The Sword and Laser discussion

I don't know.
I think she's probably right.
I wouldn't want my wife or kid getting railed on Game of Thrones.
It would probably be a low-point for me as a husband/father.
You're a GoT fan, Rodrigo.
Do you/would you feel comfortable watching it with your friends?

William wrote: "I don't know.
I think she's probably right.
I wouldn't want my wife or kid getting railed on Game of Thrones.
It would probably be a low-point for me as a husband/father.
You're a GoT fan, Rodrigo.
Do you/would you feel comfortable watching it with your friends?"

Yup. Not only that, I watch it with my 17yo daughter, and I would be absolutely proud if she would ever be on it. Alas, she is studying engineering in college.
My wife watched the first 2 eps of the first season, and didn't enjoy it, so I don't watch with her.

I also took the time to ask a few friends of mine, all of them fathers of girls, their opinion on the subject. The question was "How would you feel if you learned your daughter was going to have a part on GoT, with one of the nudity scenes?". I asked 10 friends of mine. 8 were ok. 1 said he would have to think about it, and the last one said he would be ashamed of his daughter being an actress, regardless.

7 of those are Brazilians, 3 Americans. The one who said he would have to think is American, and the one that would be ashamed regardless is Brazilian.

Granted, "my friends" are hardly a fair representation of the whole society and, even if they were, a sample of 10 is statistically ridiculous. But it is sure better than throwing in "99%" around just because that is what you (her, not you you) think.

You, William, on the other hand, is saying "I don't know" and "I think". You are stating your personal opinion, like you said before, and I have absolutely no problem with your statement.

I do have a problem with people who throw their prejudices around and pretend they are stating facts.

Rodrigo wrote: "the last one said he would be ashamed of his daughter being an actress, regardless."

Lol.

There are even those who argue the TV series is more feminist than the books.

I don't fully agree with all of the author's interpretations, but I think she definitely has a point with how many of the female characters in the books have become far more interesting and acquired more agency in the show. E.g. (view spoiler)[in the book, Shae's betrayal wasn't entirely surprising (Tywin's, maybe), and Tyrion came off as rather righteous for killing her. As it stands right now in the series, if that scene plays out the same way, I'm thinking my sympathies may lie with Shae. (hide spoiler)]

Tina wrote: "The point is, does it (the nudity, violence, etc.) serve the story? It becomes gratuitous, I think, when the viewer becomes sidetracked from the story. For example, the above-mentioned brothel sce..."

I wasn't distracted at all. Sounds like a personal problem.

There's a finally a well-written show for adults and it's too adult? Gimme a f'in break.

Kathryn wrote: "To me it fits the mood of the story. The books are gritty and they have a very realistic feel to them because of all the dirty, bloody, disgusting things that happen in it. War is not pretty, it is..."

Yes, that was an added scene that I think really nails Joffrey in a few minutes in a fashion that the book took a lot longer to establish.

I think it's pretty sad that no one seems to remember Alfie Allen's frontal shot. Poor guy.

Rodrigo wrote: "Julia wrote: "Additionally, 99% of the men watching the show would (not) like their wives or daughters up on screen."

[Made the correction there]

My reply: 99% of the men watching The Deadliest Catch(*) would not like their wives or daughters up on the screen.

* - Feel free to replace "The Deadliest Catch" by several other shows or movies"

I think perhaps part of my discomfort stems from this, though it's definitely a trend for all films and television programmes these days. Actors just can't seem to be able to keep their clothes on anymore, and it's a little sad. Even shows that aren't OTT on the sex like Game Of Thrones seem to have trouble resisting the odd flash of boob these days, and it almost becomes part of the check-list. As a kid, I looked up to actors. I wanted to be one. Now it seems a matter of course that actors will have to take their clothes off at some point if they want to be successful. That makes me a little uncomfortable.

Ruth wrote: "Rodrigo wrote: "Julia wrote: "Additionally, 99% of the men watching the show would (not) like their wives or daughters up on screen."

[Made the correction there]

My reply: 99% of the men watching..."

I'd much rather have the casting couch be onscreen instead of completely behind the scenes. See: Tippi Hedren.

Ruth wrote: "I think perhaps part of my discomfort stems from this, though it's definitely a trend for all films and television programmes these days. Actors just can't seem to be able to keep their clothes on anymore, and it's a little sad."

