The North Remembers What?

[xjlxking]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

LIke they are in the books?  Yep.  I expected it.  To change the entire character of the North's relationship to House Stark, to make the retaking of Winterfell meaningless...um, yeah, that's a problem.  That's not an adaptational change that is the gutting of one of the major stories and recurring themes throughout the series.  

This is one of the biggest problem I have reading this forum. People can't seem to separate the books and tv series. Yes, we know they changed it, we know you prefer the book version, most of us do. However, stop judging the TV series based on what is different. 

I thought it was so much more in characters that the houses would not want to support the Starks. In fact, the books are the ones that are weird. They support a stark that is a child, makes no sense. 

[Gannicus]

On 6/21/2016 at 0:08 AM, NutBurz said:

"They"

You keep talking as if the North was a single thing.

The Boltons betrayed whom to the Freys? Starks mostly. They only betrayed the rest by association.

Jon offers them justice? Even if they could see through all the issues with Jon the deserter bastard and his Wildling army, Jon offers them justice for what, the Red Wedding? What about all the other meaningless battles in which their people died for the Starks?

They...Let's take the Umbers for example.

You don't seem to remember what happened.

1) GreatJon Umber named Rob The King In the North.

2) They weren't just Robb's battles, it was a war for Northern Independence. Which GreatJon just so happens was the one demand.

3) The Boltons didn't just betray Robb, they betrayed House Umber. Presumably the Red Wedding is where the GreatJon Umber was killed. In other words Ramsay's father is responsible for SmallJon's father's death. Yet we are supposed to believe it makes sense for them to be allies?

Honor, loyalty, and the warrior code is something that is put in high esteem for the Umbers. In season 1, GreatJon was demanding to lead the vanguard. What kind of person wants to lead the van so badly? Probably one who values honor and courage more than sense.

How about how he reacted when Rob called him an Oathbreaker?

I would think The Umbers would remember. They would remember the Bolton's betrayal.

 

[Cas Stark]

11 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

This is one of the biggest problem I have reading this forum. People can't seem to separate the books and tv series. Yes, we know they changed it, we know you prefer the book version, most of us do. However, stop judging the TV series based on what is different. 

I thought it was so much more in characters that the houses would not want to support the Starks. In fact, the books are the ones that are weird. They support a stark that is a child, makes no sense. 

This change isn't a tweak, it's not losing or adding a character or a side plot here or there.  It's a fundamental destruction of a huge event in the story, of the Starks retaking Winterfell.  But, then the Starks that retook Winterfell in the show are losers, Sansa is a lying, deceitful disloyal traitor who got her family's last remaning supporters killed and her half brother is suicidal and stupid.  And neither of them could even rally any supporters on their own, they needed the peasant from Flea Bottom to do it.  LOL.  

Why does it make no sense?  History is full of child kings and child heirs.  Thats, um, like how the feudal system works.

The problem with this change isn't that it's different, it's that it sucks and that it makes the unfurling of those direwolf banners no big deal, nobody cares that the Starks are back in Winterfell except the audience.  LOL. In-universe, the majority of the Northerners didn't care or for 'reasons' actually preferred the Boltons....that's some kind of cutting your nose off to spite your face storytelling there

[Gannicus]

2 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

This is one of the biggest problem I have reading this forum. People can't seem to separate the books and tv series. Yes, we know they changed it, we know you prefer the book version, most of us do. However, stop judging the TV series based on what is different. 

I thought it was so much more in characters that the houses would not want to support the Starks. In fact, the books are the ones that are weird. They support a stark that is a child, makes no sense. 

It does make sense in the context of the book.

I know about the promise … Maester Theomore, tell them! A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf's Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!

And the Boltons are also responsible for betraying many Northern Lords. The Umbers, Manderlys, Mormonts, and others lost Son's, Fathers, and Mothers at the Red Wedding. A direct result of Bolton betrayal. Why the F would they want to follow them?

[NutBurz]

18 minutes ago, Gannicus said:

They...Let's take the Umbers for example.

