa. There Cersei authorizes him to take the Knights of the Vale up North to beat the Boltons and names him Warden of the North if he succeeds. 

2 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Most of Littlefinger's behavior towards Cat and later Sansa indicated that he was indeed in love with Cat (in a way), and then viewed Sansa as a viable substitute now that Cat was gone. At least... that's what it looked like to me. Especially given all the lessons he taught Sansa about how to be more cunning... like he was training his future wife to become more like him. I really do think he loved Sansa in a way, and he definitely wanted her for himself, even if you're right and the motive wasn't love.

Its hard to think what he had towards Cat was love in any real sense of the word. He conspired to involve her family in a war and betrayed her husband. He pretty much destroyed her life. I don’t think we can take anything he does at face value. Even when he is being “nice” to Sansa not sure we can trust that as exhibiting any actual emotions as most humans understand the term. 

2 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

I don't know. Maybe you're right. If so, it wasn't properly explained... or really explained at all... in the show. It looked extremely random. And not at all in keeping with Littlefinger's established motivations. And I still don't get why Cersei didn't just demand that Sansa be turned over, along with any information about how she got to Winterfell, the second she found out where Sansa was. Other than, you know, plot. :angry2:

Demand how? To demand and expect a response you need to be willing to send troops otherwise the demand is empty. She does send troops. She is just stupid and sends LF. Lol. But was that actually more stupid than arming the faith militant? Seems like the same type of Cersei arrogant move of only seeing the threat from other nobles and not recognizing how people you consider less than and who you have raised up can actually be a threat to you. 

2 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Not that I wanted a first-season-with-the-prostitutes type scene again. Ever. Again. (God, that scene was awful. There was absolutely no reason for Littlefinger to pour out all his secrets about how he was going to fuck Ned Stark to a northern prostitute he'd just met, and who he was in the process of training. It was just weird, and it took me way out of the story). *ahem*

That scene was weird. Felt like he was talking to the audience. 

2 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Sorry. Got a little carried away on a tangent there. But anyway, surely they could have found some way to show us his motivations, so it didn't just seem like, "Let's give Sansa to the Boltons, because plot." Like, what if the Boltons somehow found out about Sansa and blackmailed Littlefinger, so he figured out this way around it? That would actually have been in character for everybody concerned.

Anyway. Sorry. I'm just ranting now. :) 

Seemed in character to me to the extent Littlefinger is even a character. I am not sure he is an actual character and more just a plot device to foment conflict and push the plot along because “chaos” and “fuck them” and “men risk so little” blah blah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

I get the feeling this is all based on a misunderstanding. This is character-centric fiction, and you're right; that's subjective. What I'm talking about is the distinction between "characters driving the plot" (good) vs. "plot driving the characters" (bad), and the thought processes, on the part of the writer, that lead to each of those scenarios.

I react knee-jerk to any theory on what a good fiction should be, lol.

Anyhow, without coming up with a theory, I do agree that the problem with the show is that the characters are forced to act in false ways in order to achieve a plot point. Now...this is not making a judgment on whether character-centric fiction is superior to anything else. Problem here is grade school: If you're going to have Arya turn against Sansa, then provide a motivation. Just having Arya come up and attack Sansa, out of the blue, is ridiculous. Shittiest (in my opinion!) show will do that much. If you're going to have a character do something extreme--Sansa hides an entire army from her bro--then come up with a reason, and follow through. This is the kind of thing the the worst soap opera is capable of, but the show forgets all about it. If you're going to tout the "new Sansa," down to having her parade around in her black feathery outfit, then WRITE THAT SANSA. And if you can't write her into the script, do not tout the new Sansa. Basic stuff. Nothing deep.

The show kept failing on the most basic level. It's frustrating.

Edited by kimim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimim said:

I react knee-jerk to any theory on what a good fiction should be, lol.