There is absolutely nothing new about this. Actually, this is one of the main reasons that actors (as a class) are held at such low steam by the society. For decades and decades, an actress was considered little better than a prostitute.

Sex, nudity and "sin" has been part of acting since its inception. Lets remember it started with the festivals of Bacchus/Dionysus. Those "feasts of sin" where the birthplace of theater and, as such, televisions. After that, you can trace it all the way through history, and it was only in Victorian England that they started worrying about "morals" in the performing arts.

Be it as it may, sex and nudity were part of it, and not an artificial element introduced for the sole purpose of ratings. On this last particular case, I'm also against it, the same way I'm against excessive special effects, excessive music, excessive shouting and all that.

In the particular case of G.o.T., it fits the story well, I find all the elements fit the story nicely.

Chop peoples limbs off, gut them, skewer them, stick their heads on spikes, roll around in gore and no one bats an eyelid. But show a bit of skin and you'd think the world had ended. And they used to say us Brits were prudes!

I think people have some seriously backwards perspectives.

Tim wrote: "Chop peoples limbs off, gut them, skewer them, stick their heads on spikes, roll around in gore and no one bats an eyelid. But show a bit of skin and you'd think the world had ended. And they used ..."

I absolutely agree. Kidnapping, torture, and executions are all well and good, but show a nipple and OMG!!! It's almost like violence is a normal part of human reproduction but sex isn't. WTF?

The violence is pretty gratuitous too.
I'm not saying I think it's too violent or too sexy.
I'm saying the violence and the sex is just there without offering anything to the story.
They can't find a good way to show it, so they just show it.

William wrote: "The violence is pretty gratuitous too.
I'm not saying I think it's too violent or too sexy.
I'm saying the violence and the sex is just there without offering anything to the story.
They can't find..."

That makes no sense. If anything, the violence and sex is more apparent in the books, and it does serve to advance the story. Saying that it doesn't on the TV show says more to me that you just don't like than that it doesn't serve the story.

IMHO, the reason for the teaching scene in the brothel is foreshadowing, Ros later on becomes the person doing the teaching, even to using the same language used on her by Littlefinger. It's a method of showing her character development from whore to madam.

There's a difference between "it doesn't advance the story" and "I just don't like it". I get that you're using the language of the former, but it sounds to me like the problem is far more the latter.

It's just my opinion.
The show felt like it was rushing to "the good parts" in season one, then I didn't watch it anymore.
I love fantasy setting stuff too.
Maybe I'm unreceptive for some other reason, but that's the only reason I can think of.

William wrote: "It's just my opinion.
The show felt like it was rushing to "the good parts" in season one, then I didn't watch it anymore.
I love fantasy setting stuff too.
Maybe I'm unreceptive for some other rea..."

I feel like it rushes some things and delays others, too. I'm learning to enjoy it. I'm watching the buildup to the RW and wanting it to happen nao! I am a little sad that Vargo Hoat seems to have been excised. I wanted to see him onscreen.

I think they're doing a good job of condensing the Tyrells' machinations. I saw a "black diamond" in Olenna's headpiece in the last ep and thought "I know where that's going!"

Rodrigo wrote: "Sex, nudity and "sin" has been part of acting since its inception.

Believe me, I'm aware of that; I studied Japanese theatre, so I'm well aware of the connection between performers, sex and prostitution. However, things were not so explicit on television when I was a child, and I viewed acting as a art form, and...well, it makes me a little sad. I don't know how else to express it.

Tim wrote: "Chop peoples limbs off, gut them, skewer them, stick their heads on spikes, roll around in gore and no one bats an eyelid. But show a bit of skin and you'd think the world had ended."

The difference is, the violence is fake. We all know it is fake. We know that man didn't really get beheaded. The nudity, however, is real. Those actors really are naked, and judging by some of the comments I've come across by some of those responsible, they are naked in order to give male viewers something to look at, because apparently they don't think a damn good storyline, excellent acting, and yes, shit tons of fake gore is good enough without parading nudity about at every opportunity. My feelings are: keep it if it's right for the story, but don't force it in to get the female fancying members of the audience turned on.

Ruth wrote: "Rodrigo wrote: "Sex, nudity and "sin" has been part of acting since its inception.

Believe me, I'm aware of that; I studied Japanese theatre, so I'm well aware of the connection between performer..."