You don't seem to remember what happened.

1) GreatJon Umber named Rob The King In the North.

2) They weren't just Robb's battles, it was a war for Northern Independence. Which GreatJon just so happens was the one demand.

3) The Boltons didn't just betray Robb, they betrayed House Umber. Presumably the Red Wedding is where the GreatJon Umber was killed. In other words Ramsay's father is responsible for SmallJon's father's death. Yet we are supposed to believe it makes sense for them to be allies?

Honor, loyalty, and the warrior code is something that is put in high esteem for the Umbers. In season 1, GreatJon was demanding to lead the vanguard. What kind of person wants to lead the van so badly? Probably one who values honor and courage more than sense.

How about how he reacted when Rob called him an Oathbreaker?

I would think The Umbers would remember. They would remember the Bolton's betrayal.

 

Aye, the were loyal, and they were killed.

The Umber that aligns himself to the Boltons says he didn´t even like his father, maybe he doesn´t like Starks too.

And in any case - there is no Stark army for them to align themselves with, Jon Snow is not a Stark and doesn´t have a proper army . The fact they allied with the Boltons only means they were not willing to fight against them, not that they admire them. They preffer to fight some self-proclaimed Stark and his band of Wildings. the last thing they know about Sansa Stark is that she´s married to Ramsey.

They can´t see the wildlings winning this battle, they don´t have the spoilers of the knights of the vale, they have no reason to suicide for the memory of the Starks, specially when this memory was tainted by the last one.

[NutBurz]

20 minutes ago, Gannicus said:

And the Boltons are also responsible for betraying many Northern Lords. The Umbers, Manderlys, Mormonts, and others lost Son's, Fathers, and Mothers at the Red Wedding. A direct result of Bolton betrayal. Why the F would they want to follow them?

And the betrayal was the result of the Stark king being a fool. Why should they love the fool that brought betrayal and death to their sons?

[Gannicus]

Agreed there is no army. That's just the point. There is no army because the North doesn't remember. Lol

Obviously the book and the show are two different things. But It's the northern families who got screwed over in the Red Wedding and who ultimately want to justice for what the Bolton's did to them, there cause, and families.

The show is different, obviously. But it's not as consistent, impactful, or realistic. But that's just my opinion. 

 

One Bastard still seems superior to the other. I don't think it's realistic that a Bastard like Ramsay would be able to generate that type of support.

 

[Gannicus]

7 minutes ago, NutBurz said:

And the betrayal was the result of the Stark king being a fool. Why should they love the fool that brought betrayal and death to their sons?

Sure Robb made some big mistakes. He cost himself the Frey's by marrying Talisa. He cost himself Winterfell by sending Theon to treat with Balon. He and Cat cost themselves the Karstarks.

But the War wasn't lost until he was betrayed by a snake from within his ranks. They could have easily returned North to a free and independent state and retaken Winterfell. But Roose intervened. 

[xjlxking]

19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

This change isn't a tweak, it's not losing or adding a character or a side plot here or there.  It's a fundamental destruction of a huge event in the story, of the Starks retaking Winterfell.  But, then the Starks that retook Winterfell in the show are losers, Sansa is a lying, deceitful disloyal traitor who got her family's last remaning supporters killed and her half brother is suicidal and stupid.  And neither of them could even rally any supporters on their own, they needed the peasant from Flea Bottom to do it.  LOL.  

Why does it make no sense?  History is full of child kings and child heirs.  Thats, um, like how the feudal system works.