Anyhow, without coming up with a theory, I do agree that the problem with the show is that the characters are forced to act in false ways in order to achieve a plot point. Now...this is not making a judgment on whether character-centric fiction is superior to anything else. Problem here is grade school: If you're going to have Arya turn against Sansa, then provide a motivation. Just having Arya come up and attack Sansa, out of the blue, is ridiculous. Shittiest (in my opinion!) show will do that much. If you're going to have a character do something extreme--Sansa hides an entire army from her bro--then come up with a reason, and follow through. This is the kind of thing the the worst soap opera is capable of, but the show forgets all about it. If you're going to tout the "new Sansa," down to having her parade around in her black feathery outfit, then WRITE THAT SANSA. And if you can't write her into the script, do not tout the new Sansa. Basic stuff. Nothing deep.

The show kept failing on the most basic level. It's frustrating.

Sansa and the army of the vale thing was very confusing.

its still not clear to me if she knew they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was adopting Ramsey’s tactics or if she didn’t know they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was ashamed to tell Jon about how she asked the man who sold her to her rapist for help and implied she would marry him to get him to come. Or if she knew they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was ashamed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

First post here from a long time lurker.

I truly enjoyed season 5 and 6. However season 7 was a disappointment.

I somehow understand LFs motives. He wants to sit on that throne or at least get power. He also seems to love Cat. I can find few reasons for LF to give Sansa to the Boltons - alliance with them, conspire against them with the Lannisters, keep control of The Vale. He has The North targeted. Take out the Boltons when comfortable. Later he can win back Sansas trust as he actually did when he showed up for the attack of Winerfell.

Up until that point the show ran well according to me and for me season 6 episodes 9 and 10 were one of the best. However even at the start of Season 7 episode 1 you could see it felt weird. There were scene with Daenerys, Varys and Tyrion that felt very unnatural. There was a feel they wanted to create a deep and meaningful discussion but it was just not happening. There were a lot of one liners. And the entire plot of the season was just plain bad from the moment they decided to create a suicide squad. 

I cant understand the logic behind few things such as:

 They obviously wanted a death dragon for the NK. It could have been easier for them to make a massive attack on the wall, in which the North defends but looses. While Daenerys comes to help, but loses a Dragon so they all flee to WF and then to KL to ask Cercei for help. If The Wall has fallen from the NK there would be a bigger motive for Cercei to join them, than showing her a zombie.

The LF plot. It just did not make sense. Why he even stay in WF if Sansa rejected him and he saw no way of marrying her? Did Brandon increase his interest? If so why they did not show more scenes of LF trying to manipulate Brandon, rather than him trying to make enemies of Sansa and Arya. To make the plot more believable they had to have LF leave Winterfell and go to Cercei or him trying to manipulate Brandon but failing. There was no logic at all for him create drama between Sansa and Arya. Or at least I could not find any.

They could have put more effort in the John and Daenerys love affair and all the dialogues between them. Or it could have been easier if Tyrion worked it out for them by reminding Dani why she left Darioo and that John Snow as a king of the North is not a bad match. She should slide right :)

Other than that, the rest of season 7 was good. Just few main plots did not make sense and could have been made way more logical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

There is a scene in 5x06 between Cersei and LF where he “informs” Cersei that the Boltons have betrayed the crown and have been sheltering Sansa. There Cersei authorizes him to take the Knights of the Vale up North to beat the Boltons and names him Warden of the North if he succeeds. 

Oh. Thanks - I'd forgotten all about that. :) Ok, that makes quite a bit more sense. Still quite a gamble on LF's part. Not that he's not a gambler, but still... he had no way of knowing that Cersei would just be satisfied with his version of events, and that she wouldn't send a raven to Winterfell demanding that Sansa be returned to KL... or that the Boltons wouldn't comply. Or worse, let Cersei know exactly how Sansa came to Winterfell in the first place. Or both.

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Its hard to think what he had towards Cat was love in any real sense of the word. He conspired to involve her family in a war and betrayed her husband. He pretty much destroyed her life. I don’t think we can take anything he does at face value. Even when he is being “nice” to Sansa not sure we can trust that as exhibiting any actual emotions as most humans understand the term. 

I think he viewed Cat as a prize. Which is in keeping, not only of his psychology, but also the social politics of the time. I also think he'd deluded himself into thinking that Cat secretly loved him, and would be free to love him openly if he got rid of Ned. You can see it in his face when he gave Cat Ned's bones; he was genuinely shocked when Cat started screaming and throwing things at him. Like it never occurred to him that she might actually be angry with him, or that she might actually have loved Ned.

