On June 22 2016 06:15 Godwrath wrote: Jon charging right into the army is pure anger. You shouldn't be trying to find something rational about it, because the reason is not "not caring about dying anymore". He literally loses control of himself to fucking kill the cunt out of pure anger, he is out of his mind, he is not that selfaware to make that decission about his own life. There is a glimpse where you see how he understands how fucking dumb he has been after being dismounted, and yes, there he accepts death, but it's because he has no other choice left.
Strongly agree on this, which is why I think it's not a bad scene. This is a man who kept his calm against the greatest army the North has ever seen, and lead the defense of Castle Black rationally. He faced White Walkers at Hardhome. However, Ramsay is just that good at getting under his enemies' skin - even that of Jon Snow.
It just seems to me like he got under his skin as like fan service or just because though.
There's at least 3-4 scenes with Jon where they setup the fact that Rickon is pretty much already dead. Ramsy makes it pretty clear he's willing to kill Rickon before the battle even starts. He arrived on that battlefield knowing full well that Rickon was done for, but then just because Ramsy gave him a slight hope we're supposed to buy Jon going beserk.
I think it could have worked better if they don't believe Ramsy has Rickon, or at least have serious doubts about it, then Jon only finds out about it on the battlefield. But then you lose the motivation for Jon to attack the Boltons so I don't know,
In those scenes, Jon refuses to accept that his brother will die, while Sansa does. It is to highlight the difference between the two characters and that Jon is not someone who can play the political game yet. Maybe he never will be able to. But Jon’s defining trait is that he cares well beyond what is safe or reasonable for himself. He says as much to Ramsey when he refuses single combat. It would be completely out of character for Jon not to rush out to try and save his brother.
On June 22 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote: In those scenes, Jon refuses to accept that is brother will die, while Sansa does. It is to highlight the difference between the two characters and that Jon is not someone who can play the political game yet. Maybe he never will be able to. But Jon’s defining trait is that he cares well beyond what is safe or reasonable for himself. He says as much to Ramsey when he refuses single combat. It would be completely out of character for Jon not to rush out to try and save his brother.
Agreed! But to then charge forward instead of back to his men seems out of character.
On June 22 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote: In those scenes, Jon refuses to accept that is brother will die, while Sansa does. It is to highlight the difference between the two characters and that Jon is not someone who can play the political game yet. Maybe he never will be able to. But Jon’s defining trait is that he cares well beyond what is safe or reasonable for himself. He says as much to Ramsey when he refuses single combat. It would be completely out of character for Jon not to rush out to try and save his brother.
Agreed! But to then charge forward instead of back to his men seems out of character.
Pre-undead Jon, I would agree. Post-dead, PTSD filled Jon that doesn’t care about dying and believes the gods are cruel would totally just charge to his death.
On June 22 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote: In those scenes, Jon refuses to accept that is brother will die, while Sansa does. It is to highlight the difference between the two characters and that Jon is not someone who can play the political game yet. Maybe he never will be able to. But Jon’s defining trait is that he cares well beyond what is safe or reasonable for himself. He says as much to Ramsey when he refuses single combat. It would be completely out of character for Jon not to rush out to try and save his brother.
Except Sansa says that from the perspective of "Ramsay needs there to not be a Rickon to stay Warden of the North" in which his biggest perceived threat is a rival claimant, not the knights of the Vale. But she knows that there are knights of the Vale and that Ramsay isn't going to fall from a rival claimant but instead from being outnumbered, outarmed and generally fucked, at which point Rickon ceases to be a threat to be eliminated and becomes an extremely valuable hostage.