The problem with this change isn't that it's different, it's that it sucks and that it makes the unfurling of those direwolf banners no big deal, nobody cares that the Starks are back in Winterfell except the audience.  LOL. In-universe, the majority of the Northerners didn't care or for 'reasons' actually preferred the Boltons....that's some kind of cutting your nose off to spite your face storytelling there

It doesn't matter at what level the tweak is. The character are not set in stone. You have to accept that when going from a book to a tv series, things are going to be cut, things that have little impact on the story. I'm not saying all changes and tweaks were good, but they are necessary. The books has over 22 unique PoV character, you can't assume they will keep the entire world as flesh out as the book. Not to mention, movies like Lord of the Rings cut and tweaked their character INSANELY and the movies are considered to be top in fantasy genre. Think about it, you got Aragorn one of the main characters in the books/movie, the books he pursuits to become king in order to wed Arwin. In the movies, it's the total opposite. Hell, they cut out content like the Indian men, Tom Bombadil, various species, and locations. Not to mention, characters entire motivation were changed and the movies are great!! My point is, stop talking about how the character changed from book to the tv series.  By following just the tv series, the writers/directors have made necessary tweaks along the seasons that most of the decision that characters make do make sense. 

Yes, there were child kings, i did not despite that. The show made it clear that it's ok to have that..hello Joffrey, Tommen, Lyanna, even Bran was acting lord. That was not my point. Like another poster before me said, most lords were loyal to Starks as they follow Rob. However, once most of those houses that did not betray Rob lost their men, they also became weaker. Lyanna in the most made it very clear; why support Jon when they will lose even more men. Despite being loyal, most houses are likely weakened from a war with the south, and the battle in the north.

 

I understand that you or someone else will talk about how the north looks up on Honor and loyalty, but before you go there, remember the Karstarks betrayed Rob; the Boltons betrayed rob; and plenty of houses even in the books haven't stood up right away. In fact, the biggest house that I recall that preached about "the north remembers" would not do it publicly like the Manderly. Why is it so hard to believe other house may not be under pressure from farmers, knights, or even locals to so easily jump and help Jon. 

 

Again, most of the complaints aren't that the characters are making insane uncharacteristic choices. It's that there is a change between the books and tv series that makes you view the show as "wrong". By all rights, Lord of the Rings is probably the worst movies because characters are 180 degree different than the books.

[xjlxking]

35 minutes ago, Gannicus said:

It does make sense in the context of the book.

I know about the promise … Maester Theomore, tell them! A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf's Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!

And the Boltons are also responsible for betraying many Northern Lords. The Umbers, Manderlys, Mormonts, and others lost Son's, Fathers, and Mothers at the Red Wedding. A direct result of Bolton betrayal. Why the F would they want to follow them?

Luckily, the show has done small changes to make sense in the context of the show.

 

Furthermore, Boltons, Karstarks..etc that betrayed Rob killed off most of the Stark supporters; at least, most of the armies that supporter the Starks. The Mormonts follow Mon but they only have 42 soldiers...Think about how much pressure these houses are under to support another war that they may mostly likely lose. 

Loyalty is important and the north definitely lives by it. but survival is something everyone lives by as well. I don't doubt if they had the strength to support Jon, they would, but under the circumstances that the show laid out, it's understandable why many would not do so. 

[xjlxking]

46 minutes ago, Gannicus said:

They...Let's take the Umbers for example.

You don't seem to remember what happened.

1) GreatJon Umber named Rob The King In the North.

2) They weren't just Robb's battles, it was a war for Northern Independence. Which GreatJon just so happens was the one demand.

3) The Boltons didn't just betray Robb, they betrayed House Umber. Presumably the Red Wedding is where the GreatJon Umber was killed. In other words Ramsay's father is responsible for SmallJon's father's death. Yet we are supposed to believe it makes sense for them to be allies?

Honor, loyalty, and the warrior code is something that is put in high esteem for the Umbers. In season 1, GreatJon was demanding to lead the vanguard. What kind of person wants to lead the van so badly? Probably one who values honor and courage more than sense.

How about how he reacted when Rob called him an Oathbreaker?

I would think The Umbers would remember. They would remember the Bolton's betrayal.

 

Yes! You are right, loyalty is everything. That's why the Kakrstarks betrayed Rob. That's why Rob betrayed the entire north and a huge alliance. That's why the Boltons betrayed Robb. That's why despite being loyal to the Starks, Manderly doesn't just start a open-invitation sign up to kill the Boltons.

