The Sword and Laser discussion
George R.R. Martin Threads
>
Game of Thrones Show Reaction
HBO A Game of Thrones is portraying Catelyn with more sympathy than the books. Catelyn Tully is my most hated character in my reading of the books, even more so than Cersei and Tywin Lanister. She was devastatingly cruel to Jon Snow at Bran's bedside in the book which is where my hatred of Catelyn began. In the HBO version, she is almost sympathetic; a mother in grief, evidence of her husbands infidelity at hand when Eddard shows up, and he leaving her alone again. In the books Catelyn is full of fear and capriciousness, I hope HBO doesn't lose that.
Conversely, I did not dislike her in the book so much, but her dismissal of Jon Snow made me want to slap her.
Sodon wrote: "Conversely, I did not dislike her in the book so much, but her dismissal of Jon Snow made me want to slap her."I was going to post the same thing.
Philip wrote: "Brian wrote: "The parade of bums and boobs was way over the top and dripped with gratuity."I can't disagree with you about the exploitation of young female actors, because the evidence is out there; it's a very real phenomenon.
In this case, though, I can't agree that the nudity is gratuitous, because the source material calls for it (and in fact for more than they're showing). There's an argument to be made that the source material is itself exploitative - I don't think this lies on HBO's shoulders.
aldenoneil wrote: "There's an argument to be made that the source material is itself exploitative - I don't think this lies on HBO's shoulders."It's been more than two years since I read the book. I do remember there being sex in it, but (perhaps because it was in print) it didn't seem as graphic as what's being shown on HBO. I thought it would be a good show to watch with my teenage son, but I ended up kicking him out of the room very quickly. My husband asked if they only did it doggie-style in that world. I don't recall any discussion of sexual positions. Also, the series seems to have a great deal more sex as a percentage of the narrative and the way it's used doesn't further the story. The glossed over the Stark children and their relationships with the dire wolf cubs in favor of a wedding ceremony that had a plethora of bare boobies.
A Game of Thrones is a huge book, HBO had a choice of what to emphasize and what not to emphasize. They clearly went straight for the boobies.
Philip wrote: "Brian wrote: "Interesting... Does sex suck in viewers? Or does it turn them away?I read/loved the books; therefore I will watch the show no matter what. Sex or no sex, I am all in. For the per..."
I respect your point of view but isn't your reaction to a exposed women's breasts due more to a north American prudish attitude than anything else? The fact that such partial nudity is somehow shocking says more about your cultural norms than any exploitation of women. Ask any of the young and independent actresses that are involved whether they feel exploited and I reckon they would tell you their opinion in no uncertain terms.
I think the acting in the program is of a high standard whether you can see naked breasts or not and I think you are doing these actresses a disservice by suggesting that they have been cast for their willingness to take of their shirts and blouses (shame on them, the jezebels) rather than their acting abilities.
Noel wrote: "I respect your point of view but isn't your reaction to a exposed women's breasts due more to a north American prudish attitude than anything else? The fact that such partial nudity is somehow shocking says more about your cultural norms than any exploitation of women...."I think you're mistaking discretion for prudishness. Trust me mate, I'm no prude ;o)
Also, HBO's primary audience is North America. Commercially it would serve them well to consider their cultural norms. Time and again the biggest commercial successes in American cinema are family accessible movies(Lord Of The Rings). HBO narrowed their audience considerably by playing up the flesh at the expense of the character development that GoT is renowned for. In today's culture it's not shocking, just disappointing.
Philip wrote: "Noel wrote: "I respect your point of view but isn't your reaction to a exposed women's breasts due more to a north American prudish attitude than anything else? The fact that such partial nudity is..."Isn't it because Hollywood aims everything at the lowest common denominator that so much of it's output is dull,purile pap? Well done HBO for having the courage to push those oh so narrow boundaries a little. Of all the American TV output I see it seems to me that HBO output is consistently better than the rest?
AMC does pretty well without as much graphic sex...
Basil wrote: "AMC does pretty well without as much graphic sex..."Sorry Basil, I don't have a scooby what AMC is. I guess another channel?
I am not sure that I would class GOT as having graphic sex either. Some simulated manoeuvres perhaps but graphic sex?
scooby = clue? rhyming slang?Yes - AMC produces award-winning shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Extremely high quality programming. Really raising the bar for televised drama.
Obviously GoT isn't hardcore porn. I mean graphic as opposed to implied. They show it - with nudity. Whereas other production streams tend to scale back on the boobies, even if they show simulated sex.