I think the disconnect is that some people feel it's okay, and others don't. Likely the twain shall never meet. I'm happy they included some full frontal male nudity at all, even though I'm not a hetero and I enjoy some of the female nudity for its own sake as well. There probably are alternate versions available online with those scenes cut out. Feel free to watch those instead and let us know whether the story suffers. I'd be interested in finding out, but not enough to do it myself.

I absolutely think that if nudity bothers you intensely, you should contact the show and tell them so.

Firstname wrote: "There probably are alternate versions available online with those scenes cut out. Feel free to watch those instead and let us know whether the story suffers.

You can't just edit out the scenes; important conversations happen while the nudity is on screen. I don't have a problem with nudity, per se, as I have said before, but it often seems to be there for no real reason, and there are times I imagine things would have worked much better had alternatives been chosen sometimes, instead of nudity being the first choice all the time, the sexier the better. It bothers me a little that the underlying reasons for the choice are sexual ones rather than story driven reasons.

Ruth wrote: "Firstname wrote: "There probably are alternate versions available online with those scenes cut out. Feel free to watch those instead and let us know whether the story suffers.

You can't just edit..."

Can you point to where either Martin or the showrunners state that the nudity is only for prurient reasons and not a part of the story? Or is this your opinion of whether the nudity is necessary? If nudity were "the first choice all the time" then I'd think there would be more of it.

Lol, Firstname just likes his sex and violence and we better leave it alone.

"I'll have my dessert first, a lot of it, and keep those vegetables the hell away from me!"

More nekkid men please.

I'm a woman, I have all those same parts so I have no problem looking at them, feel no shame in looking at them, and feel the actors should have no shame in showing them, but there should be a balance.

Show me some of that manflesh!

William wrote: "Lol, Firstname just likes his sex and violence and we better leave it alone.

"I'll have my dessert first, a lot of it, and keep those vegetables the hell away from me!""

I'm not a guy ;^D

I just think there's a difference between saying "I'm uncomfortable with this and I'm taking responsibility for feeling that way" and "I'm blaming the author/showrunner for what I think they think." For instance, I am not a huge fan of the slo-mo quick-cut style of Spartacus gorefestiana, but I think that's my issue. It does advance the story, as does the casual sexual use of slaves and women. That said, I'd rather watch that than Sex and the City.

Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Lol, Firstname just likes his sex and violence and we better leave it alone.
"

I'm not a guy ;^D "

Geez, can't they tell. Just look at the picture. Firstname is obviously a cat...

If Firstname doesn't want to be clear about his sex, he's a guy.

Rodrigo,

Your ancient theatre history is a bit off in my opinion. I would argue that the Bacchanalias and the Festivals of Dionysus were not the same thing at all. Thats like saying a Baptist Tent Revival and a Catholic Eucharist are the same thing. It is true that Theatre has its roots in religion and that Dramatic poetry readings were a part of Dionysian festivals. As to your point about morality...Theatres being shut down for moral reasons goes all the way back to the very Bacchanalias that you mentioned. They were outlawed by the roman senate for being obscene and seditious in 186 bc long before the "Victorians". As a matter of fact the Victorians never shut down Theatres the "Elizabethans" did (and the Edwardians). During the so-called Victorian era Theatre flourished as it often does in times of repression or unrest.

Is there too much sex and violence? Hmm. No, I don't think so. I think they are just about getting it right. There might be a few extraneous scenes that have sex and/or violence in them... but I don't think the sex/violence is the problem. It's that the scenes aren't necessary.

I'm thinking of the Podrick with prostitutes scene, and the TWO scenes afterwards discussing the event. Had there been the same amount of sex/nudity in the episode in scenes that actually moved the story along it would have been fine, but that bit is a diversion, so the nudity was unnecessary because the scene wasn't necessary.

I think one could make an argument for the nudity scene rather than for the two scenes talking about it afterwards. After all, they want to maintain Tyrion's character, so the prostitute angle makes sense. But then to have Podrick, Tyrion and Bronn discuss the event followed by Varys and Ros doing the same was overmuch. So... more freaky-deaky, less wacky-yakky.

Firstname wrote: "Can you point to where either Martin or the showrunners state that the nudity is only for prurient reasons and not a part of the story? Or is this your opinion of whether the nudity is necessary? If nudity were "the first choice all the time" then I'd think there would be more of it."