Let's not jump the gun and act as if Loyalty does not break. 

[Gannicus]

6 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

Luckily, the show has done small changes to make sense in the context of the show.

 

Furthermore, Boltons, Karstarks..etc that betrayed Rob killed off most of the Stark supporters; at least, most of the armies that supporter the Starks. The Mormonts follow Mon but they only have 42 soldiers...Think about how much pressure these houses are under to support another war that they may mostly likely lose. 

Loyalty is important and the north definitely lives by it. but survival is something everyone lives by as well. I don't doubt if they had the strength to support Jon, they would, but under the circumstances that the show laid out, it's understandable why many would not do so. 

Just because I'm critical of certain aspects of the show doesn't mean I'm not OK with change. I'll applaud positive change and boo negative change. I've done both when it comes to this show. 

Even though I preferred the way the book is handling the Northern houses, it does makes sense in the context of the show. But there are plenty of reasons for the North to remember. Let's not pretend otherwise. D&D didn't play that angle, fine. It was a great spectacle, but a little more two dimensional. It was great for the masses and not as good for the hardcore ASOIAF fan.

 

3 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

Yes! You are right, loyalty is everything. That's why the Kakrstarks betrayed Rob. That's why Rob betrayed the entire north and a huge alliance. That's why the Boltons betrayed Robb. That's why despite being loyal to the Starks, Manderly doesn't just start a open-invitation sign up to kill the Boltons.

Let's not jump the gun and act as if Loyalty does not break. 

I maybe missing your point here.

I don't see why that would make the Umbers, Manderly's, or anyone else any less mad at the Bolton's for screwing them over. Sure you can try to say Rob screwed them over with his mistakes. But that's disingenuous. The Boltons ordered other northern lords to be killed. Rob made childish mistakes. I think the two are very different.

And yeah loyalty breaks sometimes, but there is something I found really cool about a Northern's oath meaning more. It's cool that the Manderly's word has been good for over a1000 years. The show is different, and it's allowed to be.

[Cas Stark]

10 hours ago, xjlxking said:

It doesn't matter at what level the tweak is. The character are not set in stone. You have to accept that when going from a book to a tv series, things are going to be cut, things that have little impact on the story. I'm not saying all changes and tweaks were good, but they are necessary. The books has over 22 unique PoV character, you can't assume they will keep the entire world as flesh out as the book. Not to mention, movies like Lord of the Rings cut and tweaked their character INSANELY and the movies are considered to be top in fantasy genre. Think about it, you got Aragorn one of the main characters in the books/movie, the books he pursuits to become king in order to wed Arwin. In the movies, it's the total opposite. Hell, they cut out content like the Indian men, Tom Bombadil, various species, and locations. Not to mention, characters entire motivation were changed and the movies are great!! My point is, stop talking about how the character changed from book to the tv series.  By following just the tv series, the writers/directors have made necessary tweaks along the seasons that most of the decision that characters make do make sense. 

Yes, there were child kings, i did not despite that. The show made it clear that it's ok to have that..hello Joffrey, Tommen, Lyanna, even Bran was acting lord. That was not my point. Like another poster before me said, most lords were loyal to Starks as they follow Rob. However, once most of those houses that did not betray Rob lost their men, they also became weaker. Lyanna in the most made it very clear; why support Jon when they will lose even more men. Despite being loyal, most houses are likely weakened from a war with the south, and the battle in the north.

 

I understand that you or someone else will talk about how the north looks up on Honor and loyalty, but before you go there, remember the Karstarks betrayed Rob; the Boltons betrayed rob; and plenty of houses even in the books haven't stood up right away. In fact, the biggest house that I recall that preached about "the north remembers" would not do it publicly like the Manderly. Why is it so hard to believe other house may not be under pressure from farmers, knights, or even locals to so easily jump and help Jon. 

