Discussion YMMV / GameOfThrones

ASOIAF the book series, and Game of Thrones is an ensemble Hyperlink Story, and the titles themselves make it clear that it's more about the fantasy setting than any one character. So applying Smurfette Breakout doesn't work, especially not to Daenerys who from the very beginning is one of the main characters...I mean she is the star of her own separate largely self-contained parallel narrative, much like Jon Snow is the Star of the Night's Watch story.

The billing doesn't really reflect anything, it's more an in-series thing.

Smurfette Breakout can apply to Brienne of Tarth, since she is a minor character who on account of her actress' performance and popularity has become a bigger character on the show than her book counterpart. It also applies to say, Arya Stark.

Right, then. Should we add either of those two (Brienne or Arya) as examples, or are they just straight-up Breakout Character?

I don't care either way. I am not a fan of Show!Brienne (i like Stannis a lot and loathe Renly), so it's not a hill I'll die on.

Looking at the Smurfette Breakout page I am looking at this description: "Note that this is not simply about a female becoming a Breakout Character. There must be a majority of males compared to females for this to count. The character need not be the only woman on the show either. "

I am not sure Game of Thrones fits, because the series, and ASOIAF, has always had a large number of male and female characters. Not equal, ^note If we go by hard numbers, 6 out of the 14 Major POV characters are women in the books. Overall it's 9 out of 31 as of Book 5 despite being set in a patriarchal seting. If we define main characters as appears in multiple episodes/multiple seasons then you have Catelyn, Sansa, Arya, Cersei, Dany, Ros, Shae, Olenna Tyrell, Melisandre, Ygritte, Margaery, Brienne, Ellaria, Yara Greyjoy, the Sand Snakes...at least off the top of my head.

So I don't think the trope even applies to ASOIAF/GOT because the show's cast has never been male-dominated, but in fact has had a great many female characters. Not that I would say that the show is feminist or anything, since that's a pretty low bar to fly over to start with for anyone to hand out prizes.

I see what you mean, so I can imagine they wouldn't belong. However, would Khal Drogo qualify for Ensemble Dark Horse (no pun intended)? He was a prominent character in the first season, but unlike Ned Stark he wasn't one of the definite leads, and is only barely seen or alluded to in following seasons; however, the amount of fandom love he gets is disproportionate to his importance to the overall story (at least to me, it seems he's less prominent but more popular than Hodor).

Cut the whole thing and don't look back. I'd say Real Women Don't Wear Dresses can go on Arya's Character Page but yeah. This is bad.

Base-Breaking Character doesn't mean it's near-50/50. It means that fans of the work either love the character or hate them. There is no middle ground.

I'd argue that if it was something like 80/20, it wouldn't be significant enough to count. But, even if going strictly by there being no middle ground no matter the numbers, several of the listed characters have likely have a fairly large number people who don't have a strong opinion about them one way or the other.

Danaerys is a big one that many people (including me) find to be just so-so. Stanis and Brienne probably get the same reaction from a not insignificant number as well. Many people will probably be fine with these characters when they're on, but won't really love them to a degree that they'd look forward to their scenes and, although they wouldn't actively want to see such characters to die, they wouldn't be too bothered if they were to be killed off.

Nevermind

Wrong post.

ignore.

It still comes from absolutely nowhere. His powers are intentionally vague, but that doesn't change the fact this still comes from nowhere and really doesn't jive with the rest of what we've seen. Everything else has basically been ice and/or zombie themed. Being able to mark someone through a psychic vision really comes out of nowhere.

It's like if Bran suddenly were able to shoot fireballs with no foreshadowing. I mean, he's magic, but nothing we've seen of his abilities are tied to that in any way.

Is it more justifiable than most? Maybe. But does it come from nowhere but the writer's butts? Yes.

For the record, an Ass Pull is:

IIRC, the only times we've seen the Night King use magic before now is when he turned Craster's baby into a white walker and when he rezzed the bodies at Hardhome. I don't think that's enough to say anything definitive about what he can and can't do. We also found out he was created by the Children of the Forest, so it's not that big a stretch to imagine he has powers like theirs.

The issue here seems to be they didn't foreshadow this with his earlier appearances, but that doesn't make it an Ass Pull. Not every reveal needs to be telegraphed years before it happens. It was logical enough in context.

Zero foreshadowing, done solely to advance the plot, not internally consistent. It doesn't contradict anything earlier seen, but it definitely doesn't come from anywhere.

You think that the lack of foreshadowing is fine. I disagree. That's exactly why this is a YMMV item.

The basic rule of Unfortunate Implications since it is potentially explosive is that it needs to have citations. And not tumblr blog posts or fan complaints but actual articles that are edited and veted by some online sites, official blogs or newspapers and other stuff. The problem with the homophobia entry, which I agree with, is that the sources cited are not kosher.

The one on the anti-religious thing, especially in relation to the books, has a better link but it needs to be shorter and it needs to be less complaining, the comparisons between the Faith and the Rhillorites and Old Gods strikes me as quite a reach in my view.

The religious one could probably be shortened to something like:

• Some people take offence that the Faith of the Seven, the religion in the show that most closely resembles Christianity, is portrayed in a negative light, especially with the introduction of the Faith Militant in season 5. [1]

Seems fair, I'll also add that there should be mention of how religion was treated fairer in the books.

^^ What, then, is the implication though? That just says that Crystal Dragon Jesus religion is shown in a negative light.

What isn't portrayed in a negative light? R'hollr certainly is, what with burning people alive and false prophesies and even its most fervent representative is having a bit of a break down right now.

... also, that citation doesn't match up to the written description. At all. The citation is specifically saying that "I can tell fiction from reality and the show isn't inherently offensive to Christians."

Note that I totally think this is a valid Unfortunate Implication. But it needs to be written correctly and have a supporting citation, not a vaguely relevant one.

Well the citation was official looking, I didn't check it too much in detail. I was more concerned with it not being tumblr posts. Unforunate Implications is YMMV and subjective, so for me it wasn't about specific criticisms but more if the form is right.

I think he meant more that Rhillor and Old Gods have actual magic while the Faith doesn't have miracles, the implication being the first two are closer to "true Gods" than the latter.

^^ I honestly don't know what the objection is (I don't get either of them, in fact). I was just trying to abridge the following passage from the source:

Thank you Tompa Dompa. I am new to this site, and upon reflection I realized my examples could use some work. I will use both texts you suggested for the point regarding the show's potential anti-religious sentiment.

That's exactly what I meant Julian Lapostat, you just said it better; "...Rhillor and Old Gods have actual magic while the Faith doesn't have miracles, the implication being the first two are closer to "true Gods" than the latter."

After your helpful output, this is what I have in mind;

"In the show, there has also been many jabs at religion, but not as much as the 5th and 6th seasons; now we have the ‘Faith Militants’ who represent the major religion of Westeros in a very dark light. Many people associate Westeros with England, and of course, the major religion in England, in medieval times anyway, is Christianity. Then there's the Adaptational Villainy that the High Sparrow and his predecessor get saddled with ^note The High Sparrow and his followers being heteronormative crusaders and his predecessor being adapted into a blaspheming whoremonger from a benevolent but passive High Septon (who lives in the show while he was assassinated on Cersei's orders in the book. Some people have associated The Faith Militants with the oppressive wrath of Christian Doctorate that was rife in the medieval era ^note even leading to some of the show's anti-religious fans siding with the corrupt government, or even Cersei, against the Faith. Some Christians who watch or have watched ‘Game of Thrones’ have taken offense to this situation currently happening in the show, also due to the fact that setting's various religions are treated more fairly in the books ^note especially since Rhillor and Old Gods have depictions of supernatural acts on their behalf while the Faith has not (yet), the implication being the first two are closer to "true Gods" than the latter.

I'd like to bring this back up regarding Bronn. Considering everything else (his disgust for Joffrey and Meryn Trant, his genuine friendship with Tyrion), it's clear he has standards beyond "I'll kill anyone for money." To me, that's where the interpretation comes in: Bronn's actions and attitudes towards other people show he does have some decency and morality.

So, as the entry original said: "does he mean that they'd need to pay him a lot to do something that low, or does he mean that he'd do it readily as long as he got paid?"

Renly just doesn't apply. He definitely fails "The Scrappy" and probably Creator's Favorite. I... suppose he might get Character Focus because he's the candidate for the Iron Throne we are expected to support for no reason other than "he wants it," but even that's a stretch. He does get Character Shilling from Brienne and Catelyn, though.

Ramsey fails The Scrappy. He's a Hate Sink, but he's overall Love to Hate. He's got a dedicated Hatedom due to his Villain Sue tendencies, but I think overall he's considered a positive addition.

Even as someone who wasn't happy with Renly and Ramsay in the show I'm inclined to agree in some regards. But I think Renly should get Character Shilling. However I think Ramsay is The Scrappy, as people are hating the character itself, not in the way that Joffrey was hateful but in the way that this is a bad character who is given too much focus.

Noted. But what about Character Shilling? He definitely gets the Focus and I hear from the threads he gets favoritism (someone mentioned the writers were saying "this guy is that badass") but does he get any shilling in the show? If anything, he seems to get dressed down in the show (which arguably makes him worse because he then Villain Sues his way to success anyway).

Remember, you need all four elements to apply. Otherwise it doesn't fit.

I largely agree. However, I think that Seasonal Rot should be kept on hold until after Season 6. Because Seasonal Rot is about a season being significantly weaker than anything that came before and after. Since we haven't seen Season 6 yet, we can't know.

I think you can add Season 5 to Critical Dissonance, it won the Emmy awards or some such award but was widely criticized. If you can add links to your argument it would better buttress it.

Seasonal Rot doesn't necessarily have to be something that they recover from. It can still apply even if next season winds up being even worse.

Now, I personally didn't care for S5 and personally and anecdotally I thought Seasonal Rot applied, but I argued below against its inclusion because the ratings and rankings didn't match that. But the IMDB rankings of episodes shows that, on average, S5 is considerably below the series' average ratings. At the very least, its season trendline is considerably lower than every other season.

I'd like to see more sources, though.

Maybe it would be best to wait for S6, as putting S5 down has been very much debated. I think it should go there, but I'm willing to wait. Though Critical Dissonance is something it does deserve, so I've put it on the Critical Dissonance page (and split of Critical Dissonance in Live-Action TV into a new page).

That would be justified... except the writers clearly say Renly would be a better ruler and want our sympathies to be with him.

So can we readd Keisha Castle-Hughes? She's an odd choice for the leader of an Amazon Brigade, and her lack of experience with fight scenes is pretty damn apparent. Considering how flat the character is, choosing someone who can't fight to save her life is at best questionable.

Most actors aren't martial artists. Fight scenes have a lot more to do with the way they're shot, edited and choreographed.

From reading Reddit of Ice and Fire, I can see it is true that a lot of people there hate Olly- I think it's one of those Vocal Minority kind of things wherein the subset of people who like the books enough to regularly post on a message board all agree on something- and thus figure that everyone watching the show does too.

I can kind of see the shoehorning charge in that he has the role of killing Ygritte, sort of becomes Jon's protegee, and is part of the assassination plot- all kind of meaty roles.

On the other hand, there's only ever been a handful of named Watch characters and in that sense it isn't really odd that Olly has these different roles. The show has always used an Economy Cast and I think like Ros, the hate comes from the character being a Canon Foreigner (although my sense is still that it's a Vocal Minority that hates Olly whereas almost everyone seemed to dislike Ros).

I've seen plenty of "Fuck you, Olly!" posts around the internet, but in my casual skimming of them they looked more like "How dare you!" than "Olly is a poorly drawn character who is really bringing down the quality of the show."

If people are objecting to the fact that he's a canon foreigner and such, I'd like to get some reason why he's a scrappy and not any other canon foreigner in the show.

We can put him in Hate Sink.

