Rant & Rave Season 8 [Spoilers]: When you are cool like a cucumber, as evil as the mother of madness, but never as perfect as the pet!

[The Fattest Leech]

19 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

This doesn't rise to the level of a rant, but it's getting pretty close:)

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/04/game-of-thrones-season-8-preview-hbo-last-season/586834/

I do agree w/the writer that wight hunt is probably the stupidest plot the show conceived, though the Sansa marriage to Ramsay is almost as bad.

I could quote this entire article, but this is a nicely condensed segment here:

• But they’ve also shown, ever more conclusively, that when it comes to plotting, they can’t hold a candle to prime Martin.

This has been a concern going back as far as Season 2, when Benioff and Weiss took an uncharacteristically lame Martin subplot in the eastern city of Qarth and replaced it with … a subplot just as lame. In the otherwise exemplary Seasons 3 and 4, the showrunners’ fondness for ramping up their saga’s extreme sex and violence led them to take Ramsay Snow/Bolton—a sociopath whom we heard of only secondhand in the books—and place him grotesquely, yet tediously, center stage.

The plotting continued to stumble in Seasons 5 and 6, as Benioff and Weiss were forced to depart from the books and strike out on their own, with Martin’s loose blueprint forming a flimsy net. Many of the new story lines were unnecessary or irredeemably silly (Jaime and Bronn’s rescue mission in Dorne, and pretty much everything to do with the Sand Snakes) and poorly executed (the Faith Militant’s almost instantaneous takeover of King’s Landing; Stannis Baratheon’s abrupt moral collapse).

But Season 7—the penultimate season, which aired in 2017—is when Game of Thrones seemed as though it might have finally jumped the shark … or dragon, as the case may be. It began with Euron Greyjoy—the contested ruler of a fourth-tier, much-subjugated “kingdom”—using a fleet he built in approximately five minutes (on islands explicitly devoid of lumber) to destroy not one but two of the greatest armadas ever seen in Westeros. This was followed up by the single dimmest narrative thread of the whole series, in which seven principal or semi-principal characters embarked North of the Wall on a suicide mission to capture a wight, which they intended to take to Cersei to persuade her to join them in the war against the White Walkers.

[kissdbyfire]

Another good article:

https://www.tor.com/2019/04/10/how-the-dragon-prince-replaced-game-of-thrones-as-my-favorite-fantasy-show/

“It was sometime in the third season—maybe when Theon Greyjoy was being castrated and tortured for what felt like hours—that I turned to my husband and mused, “You know… I’m not enjoying this.” The castration scene, which is nowhere to be found in the books, was hardly the first of its kind: The showrunners seem to delight in presenting pain and suffering in graphic detail. The gleeful sadism of this particular scene—in which Theon is teased into an eager erection by a couple of temptresses as an unwitting prelude to his castration—was the straw that began to break me. I started to notice that more and more, the showrunners were eschewing Martin’s smart dialogue. I noticed that most scenes between two characters had a tendency to end with either a stabbing or a sex act, with numbing predictability. I noticed showrunner David Benioff’s comment in an interview: “Themes are for eighth grade book reports.” And I sure as hell noticed the choice of the showrunners, independent of George R.R. Martin, to depict the rape of Sansa Stark. I began to realize that for all the sex and torture in HBO’s Game of Thrones, its sensibility was that of a teenage sociopath. It had no maturity and no soul.

The realization was a crushing disappointment. I’m a sucker for everything epic fantasy aspires to do and be; I get chills during the Game of Thrones opening credits—easily the best part of the show—for the sheer intensity and scope they promise. If the show had delivered on that promise, no one would have been more delighted than me. But: “Themes are for eighth grade book reports.” OK, then. Message received.