But the point is, whatever else they were, Cat, and later Sansa, were definitely more than just... pawns... to him. And he wasn't just "nice" to Sansa... he also taught her things.

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Demand how? To demand and expect a response you need to be willing to send troops otherwise the demand is empty. She does send troops. She is just stupid and sends LF. Lol. But was that actually more stupid than arming the faith militant? Seems like the same type of Cersei arrogant move of only seeing the threat from other nobles and not recognizing how people you consider less than and who you have raised up can actually be a threat to you. 

Demand by raven, for starters. I agree about the rest. :) 

18 hours ago, jcmontea said:

That scene was weird. Felt like he was talking to the audience. 

Seemed in character to me to the extent Littlefinger is even a character. I am not sure he is an actual character and more just a plot device to foment conflict and push the plot along because “chaos” and “fuck them” and “men risk so little” blah blah. 

Yes, most of the character stuff is what I fill into the blanks, or what comes from the books, not what's actually in the show. :( Basically, I think he was obsessed with Cat, and saw Ned as a rival for her affections, so he wanted to get rid of Ned, without Cat suspecting. First mission accomplished (almost). Then she died, so his next mission was to steal Sansa away for himself. And also to climb the ladder. So far, so good. But once he's got Sansa... that's when his actions start to make no sense whatsoever.

And again, LF's just one example. Of many. Don't even get me started on Jon leaving the Night's Watch. :) Others have already said all there is to say about Sansa and Arya in S7 (the only words I can muster are, "what the hell?") And Tyrion, and Dany, and... yeah. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Yes, most of the character stuff is what I fill into the blanks, or what comes from the books, not what's actually in the show. :(

To act out of character they have to act out of character with how they are portrayed in the show. If they are not acting in line with the books or with head cannon than how can we say its out of character? 

>And again, LF's just one example. Of many. Don't even get me started on Jon leaving the Night's Watch. :) Others have already said all there is to say about Sansa and Arya in S7 (the only words I can muster are, "what the hell?") And Tyrion, and Dany, and... yeah. *sigh*

Most of the time when people say the character acted out of character all it means is they didn’t act like they think they should have acted. When i read ADWD i was super frustrated with how Dany acted. I thought it was a big regression from what we had been shown in ASOS because she didn’t seem to be a kick ass conqueror and was more acting like a little girl. Was she out of character? Was it inconsistent characterization? Or did I just not like that she was getting bogged down and making compromises with slavers? Its really tough to say. 

Regarding the examples you site:

Jon leaving the Nw: who is to say its out of character? Have we seen Jon get killed before by his own brothers? Its a totally unique situation and he is clearly traumatized by it. Why are we so certain the experience of being betrayed and murdered wouldn’t lead Jon to leave? 

Sansa and Arya: who is to say they acted out of character? How would you treat your sister if you found out she was a serial killer? Is there some playbook where we know how Sansa would resond to that? Regarding Arya, this is a girl who is a hot head, who is clearly psycologically damaged and still figuring out what it means to be Arya Stark and who hated her sister the last time we saw them together and was resentful of her for siding with the Lannisters? How is she supposed to act when she is both reminded of her past “betrayl” and clearly does not seem to be backing Jon 100%? 

Its tough to say for me personally. Was is really out of character or did we just not like that they were fighting again? 

Tyrion: did he really act out of character? There are scenes in season 2 and 3 where he is clearly contemptous of his sister and thinks he is so much better and smarter than her. Is it out of character that he would truly underestimate her? We have scenes in season 3 where he argues with tywin about taking a softer gentler approach. Is it surprising he would do that here? We have a scene in season 6 where he is clearly saddened by having no friends and being alone. Is it surprising he would try to keep some of his family members alive? 

I don’t really have answers to those questions but I do think we tend to be way too quick to jump to the out of character explanation. The more I think about it the more I think its less a question of out of character and more a question of not really liking what they are doing and perhaps more importantly because of the quick pace of the season we don’t spend as much time with the characters as they make these big decisions so it all feels very abrupt. 