Nah. I don't think he fits that. Joffrey was a classic example of a Hate Sink, but Olly doesn't really rise to that level, especially because for most viewers (who generally aren't book readers), they hate him now because he was previously a character they liked or were at worst neutral to.

Olly's supposed to represent one side of the argument... he's basically been the voice of the anti-wildling side (Thorne mostly just snarking rather than actually expressing their thoughts).

I liked him well enough in the beginning, but starting with Ygritte's death (specifically his awkward little "got your back, bro" nod to Jon) his Wangst and refusal to see Jon's side is just annoying. Given Word of God talking about how the mutineers were supposed to be at least somewhat sympathetic, I don't think they were trying to make us dislike Olly.

And I haven't read the books so I don't give a shit about Canon Foreigner-ness.

I'm considering adding the following writeup:

• Olly. Fans find it genuinely surprising that the character was meant to be sympathetic, despite his role in the deaths of two prominent characters (Ygritte and Jon). While he started off decently popular despite being a Tagalong Kid to the Night's Watch, he lost popularity by the end of the season, with his performance during "Watchers on the Wall" being considered narm-y to most. In season 5, he becomes the embodiment of the Watch losing faith in Jon Snow, and the foreshadowing of his betrayal of Jon Snow was heavyhanded to the point of being jarring. Writers were trying to go for an Et Tu, Brute? vibe with him, but unfortunately it just fell flat.

Just noticed this got stuck in. I'm looking at the Internet and seeing a lot more Love to Hate rather than Scrappy-ness. Like this Telegraph article of tweets about Olly after the episode. I'm seeing a lot of "Die, Olly scum!" and no "Well that was lame" comments.

I'm still thinking that the issue of people hating Olly the person is getting lumped into people hating Olly the character.

Arya has always been one of the most popular characters. One or two people disliking her is not going to change that by any stretch of the imagination. You may as well call Tyrion Lannister Scrappy

The point was that I didn't think she should be on the list, but wanted some discussion first. It's a moot point now since someone else just removed it anyway.

Uh, yeah. That's just a silly entry.

I do still think Olly counts (see below).

^ Same thing on Rotten Tomatoes (97%).

Honestly, we've been through exactly the same thing before with Season 4. A very Vocal Minority at work. I already had to delete a rediculous Jump the Shark entry regarding this issue.

The worse you can say about this season is that certain episodes suffered from rather severe case(s) of Broken Base.

The Jump the Shark Analysis page itself says, and I quote, "There is some evidence that jumping the shark has no real effect on a show's success. This depends on one's definition; a strict shark jump by definition sets the tone that eventually causes viewers to stop watching, whereas the softer definition used in the article walks the line between this trope and Ruined Forever."

So I don't think it has anything to do with majority opinion or Rotten Tomatoes per se.

I will say that calling Seasonal Rot and Jump the Shark is slightly premature. I think we need to wait for Season 6 or 7 to roll by and judge then.

In either case, criticisms of Season 5 is included in Broken Base already. So let it rest for now.

The thing is, though, that Jump the Shark is a sentiment felt by the majority, or at least a large percentage of, the fans.

While Season 5 had it's fair share of audience criticisms, this is simply not the case here.

My general impression reading many of the official reviews is that there is a broad consensus that Season 5 is inferior to the earlier seasons. They still call it good but nobody compares it to the really good episodes of earlier seasons, so I don't think its as much a Vocal Minority as that. The reason Hardhome was so highly reviewed was because all the earlier episodes were disliked. Dorne is almost unanimously reviled as well. The big moments in 9 and 10 weren't well liked either.

As per the trope page of Seasonal Rot: An installment in any long running series that is widely held to be of notably poorer quality than the other installments. Often tied to the dislike of a specific arc, but can also befall episodic shows. In some cases, a new director takes over and pulls the series in a different direction; this can give the impression of Seasonal Rot to those who liked the old way, but may also bring in new viewers who prefer it like this (in other words, a change in tastes or audience).

So Season 5 moves in a different direction by going seriously off-canon, its generally regarded as weaker than earlier seasons, Dorne is hated. And in either case, the fans who liked the earlier seasons, number among the ones who hate Season 5 while newer fans may like it. So I'd say Seasonal Rot more than qualifies and it doesn't really have to deal with a "majority". Jump the Shark doesn't qualify because it involves specific references but the Analysis page clearly states that it doesn't have to be a majority opinion.

But again, maybe people want to wait a year and add it.

I don't know if we need to wait of until season 6, but we need to at least wait until the post-finale heat dies down and people have had time to digest the material. Having that entry added right after the season finished airing comes across as knee-jerk fan rage.

From a purely anecdotal perspective it does seem like it will be a fit; nearly everyone I've spoken to have been less enthused about this season (book fans and show-only people alike).

Though I do agree, I think we should definitely wait a bit for a cool down. Though it might be telling that we haven't said that about earlier seasons ( Lady Stoneheart complaining aside).

Because clearly Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are always right.

Seriously, the amount of criticism about this show that is blocked or otherwise removed from the YMMV page is fucking astounding. Besides, the YMMV page is about opinions of the show anyway, so I don't see why the Seasonal Rot entry needs to be removed. A lot of fans feel that it is true, regardless of whether or not they're a Vocal Minority.

Seriously, increased ratings doesn't mean that the show is good.

Well, most of the the number of people I have spoken too seem to like this season just fine. Much more than S4, actually.

However, this is irrelevant, since even the YMMV page doesn't relly on anecdotal evidence. It requires some sort of consensus. That's why we have discussion pages. And that's why certain tropes like Unfortunate Implications require citations.

In this case, consensus is usually found in reviews & ratings. Which, for the most part, have been good. Points of contention have come up, but the same can be said for every season post S2.

Finally, no, we can insert the opinion of every Vocal Minority on the YMMV page. It would be both unreasonable and impractical.

Speaking as someone who thought it was Seasonal Rot: we really don't want to catalog a vocal minority. When we do audience reactions, it's because it's how the majority of the audience reacts. Just because I hate a character doesn't make them The Scrappy, they're The Scrappy because most people hate them. Given the breadth of opinions on the internet every single opinion is probably held by someone. Just because they stomp their feet a lot doesn't mean we document it.

• 1. Shirtless Man fighting and killing Ironborn with light armor and weapons. Compare that to Ser Barristan, greatest knight in Westeros, losing to back-alley Harpies.

• 2. His Ninja raid of 20 Men in the middle of the night attacking a large camp which spontaneously lights on fire like he has pyrokinesis? With zero men lost, with 100 men and many horses dying, if it had been just the food supplies with say three or four caught and killed then its something but Flawless Victory?

• 3. Then all the women, even Tansy that girl he hunted with Myranda were his former girlfriends, meaning he's some kind of Casanova type. When in the books Ramsay can't attract any girls and he's an unremitting rapist(literally the first thing we hear of him in the books is the Hornwood incident) and the victims are converted into willing participants of abuse because Ramsay is a Hot Guys Are Bastards incarnate. The only time he has raped in the show is with Sansa.

So yes, he qualifies.

• There was no "ninja raid". 20 fighters, carrying out a sabotage mission, using a blizzard and the night as cover, in a land they were born in and likely know extremely well is nothing out of ordinary. Much less implausible than the Sons of the Harpy seemingly possessing infinite numbers, appearing out of nowhere and curb stomping entire battalions of supersoldiers.

• What Ramsay did or did not do in the books is irrelevant. His show version has been given a dose of Adaptational Attractiveness (much like the rest of the cast) and he's shown to be in some sort of sexual relationship(s) with two women. Hardly enough to make one qualify as The Casanova. It is also made clear that said mistresses are, more or less, a Paid Harem made-up of low-born girls he either dupes or charms by appealing to their own sadistic streak (e.i. Myranda & Violet).

• Most important of all, Ramsay doesn't meet the two overlaps found on a typical Villain Sue. 1) He does not have a Freudian Excuse (his past as child-by-rape is never used to humanise him). 2) He's by no means a God-Mode Sue. The only time he forced a "hero" to hold the Idiot Ball was when he scared Yara off. And even then it was later implied/stated that there was an ulterior motive on her part to abandon Theon. His arc is far from over so he can't really be called a Karma Houdini, either.

• Finally, Ramsay is pretty clearly a Hate Sink. Hate Sinks cannot be Villain Sues. He's not portrayed as a Magnificent Bastard. He's a Stupid Evil Smug Snake whose immature-ish, damaging behavior is constantly called out by his clearly mentally superior father.

In conclusion, yes, Ramsay is more charming & capable than his (frankly exaggerated) book counterpart, yes, that one scene with Yara and her crew was pretty dumb/rushed, but that does not make him a Villain Sue.

Why is his book counterpart not relevant here? Surely its important to stress how totally different the Show character is from the book version in terms of his greater prominence and importantly the specific changes they made in adaptation in terms of making rape victims willing sex slaves.

1) Yes it is a Ninja Raid. 20 fighters can't sneak into a heavily bivouaced camp, cause the damage it does, suffer no casualties and walk off without a hitch. That is sheer nonsense, just because Ramsay and others are of the North doesn't mean they have magic winter powers to teleport as they will. Tywin Lannister, who was the Big Bad for most of the books and the show never pulled off any stunt like that because he's a well-written villain grounded in reality.

2) The trope page says, "forcing the heroes to hold the Idiot Ball, and/or requiring Deus ex Machina in order for the protagonists to stand a chance of defeating them." That is exactly what happens in the episode. Stannis literally turns to the Gods to save him from Ramsay.

3) Ramsay is elevated into Magnificent Bastard in this episode. His dumb plan is shown as totally successful, while Roose Bolton's collaboration with Littlefinger has led to Failure Is the Only Option since the Lannisters know he sold them out. So Roose is now wussied out in favor of Junior.

I don't care about the book version one way or the other, but I'd say he qualifies by now.

The raid he pulled off? Damn impressive, especially considering it was entirely offscreen. The Ironborn thing was more just Plot Armor in of itself, but Ramsey's since been shown to be really skilled manipulation, combat, and strategy. The dude did take Winterfell from Theon, and then used Theon to take... whatever the other thing the Ironborn were holding. He was legitimized by his father for a reason... he's yet to fail at anything in the show.

Yes, he does get called out by his father. Who then asks him to help him in this war. And then Ramsey goes and scores a decisive victory in a manner that calls out his father.

I sure as hell didn't like him, but that's just me.

Didn't like him because he's a jerk or because you thought he's a poorly written character?

I never liked Alliser Thorne ever but I did after watching him in Watchers on the Wall episode. But I wouldn't call him The Scrappy. The Scrappy is a character who is intended to be likable and "cool" but does not get the audience identification. Alliser Thorne was always this Drill Sergeant Nasty type, and its common for dudes like that to show a more complex side. And Thorne is also a Composite Character of Donal Noye in the books.

It's still a major contrivance, if only for the simple reason that it didn't happen in the books and the books were written with greater care and attention to intricacies than the show. But anyway, keeping show canon only, let's unpack this:

1) Roose Bolton's only support is the Crown. If his son marries Sansa, that means that eventually, one way or another, the North will have to go South and fight. Now a Northern Lord lost soldiers, sons and bannerman fighting for Robb Stark and the only sensible reason any would have to submit to the Boltons is if he brings peace. Now Bolton is telling them all to go South and fight the Lannisters for him?! The Crown whether its Margaery as Queen or anyone else, will not and cannot tolerate Sansa in the North. The Tyrells depend on Joffrey and Tommen for legitimacy and since Tyrion is absconding they will need to bring perpetrators to justice otherwise everyone will wonder why the Crown isn't bringing Joffrey's murders to justice and they will stark asking questions and notice that the Tyrells have benefited greatly from Joffrey's death. In the Books, Roose got a Fake Arya! signed, sealed and approved by the Tywin Lannister Seal of Quality because that's ironclad borrowed legitimacy right there. That Roose is not an idiot. Show!Roose though decides that instead of the Lannister Crown and the Iron Throne, he'll put his trust in Petyr Baelish and the ephemeral support of the Vale Lords, that's not cautious Roose, that's Roose taking a million-to-one chance that once Roose defeats Stannis, he and Baelish will then take on the Iron Throne. Roose IS right that the Lannisters and Tyrell will not do his job for him (which is how feudalism works by the way, unless you are directly married to the Crown) but they will definitely go against him for betraying them, otherwise all the other Kingdoms will take notice and start to rebel to. Basically Roose has risked everything stupidly and unnecessarily, where in the books he built an alliance and mounted an army rather than deal with the likes of Littlefinger.

