Bobby b's bobby Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Speaking of casting, can we talk about how annoying the Northern Lords coming in next season is? I don't get how they can simply ignore them as a political faction in season 5, yet bring them in for next season with any of it making sense. Every time someone questions whether the writers should have written Sansa into Winterfell, the argument that the show is founded in realism springs up; "this is what happened to young women in the historical period". Yes it did. But then they completely ignore the reasoning behind it - the Boltons are using marriage to Sansa as a way of legitimizing their rule of the north, but when the wedding arrives, none of the Northern lords are on hand to witness it, so it doesn't gain the Boltons any legitimacy at all, which eliminates the reason for the wedding to happen in the first place. Without the political aspect of the match represented, this isn't historically accurate at all. And then the Northern lords pop up next season to do the political stuff they should have done in this one, and the writers just hope we won't notice. It just pisses me off that the show makers appeal to a sense of historical accuracy in order to defend the depiction of sexual violence, yet when it becomes inconvenient to the progression of the plot, it is dropped without another word. TBH the sexual violence argument is bs as well i mean Westeros never happened and women weren't really married off as early or abused as much in real life. I agree about the northern lords though it's fucking dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 TBH the sexual violence argument is bs as well i mean Westeros never happened and women weren't really married off as early or abused as much in real life. I agree about the northern lords though it's fucking dumb. I've said it in another thread (or this one, I think). Saying that "all women were nothing but victims and were often abused in middle times" is insulting to those women who actually commited little acts of rebelion and independence during those days, as well as those men who tried to appreciate their wives. We cannot take any historical age and try to adjust it with lies to their inaccurate view in order to perpetuate a myth and justify their stupid narrative. Women in middle times were also a working force. They were capable and useful to their society. Insulting their roles in their world is more offensive than the fact they were put in a role in first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I've said it in another thread (or this one, I think). Saying that "all women were nothing but victims and were often abused in middle times" is insulting to those women who actually commited little acts of rebelion and independence during those days, as well as those men who tried to appreciate their wives. We cannot take any historical age and try to adjust it with lies to their inaccurate view in order to perpetuate a myth and justify their stupid narrative. Women in middle times were also a working force. They were capable and useful to their society. Insulting their roles in their world is more offensive than the fact they were put in a role in first place. Everything I hear women were whatever during medieval times I have to stop myself from ranting about laws and the more extreme examples of women saying fuck the patriarchy like matilda of Tuscany or irene of athens but I know it would be fruitless because if they are saying stuff like that they're likely not going to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Speaking of casting, can we talk about how annoying the Northern Lords coming in next season is? I don't get how they can simply ignore them as a political faction in season 5, yet bring them in for next season with any of it making sense. Every time someone questions whether the writers should have written Sansa into Winterfell, the argument that the show is founded in realism springs up; "this is what happened to young women in the historical period". Yes it did. But then they completely ignore the reasoning behind it - the Boltons are using marriage to Sansa as a way of legitimizing their rule of the north, but when the wedding arrives, none of the Northern lords are on hand to witness it, so it doesn't gain the Boltons any legitimacy at all, which eliminates the reason for the wedding to happen in the first place. Without the political aspect of the match represented, this isn't historically accurate at all. And then the Northern lords pop up next season to do the political stuff they should have done in this one, and the writers just hope we won't notice. It just pisses me off that the show makers appeal to a sense of historical accuracy in order to defend the depiction of sexual violence, yet when it becomes inconvenient to the progression of the plot, it is dropped without another word. The craziest thing about the whole plot from Bolton's perspective is that he wants the marriage to gain legitimacy but...because it's committing treason by not telling Cersei and Sansa, he can't tell anyone about it. So how does he gain any legitimacy from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Cygne Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 How about this: “People will complain about things because they don’t know what’s coming up ahead,” Benioff said. “ ‘Why haven’t we seen this guy?’ And I think it will be easier once everything is out and it’s 70 hours. Not that people shouldn’t complain—that’s why God invented the Internet—but I think we’d be better able to have that argument later. Sometimes we’re going in a different order or telling a different story. We think the story will all make sense at the end. Otherwise it will be eight wasted years.” At the very least, this seems to suggest there may be elements from Martin’s saga that may yet be included in the series in some form, even though they were introduced in the books at an earlier time. Or it could simply mean, Wait until this is over, then decide if we nailed it. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/03/25/game-throne-showrunners-why-lady-stoneheart The thing about order, though, is progression, character development, plot. Order actually matters in a story. But I think he's tipping his hand here a bit. They set up things, and then come back to them later. Meanwhile, everyone has forgotten what they set up. And they become very different characters, with very different stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurybia Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The craziest thing about the whole plot from Bolton's perspective is that he wants the marriage to gain legitimacy but...because it's committing treason by not telling Cersei and Sansa, he can't tell anyone about it. So how does he gain any legitimacy from it? THIS. It drives me crazy. If the Northern lords were there, and the Boltons were trying for legitimacy in the North while breaking with Cersei (in the hopes Tommen would forgive and forget the former King's death? Idk, seems like a dumb plan, Batfinger), that would be a little better, but how do they gain legitimacy by something that is unwitnessed and secret and an act against the monarchy? It literally makes no sense. People were arguing with me (IRL) that Sansa's rape wasn't gratuitous, but it absolutely is because they included it despite common sense and plot logic. It's the definition of unnecessary, and thus totally gratuitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCasualObserver Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 THIS. It drives me crazy. If the Northern lords were there, and the Boltons were trying for legitimacy in the North while breaking with Cersei (in the hopes Tommen would forgive and forget the former King's death? Idk, seems like a dumb plan, Batfinger), that would be a little better, but how do they gain legitimacy by something that is unwitnessed and secret and an act against the monarchy? It literally