[The Fattest Leech]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Another good article:

https://www.tor.com/2019/04/10/how-the-dragon-prince-replaced-game-of-thrones-as-my-favorite-fantasy-show/

“It was sometime in the third season—maybe when Theon Greyjoy was being castrated and tortured for what felt like hours—that I turned to my husband and mused, “You know… I’m not enjoying this.” The castration scene, which is nowhere to be found in the books, was hardly the first of its kind: The showrunners seem to delight in presenting pain and suffering in graphic detail. The gleeful sadism of this particular scene—in which Theon is teased into an eager erection by a couple of temptresses as an unwitting prelude to his castration—was the straw that began to break me. I started to notice that more and more, the showrunners were eschewing Martin’s smart dialogue. I noticed that most scenes between two characters had a tendency to end with either a stabbing or a sex act, with numbing predictability. I noticed showrunner David Benioff’s comment in an interview: “Themes are for eighth grade book reports.” And I sure as hell noticed the choice of the showrunners, independent of George R.R. Martin, to depict the rape of Sansa Stark. I began to realize that for all the sex and torture in HBO’s Game of Thrones, its sensibility was that of a teenage sociopath. It had no maturity and no soul.

The realization was a crushing disappointment. I’m a sucker for everything epic fantasy aspires to do and be; I get chills during the Game of Thrones opening credits—easily the best part of the show—for the sheer intensity and scope they promise. If the show had delivered on that promise, no one would have been more delighted than me. But: “Themes are for eighth grade book reports.” OK, then. Message received.

Wow, that is a nicely written article and rather realistic critique. Even the ending was succinct.

...Magic is presented as an unnatural act for humans, involving killing animals and succumbing to dark powers. It functions as a temptation both for the villain and the protagonist, but also a possible means of redemption and self-discovery. And as a series of wrenching scenes in the second season drive home, magic can present deceptively simple solutions to moral dilemmas.

...As in our world, it is perilous to forget history, but equally perilous to cling to it too much. As in our world, the people who believe in simple, easy solutions for the world’s ills are not only wrong, but dangerous.

In the second season I was moved to tears more than once by what is ostensibly a children’s TV show. The questions it poses have no easy answers. One clear value runs throughout—that of compassion. The only clear-cut wrong is to do harm to others. Everything else, from war to famine to the decisions of rulers, is presented in shades of grey. Watch to feel deeply, to wrestle with conflicting ideas, and be swept up in enchantment. In other words, watch The Dragon Prince to get the best of what epic fantasy can achieve.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Wow, that is a nicely written article and rather realistic critique. Even the ending was succinct.

Agree on all counts. And I will definitely try The Dragon Prince. 

[divica]

Reading the last posts I think I rant and rave about difrent things than most people here.

One of the things I would like to know is why D&D after season 4 decided that the northern storyline didn t desserve cgi effects nor effort to make it good.

I mean, why aren t there more Giants and mammuts? if I remember right a small army of Giants and mammuts couldn t pass through the gate at castle black and had to go to eastwatch in the books. How awesome would it be to have Giants appear in front of Southern lords and see their reactions? Why did the direwolves stop appearing? How is it possible that there only are 3 or 4K wildlings after stannis captured thousands of them and jon went to save boats full of more wildlings? What does it mean for the knights of the vale to declare for house stark? why aren t they part of the new northern kingdom?

It is like D&D don t care about the storyline in the north and just want to get it over and focus on the dragons and 100K dothriaki… I don t even get why have a king in the north at the end of season 6 when the only objective of season 7 is to have him bend the knee. And it didn t happen right at the second or third ep for reasons nobody will ever understand. I mean, jon sees that danny has 3 dragons, 100K dothriaki, 8K unsullied and the support of dorne and the reach while he has 20k (?) soldiers and is going to be attacked by dead men…. how could he ever hope to keep the north independent? Danny could conquer the north anytime she wanted… 

[Mystical]

13 hours ago, divica said:

Why did the direwolves stop appearing?

Budget. That's also why they keep killing them off IMO. And why none of the Starks except Bran are wargs. Plus, the show is called 'dragons & tits' not 'wolves & tits'. Of course if they used the budget they spend on nonsense (like the house of b&w hall of faces that is always in such darkness you can't see a thing so it's pointless budget wasting) or one less scene with dragons, maybe we'd have gotten more wolves.

14 hours ago, divica said:

What does it mean for the knights of the vale to declare for house stark?

They declared in alliance but not servitude I believe. But the show is unclear there. So they agreed to fight but not to be ruled is my best guess.