EDIt: Dany i am not sure why you think she acted out of character. Was there something specific?

 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

 

Sansa and Arya: who is to say they acted out of character? How would you treat your sister if you found out she was a serial killer? Is there some playbook where we know how Sansa would resond to that? Regarding Arya, this is a girl who is a hot head, who is clearly psycologically damaged and still figuring out what it means to be Arya Stark and who hated her sister the last time we saw them together and was resentful of her for siding with the Lannisters? How is she supposed to act when she is both reminded of her past “betrayl” and clearly does not seem to be backing Jon 100%? 

Its tough to say for me personally. Was is really out of character or did we just not like that they were fighting again? 

 

:agree:

 

The main issue for me of the WF plot was the writers will to have a big twisty line at the beginning of LF "trial"  (how do you answer.... Lord Baelish). So they didn't show 3 important scenes which happened earlier  : Sansa/Bran where Bran told her about the previous LF betrayals, Sansa/Arya/Bran where they decided to execute him and Sansa/Royce where they planned the trial. With these scenes the plot would have been consistent for me, but then no surprise...

Edited by valgrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Sansa and the army of the vale thing was very confusing.

its still not clear to me if she knew they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was adopting Ramsey’s tactics or if she didn’t know they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was ashamed to tell Jon about how she asked the man who sold her to her rapist for help and implied she would marry him to get him to come. Or if she knew they were coming and didn’t say anything because she was ashamed. 

I don't know what happened. In my show head canon, she did it because she was, for the first time, acting like the "new Sansa": she wanted to destroy brother and wildlings, and nearly succeeded. But the show didn't follow through. They could have at least brought it in this season, as the reason for Arya to turn against Sansa. Nope. 

My other problem this season was Dany's decision to spare Cersei and ask for an armistice. She could have destroyed Cersei in an afternoon. Cersei was too unreliable and insane to be a decent ally. She was too weak to be useful against the Walkers. She was too unpopular and divisive to unite Westeros. Yet the season revolved around this decision, incomprehensible in itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

To act out of character they have to act out of character with how they are portrayed in the show. If they are not acting in line with the books or with head cannon than how can we say its out of character? 

>And again, LF's just one example. Of many. Don't even get me started on Jon leaving the Night's Watch. :) Others have already said all there is to say about Sansa and Arya in S7 (the only words I can muster are, "what the hell?") And Tyrion, and Dany, and... yeah. *sigh*

Most of the time when people say the character acted out of character all it means is they didn’t act like they think they should have acted. When i read ADWD i was super frustrated with how Dany acted. I thought it was a big regression from what we had been shown in ASOS because she didn’t seem to be a kick ass conqueror and was more acting like a little girl. Was she out of character? Was it inconsistent characterization? Or did I just not like that she was getting bogged down and making compromises with slavers? Its really tough to say. 

ADWD Dany was frustrating, personally, but not out-of-character - her sole experience with ruling up until that point had been with people like the Dothraki, who are very straightforward, and not at all cunning. It was frustrating to the reader because we had come off of reading KL chapters, so we had long been immersed in the machinations of the court, so the idea of not seeing through what the slavers were doing was a little alien. But Dany hadn't been reading the books. She was new to machinations, and to ruling in general, and had a lack of good counselors. She relied on bad counsel (for lack of anything better) and fell for Hizdahr's schemes. I thought it was very in-keeping, and the only reason we expected otherwise was because we were used to people like Tyrion. In fact, this nicely emphasized just how much she needs Tyrion. (The show, not so much)

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

Regarding the examples you site:

Jon leaving the Nw: who is to say its out of character? Have we seen Jon get killed before by his own brothers? Its a totally unique situation and he is clearly traumatized by it. Why are we so certain the experience of being betrayed and murdered wouldn’t lead Jon to leave? 