makes no sense. People were arguing with me (IRL) that Sansa's rape wasn't gratuitous, but it absolutely is because they included it despite common sense and plot logic. It's the definition of unnecessary, and thus totally gratuitous. I always assumed that the Boltons were effectively breaking with the Iron throne completely, at least in the short term, because the legitimacy of a Stark is more important. But from the perspective of the audience this gains them nothing and simply opens up an attack from LF and the Vale, because Sansa is never treated as a political asset, and simply becomes a victim of Ramsay. She has no impact on the resolution of the Stannis/Bolton war whatsoever. I'd like to point out the real reason the Northern Lords weren't included - because it would screw up Sansa being a total victim. With a genuine military faction within the walls of winterfell that is sympathetic to her, Sansa's power increases exponentially. Playing the victim with old friends of Ned Stark is likely to be just as effective with Northern Lords as it was with the Lords of the Vale, which gives Sansa far more options and actual political power manifested in the Northern faction. It also means that neither Theon nor Brienne would be needed to save her and the whole reason for placing Sansa in Winterfell in the first place would collapse. It ultimately comes back to the fact that Sansa is a very different character than Jeyne Poole, forced into the same plot. Logically she would behave completely differently and change the outcome, but the show doesn't want that, so it simply ignores logistical elements of the story to railroad her into Jeyne's path anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow of the Morning Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 THIS. It drives me crazy. If the Northern lords were there, and the Boltons were trying for legitimacy in the North while breaking with Cersei (in the hopes Tommen would forgive and forget the former King's death? Idk, seems like a dumb plan, Batfinger), that would be a little better, but how do they gain legitimacy by something that is unwitnessed and secret and an act against the monarchy? It literally makes no sense. People were arguing with me (IRL) that Sansa's rape wasn't gratuitous, but it absolutely is because they included it despite common sense and plot logic. It's the definition of unnecessary, and thus totally gratuitous. They twisted three story arcs just to have Sansa in Winterfell. Littlefinger was butchered, Brienne was useless (someone think her original arc in the Riverlands was worst than that) and Sansa was reduced to a tertiary character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Brienne's story sucked in the novels as well. Littlefinger was never that deep of a character to begin with. He's a glorified comic book villain. Sansa was always tertiary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCasualObserver Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 They twisted three story arcs just to have Sansa in Winterfell. Littlefinger was butchered, Brienne was useless (someone think her original arc in the Riverlands was worst than that) and Sansa was reduced to a tertiary character. It's more complicated than that. Placing Sansa in Winterfell served Theon's character over her, yet she is still the main focus of that particular story. But this simply doesn't work because she doesn't have anything to do. So at times she is angry, helpless or scheming, and none of it has any affect on the plot whatsoever. And whilst Brienne's storyline in AFFC is meandering, losing her selfless battle against Rorge and Biter is unforgivable. Book Brienne knows she is going to her death, but fights anyway to protect the truly innocent, proving that she, no anointed Knight, is the most knightly character we've seen. TV show Brienne decapitates a wounded and defenseless man for revenge. Gee whiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ainara S Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Brienne's story sucked in the novels as well. Littlefinger was never that deep of a character to begin with. He's a glorified comic book villain. Sansa was always tertiary.Are you joking? How is a major POV of all books (minus ADWD) tertiary? I'd understand calling minor POVs secondary characters, but a main character is tertiary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow of the Morning Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Brienne's story sucked in the novels as well. Littlefinger was never that deep of a character to begin with. He's a glorified comic book villain. Sansa was always tertiary. I don't like her storyline in AFFC, but she was doing something, in the show she stared a window for six episodes. The writers could make her ravel by the Riverlands and doing something interesting, if the ahow had good writers it would be possible. Littlefinger was the mind behind the War of the Five Kings, he idealized Joffrey's death. He is a major player. Sanda may not be one of the mainly characters, but making her play the role of Jeyn Poole was even worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I don't like her storyline in AFFC, but she was doing something, in the show she stared a window for six episodes. The writers could make her ravel by the Riverlands and doing something interesting, if the ahow had good writers it would be possible. Littlefinger was the mind behind the War of the Five Kings, he idealized Joffrey's death. He is a major player. Sanda may not be one of the mainly characters, but making her play the role of Jeyn Poole was even worst. She wasn't playing the role of Jeyne Poole. She's still Sansa, only she cannibalized another character's role in that part of the story because her own was so uneventful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 She wasn't playing the role of Jeyne Poole. She's still Sansa, only she cannibalized another character's role in that part of the story because her own was so uneventful. Yeah because season 5 Sansa did so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Yeah because season 5 Sansa did so much A lot happened in her ark this season, and it looks to be leading to even bigger things in season 6... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Are you joking? How is a major POV of all books (minus ADWD) tertiary? I'd understand calling minor POVs secondary characters, but a main character is tertiary? Tertiary might be a bit much but she's basically the C-3P0 of ASOIAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby b's bobby Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Tertiary might be a bit much but she's basically the C-3P0 of ASOIAF. Only there to translate for the other droid who can do everything but talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow of the Morning Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 She wasn't playing the role of Jeyne Poole. She's still Sansa, only she cannibalized another character's role in that part of the story because her own was so uneventful. Sansa arc in the books was not uneventful and they could advance her ac with material of the sixth book and they could create original material and make her arc be more interesting. I don't undertand the show apologists. They acted like the show was written by teenagers or random amateurs and not by professional screenwriters. They were supposed to know how to improve the material source when it not give so much to them or make original things of good quality. They should do much more and much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I'm not an apologist at all :lol: I thought S5 sucked for the most part. Got a million complaints with it but Sansa's story wasn't one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rise Above Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Only there to translate for the other droid who can do everything but talk? A spectator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.