14 hours ago, divica said:

It is like D&D don t care about the storyline in the north and just want to get it over and focus on the dragons and 100K dothriaki… I don t even get why have a king in the north at the end of season 6 when the only objective of season 7 is to have him bend the knee.

Book checklist IMO. They do this a lot even though the way they do it makes no sense. Killing Jon off, was a book checklist thing. But they had no idea how to create an actual story or character development around his death, so his death was pointless and only happened in the show because it's in the books. Same with Jon becoming KitN. My guess it happens in the books but D&D have no clue how to believably get him there so pretty much everything concerning the Northern storyline is cut and Jon does nothing to earn the title. I don't get either why they make him King only to have him bend the knee after but I guess 'only a King can talk to a Queen' is the only and best explanation we will get in the show.

[divica]

4 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Budget. That's also why they keep killing them off IMO. And why none of the Starks except Bran are wargs. Plus, the show is called 'dragons & tits' not 'wolves & tits'. Of course if they used the budget they spend on nonsense (like the house of b&w hall of faces that is always in such darkness you can't see a thing so it's pointless budget wasting) or one less scene with dragons, maybe we'd have gotten more wolves. 

I can t believe that after season 4 got had budget issues. I can understand time issues, but Money issues? Got is the most famous show in the last years… they should have permission to spend as much as they want...

6 minutes ago, Mystical said:

They declared in alliance but not servitude I believe. But the show is unclear there. So they agreed to fight but not to be ruled is my best guess.

But the problem then is. What is the vale? a new kingdom? part of the 7 kingdoms but sides with the north against the IT? Doesn t it make them part of the norhern kingdom? It is just confusing for no good reason. If they side with the north against the IT just make them a new region of the northern kingdom with the arryns as wardens...

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Book checklist IMO. They do this a lot even though the way they do it makes no sense. Killing Jon off, was a book checklist thing. But they had no idea how to create an actual story or character development around his death, so his death was pointless and only happened in the show because it's in the books. Same with Jon becoming KitN. My guess it happens in the books but D&D have no clue how to believably get him there so pretty much everything concerning the Northern storyline is cut and Jon does nothing to earn the title. I don't get either why they make him King only to have him bend the knee after but I guess 'only a King can talk to a Queen' is the only and best explanation we will get in the show.

That is another thing. No northern lord cares that he left the watch? Nobody questions the existence of ww? did they have to make the northern lords the worst vassals of westeros? They are always bickering, betraying the king, oposing his orders and aparently now after seeing 2 dragons and all the dothriaki and unsulied are angry because jon bent the knee...

What was jon supposed to do? fight the ww with just the north? start a war with danny for the northern Independence? How would they fight enemies on 2 fronts and survive winter? The showrunners created a situation when the only possible outcome was for him to bend the knee but keep creating conflicts about the decision… 

[Cas Stark]

15 hours ago, divica said:

Reading the last posts I think I rant and rave about difrent things than most people here.

One of the things I would like to know is why D&D after season 4 decided that the northern storyline didn t desserve cgi effects nor effort to make it good.

I mean, why aren t there more Giants and mammuts? if I remember right a small army of Giants and mammuts couldn t pass through the gate at castle black and had to go to eastwatch in the books. How awesome would it be to have Giants appear in front of Southern lords and see their reactions? Why did the direwolves stop appearing? How is it possible that there only are 3 or 4K wildlings after stannis captured thousands of them and jon went to save boats full of more wildlings? What does it mean for the knights of the vale to declare for house stark? why aren t they part of the new northern kingdom?

It is like D&D don t care about the storyline in the north and just want to get it over and focus on the dragons and 100K dothriaki… I don t even get why have a king in the north at the end of season 6 when the only objective of season 7 is to have him bend the knee. And it didn t happen right at the second or third ep for reasons nobody will ever understand. I mean, jon sees that danny has 3 dragons, 100K dothriaki, 8K unsullied and the support of dorne and the reach while he has 20k (?) soldiers and is going to be attacked by dead men…. how could he ever hope to keep the north independent? Danny could conquer the north anytime she wanted… 

I do think that judicious use of CGI is a good thing, so I don't need to see the giants.  I don't believe it's a budget thing, given how ludicrously expensive the show.  So, no direwolves could be for a few reasons, we already know that no one on the show enjoyed dealing with live animals, so, there's that, it could also be that the wolves will all die and so they don't want the audience any more PO about killing dogs/wolves, or more simply, they don't want to bother having to write in scenes for the dog/wolves so they don't.

