[Terez]

He was next to Ramsey in the parlay, on his right (screen left). I read somewhere that he had an inglorious death somewhere in the battle, but I can't vouch for that.

[polishgenius]

I think Sansa didn't tell Jon about Littlefinger because she knew he'd never trust him or accept his help and trying to factor the arrival of this army he didn't want would cause him to fuck up the situation even more than he already clearly was going to.

I mean, I get that Jon was acting under extreme emotional circumstances but gosh-darn he's a fucking idiot. Lucky for him Sansa's a badass now.


Also: she knows that she can, to a certain extent, play Littlefinger. She knows Jon can't, so minimising their interaction as much as possible is smart.

[worry]

That does make sense, it's just a little too good guy/bad guy for me.

[worry]

Who knows? Personally speaking I'd do all the really smart and brave things, I'd avoid making the bad decisions, and I'd actually save all the good people while slaying the bad ones. But hey, that's just me being me, not bragging.

[Tattersail_]

What can I say that hasn't been said? Wow, just what an episode!

[Khellendros]

Episode was good. Jon might be an inspirational leader, but he is THE worst tactician ever. In our house we were laughing at how idiotic all his actions were...he just went from obvious trap to obvious trap. Ramsay deserved to win that battle just for absolutely annihilating any plan that Jon might have had. And someone give that giant a tree trunk to fight with!

As for Sansa, that just looks like a really cack-handed plot device right now, not telling Jon about the Vale forces. "Maybe we should wait for more forces." "There are no more forces!" "....." I don't buy the Jon wouldn't trust Littlefinger explanation. He doesn't know him! He's never met him nor had a single opinion expressed about him or to him ever.

So while I enjoyed the action scenes a lot, they were really well done, the entire shape of the battle from start to finish rested on some really awkward and groan-worthy plot management and writing in which the actions of all the main characters made little sense.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 21 June 2016 - 09:34 AM

[Tapper]

Coonass, on 21 June 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

I don't think Jons a bad leader at all. He clearly knows his shit as we ve seen past the wall. His family wasn't there though. I would have tried to save my brothers life from a psycho to though I can't say if I then would stand up to charging army by myself.

Meh. Series-John has only led a hundred or so men at most, not thousands. He's limited to leading by example only. He'd been better off of asking what Tywin Lannister would do - or even, what Robb would do. After all, Robb sacrificed part of his army to Tywin to defeat Jaime in the War of the Five Kings, and surrounded himself with a good bodyguard even when entering the fray personally.

And that is also what makes the Rickon rescue beyond stupid. He risked everything for a slim shot of making a tiny difference. The smart decision was to wait if Rickon would make it out of Ramsay's reach with a bow, or, better, sending a handful of cavalry with shields to intercept and protect the kid.
Even if John had reached Rickon in time and hauled him on top of the horse, he would expose his back to the Boltons, on top of deliberately moving into and then stopping within bowshot of the Bolton line - where a lucky arrow or an entire Bolton volley could easily kill him (or his horse).

That's without taking plenty of un-John-like cold calculation into account, such as: John knew Rickon was a captive, Sansa told him Ramsay would never let Rickon live, John being the one unifying figure between the wildlings and the Northmen, so getting killed or severely wounded would break the army, and finally (an argument for letting Rickon die) Rickon becoming the Stark in Winterfell could create all kinds of issues for keeping control of the North, especially with regards to the promises he made to the Wildlings.

Anyway, because he didn't stop to think, John was at the front during the whole battle, with no means of directing it. He himself admitted beforehand to Davos, Thormund and Sansa that they needed smartness to overcome superior numbers and better equipment.
Leading from the front is what NCO's do (in his case, Thormund, Wun Wun and Northmen captains), not the general. Sure, John kills a dozen plus enemies by himself, but Ramsay had thousands - a large share of them troops of people he wouldn't mind sacrificing at all (Umbers and Karstarks), to boot.

Davos is the unsung hero here. He did exactly what a leader ought to do, up until the moment he decided to move the archers into the melee: those pike could never complete the encirclement of the melee brawl without being shot in the back if he kept them where they were.

And then, if you are the smaller army... Why the fuck didn't they line up/withdraw into the woods? I am now entering rant mode, and this is not necessarily GoT's fault per sé, more modern cinema's ever since Saving Private Ryan, but....

