Season 4; Episode 1: 'Two Swords': *Have NOT* Read the Books MOD NOTE POST #

snausages

Liam O wrote: »

I hate reading things like this, the justification for it being that GoT has a lot of female and gay fans so you have to start telling the story differently just because they want to see some dicks. They already overdo it on the sex scenes that could go to giving characters more exposure.

But that's what I want. More exposure. Of the male variety.

GerB40

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Daily Mail headline

Is that the dumbest thing you've ever seen or what ? Game of Thrones fans shocked by naked prostitutes ?

Maybe the daily mail should look back on the royal families of Britain (which really happened) who starved cousins to death, murdered brothers to gain the throne, massacred millions to show strength, kings who raped commoners because they could, destroyed crops to basically eradicate unruly subjects, used slavery an the norm and lest we forget, inbred for generations.

Game Of Thrones if FICTION!!! Never happened.

How the fúck The Daily Mail is even considered relevant any more is beyond me.

GerB40

Liam O wrote: »

I hate reading things like this, the justification for it being that GoT has a lot of female and gay fans so you have to start telling the story differently just because they want to see some dicks. They already overdo it on the sex scenes that could go to giving characters more exposure.

Any gay scenes in the show more than likely happened in the books. In the books some of the "sword swallowing" is alluded to but most are hardcore sausage fests... Whether you like it or not, the show writers are following the books and shît that GRRM writes will usually happen in the show..

GerB40

GerB40 wrote: »

Any gay scenes in the show more than likely happened in the books. In the books some of the "sword swallowing" is alluded to but most are hardcore sausage fests... Whether you like it or not, the show writers are following the books and shît that GRRM writes will usually happen in the show..

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

username123

Liam O wrote: »

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

Have to disagree with you there Liam O, I like a bit of gratuitous sex on the telly meself.

iamanengine

Yes I don't think I ever get I get over the 'booooobies' phase

kronsington

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cock etc

naughto

kronsington wrote: »

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cockbooooobiesetc

fixed that for you

duploelabs

kronsington wrote: »

Can we get back to talking about the actual episode rather than who wants to see some cock etc

It's all the sword metaphors

username123

And the Hound kept talking about "C*nts".

Da Shins Kelly

Liam O wrote: »

Even though they likely happened in the books it's still wasting time, the same with a lot of female sex scenes. It's the same as the books overusing of food description, it seems the show can't go an episode with a sex scene that's pointless and just there to make the show more edgy. The nudity is so forced and inorganic, the actresses are more than likely porn actresses incapable of anything other than OTT facial expressions and stupid walks. It jars when you have such good acting from a lot of other characters including actual meaningful nude scenes, just throwing in over gratuitous scenes where whore x does this cheapens the show for me once you get over the "boooooobies" phase.

I agree. It's totally meaningless and a waste of time, and the fact that it's pretty much always women taking their clothes off for no other reason other than for the viewing pleasure of men is pretty unfair too. It's also a pretty well-known fact that HBO demand a lot of gratuitous nudity in their programming. The writer of True Detective said that they told him he had to meet a certain level of nudity in that show, which of course meant that the female characters had to strip (God forbid Woody Harrelson or Matthew McConaughey got naked!). Neil Marshall who directed for Game of Thrones also said that he was specifically told to shoehorn scenes with nudity into the show by an executive who said he was "representing the pervert side of the audience".

I don't mind nudity and sex in a show if it serves a purpose, but this attitude of including it simply to titillate is quite cynical. The fact that it's almost invariably women doing it too makes it seem a little bit sexist and pretty much catering to the male gaze.

I still like the show, but it's something that does irk me quite a bit, especially since it's done very much with an agenda by HBO.

snausages

The only stuff that makes me very uncomfortable is the rapey stuff, and this episode had quite a bit of that. I get why it's there, but I don't think so much of it is necessary. It's very unpleasant viewing, very off-putting.

lynski

I know this is a no-book thread but i will only say there is lots of sex in the books too - consensual, and non, and straight and non.

iamanengine

It seems like it's down to HBO and not GoT so to speak, while boobs are great I'd rather they spend more time progressing the story!

snausages

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

username123

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

A world where people live by the sword would be very rapey though.

Did you watch "Rome"? That was rapey too.

Gbear

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

We see these things not because it's necessary to advance the plot, but because you can't take them out and have the story remain logically consistent.

It's like saying "we got the idea with the costumes so they should change to jeans now".
Changing or ignoring the way women are treated makes no more sense then moving out of the time period, changing their clothes, their accents or anything else that makes the world what it is.

youreadthat

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I agree. It's totally meaningless and a waste of time, and the fact that it's pretty much always women taking their clothes off for no other reason other than for the viewing pleasure of men is pretty unfair too. It's also a pretty well-known fact that HBO demand a lot of gratuitous nudity in their programming. The writer of True Detective said that they told him he had to meet a certain level of nudity in that show, which of course meant that the female characters had to strip (God forbid Woody Harrelson or Matthew McConaughey got naked!). Neil Marshall who directed for Game of Thrones also said that he was specifically told to shoehorn scenes with nudity into the show by an executive who said he was "representing the pervert side of the audience".