As far as why there have never been any Northern lords and the Northern story has been severely truncated, it could be either that GRRM didn't given them enough details to go on, that the Northern story he did give them was too convoluted for them to adapt, or that the Northern lords are closer to Dorne and the Sand Snakes in terms of not being that important to the story and since they probably all die in the end, the showrunners figured: why bother.

As far as the specifics of how these various alliances really work, the show has always been bad at this level of detail. The Vale army was there to save Jon and prop up Sansa as a player, they stayed there so there is an army to fight in the next battle, that's it.

**Shouldn't Jon have a massive wildling army by now? Garrisoned somewhere near the Wall on the South side, and also moved around WF?  Unless I forgot that Mance's army was all killed, those tens of thousands of wildlings should be somewhere? But, they're wildlings so they disappeared and no one cares....thats how the show rolls.

[divica]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I do think that judicious use of CGI is a good thing, so I don't need to see the giants.  I don't believe it's a budget thing, given how ludicrously expensive the show.  So, no direwolves could be for a few reasons, we already know that no one on the show enjoyed dealing with live animals, so, there's that, it could also be that the wolves will all die and so they don't want the audience any more PO about killing dogs/wolves, or more simply, they don't want to bother having to write in scenes for the dog/wolves so they don't.

As far as why there have never been any Northern lords and the Northern story has been severely truncated, it could be either that GRRM didn't given them enough details to go on, that the Northern story he did give them was too convoluted for them to adapt, or that the Northern lords are closer to Dorne and the Sand Snakes in terms of not being that important to the story and since they probably all die in the end, the showrunners figured: why bother.

As far as the specifics of how these various alliances really work, the show has always been bad at this level of detail. The Vale army was there to save Jon and prop up Sansa as a player, they stayed there so there is an army to fight in the next battle, that's it.

**Shouldn't Jon have a massive wildling army by now? Garrisoned somewhere near the Wall on the South side, and also moved around WF?  Unless I forgot that Mance's army was all killed, those tens of thousands of wildlings should be somewhere? But, they're wildlings so they disappeared and no one cares....thats how the show rolls.

However in the first 4 seasons the northern storyline was really well done. We even had wargs and diferent animals being warged. What happened to the wargs on the show? And was there a worse way to ressurect jon for exemple?

I can understand if they wanted to simplify the northern story like they did with sansa being farya. I know that most people hated this and while it could have been done much better I think it had to happen. I mean, there is no reason to cast a whole court in the vale and organise several locations just for sansa and littlefinger to play vale politics. THAT sounds completly unecessary… The problem for me is in the execution that made LF seem completly stupid and destroied any means of the vale making sense.

However the north is at least the second most important location in the whole series and a crucial place for the starks and any other character that acompanies them. There is no reason to not have this story well developed. The show not only stripped all the northern magic and mistical creatures that might give them a chance against the others and make them interesting but it also made the northerns the worse people in the world. As I said above I don t think there are worse bannermen in the whole story. 

And contrary to dorne that they can simply ignore because no character cares about what is happening in dorne we have a dozen characters completly invested in the north… there is a reason that people said that jon left winterfell and took the plot with him last season or that in season 6 they had to create tension between jon and sansa and the ridiculous surprise appearance of the knights of the vale… They simply never cared about creating an interesting north with a good storyline… 

On the other hand there was always Money for the dragons and they even increased the magic related to danny making her fireproof… At the end of season 6 the imbalance between danny and the rest of the world was so big that D&D needed to do stupid things to halt her invasion in season 7... I mean, we all know that cersei shouldn t have had any chance and should have been defeated in 1 or 2 eps and that after seeing the dragons jon knew he couldn t keep the north independent… For me season 5 had serious problems of execution, but season 6 was just awful. It was just a bunch of fanfictions that ruined the series. WORST SEASON BY FAAAARR.