As traumatized as Jon was by his brothers attacking him, he's far more traumatized by the Night King. He also still had the loyalty of Sam, and Edd, and would have felt the need to be loyal to his other friends' memories (Grenn, Pyp, LC Mormont). He'd also taken an oath, and while the oath said that "it shall not end until my death," and he had, technically, died... he'd been raised by Ned Stark. There's no way he wouldn't be contemptuous of technicalities like that. Especially when there was a war to fight, with the fate of the world at stake.

Nobody was calling him "King in the North" at the time. He was still just Ned Stark's bastard... to the world, and to himself. His entire identity... all his pride and honor... was tied into being a Brother of the Night's Watch. It takes more than a trauma to make somebody like Jon turn his back on that. He was raised by Ned Stark, after all. Also, he had no way of knowing that he'd be any good at all to the war effort without being part of the Night's Watch - it would have looked to him like the only way to make any difference.

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

Sansa and Arya: who is to say they acted out of character? How would you treat your sister if you found out she was a serial killer? Is there some playbook where we know how Sansa would resond to that? Regarding Arya, this is a girl who is a hot head, who is clearly psycologically damaged and still figuring out what it means to be Arya Stark and who hated her sister the last time we saw them together and was resentful of her for siding with the Lannisters? How is she supposed to act when she is both reminded of her past “betrayl” and clearly does not seem to be backing Jon 100%? 

Its tough to say for me personally. Was is really out of character or did we just not like that they were fighting again? 

Sansa doesn't bother me nearly as much as Arya. It's not so much that they fought, but how they fought. Arya starts by being suspicious of LF, so she follows him, and finds a note where Sansa pleads with Robb to bend the knee to Joffrey. She's upset. So far, so good. But the way she confronted Sansa just seemed off, and then there was the scene where Sansa found the faces. She's naturally shocked and confused, and Arya... what the hell was with that speech that Arya gave her? Why on earth would she say that? It's not anger, and it's not genuine (Arya never had the slightest wish to become Sansa)... why on earth wouldn't she just tell Sansa a bit about the Faceless Men, and about what she'd gone through? Other than plot.

My issue with Arya goes back further, though. She'd joined a cult. One with some pretty significant secrets. They wouldn't just let her go. And I don't think she was just using them... she believed in the Many-faced God, and she believed in the work of the Faceless Men. She was hungry for a father figure at that point. She'd want to stay. Regardless of what the viewer would want... she'd want to stay.

That's what I mean when I say that somebody's out of character. I don't mean that it isn't what I want... in fact, there are many things that I do, and do not, want to see, all the time... I do want to see them because they would be cool, or they would be good for my favorite characters, but I don't want to see them because they don't fit with what the character would do. I don't want to see Arya (in the books) continue to serve the Many-Faced God and become an antagonist (and likely a Walter White figure), but that is where she's likely heading, and it's more important for her to stay true to her own characterization than it is to get what the fans want.

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

Tyrion: did he really act out of character? There are scenes in season 2 and 3 where he is clearly contemptous of his sister and thinks he is so much better and smarter than her. Is it out of character that he would truly underestimate her? We have scenes in season 3 where he argues with tywin about taking a softer gentler approach. Is it surprising he would do that here? We have a scene in season 6 where he is clearly saddened by having no friends and being alone. Is it surprising he would try to keep some of his family members alive? 

I was actually thinking of other things entirely. I think he'd be inclined to think the worst of Cersei, and so he wouldn't just jump to the idea of convincing her by showing her a wight. He'd know that she'd see it and, once the shock was over, she'd try to find a way to use it to her own advantage. (Which, I think, is demonizing her a little too much, and the fact that the writers had her actually do it made her rather one-dimensional, but that's how Tyrion would see her). And his trying to keep Jaime alive makes sense, especially given the lack of any rift (on his part) in the show, but Cersei?

I'm specifically talking about my complaints, of course. There are a number of things that D&D had happen, that didn't happen in the books, that I have no complaints with, and that I even like. I know others have complaints about Tyrion freeing the dragons on his own, for example, but that made perfect sense for a pragmatist like Tyrion, who was probably also still retained a bit of his old death wish, and who was faced with the prospect of the dragons... his protector's greatest strength... wasting away. He'd also grown up wishing to someday see a dragon, and he'd studied the subject of them extensively. I also liked that Tyrion has actually met Dany in the show, even though...