It's all crazy. Sansa says it's rational for Ramsay to kill Rickon because Sansa knows that Ramsay doesn't know the things she knows which would make it highly irrational, if he knew them. Basically "fucking Sansa".
assuming that jon is PTSD. we have hints of it, but without reading the book and seeing "inside jons head" its difficult to say (bad portrayal on video) what really is going on.
kwark i feel like in the last ep they tried (sort of) to conveu that sansa had "no say" in the matters at hand. do you think they would have established this more potently in the books, conseuqently giving more sense to her actions in not telling jon about the upcoming forces?
as in, "in the books" we see at lot more about why people act the way they do. "in the video" we just see the outcomes
Sansa didn't know the Knights were coming or if anyone would come? She sent a raven asking for help, apparently(we never see it). But we see no evidence that a return raven was received. Also, she might not trust Jon that much. Or anyone at this point. I can think of a lot of reasons why she did tell him, some not great.
Also, we forget that Little Finger is the one who lead to the death of Ned. It happened by mistake due to Joffrey demanding Ned's head, but Little Finger was the one who betrayed Ned. If I were her, i would not be confidence how Jon would react to asking for Little Finger's help or what Jon knows about how Ned died.
On June 22 2016 06:15 Godwrath wrote: Jon charging right into the army is pure anger. You shouldn't be trying to find something rational about it, because the reason is not "not caring about dying anymore". He literally loses control of himself to fucking kill the cunt out of pure anger, he is out of his mind, he is not that selfaware to make that decission about his own life. There is a glimpse where you see how he understands how fucking dumb he has been after being dismounted, and yes, there he accepts death, but it's because he has no other choice left.
Strongly agree on this, which is why I think it's not a bad scene. This is a man who kept his calm against the greatest army the North has ever seen, and lead the defense of Castle Black rationally. He faced White Walkers at Hardhome. However, Ramsay is just that good at getting under his enemies' skin - even that of Jon Snow.
It just seems to me like he got under his skin as like fan service or just because though.
There's at least 3-4 scenes with Jon where they setup the fact that Rickon is pretty much already dead. Ramsy makes it pretty clear he's willing to kill Rickon before the battle even starts. He arrived on that battlefield knowing full well that Rickon was done for, but then just because Ramsy gave him a slight hope we're supposed to buy Jon going beserk.
I think it could have worked better if they don't believe Ramsy has Rickon, or at least have serious doubts about it, then Jon only finds out about it on the battlefield. But then you lose the motivation for Jon to attack the Boltons so I don't know,
Knowing that Rickon has very low chances of surviving doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow. And killing your relative, an innocent kid, pretty much in your face in such a cruel manner can surely get into someone's skin. And dude it's Jon, if there is the 0.0000001% chance, he will go for it.
I have gone full mad for much less than that in real life.
On June 22 2016 06:53 ticklishmusic wrote: After being revived Jon is a fatalist. He figures if the gods want him to die on the charge he'll die. If not, then he'll live.
excellent way of putting it. i think maybe in the books they might convey this expressly
On June 22 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote: In those scenes, Jon refuses to accept that is brother will die, while Sansa does. It is to highlight the difference between the two characters and that Jon is not someone who can play the political game yet. Maybe he never will be able to. But Jon’s defining trait is that he cares well beyond what is safe or reasonable for himself. He says as much to Ramsey when he refuses single combat. It would be completely out of character for Jon not to rush out to try and save his brother.
Agreed! But to then charge forward instead of back to his men seems out of character.
Great filming in this episode, and great battle ofc. Still disappointed about the writing in Daenerys' arc, though. That conversation between Danny, Tyrion, Theon and his sister felt very shallow tbh. Also sad about Ramsay's death, he was imo a much, much more interesting character than both Jon and Sansa, and that actor was god damn exceptional.
On June 22 2016 06:54 Plansix wrote: Sansa didn't know the Knights were coming or if anyone would come? She sent a raven asking for help, apparently(we never see it). But we see no evidence that a return raven was received. Also, she might not trust Jon that much. Or anyone at this point. I can think of a lot of reasons why she did tell him, some not great.
Also, we forget that Little Finger is the one who lead to the death of Ned. It happened by mistake due to Joffrey demanding Ned's head, but Little Finger was the one who betrayed Ned. If I were her, i would not be confidence how Jon would react to asking for Little Finger's help or what Jon knows about how Ned died.