[Mystical]

2 hours ago, divica said:

I can t believe that after season 4 got had budget issues. I can understand time issues, but Money issues? Got is the most famous show in the last years… they should have permission to spend as much as they want...

Budget is always the excuse that is used. IMO it was about 2 things. D&D don't like the Starks and they are on record saying they hate the supernatural element of GRRM's world. But how do you adapt Martin's story without those elements? Badly, is how (see Qarth and the House of the Undying). Budget is the excuse, D&D not wanting those wolves would be the actual reason.

2 hours ago, divica said:

But the problem then is. What is the vale? a new kingdom? part of the 7 kingdoms but sides with the north against the IT? Doesn t it make them part of the norhern kingdom? It is just confusing for no good reason. If they side with the north against the IT just make them a new region of the northern kingdom with the arryns as wardens...

The Vale is one of the 7 Kingdoms. And as Royce said, 'we rode north for you, my lady'. LF, Robert Arryn and Royce (+other Vale Lords) all had their own reasons, all Stark related. LF declared for House Stark in the name of the Vale (being Regent of Robert) not for the KitN who is not a Stark. The Vale rode north and stays there for Sansa but if Robert calls them back home they will go. They aren't vassals of Jon's but they are allied with the North. So unless Robert declares for the KitN, the Vale is still it's own Kingdom.

2 hours ago, divica said:

That is another thing. No northern lord cares that he left the watch? Nobody questions the existence of ww? did they have to make the northern lords the worst vassals of westeros? They are always bickering, betraying the king, oposing his orders and aparently now after seeing 2 dragons and all the dothriaki and unsulied are angry because jon bent the knee...

One Lord cared, Ramsey Bolton. It's ludicrous that he was the ONLY one who was upholding the Northern Law. But that goes hand in hand with the entire Northern storyline. The Boltons were damn good liege lords on the show. They got the Glovers their home back by driving back the Ironborne. Sure they flayed a Cerwyn but as was mentioned it was because he refused to pay taxes. Ok flaying is not nice but you are supposed to pay your taxes. It's no surprise then that Ramsey is the only one who remembers that deserting the NW is punishable by death.

Unlike the books, the North doesn't care one lick about the Starks. Lyanna Mormont didn't care about the rightful Stark King (Rickon) being held by the Boltons. But Davos was able to convince her to fight by mentioning the White Walkers which made no sense whatsoever. The Glovers got their home back and had no desire to support the house that caused them lose it. Umber and Karstark switched to the Boltons after the mess that Robb made. We don't know about any of the other Northern houses because they weren't even part of the story.

But so far the Northern Lords have not betrayed Jon or opposed his orders. As for being angry with Jon for bending the knee...well that depends entirely on S8. I was angry with him bending the knee and I'm not a Northern Lord. Jon had nothing to offer Dany so he should have done it in order to get her help or proposed political marriage. My problem was always his timing. She had agreed to help without the condition of knee bending but that's when he bend the knee. It wasn't about getting her armies anymore, it was about his feelings for Dany. PR wise that was the worst move possible as from the looks of it him and Dany will not hide their relationship from anyone. Imagine how this will look to everyone. It's why Sansa for example will ask if he bend the knee to get Dany's help or because he loves Dany. And this brings back a lot of bad memories for the North who went through something similar with Robb. Not to mention bad Targ memories. One can only hope that Jon's true parentage won't become public knowledge early on because one Targ handing over the North to another Targ...yikes. Considering how bad the Northern storyline has been handled, how badly the Northern Lords have been written, I wouldn't rule out even more nonsense in S8 though.

[Cas Stark]

I thought the show did a poor job on the Northern lords since season 3.  We never saw the Greatjon again.  Robb never had any Northern lords who were with him after Karstark. There is no reason not to have had a Manderly or an Umber or someone else.  The only people in RR in season 3 were Robb, Cat, "Talisa", Edmure and the Blackfish.