Here's the thing for me - I would recommend the book to almost anyone above the age of 15. But I wouldn't recommend the show to anyone under 18. There's no need for there to be that discrepancy.
There was swearing and sex in the book - but there was also a LOT of content that could be considered appropriate for all audiences. But HBO seems to have taken every curse-word and every ounce of bare flesh from the pages and put them on the screen. The RATIO is off. Which makes me feel like they are exploiting the most racy parts of the book and abandoning other parts that are, quite frankly, more interesting.
Yep, scooby is rhyming slang for clue.I take your point and I think that Breaking Bad is a truly awesome show which also has it's moments of extreme sex and violence but admittedly has less partial nudity.
I am not sure that the sex scenes are at the expense of other good bits, I think they seem to be hitting all of the major points, well as well as can be expected of a TV series.
I suppose the trouble people might be having with it is that it's one thing to read something - and another thing entirely to SEE something happening.On September 11, 2001, newspapers and news tv reported on people leaping from the World Trade Center towers and falling to their deaths, but a decision was made not to show it - because SEEING something is far more impactful (ugh, forgive that awful pun) than hearing about it or reading about it.
Damnit, Basil, I just spit out some coffee
heh. really didn't mean to offend - hope I didn't. I really couldn't think of a better word for what I was trying to get across.
I only read the book recently, partly because I wanted to be finished befure the series started. I think it paid off. Maybe reading it only a short time before the pilot was a good idea since a lot of details are still pretty fresh in my memory. Could also be a bad thing since I can compare the book to the TV show better than I would be able otherwise.Here's a few things, totally random, that I can say about my impression:
1. Loved the opening credits with the maps and the places coming to life. I thought that was just beautifully animated and I can't wait to see how the other places look like.
2. I was generally impressed with the whole setting and atmosphere. However I can see how the show is hard to follow without having read the book. It's been only about a month since I read them and I had trouble with a few characters. It all made sense to me, but I'm not sure how much of it was because I remembered it from the books.
3. I thought Cersei was much more likable (in a way) in the first episode than in the book, Jaime as well. Maybe not likable, but not as un-likable as in the book. I was surprised at that.
4. I'm fine with Arya looking prettier than she supposedly should be. I think they cast her pretty well. You can see how she would compare as "not-so-pretty" compared to Sansa without her having to be ugly. Same goes for Tyrion. I might have missed that in the book, but I never envisioned him as particularly ugly, rather... well... dwarfish. So I have no problems with the actor whatsoever.
4. There were a few scenes which I thought strayed from the book and not necessarily in a good way, and I think they already have been mentioned. One was the rape/sex scene with Dany and Khal Drogo. You can *guess* that he's not exactly forcing her to do anything as he's not just grabbing her, but the end of the scene makes it look as if Dany doesn't consent. It would be fine if this wasn't a detail that makes the whole scene seem totally different than it is in the book. The other was the scene with Bran in the window. If I remember correctly he actually overhears Cersei and Jaime talking about the murder or something similar, which I always figured was the more important reason Jaime pushes him from the tower, so I was surprised to see that they left this out completely in the series.
So, that was my thoughts after the first episode. Now I guess it won't be long before I watch the second one, having tasted blood and all.
Basil wrote: "AMC does pretty well without as much graphic sex..."They seem to have no problem with graphic violence. See AMC's The Walking Dead.
It's telling that the sex in the GoT show is more controversial than the violence, which is just as graphic, and they haven't even gotten to the really bloody bits yet.
Remember the scene where Ned beheads the deserter? They cut away just after they show the blade lopping off the head.
Or the early scene where the White Walker tears apart a Watchman?
Or the scene where dismembered bodies are lined up to form a symbol in the snow?
Or the the scene where Bran's direwolf tears the throat out of the assassin?
And I can't be the only one who thinks that the sex scenes in the book were far more graphic than in the show. I seem to remember chapters devoted to Danaerys's sexual tutelage by her handmaids, which was reduced to one relatively chaste scene in the show.
I would be more inclined to let a kid watch the show than read the book.
What Dennis said.GoT is not for children. It wasn't written for them or intended to be read by them, and the show is no different.