You got it all wrong man. Sansa knew from the beginning that LF would be there with his army. She also knew that Ramsay is a sick fuck that would be happy to come out to crush a weaker force. Ramsay would never have left Winterfell if he had known about the Vale Army. Sansa chose to keep it secret from Jon for some reason I guess... Also maybe she didnt know that lf would wait until the last second to come out guns blazing with his army.
On June 22 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote: Personally, I find plot armor to be the laziest term when used to critique a film or series. By the very nature of the narrative, some of characters will make it to the end of the story. Claiming there is often plot armor is a lazy short hand for someone not enjoying a specific plot line or aspect of a scene. Of course it is a trope of some media, but it is more applicable to a show like Sherlock, where characters literally come back from the dead and reasons are backfilled into the story.
But mostly I think that the ”when is this character going to die” is a miserable way to watch a show. GRRM doesn’t kill without reason. When characters are killed, it says something about the state of the world or his views. A better question to ask is who is going to survive all of this and why did the author decide they should. Rather than talking about “plot armor” like the author doesn’t have intent.
I think we have different definitions of plot armor. My definition of plot armor is when a character is placed in a situation where there is no logical explanation for them surviving other than said plot armor.
That's where the difference between GRRM and the showrunners are. If GRRM wants a character to survive, he doesn't place them in a situation where the showrunners placed Jon. A huge part of the appeal of this series is its logical nature. Good guys who put themselves in impossible situations die. The characters who are meant to live aren't placed in said impossible situations in the first place.
We've been conditioned to believe that the characters who survive the show, good or bad, are the ones who play the Game of Thrones correctly. That's been true since day 1. A character who plays the Game of Thrones incorrectly and survives is just not the GRRM way of doing things. Jon has made some bad decisions before. So have other survivors. Not every mistake is fatal. But in terms of the show's established logic, surviving a one-man charge is just too much bending of said logic.
On June 22 2016 06:54 Plansix wrote: Sansa didn't know the Knights were coming or if anyone would come? She sent a raven asking for help, apparently(we never see it). But we see no evidence that a return raven was received. Also, she might not trust Jon that much. Or anyone at this point. I can think of a lot of reasons why she did tell him, some not great.
Also, we forget that Little Finger is the one who lead to the death of Ned. It happened by mistake due to Joffrey demanding Ned's head, but Little Finger was the one who betrayed Ned. If I were her, i would not be confidence how Jon would react to asking for Little Finger's help or what Jon knows about how Ned died.
You got it all wrong man. Sansa knew from the beginning that LF would be there with his army. She also knew that Ramsay is a sick fuck that would be happy to come out to crush a weaker force. Ramsay would never have left Winterfell if he had known about the Vale Army. Sansa chose to keep it secret from Jon for some reason I guess... Also maybe she didnt know that lf would wait until the last second to come out guns blazing with his army.
I think Ramsay took Sansa's bait.
The only chance for Rickon living (besides some deus ex machina) was being part of a negotiation, and Ramsey didn't need to negotiate unless threatened (by, say, a large army coming from the only region in Westeros that has been spared from the war).
It only makes sense for Sansa to not tell anyone about the incoming Vale army if she wants Rickon to die, but I won't believe that unless the show makes that clear.
Edit: Ofc, it doesn't make sense that an army can show up without anyone knowing about it (I think the show itself even stated when the Vale knights took Moat Cailin), but hey, maybe a wizard did it.
On June 22 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote: Personally, I find plot armor to be the laziest term when used to critique a film or series. By the very nature of the narrative, some of characters will make it to the end of the story. Claiming there is often plot armor is a lazy short hand for someone not enjoying a specific plot line or aspect of a scene. Of course it is a trope of some media, but it is more applicable to a show like Sherlock, where characters literally come back from the dead and reasons are backfilled into the story.
But mostly I think that the ”when is this character going to die” is a miserable way to watch a show. GRRM doesn’t kill without reason. When characters are killed, it says something about the state of the world or his views. A better question to ask is who is going to survive all of this and why did the author decide they should. Rather than talking about “plot armor” like the author doesn’t have intent.