I also have thought they've done a terrible job especially since season 5.  Why weren't there any again recognizable Northern Lords at Sansa's wedding, why didn't we get any dialogue from them to help set the stage?  Why did the Northern lords tell the Starks to fuck off totally until first Davos speechifies and then baby Mormont...and then, out nowhere, everyone remembers their 1000s years oaths.  That was ridiculous.  To go from zero [Lords tell Jon and Sansa to fuck off] to 60 [King in the North] totally at random was awful. 

So, I have assume at this point, that all the book stuff people have been expecting, if it happens, it won't be that important because everyone will die except baby Mormont and some Umbers or something else that isn't important.

 

[divica]

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

One Lord cared, Ramsey Bolton. It's ludicrous that he was the ONLY one who was upholding the Northern Law. But that goes hand in hand with the entire Northern storyline. The Boltons were damn good liege lords on the show. They got the Glovers their home back by driving back the Ironborne. Sure they flayed a Cerwyn but as was mentioned it was because he refused to pay taxes. Ok flaying is not nice but you are supposed to pay your taxes. It's no surprise then that Ramsey is the only one who remembers that deserting the NW is punishable by death.

Unlike the books, the North doesn't care one lick about the Starks. Lyanna Mormont didn't care about the rightful Stark King (Rickon) being held by the Boltons. But Davos was able to convince her to fight by mentioning the White Walkers which made no sense whatsoever. The Glovers got their home back and have no desire to support the house that caused them lose it. Umber and Karstark switched to the Boltons after the mess that Robb made. We don't know about any of the other Northern houses because they weren't even part of the story.

But so far the Northern Lords have not betrayed Jon or opposed his orders. As for being angry with Jon for bending the knee...well that depends entirely on S8. I was angry with him bending the knee and I'm not a Northern Lord. Jon had nothing to offer Dany so he should have done it in order to get her help or proposed political marriage. My problem was always his timing. She had agreed to help without the condition of knee bending but that's when he bend the knee. It wasn't about getting her armies anymore, it was about his feelings for Dany. PR wise that was the worst move possible as from the looks of it him and Dany will not hide their relationship from anyone. Imagine how this will look to everyone. It's why Sansa for example will ask if he bend the knee to get Dany's help or because he loves Dany. And this brings back a lot of bad memories for the North who went through something similar with Robb. Not to mention bad Targ memories. One can only hope that Jon's true parentage won't become public knowledge early on because one Targ handing over the North to another Targ...yikes. Considering how bad the Northern storyline has been handled, how badly the Northern Lords have been written, I wouldn'r rule out even more nonsense in S8.

I totatlly agree that the timing of jon kneeling was stupid. I don t understand how they can mess that up when it was one of the big objectives of the season and it was the only logical action jon could take. Ok, either kneeling or marrying her… But he had to establish na alliance with danny and danny had all the bargaining power...

D&D chosing to have jon bending the knee after danny giving him what he wants was one of those wtf moments that nobody will ever understand... However the northerns don t know when he kneeled… After seeing danny's armies there shouldn t be much reason to argue… Hell, I have no idea why jon and danny don t announce their union by marriage to make everyone happy… It would solve all problems!

But acording to the spoilers about ep 1 they know that the army of the dead has a dragon and is marching to winterfell and decide to argue about wanting to remain independent when they can t defend themselves against either danny or the dead… And from what I read everybody seemed very angry at jon. With the information they have they should be thankfull that jon got an ally with so many soldiers and try to make some demands about their rights if danny gets the IT (unfortunatelly the show doesn t care about this type of things). Hell, with the dead attacking everybody knows they will need help to survive winter...

And I agree that if danny and jon want to show their good relation they have to inform the bannermen they want to marry otherwise it would undermine them too much...

In regards to jon being a targ, I think it would destroy everything. It wouldn t only make them question jon's motives, but it would mean ned stark lied to everybody! I can t even imagine the shock it would create in the north… It would need be handled very carefully.

[divica]

29 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I thought the show did a poor job on the Northern lords since season 3.  We never saw the Greatjon again.  Robb never had any Northern lords who were with him after Karstark. There is no reason not to have had a Manderly or an Umber or someone else.  The only people in RR in season 3 were Robb, Cat, "Talisa", Edmure and the Blackfish.