John camps his army literally in front of a forest. A forest that would give him cover from arrows, a natural environment to place traps, trees to break up the enemy cavalry and pike formations and it would give a chance to create a brawl that actually would work for the Wildlings, but the battle is fought entirely in the open.
Incidentally, the Bolton shield wall encirclement was very Red Cliff-like.

Finally, another pet peeve with just about everything put on the screen in movies nowadays: morale in melee era units used to break at a five-to-ten percent casualty rate (or when witnessing a local breakthrough). After that, roughly the same number of casualties was caused in the losing army through the abandonment of shields and soldiers turning their back. That combined percentage was probably already reached in the first two minutes of the battle. The Starks may own the North now, but they rule only over cripples, women and children.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 21 June 2016 - 09:37 AM

[Terez]

Khellendros, on 21 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

...So while I enjoyed the action scenes a lot, they were really well done, the entire shape of the battle from start to finish rested on some really awkward and groan-worthy plot management and writing in which the actions of all the main characters made little sense.

I agree with all that, especially as it relates to the Jon-Sansa tension, but it's the kind of thing I've come to expect from the show. I have learned to mostly ignore it. Last week it was Arya's stabbing, the week before it was something else, and on and on. There's always going to be something.

I'm very much looking forward to next week. Looks like it will be action-packed. Of course we're all looking forward to the final Tower of Joy scene. I'm clueless about what to expect from Dany's plotline so I'm hoping there's something good. Dany always has something exciting at the end of the season. I want to see what kind of trouble Brienne gets into with the Brotherhood; I think we all know it will be something; there was no other good reason for her to go to the riverlands personally.

I'm interested to see whether Littlefinger's fray/Frey pun will show any teeth at the Twins; that might explain Jaime's apparent discomfort in the preview. Perhaps Littlefinger hatched a deal with the Freys to undermine Sansa, and Jaime finds himself torn between Cersei and Brienne.

Definitely interested to see what they're going to do with Melisandre. She's at the top of the most-likely-to-die characters list for next week, but I can see her making it out alive somehow. She told Stannis, "I have seen myself walk along the battlements of Winterfell. I have seen the flayed men banners lowered to the ground." That has finally come to pass; there will probably be a scene with her walking along the battlements in the early part of ep 10. (We already saw the banners lowered.)

Who knows if Cersei will manage to burn anything next week, but it seems likely, with the way they've been laying on the foreshadowing so thick. I just hope there's some hint of Jaime-Cersei tension. Jaime still has Bronn to tell him about Lancel, so we can hope.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Tapper, on 21 June 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

Coonass, on 21 June 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

I don't think Jons a bad leader at all. He clearly knows his shit as we ve seen past the wall. His family wasn't there though. I would have tried to save my brothers life from a psycho to though I can't say if I then would stand up to charging army by myself.

Meh. Series-John has only led a hundred or so men at most, not thousands. He's limited to leading by example only. He'd been better off of asking what Tywin Lannister would do - or even, what Robb would do. After all, Robb sacrificed part of his army to Tywin to defeat Jaime in the War of the Five Kings, and surrounded himself with a good bodyguard even when entering the fray personally.

And that is also what makes the Rickon rescue beyond stupid. He risked everything for a slim shot of making a tiny difference. The smart decision was to wait if Rickon would make it out of Ramsay's reach with a bow, or, better, sending a handful of cavalry with shields to intercept and protect the kid.
Even if John had reached Rickon in time and hauled him on top of the horse, he would expose his back to the Boltons, on top of deliberately moving into and then stopping within bowshot of the Bolton line - where a lucky arrow or an entire Bolton volley could easily kill him (or his horse).

That's without taking plenty of un-John-like cold calculation into account, such as: John knew Rickon was a captive, Sansa told him Ramsay would never let Rickon live, John being the one unifying figure between the wildlings and the Northmen, so getting killed or severely wounded would break the army, and finally (an argument for letting Rickon die) Rickon becoming the Stark in Winterfell could create all kinds of issues for keeping control of the North, especially with regards to the promises he made to the Wildlings.

Anyway, because he didn't stop to think, John was at the front during the whole battle, with no means of directing it. He himself admitted beforehand to Davos, Thormund and Sansa that they needed smartness to overcome superior numbers and better equipment.
Leading from the front is what NCO's do (in his case, Thormund, Wun Wun and Northmen captains), not the general. Sure, John kills a dozen plus enemies by himself, but Ramsay had thousands - a large share of them troops of people he wouldn't mind sacrificing at all (Umbers and Karstarks), to boot.