2) Sansa probably didn't have options aside from trusting Petyr but going to the North and marrying Ramsay is not any kind of revenge. Firstly the North after Joffrey's death, likely see her as a heroine, the Stark daughter who avenged her brother. Marrying the Boltons significantly destroys that. Once she marries Ramsay, as far as the North is concerned she's not Stark anymore. This is the North, not Dorne. The North fought for the King in the North, not a Queen!!! If Stannis loses, her future is being wife of Ramsay Bolton and then getting the Vale and North to go fight King's Landing to what, avenge her brother?! After marrying the people who betrayed and stabbed him in the heart, her husband being the man who burnt Winterfell. Again logic is self-defeating. Again the books work better, there she is getting power for herself and rebuilding the Vale-North alliance via marriage

3) As for littlefinger, why does he have to break the Lannister/Bolton alliance in the first place? It makes sense to break the Lannister/Tyrell alliance (actually crucial to the Crown) but then Cersei is doing that for him (Book!Littlefinger mostly lounged around in the Vale). If Littlefinger is planning to be loyal to Cersei, he has to bring her Sansa's head on a pike. If Littlefinger knows Cersei is a self-destructive idiot, than he knows she's too unreliable to court support from. If littlefinger's loyal to the Boltons, then he has to fight Stannis AND Cersei/Tyrells. If he swings Stannis' way, then he's fighting the Boltons, the Lannisters and the Tyrells (absolutely no one south of Moat Cailin wants Stannis king). In other words, he's in a position that he has to commit himself fully to one side. The only other option is to become a conqueror and get an army, and believe me if you think a Braavosi immigrant Pimp/Moneylender can command an army in Westeros, leave alone the North, then this series has officially become fanfiction.

Logically, all of them are acting like idiots on the show. They are blatantly contrived OOC actions dedicated to creating plot and action.

1: Bolton knows two things, that he can't hold the North through fear, and that the Lannisters won't help him hold the North. The Lannisters helped him get to power, but with Tywin gone, they're not going to do a damn thing to help him keep that. He's explicitly said this. As such, his alliance with the Lannisters is pretty much useless at this point. Who says they have to go South and fight? And if there's one thing the North is good at, it's not getting taken. If he doesn't push for the South (and why would he?) the South probably won't be able to touch the North.

2: That's a ton of conjecture. Especially since the only thing we've heard of the public's reaction to the marriage is that if Roose dis, people will perceive it as saving her from the most hated family in the North. Granted, it's Littlefinger speaking, but it's still more evidence of her keeping the image of her family name than we have against.

3: CHAOSH ISH A LADDEHHHH. But seriously, anything to weaken... anyone... seems to be his goal. And by breaking the Bolton/Lannister alliance, he gets the North after he picks off the straggler. And (this is conjecture) possibly gets to marry Sansa, to "legitimize" his claim on the North.

But seriously, we haven't seen how any of this has played out. From some perspectives, the Gambit Pileup looks like a mess. From others, it makes sense. We'll have to see and find out.

... as opposed to the Sand Snakes plot which was just... straight up idiocy from everyone, with clear and sudden consequences (which thankfully were cancelled out somewhat by other peoples' idiocy).

You call it conjecture, I say the series is doing a good job trying to make you forget the world-building and medieval rules so as to shoehorn their story, but trope vice, it still qualifies as Idiot Plot.

1. Bolton's legitimacy comes from the Lannisters. That was the POINT of the Red Wedding. If Roose Bolton decides that he's going his own way, and that he'll hold the North by blocking Moat Cailin, well the South can simply decide to starve the North (The Reach/Tyrells supply the food to the region) and the people will be left to die during Winter. And if Roose Bolton is going to defy the Lannisters, the North will wonder why they have to pay taxes to Roose Bolton. So no, the South will ride to Moat Cailin and if Roose wants to hold on to the North he will have to fight them. The other thing people forget about "lannisters won't help Roose hold the North", well they are not supposed to. They made him Warden and the job description is, "don't make us do your job for you or we might as well not have you at all", so Roose complaining about it makes zero sense. Stannis himself said that the North was a hard region to keep in power and Robert had Ned Stark to do it for him. The Lannisters won't help Roose HOLD the North (aside from giving him titles and legitimizing his heir) but they will damn sure help anybody else to get the North back to the Seven Kingdoms. The Iron Throne rules all Westeros, and if any one side can secede without comment, that means all the other kingdoms can follow suit. So either way Roose Bolton has shot himself in the foot just for the sake of the Season 5 Highway to Moronsville story. He is in a Lose/Lose Situation. He either loses to Stannis or he will lose to the Crown. His only option for survival after that is to get out of the North and March south and fight the Crown and well...I just can't buy that at all.

The whole Sansa/Baelish/Bolton is Idiot Plot and goes against all the Character Development, is poorly foreshadowed and developed and completely fails at logic. At the very least Roose Bolton is grabbing the Idiot Ball very firmly, by risking and compromising his position like this. He's put his entire fate in Littlefinger's hands. If he comes out on top of this, he'll become a Villain Sue as far as I'm concerned (Ramsay is already there), but either way its a waste.

"The Idiot Plot, of course, is any plot that would be resolved in five minutes if everyone in the story were not an idiot."

I'm not seeing this in Game of Thrones. There's no obvious solution that all the characters are missing to force there to be a show. This entry (and the above discussion) is just a lot of fridge logic and personal analysis.

You may very well dislike the direction the plot is going and think that it's stupid, but that's what the reviews section, message boards, and local bar are for. It's not an example of Idiot Plot.

Seconded. If an examples requires this many paragraphs of back and forth discussion, then that's a good sign it does not fit the trope. You should instead but these observations/complaints under the show's Headscratchers page.

Tywin doesn't torture or threaten Arya, so he doesn't realize she's a Stark and doesn't use her for his own goals which would be quite different than her own plans, so the affection of the plot is rather glaring. And while the fact that he is willing to chat with a bright coup bearer may reveal new facets of Tywin's character, the fact that he ignores information that could be of use for him, sacrifices his Pragmatic Villain characterization a big time. Tywin had no way of knowing she was a Stark — she could be a member of a minor noble house (he still could marry her off or use to influence her family), she could be a member of a major noble house lost in the midst of the war. Tywin ignored the possibility of political gain of an unknown size to chat with a child. I would say that's pretty OOC. Any lord with half a brain should interrogate the girl, much more Tywin.

You seem to be mistaking character flaws for OOC. Tywin isn't just a ruthless Pragmatic Villain who gets every call right. The point of the scenes was to reveal more facets of Tywin's character besides being a pragmatic villain. He shows that he's able to show mercy and even a certain degree of indulgence for someone who amuses him. A new side to an otherwise flat character.

This is the opposite of Idiot Ball. That trope is about purely OOC actions that are needed to reach a pre-ordained plot point. For example, Alice starts acting like an asshole for no reason so that Bob will suspect that she's a double-agent for an episode. Being an asshole is never an aspect of Alice's personality again, it was just written in because the episode needed Bob to suspect that she's a double agent. That's not the case with Tywin. We see the softer side, the flawed side, and even the willfully ignorant side of him in many episodes to follow.

Even if it's understandable (and I truly think it is), it's uncharacteristically dumb for Tyrion to want to find Tywin at all.

Yes, he's emotional and they've had their obvious issues, but he's basically giving up his life for one last confrontation. Things really worked out about as perfectly for them as they could've, honestly... if Tywin had been in his room, or if he hadn't killed Tywin, Tyrion would've been caught before he could escape.

But remember that Tyrion doesn't just want to escape. He already had a chance to escape by joining the Night's Watch. He scorned that opportunity to publicly shame his father and all the rest. Tyrion is basically doing the same thing again: possibly throwing away his life for a chance to call the old man out.

Sticking it to Tywin seems to be something he values more than life itself. When he's trying to convince Jaime to fight for him, he doesn't seem to mind that Jaime can't fight worth a damn. He smiles and tries to convince Jaime that if they both die, Tywin would lose, and wouldn't that be awesome.

Even if this entry is valid, it's so badly written and natter-y it should be zorched just for that.

I don't get why people don't get why Tyrion killed Tywin- it's like they think that absent the book details, Tyrion would have no reason to.

To the contrary, in addition to all of the dickish stuff Tywin had done to him previously, Tywin spent much of the season framing him for murder.

Agreed, Logo P. It wasn't very well written. But...

Captain Crawdad, the point remains that Tyrion's actions are incredibly out of character, even in the book. Whereas the book explains the motivations for Tyrion's sudden idiocy, the show just... has him jeopardize his escape practically on a whim. It makes one of the most pragmatic people in the show look quite idiotic. His actions at court could be justified not only as him being in the heat of the moment of an unexpected betrayal, but confident that his trial by combat would go well by 1) believing Bronn would fight for him, and 2) not expecting the Mountain to be the crown's champion. He does get incredibly scared about dying when he realizes the Mountain is fighting. By the time of his escape, he's definitely had time to think a lot of things over, such as the rashness of his actions. He'd have to be an incredibly stupid individual to risk his shot at freedom twice unless something else - like the "ultimate betrayal" from the book - were to cause him to completely snap.

Anyway, no, Hodor, Tyrion doesn't have a reason to risk his escape and possibly his life to confront Tywin. So, Tywin's a dick. Big whoop. That's not new information to Tyrion, first of all. Second of all, Cersei has dedicated just as much effort to framing Tyrion for murder as Tywin has, so why does Tyrion leave to confront Tywin specifically. Why not Cersei instead? Heck, why not both, since he seems to have all the time in the world to just do rash things on a whim? Why does he just go after Tywin, specifically?

Well, he was the one who sentenced him to death. And was probably the one nearest. Remember that the tunnel network Tyrion used to escape is connected with the Tower of the Hand.

Besides, I don't think Tyrion's original intention was to kill him. More like confort him. It was after the whole mess with Shae things got out of hand.

And what the hell did Tyrion expect after his fighter lost the trial by combat that he demanded? For Tywin to set him free despite his loss? Just questioning Tywin about why he was sentenced to death was stupid. Not only that, but it comes off as blaming Tywin for something Tyrion brought on himself.

Speaking of that tunnel network, we've never seen Tyrion use it on the show before. In the book, he'd never used it before either. How the hell does he know where the Tower of the Hand is from those tunnels without Varys' help - which was how he knew in the book?

Sorry, but no matter how you slice or dice it, Tyrion's actions and even his questions come off as rather stupid, considering nothing has happened to justify the sudden disregard for pragmatism he's afflicted with.

Tyrion didn't "expect" anything. He'd just went through a period of watching everyone he knew turning on him and his own father sentencing him to death. He presumably reached his breaking point and wanted to finally come face-to-face with Tywin.

And, for all we know, the scene with Varys reverse-psychology-ing him to go to Tywin's room might have happened off-screen. Time contraints and all.

Look, general dislike and abuse from Tywin and washing his hands off Tyrion during the trial is not enough motive for Tyrion to confront his father and/or kill him. On that level, there is as much reason for him to kill Cersei, though Tyrion might think that Cersei genuinely thinks he's guilty whereas his father knows he's innocent but framing him anyway. Obviously finding Shae in Tywin's bed and evidence of his hypocrisy gives added incentive, but his reasons for going into that room is not made clear, and it's clearly very petty or vindictive rather than the tragic inevitable line-crossing. Honestly, it makes him a psycho-killer since he's much cooler whereas the killing in the books is obviously a crime of passion coming from righteous anger and years of pent-up bitterness brought out by a late revelation.