It does always baffle me that we (in US) have no qualms about excessively graphic violence, but a pair of female breasts is "gratuitous." And I'd be willing to bet there are as many scenes of graphic violence as there are breasts, if not more. It will certainly be so as the show goes on. Was there even nudity in Episode 2? Aside from Drogo ass, but that doesn't count, right? :P
I think the first episode accurately portrayed the tone of show and book, and was at least useful in demonstrating that no, this is not a show for children or even every adult. Fantasy or not.
I think you can be critical of the sexual content in GoT without being prudish or against sex on tv in general. I've liked shows that I was more or less watching for the sex (True Blood) and I've watched and enjoyed shows where sexual content was an enhancing and important aspect of the plot (Tony's episode of season 2 Skins (UK) springs to mind, I'm sorry that I can't think of an example Americans might be more familiar, but feel free to come up with some of your own) but the sexual content in GoT doesn't add anything to the plot, it's not enough to say that it's in the books, because in the books it is serving the plot, but the direction on the show hasn't got the tone/content right so it just seems tacked on, on top of that the sex just isn't that sexy (irritating giggling prostitutes, incest, rape) so it's basically a fail.
Kate wrote: "(irritating giggling prostitutes, incest, rape)"I would argue that, besides those examples being from the book (minus Tyrion's orgy, but that certainly was staying in character), they do serve the plot of the show. Seeing Jaime and Cersei get it on is absolutely necessary to the plot, for many reasons, and Dany's first true show of power is when she turns the tables on Drogo, sexually. We have to see that to see her arc. Even the exposed breasts and overtly sexual dancing at Dany and Drogo's wedding helps us understand that this culture is utterly alien, and scary, to Dany. And even the doggie style that people keep harping on is described in the book - it's the preferred Dothraki way, and again is integral to Dany's arc. Maybe Cersei and Jaime didn't choose that particular position in the book, but how the hell else is Bran going to see both their faces? :)
The sex in the book is never particularly sexy, either, I'd argue - it's often one person taking advantage of another, or using sex as a power play. Perhaps the most romantic it gets is between (view spoiler).
I always like to end on a spoiler.
I heard the actress that played Cersei was pregnant and that position was easier on her...
Tamahome wrote: "I heard the actress that played Cersei was pregnant and that position was easier on her..."Very plausible, given the costuming choices they made for her.
Just finished the book today and I have to say they are doing a really great job sticking to the book. With only two episodes I think they are doing a great job with pacing and scene choices.As far as the nudity goes, the story is filled with nudity, sex, incest, and rape. Martin never sugar coats anything. If you thought the HBO series would be anything else then you have not read the books recently or you have not seen many of HBO's mini-series.
It would be a disservice to Martin and fans of the series to not include the nudity or sex when so much of the novel is just that. I understand many of the scenes with Dany and Drago are uncomfortable, but they are meant to be. They are in the book as well. If you have not read the book recently I recommend a re-read just so you can see they truly are sticking to the source material. I have been uncomfortable with many scenes and there is no way I would watch this with someone under 18, but it is still a great show.
I have not been this impressed with an adaptation ever before. Thank you HBO and keep up the good work.
I think the criticism regarding nudity and sex is not that it is unfaithful to the source material, but that it is being emphasized at the expense of more important and essential elements. Like storyline and character development. I listened to all 4 audiobooks just last year and enjoyed them a great deal(the 4th was a big drop off though). I liked them despite GRRM's romance novel porn detail he likes to throw in, and that was only once or twice per 1000 page novel. For the sake of this discussion, let's say I am completely wrong and just an uptight goober. As Fantasy genre geeks, should we not want GoT to move the ball forward and present a series that is more palatable to a wide audience? There's not exactly a huge selection of quality Fantasy programming on television, is there? I think mainstream viewers who have never read a Fantasy novel may look at this series and think the genre is just about a bunch of medieval sword carrying brutes in a perpetual state of heat. Fantasy is about imagination and wonder and fun escapism, not a frat house party at 3:00am. Consider the big picture, not just GRRM's original source material.
Philip wrote: "I think the criticism regarding nudity and sex is not that it is unfaithful to the source material, but that it is being emphasized at the expense of more important and essential elements. Like sto..."Disclaimer: I am still reading the books, Working on "A Clash of Kings" right now.
Considering the big picture, of the HBO series, there has been minimal nudity and some even cut out from the original material. There are at least 3 scenes in the first two episodes that did not include nudity that had it in the books. I have to disagree with you. I would rather them stick to the book then make this better for the general populace. That is what they did with "Legend of the Seeker" and look what that got us...
The only reason I can remember this so closely is that I had just finished reading that portion of the book before watching the episode.