Davos is the unsung hero here. He did exactly what a leader ought to do, up until the moment he decided to move the archers into the melee: those pike could never complete the encirclement of the melee brawl without being shot in the back if he kept them where they were.

And then, if you are the smaller army... Why the fuck didn't they line up/withdraw into the woods? I am now entering rant mode, and this is not necessarily GoT's fault per sé, more modern cinema's ever since Saving Private Ryan, but....

John camps his army literally in front of a forest. A forest that would give him cover from arrows, a natural environment to place traps, trees to break up the enemy cavalry and pike formations and it would give a chance to create a brawl that actually would work for the Wildlings, but the battle is fought entirely in the open.
Incidentally, the Bolton shield wall encirclement was very Red Cliff-like.

Finally, another pet peeve with just about everything put on the screen in movies nowadays: morale in melee era units used to break at a five-to-ten percent casualty rate (or when witnessing a local breakthrough). After that, roughly the same number of casualties was caused in the losing army through the abandonment of shields and soldiers turning their back. That combined percentage was probably already reached in the first two minutes of the battle. The Starks may own the North now, but they rule only over cripples, women and children.

I agree with most of your points, except the part about setting up in the forest. Jon's army is the attacking force, not the defending one. As such, they can't just set up fortifications and then expect Ramsay to attack them there. All Ramsay would need to do is not attack them and he'd he fine. Jon's army had to bring the battle to Ramsay.

If they decided to retreat mid-battle into the woods in order to draw Ramsay's army in a trap, then Ramsay would just have to disengage his forces and retreat to the same hillock they were originally arrayed upon and wait Jon out.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 21 June 2016 - 01:10 PM

[polishgenius]

Khellendros, on 21 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I don't buy the Jon wouldn't trust Littlefinger explanation. He doesn't know him! He's never met him nor had a single opinion expressed about him or to him ever.

We never see him talk or hear about Littlefinger, but come on, the dude's famous, and he's famous specifically for being a shifty untrustworthy fuck. Even if he doesn't specifically know that Petyr sold his father out to the Lannisters and gave his sister away to Bolton (and the latter seems a stretch) he'd have to be spectacularly unaware not to have at some point heard that Littlefinger was supposed to be on the side of the Boltons and is offering to change his allegiance for what seems like no very good reason.

[Nevyn]

polishgenius, on 21 June 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 21 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I don't buy the Jon wouldn't trust Littlefinger explanation. He doesn't know him! He's never met him nor had a single opinion expressed about him or to him ever.

We never see him talk or hear about Littlefinger, but come on, the dude's famous, and he's famous specifically for being a shifty untrustworthy fuck. Even if he doesn't specifically know that Petyr sold his father out to the Lannisters and gave his sister away to Bolton (and the latter seems a stretch) he'd have to be spectacularly unaware not to have at some point heard that Littlefinger was supposed to be on the side of the Boltons and is offering to change his allegiance for what seems like no very good reason.

No, that doesn't hold water.

Again, the issue seems to be embarassment/shame about her relationship with Littlefinger. She didn't want his help until she really needed it, and she lied to Jon about how she heard the Blackfish had Riverrun. Of course that is not rational ... he will find out regardless when help arrives, but then who knows what tale Littlefinger can spin about why the Vale rallied to their cause.

But in general I agree with Kellendrous ... they are moving the story how and where they want it headed without concern for how nonsensical it makes character's decisions appear.

[Abyss]

Nevyn, on 21 June 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

...

But in general I agree with Kellendrous ... they are moving the story how and where they want it headed without concern for how nonsensical it makes character's decisions appear.

Which is a very TV production thing to do, in striking contrast to the books where GRRM takes hundreds of years pages to methodically get a character to a point where their decision makes sense.

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, on 21 June 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 21 June 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 21 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I don't buy the Jon wouldn't trust Littlefinger explanation. He doesn't know him! He's never met him nor had a single opinion expressed about him or to him ever.

We never see him talk or hear about Littlefinger, but come on, the dude's famous, and he's famous specifically for being a shifty untrustworthy fuck. Even if he doesn't specifically know that Petyr sold his father out to the Lannisters and gave his sister away to Bolton (and the latter seems a stretch) he'd have to be spectacularly unaware not to have at some point heard that Littlefinger was supposed to be on the side of the Boltons and is offering to change his allegiance for what seems like no very good reason.

No, that doesn't hold water.