This is basically the result of removing a perfectly simple, dramatic motivation from the scene in the books and then shoehorning the scene without it and expecting it to have the same emotional effect. The result is the most dramatic moment for Tyrion's characterization where he finally becomes a Tragic Hero or Tragic Villain, ends up becoming a petty action driven by, in Tywin's words, "spite and low cunning".

I don't really see it as the "removing the motivation" bit and am just seeing this on its own. Tyrion chose to avoid almost guaranteed safety for almost guaranteed death. It's nothing like the trial, where he spur of the moment blurted out his speech, he traveled those corridors knowing he was pretty much walking into certain death. Not to mention Trial by Combat actually made a lot of sense, considering he figured it was Meran Trant or something and didn't expect Cersei to go above and beyond with fixing the fight.

Yes, Logo P, Tyrion just had Shae betray him at trial, so - understandably - he acted irrationally and demanded a trial by combat. Considering how well that turned out, it makes him look incredibly stupid to decide to do something irrational on a whim again without something rather extreme to motivate him.

And I have four words in retort to your notion that Varys reverse-psychology'd Tyrion to kill Tywin off-screen: "What have you done?" Show!Varys had no clue why Tyrion was taking so long to reach that door and knock twice, as per Jaime's instructions, and definitely no clue why Tyrion was covered in scratches.

So, we're just supposed to accept that Tyrion navigates a series of tunnels he's never been shown navigating without Varys' help and hopefully find the entrance to Tywin's chambers to confront him because... Tywin is a dick and sentenced him to death? And this circular logic comes back to why he doesn't go after Cersei as well. Especially in light of the fact his last emotional and irrational action - demanding a trial by combat - blew up in his face.

That's why a What An Idiot entry is justified. As the scene stands in the show, Tyrion's Out of Character actions look completely stupid with no justification for them whatsoever.

Yeah, it's not like Varys is a mater actor and would act all shocked despite Tyrion killing Tywin was part of his plan from the start of this whole trial issue.

Varys has no need to act shocked in front of Tyrion, Tyrion is shown walking away from the stairs to Varys' door to go off and confront Tywin, so it's pretty self-explanatory that Varys in the show has no clue what Tyrion has done.

Assuming that Varys wanted Tyrion to kill Tywin, and off-screen goaded him into it ventures way too much into speculation. That's WMG territory, not main page or even YMMV.

The problem is that Tywin comes off as a real victim in the situation. In the sense, that okay he's sleeping with Tyrion's whore but think about it, if Tywin was really cruel he could have rubbed it in his face and further humiliate him, at least privately. He doesn't even bring it at crossbow point since he's not that low a sleazebag. In the books, the Tysha revelation finally showed readers and Tyrion what kind of evil person Tywin was and how he made his children part of that evil and it totally justified his brutal death(though not Shae's), here he's a general issue scumbag and dick. It justified Tyrion taking that detour(which was also something he stumbled along the way), he decided to climb, as a dwarf, a long ladder all the way to the top just to have some fighting words with Daddy.

The scene only makes sense as a kind of catharsis if you take into account Tywin's crimes against other heroic characters but it doesn't paint him as beyond the pale, it paints him as a general self-deluding hypocrite rather than the self-righteous arrogant fanatic who finally has his pride taken from him. Here it's this statesman and intelligent man realizing that his children are total failures and everything he's built will come crumbling around him.

Tyrion doesn't have enough motivation or rather the level of hatred to do it.

So, I'm offering up a possible re-write for the entry. It's three lines shorter.

• In "The Children", after Tyrion does something irrational in reaction to Shae's betrayal and demands a trial by combat, only for his champion Oberyn to lose, Jaime breaks him out of his cell. Jaime tells him Varys will be waiting for him behind a door. What does Tyrion decide to do? Something irrational a second time, of course. He risks his second chance at life to go and confront his father. What makes this worse is it was better explained in the book series, whereas here, he just does it practically on a whim with no emotional motivation.

Except it was definitely not a whim with no emotional motivation. His father wanted to have him executed/sent to the Wall for a murder he didn't commit and turned almost all his allies (including the love of his life) against him. Not to mention all the past abuse Tywin had put him through.

The last line needs to go.

The last line does need to go. That it wasn't a whim is exactly why it was idiotic. He had enough time to mull over the decision and could've turned back at any time. He didn't.

Not to mention book stuff is irrelevant.

The laconic description of What An Idiot is "A character does something so idiotic that the audience (and sometimes other characters) won't be sympathetic." The trope should be reserved for when characters make bizarre decisions that have no justification. Simply making irrational decisions should not be sole grounds for the trope, since all drama is founded on character flaws.

As the suggested write-up admits, Tyrion's irrational actions in relation to Tywin are an established character flaw. The audience would sympathize with him because we've seen, time and time again, the antipathy that exists between Tyrion and Tywin that goes beyond reason.

Again, Cersei is just as responsible for Tyrion's conviction as Tywin is and was just as horrible to Tyrion as Tywin was, yet Tyrion goes after Tywin and not Cersei (or even both of them). Two friends of mine who didn't read the books thought it was Cersei in the bed (not realizing it was the Tower of the Hand) and thought Tyrion was going to kill her, until it was revealed to be Shae. Removing the books' justification for specifically targeting Tywin, Tyrion has an equal amount of reasons to kill either Tywin or Cersei.

I'll agree that the last line needs to go, but Tyrion is not the type to make irrational actions when nothing immediately precarious or emotionally traumatizing is happening to him. He demands a trial by combat at the Eyrie because it's either that or be executed by Robin Arryn in an unfair trial or be killed falling out of a sky cell. He demands a trial by combat for Joffrey's murder in an immediate and emotional moment in reaction to Shae's betrayal as well as the fact that a trial by combat might be the only fair one he'd get.

His irrational actions are the exact opposite of a character flaw. This is Tyrion Lannister we're talking about here. He only makes irrational decisions under extreme circumstances, which is why after losing his trial by combat and awaiting his execution, facing his own impending mortality in the face and being scared, and being offered by Jaime and Varys one last chance at freedom, his decision to delay and jeopardize that chance to go and confront his father comes off as incredibly stupid. It is a bizarre decision without the motivation from the books.

Heck, asking Tywin why he sentenced Tyrion to die was probably the dumbest line of dialogue written for Tyrion. His fighter loses the trial, and he actually asks his father why he sentenced his own son (who demanded a trial by combat and lost) to death? Just that question alone deserves a What An Idiot entry.

• After Tyrion does something irrational in reaction to Shae's betrayal and demands a trial by combat, only for his champion Oberyn to lose, Jaime breaks him out of his cell. Jaime tells him Varys will be helping him escape. What does Tyrion decide to do? Something irrational a second time, of course. He risks his second chance at life to go and confront his father. Tyrion even illogically asks Tywin why he sentenced his own son to death... Aforementioned sentence was not dependent on Tywin's wishes, but on the outcome of the trial by combat that Tyrion demanded.

I'm with Crawdad here. Even without the last line, this entry is trope misuse and has no place here. I'm voting against.

Especially with the Laconic there, it should be added. As I was watching I was internally screaming "you idiot, just go to the goddamn dock." Just because Tyrion is a sympathetic character in general doesn't make him immune to What An Idiot.

I've said it repeatedly in this thread that he should've expected to get caught and it worked out comically for him. I didn't realize until just now but that just goes to show that, well, his action was so dumb that to me he lost sympathy for its consequences. And Tyrion's my favorite character.

So yeah. It's YMMV, it's not misuse, and it's my (and apparently WWS's) opinion. Which is enough to get it added to the page.

Though the new last line still needs to go. Just focus on going to the Tower Of The Hand rather than fleeing.

Yeah, no. Two people's opinions are not enough to establish a consensus. I'm voting down on this since I don't think that 1) it was that dumb or unjustified, 2) makes Tyrion unsympathetic. Lets see how it goes.

That's precisely what YMMV is for...

When an entry is contested, a consensus needs to be established on whether it's valid or not. That's what discussion pages are for, after all.

FTR, I believe this entry will probably be kept since you, WWW & Julian Lapostat seem to be in favour of it. Lets wait for everyone to live his vote though.

Well, I don't know how these things work, so I'm voting for the following edit:

• After Tyrion does something irrational in reaction to Shae's betrayal and demands a trial by combat, only for his champion Oberyn to lose, Jaime breaks him out of his cell. Jaime tells him Varys will be helping him escape. What does Tyrion decide to do? Something irrational a second time, of course. He jeopardizes his second chance at life to go and confront his father. Tyrion even illogically asks Tywin why he sentenced his own son to death, as if Tyrion demanding and losing a trial by combat gave Tywin much choice.

That has quite a lot of spoiler tags. Mind paring them down?

And drop the "his question was illogical." It's a rhetorical question. That's like calling a cop irrational for asking "do you know why I pulled you over?"

I'm adding another vote against it, and at the very least Hodor should get a vote as well. YMMV is not a license to make unilateral decisions, especially when as it stands there is no consensus (it's 3-3 which in every circumstance is a simple cut).

But to expand on my reasoning a bit more and to counter some bad arguments here:

• Tyrion knows about the secret tunnels because Varys gave him a map two seasons ago in the lead up to the Battle of the Blackwater that specifically showed all of the secret tunnels in King's Landing.
• There is a rational reason for Tyrion to confront Tywin; closure. Tyrion knows when he leaves King's Landing he's never coming back and will never have a chance to confront Tywin again and call him out on close to forty years of bullshit.
• It's not a stupid or illogical question, even before the trial by combat Tywin was stacking the deck to have Tyrion found guilty, denying him the right to cross examine witnesses and poke holes in their stories (several of which Tywin personally knows are bullshit or taken out of context). Jamie flat out calls Tywin out on it and states that the whole trial is an obvious sham and just a pretence to have Tyrion killed. Hell nobody honestly buys that Tywin thinks Tyrion killed Joffrey, it was a blatant attempt to finally rid himself of his son.
• Tywin not rubbing in the fact he was fucking Shae is not proof that he's not cruel about it, it's that Tywin refuses to lower himself to that level. He was certainly cruel enough to insult someone his son very clearly had feelings for to his face right after said son killed her.
• As for going for Tywin and not Cersei, priorities. Cersei may have stacked the deck to see him executed, but Tywin has been twisting the knife in Tyrion for decades, openly stated that he would have killed Tyrion the day he was born if it wasn't for the family name and would have disowned him if he could have gotten away with it, and he was effectively the dealer of the cards and could have thrown them out if he really cared to. Plus Tyrion notes at one point Cersei had basically deluded herself to the point where even if someone else managed to prove they killed Joffrey she would be incapable of believing he wasn't involved in it.
• As also stated, it doesn't look like the original plan was to kill Tywin, just to confront him. It's only after he kills Shae that he breaks and grabs the crossbow.

So all things considered I'm calling this misuse of a trope that has been serially misused in general and support keeping it burned.

Uh-uh. What An Idiot is an Audience Reaction, actually. And there wasn't really a misuse problem (except for people disagreeing with examples).

Also, as a reminder, most laconics are poorly written. Never use them as a standard for what fits to the trope.

Right. So, do you have a vote on this?

To be honest, I am not particularly inclined to have a vote here at all, a) because I don't watch Game of Thrones and b) because a vote strikes me as a bad way to decide on the validity of a YMMV entry (other than the special cases like Complete Monster and Creator's Pet which have hard-and-fast objective requirements).

YMMV items and Audience Reactions are, after all, opinions and people are going to have disagreements about whether a given opinion fits. But consider, a) that some people disagreeing with a given opinion don't cause the holders of the given opinion to magically disappear, and YMMV pages document the existence of opinions and b) do we really want to expend effort and time to gauge each opinion? Especially considering that tropes are much more important to the site and much more easily gauged?