I think we have different definitions of plot armor. My definition of plot armor is when a character is placed in a situation where there is no logical explanation for them surviving other than said plot armor.
That's where the difference between GRRM and the showrunners are. If GRRM wants a character to survive, he doesn't place them in a situation where the showrunners placed Jon. A huge part of the appeal of this series is its logical nature. Good guys who put themselves in impossible situations die. The characters who are meant to live aren't placed in said impossible situations in the first place.
We've been conditioned to believe that the characters who survive the show, good or bad, are the ones who play the Game of Thrones correctly. That's been true since day 1. A character who plays the Game of Thrones incorrectly and survives is just not the GRRM way of doing things. Jon has made some bad decisions before. So have other survivors. Not every mistake is fatal. But in terms of the show's established logic, surviving a one-man charge is just too much bending of said logic.
I watched a woman fight a bear with a wooden sword and and somehow get back up when the bear hit her with its paw. And the bear didn't just charge her and maul her to death. But hey, its all about who we decide to suspend our disbelief.
Seriously, that bear should have murdered Brienne in a moment.
On June 22 2016 06:54 Plansix wrote: Sansa didn't know the Knights were coming or if anyone would come? She sent a raven asking for help, apparently(we never see it). But we see no evidence that a return raven was received. Also, she might not trust Jon that much. Or anyone at this point. I can think of a lot of reasons why she did tell him, some not great.
Also, we forget that Little Finger is the one who lead to the death of Ned. It happened by mistake due to Joffrey demanding Ned's head, but Little Finger was the one who betrayed Ned. If I were her, i would not be confidence how Jon would react to asking for Little Finger's help or what Jon knows about how Ned died.
You got it all wrong man. Sansa knew from the beginning that LF would be there with his army. She also knew that Ramsay is a sick fuck that would be happy to come out to crush a weaker force. Ramsay would never have left Winterfell if he had known about the Vale Army. Sansa chose to keep it secret from Jon for some reason I guess... Also maybe she didnt know that lf would wait until the last second to come out guns blazing with his army.
I think Ramsay took Sansa's bait.
this actually makes sense. and anything else that puts sansa in a good light also makes sense to me. well played
I have gone full mad for much less than that in real life.
There is a difference between being mad and forcing a battle that will kill yourself and 3000 other people 99% of the time.
Jon charging right into the army is pure anger. You shouldn't be trying to find something rational about it, because the reason is not "not caring about dying anymore". He literally loses control of himself to fucking kill the cunt out of pure anger, he is out of his mind, he is not that selfaware to make that decission about his own life. There is a glimpse where you see how he understands how fucking dumb he has been after being dismounted, and yes, there he accepts death, but it's because he has no other choice left.
With this logic we can justify stupid decision in every single movie and show ever because emotions. Even if the actions aren't relateable or he is acting out of character.
Breaking Bad had proper writing on the other hand. A high school teacher and family father becomes a murderer and a wanted criminal over a timespan of just 2-3. We also see him acting with a ton of emotions as well throughout the seasons, however, the reason the show was a succes was because we still could relate to him. We could still make sense of his actions giving what we knew about him.
This is simply not the case here and I challenge you to give me one example of something comparable in Game of Thrones previously. E.g. an example of a main character deciding to sacrifice his life in an offensive action that was very unlikely to work (where they had the option of being defensive + a long time to consider his/her options).
With good writing, we can follow the conflict of the characters and even if we don't agree with his actions we know why he did it. And "I want to start a losing war because I am mad" is just not good writing for a character that otherwise has seemed reasonable".
And as I argued previously, even if we accept the premise that Jon is an idiot, why are we seeing no other characters discussing whether its a good idea to attack winterfell or not? Why are every other character around Jon idiots as well?
At the very least show us that the characters considered the alternative option of defending (and accepting Rickons dead), and provide some type of reasoning for them still supporting the attack (even if its a bit weak). The show did this very well for the first seasons and this is the first time it has gone completely out of line for a major character/main story.
EPT