I don't mind nudity and sex in a show if it serves a purpose, but this attitude of including it simply to titillate is quite cynical. The fact that it's almost invariably women doing it too makes it seem a little bit sexist and pretty much catering to the male gaze.

I still like the show, but it's something that does irk me quite a bit, especially since it's done very much with an agenda by HBO.

Hey, they owe us straight guys a lot of tittie as compensation for that gay blowjob slurping in season 1 or 2. :mad:

snausages

Gbear wrote: »

We see these things not because it's necessary to advance the plot, but because you can't take them out and have the story remain logically consistent.

It's like saying "we got the idea with the costumes so they should change to jeans now".
Changing or ignoring the way women are treated makes no more sense then moving out of the time period, changing their clothes, their accents or anything else that makes the world what it is.

So you're saying if they cut the scene where the woman in the bar was being groped people would suddenly not be able to believe the world anymore? That's absurd.

Gbear

snausages wrote: »

So you're saying if they cut the scene where the woman in the bar was being groped people would suddenly not be able to believe the world anymore? That's absurd.

If there's a woman in the presence of scumbags like the Moutain's men and there's nobody to protect them, they're going to be sexually assaulted.

If you want to take it out of the show you have to remove all women from these scenes.

You're changing the story in service of squeamishness.
If they were parachuting in women into places where you wouldn't expect to see them then that would be tits for the sake of tits but there's nothing off about the inn keeper having a daughter.

Da Shins Kelly

iamanengine wrote: »

It seems like it's down to HBO and not GoT so to speak, while boobs are great I'd rather they spend more time progressing the story!

It completely is down to HBO, if you're to believe the writers and directors who have worked for them. I really like HBO and the kind of people and programming they give a platform to, and I think they make amazing decisions about what shows they give chances to, but knowing that they actively push nudity (and almost exclusively of the female variety) for no artistic reason is a little disheartening. The quality of the writing and acting, etc. of the shows they produce should and can speak for themselves.

December2012

Groping and talk of rape is not there to titillate - it's meant to make you feel uncomfortable. It's meant to show you what war really brings. And the books are full of that kind of descriptions too.

snausages

snausages wrote: »

The only stuff that makes me very uncomfortable is the rapey stuff, and this episode had quite a bit of that. I get why it's there, but I don't think so much of it is necessary. It's very unpleasant viewing, very off-putting.

Em, that's the stuff that is necessary. To show the nature of a lot of men in the show. The amount of time spent with whores in the Kings Landing brothels has been way too much, even introducing a lead whore character just for that purpose. Why not introduce another character relevant to the story which as a book reader I obviously wont say but there have been plenty left out.

snausages

Yes, I understand the narrative justification for those scenes. In fact I already mentioned it myself in my original post, so I really don't need people explaining it to me. But that doesn't mean there needs to be so many of these scenes. I don't think the show would lose much by toning down some of its content. That's not puritanism.

Da Shins Kelly

The rapey stuff I get - that's a real danger women in the story face.

It's the endless prostitute parades, women just standing there with no clothes on for no reason or performing sexual acts while the men talk about 'important' stuff that irritates me.

Gbear

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

(and almost exclusively of the female variety)

Phew... I just nearly weed myself when I realised this is the non-book thread.:o

Thankfully nothing was said so for safety's sake I'll bugger off.

GerB40

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

The author of the books (George R R Martin) based the whole story on real life events, mainly the war of the roses. Those days were extremely violent, very "rapey" and, disregarding the magic, basically like what you see on game of thrones.
Sometimes the story seems to go too far but in reality most of it actually happened.

GerB40

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

You should give Lord of the Rings a watch. It might not hurt your sensitivities so much and there's far less rapey moments in it. Just to warn you, there is some blood so you mightn't want to watch it on your own.

Paddy Cow

snausages wrote: »

The casual display of rapey material is what makes me uncomfortable. I think the point that Westeros is a fairly **** place for women was demonstrated adequately enough in the brothel scene, but they didn't need to show it again in the tavern and during the exchange between the Hound and the other guy.

I'm sure others will probably say just to stop watching, but I still like the show. Just wish it wasn't so rapey.

There are some good guys in Westeros. Tywin basically told Tyrion to rape Sansa if that's what it would take to get a child out of her. Thankfully Tyrion is not like that.

username123

Paddy Cow wrote: »

There are some good guys in Westeros. Tywin basically told Tyrion to rape Sansa if that's what it would take to get a child out of her. Thankfully Tyrion is not like that.

And Jamie Lannister could have just let Locke rape Brienne. He lost a hand for that.