That is my general stance on YMMV objects, anyhow.

As for this item, if people agree with my viewpoint then so fine, we probably won't have this debate. If no, then good so as well. The only thing I am going to "Vote" on here (and I've already done so) is that the entries proposed so far have an excess in spoiler tags that ought to be remedied.

We don't really gauge every opinion on the YMMV page, obviously. Only the more disputed ones. Like this.

Yeah, and with my previous argument in mind I'll now throw a "Keep but rewrite" opinion in, since the example writeup is poor.

"And there wasn't really a misuse problem (except for people disagreeing with examples). "

Besides people making shit up or ignoring context that stated otherwise or lacking a clear, precise justification as to why an example was an example?

In my experience What An Idiot brings in a lot of natter, complaining and justifying edits, which is why I say there is a lot of misuse because well, there is a lot of misuse that runs counter to the goals of the wiki.

"Natter, complaining and justifying edits" are a different problem than misuse. I know they are a problem because more than 2 years ago I cleaned the main WAI pages out of them. Point taken on the others, although I'll note that "I don't agree with this YMMV item" is the default state for any YMMV object, not misuse.

^^ See, the thing is the idea of context being justifying or not is opinion. In my opinion, "he wanted closure" isn't enough of a qualifier for the fact he's essentially committing suicide and also potentially dooming the only remaining people in the world who cared enough about him to try to save his life (the third arguably being Oberyn, which, well...).

How about this:

• In "The Children," after Tyrion is sentenced to death, Jaime and Varys have risk everything to break him out and provide him with the means to flee King's Landing. Rather than listen to their directions and flee to the docks, he chooses to go to the Tower of the Hand to have one last confrontation with his father, which at this point is tantamount to suicide, as there are very few ways this could possibly end without him being recaptured and his friends punished. While he does manage to survive, the end result is still utterly tragic.

So... I'm going to add my version if no one disagrees.

You ought to cite which trope you pulled - Unfortunate Implications.

Anyhoo, I don't like that citation - far too much HYSTERICAL ALLCAPS and exclamation!!!!! mark!!!!! excesss!!!!!!!!. I would remove the entry.

Yeah, forgot about that. Sorry.

Anyway, aside from this specific link, I suggest we wait 'till the casting news are over before we add similar examples. It's just way to soon to speak with certainty-about anything involving Season 5.

Yeah, I was about to move this to discussion as well. First off, i've never, ever seen or heard of this complaint before, ever.

That aside, this sounds like... I dunno, whining about other people's whining. It's misuse.

Also Joffrey, for the same reason:

• Joffrey. Yes, Joffrey. While there's no question that he is pure evil and a nasty piece of work, fans are divided between whether the character should be loved simply for being pure evil (and to some, amusing) or utterly despised for being pure evil. Most people on both sides will fully praise his actor, through.

Again, this doesn't sound like a broken base. Everyone seems to agree that the character is an effective villain.

Also removing this:

• Daenerys, as in the books, managed to separate the fandom between those who hate her for the stupidity and hypocrisy of her actions, and those who praise her for freeing the slaves.

This isn't really talking about the quality of the character, it's talking about Dany's flaws as a person. A bad person isn't necessarily a bad character.

Cut, cut & cut. The same flawed arguement is used for both Ramsay and Joffrey. People are very much not devided in hating them. They just hate them in different ways.

As for Dany, well, it's pretty clear that her actions were meant to be devisive and controversial, in both the show and the books. People both love her for freeing the slaves and hate her for her naivety. That's what makes her an interesting character.

It's not like she was written to be seen as perfect and loved but she ended up hated and divisive due to bad writing.

Dany's a definite Base Breaker. To some people, she's the est and most moral person on the show. Others think she's a waste of screentime and don't care for her story. She's got a significant fandom and a huge hatedom. She definitely qualifies.

In that case, Larkman, the entry should be re-worded to talk about the quality of the character. Being moral or hypocritical doesn't make a good or bad character. It's how effectively those traits are used to create a story.

How's this for Dany:

• Daenerys. She's liked by some for doing her best and sticking by her morals, and applaud her success despite the fact that she essentially started the series with nothing, being effectively property. Others think that she's stubborn and are annoyed by both her decisions and the fact her successes can be attributed to a string of incredible luck.

That's still too much analysis of her as a person, rather than a character. Only the part about succeeding through luck is really relevant. This is more of what we would want:

• Daenerys. Some viewers think that she is a compelling hero with an interesting backstory and motivation. Critics, however, find her unsympathetic as a hero and think that her plot lines lean too heavily on Deus ex Machina.

Frist of, this needs clean-up ASAP. It's one big pile of Natter. "In fairness, Some fans, There's also..." are all Word Cruft.

Secondly, aren't Fan Dumb & Hate Dumb supposed to go on Darth Wiki?

Fan Dumb and Hate Dumb don't go in Darth Wiki, but there is an argument that they should go on Flame Bait.

According to Ask The Tropers, they do in fact go in Darth Wiki.

That discussion was about Flame Bait. It does mention Darth Wiki but in the "some things that are Flame Bait go in Darth Wiki" sense, not as "Fan Dumb and Hate Dumb go in Darth Wiki".

captainpat - "Does this mean we shouldn't list things like Hate Dumb and Fan Dumb on ymmv pages? "

Fighteer - "Reverted and PM'ed the troper who added all those things to Character Derailment. Yes, you should not list Hate Dumb and Fan Dumb on YMMV pages."

That doesn't mesh with what you said, unless we are getting hooked up on different things. What I'm saying is that Hate Dumb and Fan Dumb don't get listed on YMMV pages, the difference between Flame Bait and Darth Wiki is one I don't care about.

That has nothing to do with either Flame Bait or Darth Wiki. Question was: Do they go in Darth Wiki? My answer was: No. The points you bring up are that it should not be listed on YMMV. Fine, but not the question I was answering.

In any case, this either needs some serious trimming (plus a Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement note) or to be cut completely. It can't exist in its current from.

Cut completely citing the ATT thread.

Agreed. I've been to quite a few forums and discussion threads and most of the show only watchers think this season was good to great. With this season's finale being praised as the best one yet. Many casual book readers also share this opinion. While there's certainly a number of fans who think this season suffered from Seasonal Rot, they are arguably a Vocal Minority.

I think Vocal Minority kind of defines a lot of the YMMV page.

Yeah. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there's a huge amount of self-selection among the group of people that are book readers who discuss the show online, and the result is that there will often be a lot of agreement within that "bubble", and people tend to assume that reflects how everyone else thought about the episode/show.

Although I will note that personally, I found the finale episode a huge let down, although I felt the preceding episodes were quite strong.

I agree. Plus I don't recall anyone saying that Karstark's men were half of Robb's army.

They were a pretty big part of it since their absence rendered the war all but unwinnable for Robb. But the fact that people are acting like he would be an idiot not to punish treason and murder with more than a slap on the wrist is a bit puzzling to me.

Narm has its own subpage.

It makes sense that we've got more examples, since we've got a much larger (and more importantly, broader) audience than the books. The books, as popular as they are, don't have nearly as diverse a fanbase as the show, which means of course there will be more Broken Base elements.

... that said, I do agree that it does need trimming. At the very least, about half of them need to go into Base Breaker.

Personally, I was unaware people didn't like "The Bear and the Maiden Fair." I also thought that, Alas, Poor Scrappy aside, Ros was pretty much universally disliked. But I don't claim to have my ear to the ground of the fandom.

But my point is to ask whether the fanbase is actually "broken" about all of these issues. Are all of these topics causing "civil war," as the trope description says? Or are these topics simply getting mixed reactions?

I don't think it's practical to draw such a distinction.

Sure it's practical. Most people who check out this page would be Game of Thrones fans, and most fans can testify as to what's going on the fanbase.

Besides, the trope is about when a fanbase gets "broken" by a divisive topic. If the trope applies whenever at least one person has a different opinion than the rest, then we could list literally every aspect of the show as an example, and that's not a trope.

History belies the idea that we can get an uncontested entry in the way you describe. Also, I worry about the standing of this idea under YMMV policies - YMMV pages collect opinions and they don't have to be majority opinions.

Broken Base is a bit different from most other YMMV tropes in that it's not an opinion about the work, but a factual assertion that the fanbase is divided on a subjective issue.

It's an opinion to think that Tyrion is a lousy character or a good character, but it's a fact as to whether fans are warring over the issue. In this example, I might personally think that Tyrion is the worst character in the show, but I couldn't claim that there's a Broken Base over the issue, because the fanbase isn't broken over that topic. It's factually inaccurate. Think of it like Rotten Tomatoes: each review is subjective, but we can determine objectively whether the reviews were mixed or unanimous.

I think we're starting to have a serious problem again with "Breaker of Chains".

Are we? How so? It seems to be fairly civil and there's no edit warring going on over it. What's your issue with it?

By the way, I'm moving some of the Broken Base items to Base Breaker.

^^ Can you be more elaborate?

Question: Can we now remove Oberyn Martell from the Base Breaker list? While there was buzz before he actually appeared, I'm pretty sure as soon as he showed up he was pretty much unanimously liked.

I lean towards its removal, but I'm fine either way, honestly. I amended it because as it was written before, it was... just comically awful (explicitly saying that it's worse than Cersei setting Ned up to be killed). And personally, I don't think Robert's done anything bad enough to qualify for a MEH.

But MEH is a fairly personal thing, and it sounds like to whoever added the example, Robert calling the assassin crossed a line for them. Mind you, it could be a Ron the Death Eater effect (especially by claiming that all Dany did was "get pregnant"... she was married to the Khal for the explicit purpose of getting an army to invade Westeros. And as I added, he did regret the action, which usually winds up discounting someone from crossing the MEH.

Then we should remove Jaime's entry as well, because however evil pushing a child out of window looked at the time, he doesn't serve as 'irredeemably evil' anymore. Not sure about Karstark, as his grief-driven murder of two innocent boys isn't really much more evil than Theon's action of killing the miller boys to cover his failure, is it? Theon's act isn't on the list and the character isn't 'irredeemably evil' anymore, mostly because of crap that happened to him after. So, maybe, if Walder Frey becomes miserable or sorry later in the series' run, we should remove the Red Wedding as well? Just needing clarification. Because after reading the trope's description, I'd actually remove Cersei's entry as well, because she does not become a monster, she clearly detests Joffrey's cruel tendencies and, well, while killing your abusive, whoring husband who's broken your heart and is probably to hunt you and possibly your children down isn't a noble thing, it doesn't send her into the 'irredeemable' territory in my opinion.

PS. Cersei didn't intend Ned to be killed, so we're not talking about that one.

Robert regrets doing it, Robert still remains (semi-) sympathetic after doing it, it isn't presented as something horrible or irredeemable and the threat of a Dothraki invasion is proven real. So, no, doesn't fit.

I agree with Tianzi that some of the other entries also don't fit.

It's pretty much unanimous that Jaime becomes much more sympathetic in season 3, in spite of his past actions. So there was actually some escape from that moral black hole.

Also, Cersei, in spite of being pretty villainous, also hasn't done anything that goes beyond the pale. She's received a number of "poor Cersei" scenes throughout the show.

I'd support keeping Robert cut, since the action that gets him listed is one that he regrets and makes his very last command to abort it.

As for the other characters, Cersei I would say it's hard to take her off because while she gets a lot of sympathetic moments, she doesn't really stop herself from petty Kick the Dog moments, has no regrets about anything she's actually done, and really the best argument to keep her off is that she hadn't done something heinous enough that there was no coming back from.