I argue that "Mainstream" viewers are not going to like true "imagination and wonder and fun escapism". They want "Survivor" and other reality TV shows. I wish more SciFi and Fantasy shows would survive the knife, but sadly like the genre is not on top.
Furthermore, ASOFAI is partially about "a bunch of medieval sword carrying brutes in a perpetual state of heat". That is the exact description I would make of the Dothraki. They are very well portrayed by HBO. So sure if we cut them out you would get the version of ASOFAI you are looking for. (view spoiler)
We are all so uptight about a little nudity, when it is part of who we are as a species. The time that this book is set in a time of primal urges and power struggles. I do not agree with the exploitation of women, but why focus on such a small part of the TV show and the book, why not as you said enjoy the "storyline and character development".
Albert wrote: "We are all so uptight about a little nudity, when it is part of who we are as a species..."None of the women in my family are in the habit of being nude in public. It is indeed a part of being human, I don't need to see it. I don't need to see people using the restroom or vomiting either, or clipping their toenails. Nudity is a private thing, why not keep it so? Oh yes, because HBO has built a reputation on exploiting naked women.
Albert wrote: "I do not agree with the exploitation of women, but why focus on such a small part of the TV show and the book, why not as you said enjoy the "storyline and character development". ..."
Because in the premiere, there was a disproportionate amount of sex and nudity compared to the source material. A blind man could see HBO was playing up the flesh, you don't seriously expect anyone to buy that it's just being true to the book, do you? There was a significant lack of storyline and character development in the premiere. For instance, it was unclear that Cersei and Jamie were siblings, and twins at that. Also, the relationship between Robert and Ned was unclear.
I was done after the premiere, it's disappointing that HBO is missing an opportunity here, in my opinion.
I really think you need to re-read the first few chapters of the book, all of the scenes where there is nudity (view spoiler) are all scenes in the book and described very closely to the portrayal. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one. I still argue the adaptation that HBO is doing is very true to the books.
Philip wrote: "it is being emphasized at the expense of more important and essential elements. Like storyline and character development."I think that's a good point, but as I argued above, I think all the sex scenes did progress the storyline and advance character development (or at least reveal something about the characters). Tyrion's scene paints his character better than talking about it would, Cersei and Jaime's scene advances the plot (and reveals their relationship), and Dany and Drogo's scenes are all about her character's growth.
Plus, we are in a visual medium, and action and sex play better than introspection. I personally don't think they've tipped the balance too far one way at the expense of the other, but it's nice to see other people's opinions. I can absolutely understand how it could turn some viewers off.
Mod
What makes the books work so well for me is the blend of a grittier, more-realistic feel with characters than nonetheless have that kind of larger-than-life glow of high fantasy heroes (while also being complex and human).
I think the series has got the gritty, realistic-feeling aspect down pat, and that works well for drawing viewers in and helping them believe in that world. But it kind of uses that matter-of-fact tone for *everything*, and thus both the characters and their actions lose that larger-than-life-but-still-relatable feel that made the books so gripping. I think there would be someway to maintain that blend, even with all the compression needed for the tv series format.
Think of the feel of Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptation - that has that high-fantasy, larger-than-life glow in spades (I'm talking about the tone of the thing, not the fact that Jackson had 5 bajillion more dollars to spend on it). I guess I was imagining someone midpoint between that feel and the matter-of-fact feel the GoT tv series is actually providing. There's just a certain lack of resonance.
Or maybe it simply is a matter of character development loss. Either way, I was completely engrossed by the fate of these characters in the book, whereas in the tv series, it's interesting to watch, but I feel nowhere near as engrossed.
As I mentioned earlier, I've only seen the premiere. Tyrion was one of the most interesting characters in the books. To me, his character really did a lot of developing through dialogue. Three episodes in now, I'm curious how the dialogue has been? One criticism of GRRM's book lengths is that his characters talk to each other so much. I found the dialogue to be one of my favorite parts of the books.
I'm really enjoying the series. The only drawback I see is the same drawback that the books have - more Tyrion, please! Peter Dinklage's performance is magnetic.As for the sex discussion: sorry, but I don't see any issue at all. The books have sex as an integral part of the "game of thrones". Just like violence is. Martin is very explicit with both because they are both explicitly used as part of the political machinations of this land. Asking HBO to tone down either of them is asking them to tone down Martin's work and is a phenomenally bad idea.