 

Again, most of the complaints aren't that the characters are making insane uncharacteristic choices. It's that there is a change between the books and tv series that makes you view the show as "wrong". By all rights, Lord of the Rings is probably the worst movies because characters are 180 degree different than the books.

Your wrong.  The major complaint for the last two seasons is that YES the characters are making insane choices, and this is most obvious and problematic in the Northern story.  Where all of the characters act nonsensically almost all the time.

It's fine if people think it's more realistic that the North prefers the Boltons, I think it as I have said now numerous times that it cuts the heart out of the story and demeans the victory.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Your wrong.  The major complaint for the last two seasons is that YES the characters are making insane choices, and this is most obvious and problematic in the Northern story.  Where all of the characters act nonsensically almost all the time.

It's fine if people think it's more realistic that the North prefers the Boltons, I think it as I have said now numerous times that it cuts the heart out of the story and demeans the victory.

It was established on the show that the Northern Lords are essentially self serving, and are more interested in their own survival than anything else. There was no 'preferring', not sure why you use that word. Lord Glover 'preferred' to survive rather than risk everything so some bastard and a girl could retake Winterfell. Thats not because he loved the Boltons, he just didn't want to fight and lose everything. 

[King Perkis]

11 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Aye, the were loyal, and they were killed.

The Umber that aligns himself to the Boltons says he didn´t even like his father, maybe he doesn´t like Starks too.

And in any case - there is no Stark army for them to align themselves with, Jon Snow is not a Stark and doesn´t have a proper army . The fact they allied with the Boltons only means they were not willing to fight against them, not that they admire them. They preffer to fight some self-proclaimed Stark and his band of Wildings. the last thing they know about Sansa Stark is that she´s married to Ramsey.

They can´t see the wildlings winning this battle, they don´t have the spoilers of the knights of the vale, they have no reason to suicide for the memory of the Starks, specially when this memory was tainted by the last one.

The problem with this is there is not enough background story to justify Smalljon's actions. All we have is him telling Ramsey he wanted his father to die. So, judging by the story, show and books, Smalljon was a somewhat impressive warrior and even though we don't see him in the show until this season we can assume he would have gone to war with BigJon (thats based off the fact that Karstark brought all his sons along with numerous other Northern Lords) and would have witnessed a majority of the war and been influenced by his father. Now in Ramseys case, He sat home because he was  bastard and it was known in the books and show, he was a bastard, he only sought his father's favor, and his father had a lot of contempt for the Starks and Robb (therefore, to impress daddy have contempt for Starks, which led to sacking Winterfell). In Smalljon's case, like I said we can assume he fought in the war on Jon's side, his father fought for independence and declared the KitN, and his father died at the Red Wedding (where the Boltons/Freys/Lannisters broke guest rights and the very next episode had Tyrion setting the stage for the North Remembers). So the fact that there is enough background and culture in the story, show and book, to represent how a Northern son who's dad died should have acted in the North post war and then to see Smalljon just be like, "ya fuck it, Starks blow and daddy was the worse, so I'll throw my lot in with you," was literally only done to have Jon and company look like they would lose. That is it. Smalljon as he was doesn't make logical sense in the story without more of a background story.

[King Perkis]

46 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

It was established on the show that the Northern Lords are essentially self serving, and are more interested in their own survival than anything else. There was no 'preferring', not sure why you use that word. Lord Glover 'preferred' to survive rather than risk everything so some bastard and a girl could retake Winterfell. Thats not because he loved the Boltons, he just didn't want to fight and lose everything. 

And that doesn't make sense. Glover could see fighting for Jon and Sansa had a low probability of survival but he decided he had a better probability of survival by throwing in with Boltons who will have the crown/Lannisters/Tyrells coming to reclaim Sansa at some point (glover is probably not aware of what's going on in KL, so it would make sense for him to believe those 3 would come for Sansa).

[Cas Stark]

After Ramsay flayed alive two nobles for not paying their taxes quickly enough and killing his father, brother and step mother.....you would think even a moderately intelligent person would be able to determine that

(1) marriage to Sansa ended the Lannister alliance so Boltons are on their own, and it's only a matter of time before he is deposed.