As for the others, Jamie is easy to take off given his Character Development in Season 3 (and that he has a fairly good justification for throwing Bran out of a window since if he told anyone what he saw it would mean the deaths of Ceresi and her children), Theon manages to squeeze out of it while Karsark goes flying past it because Theon knows from the get-go that it's wrong, is just too weak to stop whatshisface from talking him into it and killing the kids, and spends most of his time afterwards feeling bad about it and what else he's had to do to earn his father's approval, while Karstark knows full well the two boys have absolutely nothing to do with the deaths of his own sons, murders a fellow Northmen to get to them and goes to his grave without a shred of remorse or shame over it. Intent matters a lot here; Theon was basically too weak-willed to stand up and not do evil things and spends his time regretting it afterwards, Karstark may have grief but he knows full well that Tywin doesn't care about the boys and as far as anyone knows Jamie wouldn't lose sleep over it and he goes and kills someone his on his own side just to get his Revenge by Proxy.

I can't see Walder Frey coming back since he's listed as a Complete Monster and showed absolute glee at what was going on, without having any excuses or mitigating circumstances.

I agree with what you say about Theon. As for Karstark, I have some doubts, because he's clearly not thinking rationally and was at some level deluding himself that what he's had done was 'right'.

Jaime? Funny here. As far as his Character Development has come, I don't remember him showing any remorse for pushing Bran out of the window and 'hoping that the fall would kill him'. He also murdered his random cousin (making himself a kinslayer) and didn't look back. Neither did the show. And yet, after doing this rather monstrous deeds and never regretting or amending for them, he manages to be sympathetic now. Maybe it's not too late for Walder Frey also? (ok, kidding with this one, but hey, who knows, what will happen at his deathbed!)

As for Cersei, I say remove. Evil, petty, dog-kicking, bitchy, unstable, without Jaime's will to do good - yes. But it's a certain action for which she's listed here, and objectively speaking it's almost the same as what Olenna Tyrell did later. Regicide? Check. Preceding the actions of the opponent by murdering him? Check. Power play? Check. A concern for her loved ones? Check. (in Cersei's case also for her own life) Letting an innocent man pay for it? CHECK. Tyrion's kept his head so far, but not thanks to Olenna (she could have suspected that Tywin wouldn't execute a relative, but that's all), and Cersei had actively tried to spare Ned's life. Robert was no monster while Joffrey was, and Cersei supported the psychotic Joffrey (this one she regretted when she came to the realization), while Olenna supported the wise Margaery - yes, but the Queen of Thorns didn't commit murder for justice. She did it because Joffrey would be a hindrance to Tyrell's plans.

Do we list Olenna in MEH? No, we are just so damn happy that Joffrey is dead.

I personally would claim Cersei's action pretty low in the ascending 'would-be MEH' order. She played dirty - like everyone here (except 'poor old dead Ned'). Murder? Unpleasant as it is, also pretty much a standard. Let's list some child/innocent murderers and would-be murderers: Theon, Jaime, Tywin, Melisandre, Stannis, and yes, Robert. And Sandor Clegane. (Our anti-villain. Anyone besides Arya remembers Mycah the butcher boy?)

So I'd personally leave out the hardcore guys (like Littlefinger, Walder Frey, Ramsay, or Joffrey) and one-dimensional baddies and nuke all the grays, even the darker ones.

With Karstark I think what really pushes it is that even when confronted with the facts of what he's done he's unrepentant that he has committed treason, slew his fellow Northman and murdered two innocent boys. Yes he was sympathetic but

As for Jamie he hasn't shown remorse for pushing Bran, but he does have the "protecting my family" excuse that keeps him out of MEH territory even before Character Development. He might regret killing his cousin, he brings it up in passing in the latest episode but that's not really conclusive. But intent is the key qualifier here; for the first of the heinous acts he's protecting his children's lives, for the second he's desperate and trying to escape which is still bad but it's not like he killed him for the hell of it.

Also in the case of Moral Event Horizon you are allowed a Redemption Equals Death moment, so if Walder Frey does somehow come to the end of his life and go "hey, I was a horrible bastard I better work on fixing that" then he would still count as this trope.

I agree with Cersei, but your argument is weak. Yes Olenna did the same thing essentially, but intent matters. Joffrey was a monster and a sadist, and everybody knows how he treated his last bride to be. Sure the Tyrells benefited from it as a house too, but part of the reasoning was to make sure Margaery didn't suffer at Joffrey's hands. Likewise the child murders and would be murderers all have intent that keeps them out; Theon regretted it, Jamie was protecting his family, Tywin probably isn't the best example with the Rains of Cashmire being a bit excessive, Melisandre and Stannis have the "one life to save millions" excuse, Robert had the good sense to regret and try and call it off, and Sandor was following a lawful order to track down someone who as far as he was told had assaulted and injured the Prince of the realm.

My stance would probably be to keep all the Complete Monsters and those who most certainly crossed the MEH there, and leave the more ambiguous people on the side and wait and see if they get the Jamie treatment or the Joffrey treatment.

Actual guesses go on WMG. But to my knowledge, WMG-fuel can be mentioned here.

For example, the fact that Jon Snow's mother can be mentioned, but various guesses should stay on WMG. That make sense?

Otherwise, I just don't get the point of having Epileptic Trees as a page, you know?

So if I wanted to write a WMG that Brienne is actually a crossdressing man, I could add an Epileptic Trees entry for "What is Brienne's real gender?"

I think this is the reason WMG is limited to its own section.

Agreed. Some can go to One-Scene Wonder (like Ser Pounce) but even cutting some, it needs its own subpage.

... gotta say I'm very surprised to see Karl on that list, though. That's... uh... interesting.

Karl's probably a Base Breaker. Some find him (largely due to the actor's performance) to be an enjoyably Love to Hate villain, while others find him just a piece of a gratuitous, pointless "Shaggy Dog" Story. Hell, the whole Craster's Keep plotline is pretty much a Base Breaker among book readers.

Moved Karl to Base Breaker. Feel free to modify his entry as you see fit.

They also, you know, had an agreement with Craster to have him abandon the babies in the woods. Yes, there's no way he'd survive on his own... but the only reason he was in the forest on his own was because they had an agreement with Craster to leave his sons in exchange for peace.

What's this pulled from, anyway? It seems like a righteous pull given it's just blatantly factually inaccurate (plus the White Walkers in the first episode were definitely south of the wall, played dead to lure people in, then killed them. That's... uh... that's not an act of self-defense).

It's from the YMMV page.

Also the White Walkers in the first episode were North of the wall, since the first seen shows how the three Night's Watch rangers go North of the Wall to investigate.

Ah, I stand corrected. I just remembered greenery and thought it was South of the wall. Still, playing dead and then ambushing someone is not a defensive tactic.

In any case, the first paragraph might apply, but the second is just inaccurate and shouldn't be on the page, YMMV or not. It's just inaccurate.

Maybe ask the Complete Monster cleanup topic.

It's standing policy for the clean up effort; any work that has it's own subpage get's a link to it on the relevant YMMV pages which helps keep down on misuse. Case in point; there are only three vetted examples of Complete Mosnter, there were five on this page. Leave the examples here and any troper can just throw together an example in violation of policy, force them to go there and they have to go through the right channels to get it added.

And before the arguments arise, per Fast Eddie decree examples are either exclusively cleaned up through the cleanup thread or the entire trope get's axed, so there is no middle ground like "they can be cut from the main page but be on the YMMV one."

Pretty sure Logo's point is that it's weird that they went to the A Song Of Ice And Fire page since the works are somewhat divergent... at least enough to have separate examples. Game Of Thrones doesn't really have its own subpage (except, well, as a redirect to the ASOFIAF page).

And I for one don't like them being on the same subpage. I mean, we've got two Forum topics in the TV section (one for people who have read the books, one for those who haven't) so it seems odd to lump them. I mean, given some characters' monstrosity were intentionally huge surprises (Walder Frey seemed like a Cool Old Guy for a while), it just seems to be needless spoilers for those who haven't read the books.

That should be discussed in the Complete Monster cleanup topic though.

Personally, I have yet to see/read about someone who thinks that Talisa's death "seems designed to make it hard to say you don't like her without looking like a jerk."

Now, some folks on the forums and the You Tube comment sections had an Alas, Poor Scrappy reaction to her death. But disliking it because it makes it hard for the to hate on her? No, haven't seen that. Honestly, it seems like an exaggeration.

I think some of those people were hoping that the "Lannister Honeypot" theory would turn out to be true and were disappointed when it wasn't. But yeah, it's an exaggeration, and not so much a broken base as some of the people who didn't like the character when alive, still not liking her when dead.

I see them as a bluish green/greenish blue. That's kind of a moot point though, because the Tyrell colors aren't green and yellow in the show (The Tyrells dress in blue, although when she is betrothed to Renly, Margaery wore some green), and adding to that is the fact that Renly in the books liked to dress in green and gold/wears gold and some green in the show (gold is the Baratheon color).

Now I do happen to think that Renly's Crown of Horns has a somewhat floral look, so that might have been an homage to the Tyrrels.

I agree about the colors being semilar but it doesn't really seem as Heartwarming in Hindsight.

While it's true that Renly's sigil, dressing style and colors do resemble the Tyrell ones, I think it has more to do with symbolizing his political alliance with House Tyrell.

If Tyrell colors are blue and not green, that confuses things in this entry. The "green and gold" cloak isn't a reference to house colors, and Renly never wears blue. I agree with Logo P that changing his standards seems to be more about the Renly-Tyrell political alliance, which is vital to his claim. Stannis also changes his standard to differentiate himself from his rival brother.

That seems to remove all suggestions of Renly "becoming Tyrell." The only thing we have left is Loras referencing Renly's cloak in his fantasy wedding, which simply speaks to loving Renly himself.

I agree. Loras referencing Renly's cloak in his fantasy has likely more to do with him being heartbroken and remembering Renly than anything else.

Although the Tyrells are associated with the colour teal on the show, the HBO website still officially presents their sigil as gold on green, as seen here on the Viewer's Guide, here, where the colour of the Tyrell T-shirt is listed as "green" in the Additional Details section—I do own this T-shirt, btw, and it's more green that what you see in the stock image—and here, where the description reads, "feature the green and gold rose sigil of House Tyrell".

So I would still argue that the green brocade cloak that Renly wore at the tourney was meant to be a symbol of his love and commitment to Loras, as he is more or less imitating the wedding tradition.

I forgot to add that I did visit the Go T Exhibit last year, and this is my snapshot of King Renly's sigil◊, which is clearly gold on green. I don't have the ability to make screen shots, but you can see this vertical banner behind Brienne when she tells Catelyn to kneel before Renly, in front of a tent while the three of them are walking, in the background while Renly is kissing the bruises on Loras' chest (it's on the side of Renly's posterior), in front of a tent once again in a shot which takes just before Renly greets Littlefinger, and on either side of Littlefinger as Renly grabs an apple. (There may be more examples, but those are the ones I remember off-hand.)

Some of Renly's soldiers also carried golden-stag-on-green shields which looked like this. I also own this King Renly sigil T-Shirt, and the colours are obviously gold on green. I also found this screen shot of the Season 2 Blu-Ray menu of Renly's banner◊.

I should point out that the colours of House Baratheon are black and YELLOW, not black and gold (and no, yellow and gold aren't the same shade). The showrunners took the trouble to change the colours of Renly's sigil (they could've simply kept the original banner just like his character does in the books) because it symbolizes the Tyrell-like personality that they have given to him (the TV character is pretty much a male version of Margaery, not a poor copy of Robert). From a production-level perspective, it represents more than "just" Renly acknowledging the contributions of his wife's family to his cause. In terms of how his character was written for show, he IS a Tyrell at heart despite carrying the Baratheon name.

Although Renly only wore black throughout Season 1, the costume designer put in the effort to create a green brocade cloak for his character to wear when Loras jousted, and she clearly had the intention of linking the green of Loras' sigil with Renly's fashion choices. There's no other reason why she would bother to add this garment on Renly (especially considering that he's only a secondary character) when it would've been easier and cheaper just to have him be dressed solely in black for the tourney.