I also have thought they've done a terrible job especially since season 5.  Why weren't there any again recognizable Northern Lords at Sansa's wedding, why didn't we get any dialogue from them to help set the stage?  Why did the Northern lords tell the Starks to fuck off totally until first Davos speechifies and then baby Mormont...and then, out nowhere, everyone remembers their 1000s years oaths.  That was ridiculous.  To go from zero [Lords tell Jon and Sansa to fuck off] to 60 [King in the North] totally at random was awful. 

So, I have assume at this point, that all the book stuff people have been expecting, if it happens, it won't be that important because everyone will die except baby Mormont and some Umbers or something else that isn't important.

 

Exactly! They decided to introduce sansa into the farya plot in order to exclude the vale but didn t use it to explore the northern storyline and have a better cast of the northern lords and plots…

Hell, if the umbers are angry at jon why do they decide to deliver rickon to ramsay? wasn t he their guest? why not try to use him to unite the north behind them or to blackmail jon and sansa into doing what they want (expel the wildlings). You can t spend years talking about northern honnor and how they northern lords are loyal to the starks and then have a supposed loyal bannermen delivering a stark child to a known psicopath… Only the northerns behave like this in the show...

[Vaith]

1 minute ago, divica said:

Exactly! They decided to introduce sansa into the farya plot in order to exclude the vale but didn t use it to explore the northern storyline and have a better cast of the northern lords and plots…

Hell, if the umbers are angry at jon why do they decide to deliver rickon to ramsay? wasn t he their guest? why not try to use him to unite the north behind them or to blackmail jon and sansa into doing what they want (expel the wildlings). You can t spend years talking about northern honnor and how they northern lords are loyal to the starks and then have a supposed loyal bannermen delivering a stark child to a known psicopath… Only the northerns behave like this in the show...

My biggest gripe with the Northern Lords is Season 5, honestly. The Winterfell plotline in that season is so awful that it irritates me.

Apparently, Ramsay marrying Sansa (the real Sansa) is this big show of the Boltons having a legitimate claim on the North, and getting lords on their side in their campaign against Stannis. Does that actually happen? Nope, there is not one Manderly to be seen, no Ryswells, no Umbers, no Lady Dustin.

How can you have the wedding and just have Myranda present instead of the northern lords? Everything in the Season 5 scenario was contrived to build up a situation where Sansa was raped. Realistically, Littlefinger wouldn't have married her to Ramsay and thought that Stannis would name Roose's daughter-in-law Warden of the North after his defeat; Roose wouldn't have been the anti-Stannis, pro-Lannister candidate while marrying his son to Joffrey's alleged killer, and Sansa would have had several lords at her disposal at the wedding who could have recognised her as the legitimate Sansa and help her plan a coup against the Boltons. But nope, she's just a victim there for Theon to save. 

[Vaith]

Also, the Worst Example of the Northern Lords' direction has to be Lyanna Mormont for me. Like they turned the letter meme into an annoying character, and apparently Jon's biggest supporter (she also apparently has no interest Sansa's claim to Winterfell despite being a female ruler herself...)

Maege and Alysane could have worked as salvageable characters, but Lyanna Mormont's just a slightly less crap Olly, tbh. Also, where is your regent, ten-year-old ruler?  

[Mystical]

14 minutes ago, Vaith said:

Also, the Worst Example of the Northern Lords' direction has to be Lyanna Mormont for me. Like they turned the letter meme into an annoying character, and apparently Jon's biggest supporter (she also apparently has no interest Sansa's claim to Winterfell despite being a female ruler herself...)

And I still have no idea when she became a Jon fangirl. Does anyone know? She didn't give two figs about him when he came to Bear Island. Suddenly in the Finale she is this big Jon stan. What did Jon do between these two events that made her a Jon supporter?

[divica]

6 minutes ago, Vaith said:

My biggest gripe with the Northern Lords is Season 5, honestly. The Winterfell plotline in that season is so awful that it irritates me.