Philip wrote: " I'm curious how the dialogue has been?"Really good. There is a scene in episode three with Tyrion and the night's watch where Tyrion's drunken banter comes up hard against Benjen Stark's cold sincerity. Great scene that delivers a huge amount of information about who these men are and what drives them.
Tamahome wrote: "The training with Arya was really cool. But [spoilers removed]"it mainly comes up (view spoiler)
most of which is not too far off
Much has been said about Peter Dinklage being too pretty for the role of Tyrion, but what about the mismatched eye color? How hard is it to use different colored contacts? The effect would offset his handsomeness and add a creepy effect that would be more in keeping with the book.
Philip wrote: "Much has been said about Peter Dinklage being too pretty for the role of Tyrion, but what about the mismatched eye color? How hard is it to use different colored contacts? The effect would offset h..."I already forgot about that. Strange. But you're right that would have been easy to achieve and added a bit of strangeness. I don't mind him being prettier than he is supposed to be. I never read his description in the book like that, mostly like "Hey, he's a dwarf, so yeah, he's not exactly handsome." Also, he has to stand in the shadow (hee!) of his siblings who are really, really pretty, so I never thought he had to be especially ugly to have a hard time comparing.
Personally I am pretty happy with how the TV series has turned out and not going off in totally different tangents. Waiting to see how good the CGI will be later in their episodes, hope they won't be skimping on it
HBO seem to have an aversion to colored contacts because the mismatched eyes was one of the things that made Tyrion "unattractive", but more importantly it was eye color that made the Targaryens different and other-worldly. Where are the violet eyes of the Targaryens?
I'm totally going to start using scooby in place of clue. Now back to your regularly scheduled rants about boobies and pretty dwarves.
Anyone looking for interesting commentary should check out Larry wiliams on youtube, He does mostly anime reviews, but others as well.But coming in blind to the story, he is wonderful, adorable really. He gets some stuff wrong, but the way he gets angry at the right people is a joy to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFGlVB...
Thanks Fuzzx, really enjoyed his sheer enthusiasm for the show.
So 3 episodes in and really enjoying it. I think the issue with overt sex comes down to whether you read the books or not. The sex in the book is contextual and I always felt Martin used this do what he does best, character development. If you had not read the books, the sex scenes could cause you to have a WTF moment. My wife and I started watching together, without understanding why the sex scenes were there, she got distracted from the story. She has passed on watching any additional episodes. This only concerns me as I would like this series to continue on to additional books from just GoT, but it has to draw from folks that have not read the books and if it does not, will probably not be continued.
So this is interesting. I'm currently on A Storm of Swords, and in it, Jamie has a flashback that the HBO show has delved into. It's the bit where (view spoiler) It was a weird bit of deja vu while reading the third book, to be sure!
Well, as of ep. 7 the dire wolves still don't look very dire...
Eric wrote: "Well, as of ep. 7 the dire wolves still don't look very dire..."Dire poodles.
Tamahome wrote: "Dire poodles."That's redundant. All poodles are dire.
I read/loved the books; therefore I will watch the show no matter what. Sex or no sex, I am all in. For the person who has ..."
I'd say it turns away more viewers than it brings in. People who want porn can find it quite easily with or without HBO's help. People who want compelling and layered high fantasy with quality acting and production value have a much more difficult time. The parade of bums and boobs was way over the top and dripped with gratuity. My wife was turned off by it big time, it's quite annoying to me, and there's no way on earth I'd let my 17 year old son watch it. Funny how the amount of skin shown was in direct proportion to the amount of experience and notoriety an actress had. This is another example of actresses having to disrobe to win a part because there is a line of other women willing to give in to the pervs who demand nudity in their movies/shows. Notice Lena Headey(post 300) apparently has enough influence to keep her clothes on while numerous unknown actresses fill out HBO's parade of flesh. I'm no P/C policeman, but right is right and it's 2011. Can we move on from the objectification of women already or what? And yeah, yeah, I know that's the world they live in- blah, blah, blah. The points can be made without making the show completely unwatchable to what might be a nice chunk of their potential DVD buyers/subscribers. Don't kid yourself, everything has a message. One that came across from the premiere was to any impressionable young woman: you, too can have a career in acting if you've got the skin and the willingness to show it on screen. And if you pay your dues and cooperate like a good girl, maybe you too will one day have the ability to tell your show producers if they want you to act in their show you'll be doing it with your clothes on.
Sorry if that was too preachy for you, I got a bit fired up there.