I've looked into it and the GOT wiki actually has an article on House Baratheon which explicitly states that the sigil and colours adopted by Renly for his faction in the War of the Five Kings mirrored his alliance with House Tyrell.

Considering that Renly used to wear normal colors (Season One) before teaming up with the Tyrells and making his bid for kingship, i'd say it's say to assume that his choice of colors has more to do with his political allegiance.

Really, it's the same with Stannis (who flat-out stated that he has no faith in R'hllor) adopting the flaming stag as his sigil in order to distance himself from Renly and Jofrrey.

(Got your PM siberia 82). My bad with the colors of the sigils.

Given the above, I think I'd say that Renly does seem to clearly adopt Tyrrell stylings because of his alliance with them, but I'm sure that at least in part, his love for Loras was a motivator (in the sense that his dress style conveys his alliance with the Tyrells/marriage to Margaery, but also symbolizes his ties to Loras in a private joke kind of way).

Which means that it isn't really Heartwarming in Hindsight, since Renly did obviously adopt Tyrrell stylings (I'm not sure if the idea that he probably did so in part because of his relationship with Loras is Heart Warming In Hindsight, self-evident, or Epileptic Trees).

I do think that this though, "In terms of how his character was written for show, he IS a Tyrell at heart despite carrying the Baratheon name" is not clearly established on the show, and is just your personal interpretation (Renly doesn't like his brothers and loves Loras, but I don't think that is the same thing as being a Tyrell despite having the Baratheon name- I mean like as a comparison, Catelyn has kind of gone native on the show to a greater extent than in the books, but I don't think it would be accurate to say she's a Stark at heart despite carrying the Tully name).

Logo P, you didn't seem to have read the last paragraph of my previous post properly because the point I was trying to make is that the costume designer took the trouble to dress Renly in a GREEN brocade cloak when he watched Loras joust (which took place in Season 1, in case you forgot) even though he only wore black for the rest of the season. This occurred BEFORE any thought of becoming king entered Renly's head, so the only reason why Michele Clapton would bother to add this detail to his character is because she wanted to show that Renly loved Loras and he brought the green brocade cloak to the tourney as a romantic gesture for his boyfriend. Renly basically viewed himself as Loras' "bride" at this stage.

I'm gong to take issue with this- "the only reason why Michele Clapton would bother to add this detail to his character"- I think your interpretation is plausible, but characters on the show (and in the books) will wear different outfits, and not only ones that have their house colors.

I mean Cersei wears green occasionally, and she isn't doing it to express allegiance to the Tyrrells- I mean it also seems plausible to me that since it was a tourney, Renly wanted to wear something more stylish.

Hodor, House Baratheon is traditionally known as a family of warriors, which TV!Renly definitely isn't. His brothers mock him for being a non-fighter, and Robert is especially disparaging of Renly's masculinity (e.g. calling him a "boy" during their hunting trip). The writers make the point of showing that Renly has different strengths, such as being good at politics, his concern for the smallfolk, his desire to rule through love instead of fear, having a progressive attitude towards women (his own inability to fit into rigid gender roles helps him to understand Brienne's struggles with her masculinity), etc. These are qualities which are associated more strongly with House Tyrell than House Baratheon.

I don't disagree with that interpretation, but there's a difference between saying that Renly has personality qualities that make him a good fit with House Tyrell (something that would be good to put on the Analysis tab) and saying that "the show presents Renly as a Tyrell who happens to have the Baratheon name" (which is what you are saying and is just like your opinion, man).

I think a lot of your opinions are quite plausible, but they are still your opinions, unless there is some direct statement of intent by the showrunners, people in the production staff, etc.

As a contrast, take the case of Theon- Theon clearly dresses more like a Stark when living at Winterfell and then changes to an Iron Islands dress style when he returns home/betrays Robb. Theon later is given a quote about Ned being his true father. In Theon's case, there is a lot more direct show evidence about his clothing and its symbolism.

Also, you kind of have a Single-Issue Wonk about how Renly was the greatest guy ever and how his romance with Loras is the greatest thing ever...

Hodor, Cersei is a main character, so she's obviously going to have a variety of gowns, so I agree that in her case, the colours don't necessarily say anything meaningful about her personality. But Renly is only a secondary character, so his number of outfits are extremely limited in comparison. The fact that Clapton clothed him only black (with the exception of the tourney) in Season 1 strongly indicates to me that she was trying to show that at the point in this series, Renly is loyal to Robert, since he is on the king's small council. Clapton could've chosen to dress Renly in a yellow brocade cloak for the joust, as yellow is a colour of House Baratheon, but the green was selected on purpose.

While plausible, you do not have evidence that that was Clapton's intent.

What is so hard about just putting that in the Analysis tab or WMG and not insisting that your interpretation had to be the intent?

I'd note that Renly wears gold/yellow and green in the books, and so it seems equally plausible to me that (typically) the show wanted to have him wear something like he wore in the books, but in a more muted/drab direction.

I'm with Hodor in this.

Whatever the case with the colors might be, what you claim is merely a (granted, plausible) theory concerning a trope that deals with facts. Thus, it has no place on the YMMV page and it should go to the WMG one (or an analysis page, as Hodor stated).

On a sidenote, we've really been through this before with that Harsher in Hindsight issue. It's the discussion right bellow this one.

Thank-you. And yes, there's an obvious Single-Issue Wonk here.

Totally agree. Also, IIRC it was news to Joffrey that Renly was gay (I can't remember all the details, but Margaery basically brings it up in the context of explaining away her previous ties with Renly/to stoke Joffrey's ego (innuendo intended)).

And yeah, as you wisely note, Joffrey is a Dirty Coward- he wouldn't have dared (at least not before he was king) making those kind of comments about Renly (assuming he did know about Renly's sexuality).

Also, Joffrey being Joffrey, there's really a whole lot of behavior Renly could have witnessed that would lead him to label Joffrey a "monster". In particular, Stannis in the book recalls Joffrey vivisecting a pregnant cat- I figure this might come up in the show, and my fanon is that this is probably also something Renly might have witnessed or heard about.

Just to clarify, Cersei refers to Renly as "a known degenerate" to Joffrey in a scene from "Dark Wings, Dark Words" which preceded the one where Joff summons Margaery to his chambers. Joffrey wasn't at all surprised by Cersei's statement, which indicates to me he must have known that Renly was gay for some time.

Just before their mother-son talk (when Renly hasn't been mentioned yet), he makes a big fuss about not wanting to wear flowers to the tailor, and it becomes obvious from his "death to degenerates" statement to Margaery later on that he loathes flowers because he thinks they're effeminate. (And guess what, her brother is known as the Knight of Flowers—since Joff is aware that Renly is gay, he must suspect that Loras is too, as the rumours are always about the two of them as a couple. Hating gays as much as he does, Joffrey would want to avoid flowers like the plague.) I think this is a fairly concrete hint that Joff has been homophobic for a while.

TV!Renly is not assertive like Tyrion. Joffrey only cowers around Tyrion because the latter slaps him into submission. I can't picture Renly being physically abusive towards anyone, not even a shithead like Joff, so Renly would be an easy target for his taunts. Robert was totally in denial of Renly's homosexuality (remember when Robert asked his youngest brother "Have you ever fucked a Riverlands girl?"), so even if Renly complained about Joffrey's mocking behaviour, Robert's reaction would be something like, "Oh please. My son was just saying that because he thinks you're not a 'real man', and I agree with him. Forget about masquerade balls and start learning how to use a sword properly. Then the jokes will stop."

There's no in-show evidence whatsoever that "Renly no doubt had to put up with his "nephew's" constant taunts for being a "degenerate," and he was probably perceptive enough to know that the overly cruel Joffrey not only hated him for being gay, but even wanted to kill him for it, but was restrained solely by the fact that Robert would strongly disapprove of this action".

I agree that Joffrey was certainly homophobic for a while prior to that scene, but there's no evidence that Joffrey had known for a long while that Renly was gay, and if he had, that he had taunted Renly about it. For one thing, my sense is that talk of Renly being gay really came out (pardon the pun) once he declared himself King, and if Robert didn't know that Renly was gay, it doesn't seem likely that Joffrey would either (I'd also note that Robert spent very little time with Joffrey and Renly seemed to want to avoid spending too much time with Robert, so I don't see that much interaction between the three).

I mean it is certainly plausible that if Joffrey had previously made homophobic remarks out loud (which we don't know if he did, but it seems plausible) that this would be one of the reasons why Renly hated him, but everything else in your post in conjecture (fan fiction?)

Also, I wasn't suggesting that Renly would slap Joffrey around, more that Tyrion would if in earshot. I also think that while neither Robert nor Cersei would really care about Joffrey making fun of Renly, if Joffrey actually made some kind of direct reference to Renly's homosexuality/a threat, they would shut Joffrey up pretty quickly (and again, there's no evidence that Joffrey had known of Renly's sexuality during Robert's life time).

Cersei was the one who raised Joffrey, not Robert, and Cersei certainly knew about Renly's sexuality even before the series began (she does have her own spies, after all). If you doubt that, then Jaime at least claimed to have known that Renly was a "tulip" (hey, it's the flower metaphor again) since the boy first arrived at court, so at one point he must have shared that piece of gossip with Cersei, if for no other reason than to crack a gay joke (which he clearly enjoys doing). In Season 1, Littlefinger is very much aware of Renly's relationship with Loras (and I think it's safe to assume that he was informed about their affair a long time ago because he has a lot more spies than Cersei), so even at this early stage, Renly and Loras' romance is an Open Secret at court. Even if Joffrey ignored the rumours about the two men (which I doubt), Cersei would at least mention their homosexuality when he was old enough to understand these things as part of her "anyone who isn't us is an enemy" lesson so that Joff could potentially use this knowledge against them one day.

Littlefinger openly mocked Renly's sexuality in his face at the Tourney of the Hand ("...when will you be having your friend?"), which is a very public event, and everyone around them in the stands could hear their conversation as the two men were not whispering. Renly instantly became fearful and immediately halted his snarky comments, and Petyr even managed to squeeze in a smug smirk before sitting down. If a minor noble like Littlefinger can freely poke fun at the king's youngest brother and the Lord of Storm's End for being gay in front of a crowd without suffering any consequences (not even a verbal threat), then Prince Joffrey could get away with at least that (and probably more). Renly's high status and likeability clearly don't protect him from personal or public ridicule.

Joff is nothing if not a bully, and bullies love to pick on easy targets (which Renly definitely is if he can't even get the lowly-ranked and reviled Petyr to shut his trap). With that in mind, I find it hard to believe than an extreme homophobe like Joffrey (who isn't just disgusted by gays, but actually wants them eliminated) wouldn't at least pick up on the gossip (or learn the truth from his mother), and then use the information to make the life of his "degenerate" uncle more miserable. Joff gets a kick out of humiliating others, and he won't be punished for mocking Renly (not even a literal slap on the wrist, as the Petyr example shows), so what's to stop him? The boy is a psychopath who only fears his "father's" wrath, and Robert himself belittles Renly's masculinity.

I thought YMMV page allowed for a little more flexibility in how we interpret what we see on the show. This trope is called Harsher in Hindsight, and I do find Loras' "Joffrey is a monster" line to be slightly more disturbing now after watching "Dark Wings, Dark Words". It suddenly made me consider for the first time that Renly views Joff this way not just because he had witnessed him do horrible things (like cutting open a pregnant cat as stated in the novels), but it would be very much in Joffrey's cruel nature to spew (figurative) filth at Non-Action Guy Renly for being gay, since inflicting actual physical harm is out of the question for as long as Robert is king. Renly is quite good at reading people, and he would notice that Joff's wickedness worsens as he gets older and gains more power; it's only a matter of time before his "nephew" tortures and/or executes anyone he despises ("degenerates" included).

If I find a way to reword my entry for this trope, would it be more acceptable, or is my new interpretation of what "Joffrey is a monster" could mean wholly invalid?