1 hour ago, jcmontea said:

I don’t really have answers to those questions but I do think we tend to be way too quick to jump to the out of character explanation. The more I think about it the more I think its less a question of out of character and more a question of not really liking what they are doing and perhaps more importantly because of the quick pace of the season we don’t spend as much time with the characters as they make these big decisions so it all feels very abrupt. 

EDIt: Dany i am not sure why you think she acted out of character. Was there something specific?

 

I thought she accepted Tyrion too easily in S6, mainly. He didn't really have to prove himself to her in any real way. She'd grown up fearing the Lannisters and running for her life from Robert, whom the Lannisters served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Katerine459 said:

and then there was the scene where Sansa found the faces. She's naturally shocked and confused, and Arya... what the hell was with that speech that Arya gave her? Why on earth would she say that? It's not anger, and it's not genuine (Arya never had the slightest wish to become Sansa)

I found that part consistent : Arya is playing the game of faces at that time, so she is lying and Sansa didn't get it and loose. That's not a real threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

ADWD Dany was frustrating, personally, but not out-of-character - her sole experience with ruling up until that point had been with people like the Dothraki, who are very straightforward, and not at all cunning. It was frustrating to the reader because we had come off of reading KL chapters, so we had long been immersed in the machinations of the court, so the idea of not seeing through what the slavers were doing was a little alien. But Dany hadn't been reading the books. She was new to machinations, and to ruling in general, and had a lack of good counselors. She relied on bad counsel (for lack of anything better) and fell for Hizdahr's schemes. I thought it was very in-keeping, and the only reason we expected otherwise was because we were used to people like Tyrion. In fact, this nicely emphasized just how much she needs Tyrion. (The show, not so much)

Thats a perfectly valid intellectual reason. I just just tell you emotionally it did not seem like the same person. 

10 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

As traumatized as Jon was by his brothers attacking him, he's far more traumatized by the Night King. He also still had the loyalty of Sam, and Edd, and would have felt the need to be loyal to his other friends' memories (Grenn, Pyp, LC Mormont). He'd also taken an oath, and while the oath said that "it shall not end until my death," and he had, technically, died... he'd been raised by Ned Stark. There's no way he wouldn't be contemptuous of technicalities like that. Especially when there was a war to fight, with the fate of the world at stake.

I don’t really buy this. People are not robots. Behavior is not just a function of prior behavior or stated beliefs and values, its also a function of the situation and a person’s bio-chemistry. Put someone in a toally unique position, they might act unpredictibly. Make someone depressed which is a fairly radical change in someone’s bio chemistry, and they will def act differently since behavior and decision making is heavily driven by emotion and not logic. Jon didn’t want to live and was depressed after being resurrected. A big part of his arc that season was getting to a point where he was willing to fight and claw his way to life which didn’t really happen until he fought his way out of the pile. Would a normal jon abandon the nights watch? Prob not. Would a depressed Jon who wants to die abandon the nights watch? I don’t see why not. 

10 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Nobody was calling him "King in the North" at the time. He was still just Ned Stark's bastard... to the world, and to himself. His entire identity... all his pride and honor... was tied into being a Brother of the Night's Watch. It takes more than a trauma to make somebody like Jon turn his back on that. He was raised by Ned Stark, after all. Also, he had no way of knowing that he'd be any good at all to the war effort without being part of the Night's Watch - it would have looked to him like the only way to make any difference.

Said above but that feels like an overly intellecutualized view of things. People are emotional creatures and if you change their emotional state their behavior changes. Jon just died. The last thing he is thinking about is his pride and honor or his dad. He feels like shit and just wants to get out of their. Feels pretty human. 

10 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

Sansa doesn't bother me nearly as much as Arya. It's not so much that they fought, but how they fought. Arya starts by being suspicious of LF, so she follows him, and finds a note where Sansa pleads with Robb to bend the knee to Joffrey. She's upset. So far, so good. But the way she confronted Sansa just seemed off, and then there was the scene where Sansa found the faces. She's naturally shocked and confused, and Arya... what the hell was with that speech that Arya gave her? Why on earth would she say that? It's not anger, and it's not genuine (Arya never had the slightest wish to become Sansa)... why on earth wouldn't she just tell Sansa a bit about the Faceless Men, and about what she'd gone through? Other than plot.