Again, the issue seems to be embarassment/shame about her relationship with Littlefinger. She didn't want his help until she really needed it, and she lied to Jon about how she heard the Blackfish had Riverrun. Of course that is not rational ... he will find out regardless when help arrives, but then who knows what tale Littlefinger can spin about why the Vale rallied to their cause.

But in general I agree with Kellendrous ... they are moving the story how and where they want it headed without concern for how nonsensical it makes character's decisions appear.

I'm with PG on this.

Also, "character decisions" may not make sense to you or be how you'd have handled X Y Z, but allowing fictional characters to be fallible and even stupid or stubborn with regards to those decisions is organic from a narrative POV. I'm really baffled by this whole idea that if a character makes a seemingly dumb decision that it's automatically some writers mistake...no, it's a deliberate choice to make that character be human and fuck up. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 21 June 2016 - 07:55 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 21 June 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

...

But in general I agree with Kellendrous ... they are moving the story how and where they want it headed without concern for how nonsensical it makes character's decisions appear.

Which is a very TV production thing to do, in striking contrast to the books where GRRM takes hundreds of years pages to methodically get a character to a point where their decision makes sense.

Well GRRM also has the advantage of POV characters to explain thought processes. He could cut a hundred thousand words here or there and still have the decisions make sense

[polishgenius]

Nevyn, on 21 June 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

Quote

We never see him talk or hear about Littlefinger, but come on, the dude's famous, and he's famous specifically for being a shifty untrustworthy fuck. Even if he doesn't specifically know that Petyr sold his father out to the Lannisters and gave his sister away to Bolton (and the latter seems a stretch) he'd have to be spectacularly unaware not to have at some point heard that Littlefinger was supposed to be on the side of the Boltons and is offering to change his allegiance for what seems like no very good reason.

No, that doesn't hold water.

It's entirely possible that she's ashamed of he relationship with Littlefinger and that's why she doesn't tell Jon, but since that theory also rests on her acting on the assumption that she knows Jon knows who Littlefinger is, I'm not really sure why it holds any more water than the other idea.

Quote

Which is a very TV production thing to do, in striking contrast to the books where GRRM takes hundreds of years pages to methodically get a character to a point where their decision makes sense.

While I disagree that characters are being particularly miswritten - Jon is a moron in this episode, but he, and the Starks in general, have a history of making decisions with their heart not their head and getting people killed, so it's not exactly out of character, and while the timing is contrived on when the Vale arrives, I don't think the decisions that lead to it are implausible whatever the motivations turn out to be- it's certainly true that things are being sped up. That's true in literal physical terms as well as character-wise - characters and armies are teleporting all over the place, although it's also true that the timeframe is pretty accelerated off-screen/between scenes and episodes compared to previous seasons, and they just cut out much of the travel but it's still there.



Thing is though, I can't blame the showrunners. GRRM might be able to bring things back gracefully in a monster-pagecount book, but to start gathering threads for the final season or two - especially since they don't necessarily know if they'll get a season 8 afaik - in a filmable manner they really needed to get a shift on. And I think it's worked, despite some foibles this is the best season for a while, maybe the best one so far.

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 21 June 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

I'm with PG on this.

Also, "character decisions" may not make sense to you or be how you'd have handled X Y Z, but allowing fictional characters to be fallible and even stupid or stubborn with regards to those decisions is organic from a narrative POV. I'm really baffled by this whole idea that if a character makes a seemingly dumb decision that it's automatically some writers mistake...no, it's a deliberate choice to make that character be human and fuck up. I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course characters can be fallible.

But in the case of Sansa, their decisions should still make sense in terms of who the character is. It must seem like something she would do. Here, they may address it in a scene next week with Jon questioning her, but without that, it feels like something done to provide tension on the show without any character reason, smart or stupid.

And in the case of both, there needs to be consequence for the bad decisions. Are Jon and Sansa now going to be permanently at odds? Will the wildlings suddenly be unwillingly to fight for Jon upon the realization that he's not much of a battle leader? Doubt it. At best they may have Davos say something, and then use the Melisandre argument as a further excuse to have him abandon the cause.

Further, the story didn't need Jon to screw up the battle. They were outnumbered 2-1. He can have a somewhat effective plan, and still need the Vale to rescue him. Assuming that this WILL be the guy who in theory rallies the North into the battle with the walkers, they've made him harder to root for and made it less plausible that he would get support.