Apparently, Ramsay marrying Sansa (the real Sansa) is this big show of the Boltons having a legitimate claim on the North, and getting lords on their side in their campaign against Stannis. Does that actually happen? Nope, there is not one Manderly to be seen, no Ryswells, no Umbers, no Lady Dustin.

How can you have the wedding and just have Myranda present instead of the northern lords? Everything in the Season 5 scenario was contrived to build up a situation where Sansa was raped. Realistically, Littlefinger wouldn't have married her to Ramsay and thought that Stannis would name Roose's daughter-in-law Warden of the North after his defeat; Roose wouldn't have been the anti-Stannis, pro-Lannister candidate while marrying his son to Joffrey's alleged killer, and Sansa would have had several lords at her disposal at the wedding who could have recognised her as the legitimate Sansa and help her plan a coup against the Boltons. But nope, she's just a victim there for Theon to save. 

That is a very good claim. Why weren t the northern lords helping the boltons defeat stannis? or helping stannis defeat the boltons? There is a war about the future of the north and the northerns are all hidding!? As I said, worst bannermen in westeros!

In regards to having lords helping sansa plan a coup I think it would be dificult and too diferent from the books plot. The show could have had roose declaring the north independent and behind closed doors forcing sansa to persuade the northern lords that she is on the boltons side and that they were innocent in the red wedding, bla bla bla. And sansa isn t exactly a victim. For at least half of the season she thinks she is a player and is going to manipulate ramsey… If we take into account that farya is a victim and that sansa is in her storyline then she would need to be a victim at some point...

Bottom line, we return to the problem that D&D didn t develop the characters and plots in the north. It is like they tried to spend the least amount of effort there.

 

[Vaith]

2 minutes ago, divica said:

In regards to having lords helping sansa plan a coup I think it would be dificult and too diferent from the books plot. The show could have had roose declaring the north independent and behind closed doors forcing sansa to persuade the northern lords that she is on the boltons side and that they were innocent in the red wedding, bla bla bla. And sansa isn t exactly a victim. For at least half of the season she thinks she is a player and is going to manipulate ramsey… If we take into account that farya is a victim and that sansa is in her storyline then she would need to be a victim at some point...

The problem is D&D writing her and LF to think marrying the Boltons will in any way pay off. If they haven't seen a trail of flayed corpses, then there is still no chance in the Seven Hells that they would think it would pay off with Stannis naming a Bolton by marriage the Warden of the North. Why not directly take Sansa to Castle Black and have her win over the mountain clans, by LF's logic? 

[Cas Stark]

Everything that has happened at WF since Sansa arrived to marry her family's killers for 'revenge' but with no plan of actual revenge has been terrible and incredibly stupid.  Why are the Boltons backed by the Lannisters marrying Sansa, wanted for regicide by the Lannisters? Ahem.  Why is Roose letting LF get back to the Vale alive once he's got Sansa?  Why is he putting Sansa at risk when he knows a battle with Stannis coming? It goes on and on through seasons 5-7, where we have the Umbers, who had in their possession Rickon Stark, the male heir to the North, and they give him up for nothing?!  The North Does Not Remember in the show, except when a needed 'rah rah' moment arrives, then it's all Starks again.  And all avoidable with a little better attention to detail.

[Vaith]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

Everything that has happened at WF since Sansa arrived to marry her family's killers for 'revenge' but with no plan of actual revenge has been terrible and incredibly stupid.  Why are the Boltons backed by the Lannisters marrying Sansa, wanted for regicide by the Lannisters? Ahem.  Why is Roose letting LF get back to the Vale alive once he's got Sansa?  Why is he putting Sansa at risk when he knows a battle with Stannis coming? It goes on and on through seasons 5-7, where we have the Umbers, who had in their possession Rickon Stark, the male heir to the North, and they give him up for nothing?!  The North Does Not Remember in the show, except when a needed 'rah rah' moment arrives, then it's all Starks again.  And all avoidable with a little better attention to detail.

Roose did actually say that he would have to prepare for a Lannister invasion in Season 6, episode 1, I believe. Yep, a two-front war of their own making, for... I suppose Bolton kings in the north, with that never actually being declared.