My issue with Arya goes back further, though. She'd joined a cult. One with some pretty significant secrets. They wouldn't just let her go. And I don't think she was just using them... she believed in the Many-faced God, and she believed in the work of the Faceless Men. She was hungry for a father figure at that point. She'd want to stay. Regardless of what the viewer would want... she'd want to stay.

Is there any actual lines of dialogue supporting that versus just head cannon? Not sure why we should think she would want to stay at the the expense of foresaking her fathers values and killing an innocent person. 

10 hours ago, Katerine459 said:

That's what I mean when I say that somebody's out of character. I don't mean that it isn't what I want... in fact, there are many things that I do, and do not, want to see, all the time... I do want to see them because they would be cool, or they would be good for my favorite characters, but I don't want to see them because they don't fit with what the character would do. I don't want to see Arya (in the books) continue to serve the Many-Faced God and become an antagonist (and likely a Walter White figure), but that is where she's likely heading, and it's more important for her to stay true to her own characterization than it is to get what the fans want.

I was actually thinking of other things entirely. I think he'd be inclined to think the worst of Cersei, and so he wouldn't just jump to the idea of convincing her by showing her a wight. He'd know that she'd see it and, once the shock was over, she'd try to find a way to use it to her own advantage. (Which, I think, is demonizing her a little too much, and the fact that the writers had her actually do it made her rather one-dimensional, but that's how Tyrion would see her). And his trying to keep Jaime alive makes sense, especially given the lack of any rift (on his part) in the show, but Cersei?

I'm specifically talking about my complaints, of course. There are a number of things that D&D had happen, that didn't happen in the books, that I have no complaints with, and that I even like. I know others have complaints about Tyrion freeing the dragons on his own, for example, but that made perfect sense for a pragmatist like Tyrion, who was probably also still retained a bit of his old death wish, and who was faced with the prospect of the dragons... his protector's greatest strength... wasting away. He'd also grown up wishing to someday see a dragon, and he'd studied the subject of them extensively. I also liked that Tyrion has actually met Dany in the show, even though...

I thought she accepted Tyrion too easily in S6, mainly. He didn't really have to prove himself to her in any real way. She'd grown up fearing the Lannisters and running for her life from Robert, whom the Lannisters served.

Season 5 you mean? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2017 at 2:08 AM, Anythingatall said:

They needed to do something at Winterfell, they needed a "big" character death and they needed to get rid of LF 'cos he plays no role in the end game.  

A bit late to the party, but this is the exact thing OP was talking about. The showrunners only see the end destination, and shred character motives and traits to ribbons just to achieve that end, instead of realistically contemplating what the characters they've established would actually do.

I'd also argue LF in the books likely is part of the endgame, but Book!Littlefinger is smarter than the showrunners. It's been shown time and time again that when they're without GRRM's help, D&D don't really know how to write smart characters. Instead they make them go:

"Vague, vague, a wise man once said, philosophical thing that sort of reflects on something that applies to the modern day, vague, vague."

This is why Varys did precisely zero spywork this season and instead is just Tyrion's buddy to gripe over Daenerys's totally-not-a-fakeout 'growing madness', while Batfinger spent all of Season 7 leaning against the Winterfell walls and smirking before unveiling Arya's cosplay collection and taking advantage of his teleportation technology to retrieve Sansa's letter from the Riverlands. They just don't get what smart people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2017 at 0:43 AM, kimim said:

I agree that the quality has gone down, but not because it deviated from the last two novels, which I feel were as bad as the show is today. Problem is the writing, which sucks.

This is kind of how I feel. I rather like aFfC (because I'm a hipster like that, I guess) and enjoy aDwD, but I'll agree that they're too damn slow for adaptation.

The problem isn't deviation from the books, it's the writing just plain sucking on its own. It's still a spectacle and I'm still watching Season 8 out of morbid curiosity, but the show's writing has definitely lost its lustre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now