Compare it to Robb and Catelyn. They made bad choices, but everyone knew why they were making them, it made sense for their characters, and there were both immediate reactions from supporting characters and devastating consequences.

Go back and read the complaints upthread. Its not simply that people think it is a stupid choice. It is that no one knows why Sansa would make that choice. If unexplained later, that's crappy writing. Because dramatic tension is not a valid reason.

[worry]

Untrue. I solved the problem long ago.

[Nevyn]

polishgenius, on 21 June 2016 - 08:28 PM, said:

It's entirely possible that she's ashamed of he relationship with Littlefinger and that's why she doesn't tell Jon, but since that theory also rests on her acting on the assumption that she knows Jon knows who Littlefinger is, I'm not really sure why it holds any more water than the other idea.

No, it doesn't rest on that assumption at all.

In fact, its almost completely the opposite. The shame is mostly about things she knows that almost no one else does.

Among other things:

• That Littlefinger helped kill Joffrey and smuggled her out of King's Landing.
• That he murdered her Aunt and she conspired to help cover it up
• That she meekly went along as he wed her off to a sadist who then raped and abused her
• That she met him and was told he had an army at Moat Cailin and said no without telling or consulting Jon, then lied about how she knew about the Blackfish

Jon doesn't have to know a thing about Littlefinger. The point is the army would need to be explained, and those explanations border on things she would probably rather not reveal, since people would want to know WHY the lords of the Vale are suddenly moved to help, and how she knows, and why they didn't know before.

I assume this is the reason for her choice the show is going with. They have just made a complete hash of explaining it, especially if she is not questioned by Jon and providing an explanation next episode (and I bet she won't ... as they have a lot of action to cover). I mean, if we can debate her reasoning this much, its pretty clear it has been badly explained.

Quote

Thing is though, I can't blame the showrunners. GRRM might be able to bring things back gracefully in a monster-pagecount book, but to start gathering threads for the final season or two - especially since they don't necessarily know if they'll get a season 8 afaik - in a filmable manner they really needed to get a shift on. And I think it's worked, despite some foibles this is the best season for a while, maybe the best one so far.

I think the season has been fairly middling. The speed up has mostly been fine, but it is the reason you got a truncated Arya resolution and people crying about gut wounds and Waifinators. And in the context of this episode and the run-up to it, it simply feels to me like they could have told the same amount of material in the same amount of episodes, and have it both make more sense and be more satisfying

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 21 June 2016 - 09:28 PM

[QuickTidal]

Nevyn, can you stop assuming that people haven't read the thread or what you wrote when they disagree with you?

[Nicodimas]

QuickTidal, on 21 June 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 21 June 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 21 June 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 21 June 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I don't buy the Jon wouldn't trust Littlefinger explanation. He doesn't know him! He's never met him nor had a single opinion expressed about him or to him ever.

We never see him talk or hear about Littlefinger, but come on, the dude's famous, and he's famous specifically for being a shifty untrustworthy fuck. Even if he doesn't specifically know that Petyr sold his father out to the Lannisters and gave his sister away to Bolton (and the latter seems a stretch) he'd have to be spectacularly unaware not to have at some point heard that Littlefinger was supposed to be on the side of the Boltons and is offering to change his allegiance for what seems like no very good reason.

No, that doesn't hold water.

Again, the issue seems to be embarassment/shame about her relationship with Littlefinger. She didn't want his help until she really needed it, and she lied to Jon about how she heard the Blackfish had Riverrun. Of course that is not rational ... he will find out regardless when help arrives, but then who knows what tale Littlefinger can spin about why the Vale rallied to their cause.

But in general I agree with Kellendrous ... they are moving the story how and where they want it headed without concern for how nonsensical it makes character's decisions appear.

I'm with PG on this.

Also, "character decisions" may not make sense to you or be how you'd have handled X Y Z, but allowing fictional characters to be fallible and even stupid or stubborn with regards to those decisions is organic from a narrative POV. I'm really baffled by this whole idea that if a character makes a seemingly dumb decision that it's automatically some writers mistake...no, it's a deliberate choice to make that character be human and fuck up. I see nothing wrong with that.

One thing the show better express, Is Jon trusting anyone..in any shape or form, better come with some internal struggle. Think about what has befallen him....

He should never forget that as that will make him a true player in the game. This better be something he learned from, or else I will be disapointed.

Also good leaders can be terrible tactician's, after that battle he better find someone who's better at planning, or maybe executing, battles. Great leader's know where to fill their void's with essential personal.