I think that Joffrey's later expression of homophobia does lead to some Fridge Horror/ Fridge Brilliance in terms of an additional reason why Renly and Loras hated him (besides all the other reasons).

However, there is no evidence in the show whatsoever about Joffrey tormenting Renly in public or private with homophobic comments. It's not something Renly ever mentions, nor does anyone else, including Joffrey himself (who actually seems to be somewhat surprised to lean or Renly's homosexuality in his conversation with Margaery).

I also think that to some degree, the show went too far with the sexuality being an Open Secret, and your speculation is a Watsonian reaction to that (this isn't a criticism of you, more of the show). What I mean, is that earlier in the show, Renly and Loras' sexuality does seem to be an actual secret, but seems to become increasingly well known over time, to the effect that one would wonder in retrospect, how Joffrey (or Robert) wouldn't have known about it.

However, my take on things is that since Robert was ignorant of it (kind of doesn't speak well to his relationship with his brother), I think that suggests there wasn't open mockery of Renly going on, or else Robert would have known about it. And I'd kind of be wary about taking Littlefinger as representative of court behavior, as his character is written as someone who is pretty reckless about mocking his social betters (see that disastrous scene where he tried that with Cersei).

Also, while this is admittedly my speculation, I think that while Robert was a jerk to Renly, he probably would not be cool with Joffrey mocking his brother, especially in public.

Moreover, I don't have "evidence" of this, but given the precedent with Jaime and Cersei's incest, my sense is that while some people in the court were always "in the know", talk about Renly's sexuality didn't happen in the open until after Renly became an enemy claimant to the throne, and more so after his death. As a corrolary of that, in part because he rejoined the Lannister side, there doesn't seem to be as much talk about Loras' sexuality (hard as it may be to believe, he still largely has the public image of dashing knight who is an eligible bachelor).

If I find a way to reword my entry for this trope, would it be more acceptable, or is my new interpretation of what "Joffrey is a monster" could mean wholly invalid?

I think it's Wild Mass Guessing. WMG is for making speculations and drawing conclusions about a work that are never (or have not yet been) addressed by the work itself. If you're adding your own content (in this case imagining that Joffrey and Renly have quarreled over Renly's homosexuality) then it's Wild Mass Guessing.

YMMV tropes are about subjective fan reactions to the show, but only to what's in the show itself. Compare the existing Harsher in Hindsight example, in which Theon's frontal nudity is harsher after he gets castrated. Those are two definite events in the show. No speculated content is needed. I can't add Bronn as a Magnificent Bastard because I've decided that he's manipulating all sides against the others. That's not portrayed in the show, so my reaction to it is irrelevant.

In short, what Captain Crawdad said. I can't say that this isn't a solid theory but it's pure speculation and, thus, it does not belong here. Putting it under Harsher in Hindsight would be misuse. Not just because the trope is only concerned with facts. Its very meaning boils down to: tragic scene worsened by later tragic prophetic event. Loras calling Joffrey a monster can hardly be considered "tragic".

All and all, better take this to the WMG page. It has strength, as a theory.

Odd, I thought they were being moved to a separated page, enough volume to justify it I guess, like in "Memetic Mutation : Has its own page" , but they have been confined to Live-Action TV

It seems the cleanup thread decided it that way.

OK then. Is this TV only or it'll aply to literature too? I mean, can we still create a CM subpage here? Like in ASOIAF.

We made no such decision. If a work has its own monster subpage we link to that, but last I check Game Of Thrones didn't and there should have been a link provided. The mod In question acted without talking it over with the thread.

Issue is now fixed. It was just a misunderstanding. So, are the examples enough to create a CM subpage for GOT or we wait until S4?

There needs to be at least three, but it would usually take a lot more to justify creating a new subpage (or if the word length for the YMMV page was getting too long and we needed to start trimming).

I hated him precisely because I felt he was being presented as a character the audience is supposed to like, but it didn't feel earned it just felt forced. For me, he's definitely a Scrappy right now.

I can't speak for anyone else, but OP is correct in that TV Daario didn't get a lot of screentime or characterization... and yet he was just presented as a prettyboy One-Man Army and took screentime from the guys we do really like.

Given Game Of Thrones has a much broader base than the books, I don't think that the books are affecting it. I personally haven't touched the books.

I've never been a fan of the negative tropes because they brush too closely to complaining about things you don't like about shows, which isn't what this site is supposed to be about. Unless there's some sort of major, well-known backlash against a character, I don't think it bears mentioning. If people want to express their criticisms, they can always write a review.

I've been thinking that since TV!Daario has gotten so little screentime, should we delete his scrappy status (for now) and wait until next season. He's character will be probably fleshed out and, if he still gets a lot of fan hate, we can safely re-add him. What do you think?

Looking at the requirements for Complete monster:

• Truly heinous by the standards of the story - Yes, he slaughtered many sympathetic characters, laughs about it, and violates guest right, the worst crime in Westeros.

• Evokes fear, revulsion and hatred from other characters - Not really. He's only just recently made his Face–Heel Turn. While a lot of people talk about how unpleasant Walder is, we really haven't progressed enough in the story for him to have become notorious.

• Devoid of altruistic qualities - Yes. Everything he does is for pride or self-interest.

So it's about 2 1/4 out of 3 requirements by my estimation.

Ok, that's good enough to know. We'll have to wait if he makes anymore appearances then.

You could get away with adding him in now since Bran's story exposition explained that violating sacred hospitality is a massive no-no in Westeros, he gets the fear and revulsion down from the massacre scene, and waiting a whole year just to add one entry is a bit of overkill.

I remember visiting the Complete Monster thread and general consensus was that TV!Walder (though not Book!Walder) qualifies. I think tha waiting an entire year just to add an example is too much. He should be added.

Why would the TV version qualify and not the Series version?

My guess? More "well, he's clearly enjoying this" shots, and the fact he apparently opened his attack by having his men stab a pregnant women in the belly repeatedly in front of her husband. Plus he gave up his wife and dismissed her as replaceable.

This. Plus his Evil Gloating afterwards and general Smug Snake attitude helped establish hm as much nastier than his book counterpart. Not to mention that Book!Walder was surrounded by much worse monsters (e.g. Ramsay, the Moutnain, Vargo Hoat, Rorge, Biter Euron, LF e.t.c.) while in the TV series only Ramsay comes close to that level of monstrosity. And he's still toned down compared to his book version. So, the lack of heinous monsters in the series compared to the books highlight's Walder's own despicable nature.

I don't really see a big discrepancy between the two versions, but I have no dog in that fight.

Basically the series version has redeeming qualities; his son who he loved was killed during the war fighting for Robb and Robb basically betraying their arrangement meant his son's death was worthless, so he does have more of a reason to want vengeance. Show!Walder also has the enjoying it thing going for him, plus there being less C Ms for him to compete with.

So, what it's gonna be? We add him or not? He has my vote.

The logic behind some medium distinctions escapes me, when I argued about the Mountain killing Ser Hugh in a tournament not being presented as a very big deal in the show, arguments from the books were brought up, including material from the Hedge Knight...

So, any suggested write-ups for Walder Frey's CM entry? Assuming he qualifies, of course.

Just whipped this up:

• Walder Frey. While he's somewhat repugnant in his first appearance, he seems to be a fairly competent ruler and willing to help the heroes, for a price. His next appearance even has him come across as a Cool Old Guy, forgiving Robb's slight against him. Then come The Red Wedding, which opens with Robb's pregnant wife being stabbed repeatedly in the stomach, Robb, Catelyn, and the Stark Bannermen being murdered in a massive violation of guest right, laughing and eating the whole time. To top it off, when his wife is held hostage, he simply tells the hostage taker to kill her, she's expendable. To drive the point home, he begins the next episode by recounting the Red Wedding with glee, showing no remorse and celebrating the power his betrayal has brought him.

I personally think he qualifies. He's completely devoid of any positive attributes. Even the idea that he's done the things he did for the betterment of his family is clearly not the case since he did not care in the slightest that his wife was killed. And he did not exactly seem terribly fond of any of his daughters, anyway. Just means to him getting some power.

Replace Wham Episode with Moral Event Horizon and this write-up is perfect. Good work. Now the only thing that's left for us to do is to reach a consensus here too. The CM thread is leaning too, torwards yes. One more thing. If we decide to add him, should we consider the possibility of creating a Complete Monster sub-page for GOT?

EDIT- I just visited the CM thread and I have been informed that the verdict on Walder was a clear keep. Adding him.

I was going to post some arguments against this, but I realized that Storm of Swords represents Daenerys at her apex, before she shows a lot of flaws and incompetence in A Dance With Dragons.

She is fairly Sue-ish, that cannot be denied. However, she is bested by others repeatedly (Mirri Maz Duur, Pyat Pree, and Xaro Xhoan Daxos come to mind). She usually ends up on top, though.

Moreover, she's naïve, whiny, and entitled. The Spice King of Qarth points that out more than once, and he's clearly portrayed as in the right on those occasions.

She falls short because like Tompa said she doesn't come out on top all the time, it's often pointed out several times when she's being an idiot, at least one of those times bit her in the ass hard (good work thinking that just because you stopped some rape you're going to be instantly forgiven for slaughtering entire villages), and considering the tone of the work (and because I've peeked at some spoilers) things are eventually going to get worse for Daenerys.

So maybe a deconstruction, as in, this is how people would actually react to a character like that? I feel like she hits too many Sue Notes for it too be ignored entirely...

I'm inclined to agree (for now, at least). His first few minutes painted him as a monster quite clearly, but two and a half seasons later, most non-book-reading viewers are likely to have forgotten who he is or why they're supposed to be appalled by him.

Mind you, regarding the Offstage Villainy, the majority of his deeds in the book are learned about through dialogue or POV introspection, and he's none the less monstrous for it.

Yes but we learn about most of Ramsay Bolton's atrocities in the books too, don't we? Mostly Theon. But that's because they are books, they write and tell, don't show. I believe we should wait until the whole arc with Elia and the Red Viper comes up, then put him under the CM list.

I'd cut the Mountain, per current guidelines of the trope, Offscreen Villainy is a major disqualifier. Most of his deeds are conveyed through exposition.

It probably needs to be adressed in the clean-up thread https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=530 (maybe it was once, I don't know how to search for it in that behemoth)

As someone who joined the thread pretty early on I can say that the only Game of Thrones villian who was brought up was The Boy, who was agreed to count but as a rule we hold off on introducing characters until the season/arc is over after a rash of tropers rushing to add a character because they were a dick in one episode, and then three episodes later got character development that pushed them so far out of Complete Monster territory it wasn't funny.

Anyway, just take it to the thread Troll Brutal linked to and state your case.

So what exactly are you suggesting?

Take it to a messageboard or write a review. This place is for discussing issues concerning the tropes.

I'm suggesting that entries regarding the subject be edited to show less bias. I apologize that got lost in my rant.

In that case RepairDontRespond my friend. Just make sure to give good reason for the changes you make.

Not that it matters, but Season 3 reveals that Theon didn't kill the boys himself, or even command it; he simply let Dagmar do it. Which is still horrible, but not necessarily MEH worthy.

From the looks of it ED was suffering misuse from people who thought it meant One-Scene Wonder, so it's probably better off cut short.

Because constant misuse of the CM trope has led to a requirement that all examples go through this thread first.

If you want to give someone the CM status, you have to discuss it first there : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=1

On a side note, the Complete Monster trope page really should give a link to this discussion in the forums.

Also as a rule Complete Monster candidates can only be introduced once the season/arc is over after a rash of tropers jumped the gun and through anyone who did something bad only for them to undergo further development later and moving well out of CM territory. The Boy probably won't get any redeeming features, but we're trying to stamp out the many, many bad habits that keep plaguing Complete Monster.

As for the page not having a link, that's Fast Eddie's call. He wants to keep pages as presented exclusively for readers and keep anything that concerns editors commented out.