(2) Ramsay is no one you want as your liege lord

[xjlxking]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Your wrong.  The major complaint for the last two seasons is that YES the characters are making insane choices, and this is most obvious and problematic in the Northern story.  Where all of the characters act nonsensically almost all the time.

It's fine if people think it's more realistic that the North prefers the Boltons, I think it as I have said now numerous times that it cuts the heart out of the story and demeans the victory.

No, you are just completely ignoring what I just wrote to once again point out something I was reaponding to

what is inconsistent? Stannis burning his daughter? Like he was willing to kill her before? How he killed his brother? 

Where did I say the north prefers the boltons. Neither the show nor I said that; I said the north might be loyal but he weaker houses lost most of their man power, they are in fear as the show has pointed out more than once.

instead most of the complaints stem from the fact that the characters are differently from their book counterparts but in the context of the show, the are very consistent and in context.

like I said before, if you compare Aragorn movie to book, he is completely inconsistent but if you compare them from book to book or movie to movie, completely consistent.

[King Perkis]

13 hours ago, xjlxking said:

I understand that you or someone else will talk about how the north looks up on Honor and loyalty, but before you go there, remember the Karstarks betrayed Rob; the Boltons betrayed rob; and plenty of houses even in the books haven't stood up right away. In fact, the biggest house that I recall that preached about "the north remembers" would not do it publicly like the Manderly. Why is it so hard to believe other house may not be under pressure from farmers, knights, or even locals to so easily jump and help Jon. 
 

As I wrote above about the Umbers, there was not enough background info. to just assume Smalljon would betray Starks in this instance but quite the opposite. Karstarks turned because Lord killed, we knew this would happen, it was explained before Robb cut his head off, etc. In the show, we gather from Roose and other characters that Roose is not to be trusted. He has contempt for the Stark way and we can gather from convo. that his son feels the same. In regards to Smalljon, it is literally the opposite. We have all of his father's actions and we can assume Smalljon would be the same but no. He appears out of the blue after 5 seasons and says, "f my dad, I'm with you Ramsey." The show did not do one piece of character development in regards to his character but did enough of BigJon for us to assume the opposite action by Smalljon. That is the problem I am having with the shows decision.

[Cas Stark]

Just now, xjlxking said:

No, you are just completely ignoring what I just wrote to once again point out something I was reaponding to

what is inconsistent? Stannis burning his daughter? Like he was willing to kill her before? How he killed his brother? 

Where did I say the north prefers the boltons. Neither the show nor I said that; I said the north might be loyal but he weaker houses lost most of their man power, they are in fear as the show has pointed out more than once.

instead most of the complaints stem from the fact that the characters are differently from their book counterparts but in the context of the show, the are very consistent and in context.

like I said before, if you compare Aragorn movie to book, he is completely inconsistent but if you compare them from book to book or movie to movie, completely consistent.

No, most of the complaints center around bad writing and plots that would be stupid in a B action movie.  The majority of complaints do not even focus on book differences no matter how often you say this, it's not true. 

The North DOES prefer the Boltons, if they did not prefer the Boltons they would support the Starks.  If you refuse to support the Starks then you are by default supporting the Boltons. There is no way around it.  It doesn't matter what reasons are given, the fact is that if you will not help the Starks then you are supporting the Boltons. 

I said nothing about inconsistency, I said the Northern plot is full of nonsense. Sansa agreeing to marry Ramsay 'for revenge' is nonsense.  LF giving Sansa to the Boltons for nothing tangible in return is nonsense.  The Boltons openly breaking the Lannister alliance to marry Sansa to Ramsay and allow LF to leave the North alive is nonsense.  Brienne not telling Sansa that the 'man ' with Arya was the Hound is nonsense.  Sansa refusing the Vale army, then asking for it, then lying to her brother about it is triple nonsense.  I could list another half dozen plot developments that are equally nonsensical....