Argh, this is going to be one of those 'someone posted a video and it said blah but I'm about to go to bed and am too tired to search for it' posts. Mayb someone will be helpful and provide a link for me. I know there was a thread on this forum and it was on it. Basically, if memory serves, a guest director described how he was filming a scene and a guy kept instructing him to add more tits, or something like that, saying he spoke for the perverts that want boobs galore or some such thing. I don't think that is the right approach. I mean, I wouldn't want the show to AVOID nudity just so as not to upset people of a prudish disposition, but the balance seems to be shifted too far the other way.

I saw a pretty funny video of a thirteen year old boy calling the shots on each episode of GoT.
He had a director's chair and everything.

Gary wrote: "Is there too much sex and violence? Hmm. No, I don't think so. I think they are just about getting it right. There might be a few extraneous scenes that have sex and/or violence in them... but ..."

I actually think they're creating something with the Podrick bit, see the last ep and the conversation between Varys and...I forget. I think it might be a convenient shortcut to establishing something else about Tyrion. We'll see. As we get further in, the departures will get larger, because each book won't fit neatly into a single season.

Ruth wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Can you point to where either Martin or the showrunners state that the nudity is only for prurient reasons and not a part of the story? Or is this your opinion of whether the nudi..."

Ahhhh, there we go. That's an interesting point. While I think it's a shame that prurience may be overserved, I think asking men to cut down on boob shots for a show made primarily for a male audience may be tilting at windmills. Armor up!

William wrote: "I saw a pretty funny video of a thirteen year old boy calling the shots on each episode of GoT.
He had a director's chair and everything." That I would love to see!

D S wrote: "That I would love to see!"

I found it.
It's an SNL skit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4509yj...

I just find it interesting many don't mind explicit violence, but completely flip out over sex and nudity. It's like "Wow, that guy's head was cleaved off. Cool!" versus "I saw a bare breast! This is disgusting and outrageous!" Plus, the nudity on GOT is ridiculously one-sided. For me, as long as the sex and violence doesn't become a substitute for solid writing, I'll watch.

Terez wrote: "I just find it interesting many don't mind explicit violence, but completely flip out over sex and nudity. It's like "Wow, that guy's head was cleaved off. Cool!" versus "I saw a bare breast! Th..."

I'm enjoying the fact that even the naked women have body hair. It's obvious they're not ten years old, unlike the contemporary version. Bleh.

Firstname wrote: "I'm enjoying the fact that even the naked women have body hair. It's obvious they're not ten years old, unlike the contemporary version. Bleh. "

I trust you like your men unshaved, and their hair uncut... Anyway...

I agree with you that the women having body hair is fitting for the G.o.T. world. Having them "like the contemporary version", as you put it, would be a like seeing Rob with a wristwatch.

Rodrigo wrote: "Firstname wrote: "I'm enjoying the fact that even the naked women have body hair. It's obvious they're not ten years old, unlike the contemporary version. Bleh. "

I trust you like your men unshave..."

I don't like men. Assumptions assumptions ;^P

Firstname wrote: "I actually think they're creating something with the Podrick bit, see the last ep and the conversation between Varys and...I forget. I think it might be a convenient shortcut to establishing something else about Tyrion. We'll see. As we get further in, the departures will get larger, because each book won't fit neatly into a single season."

I don't know how I feel about them developing Podrick.... I mean, he's not all that important a character in the books. He seems like an odd one to focus on. I can see Ros (the prostitute turned personal assistant) because Littlefinger isn't a POV character. Arguably, the audience could use a few hints and nudges regarding his character. But Tyrion is right there front and center. Why focus on his squire/assistant?

Anyway, I hope things don't differ too much more from the books than they already have done. It does seem to be the case with a lot of film/TV adaptations that the makers start to think they are the driving force behind the success of the product rather than the author who managed to get millions of readers involved in the first place. I suppose in this case we can give them a little slack in that GRRM is still chugging along in the actual original material and may wind up being passed up by the series, but there's so much material in the books that they can draw from, it seems a bad idea to go off on their own.

Gary wrote: "Firstname wrote: "I actually think they're creating something with the Podrick bit, see the last ep and the conversation between Varys and...I forget. I think it might be a convenient shortcut to e..."

I agree. I'm hoping it will be something exceedingly clever but I doubt it.

Firstname wrote: "While I think it's a shame that prurience may be overserved, I think asking men to cut down on boob shots for a show made primarily for a male audience may be tilting at windmills."

Haha, okay, inner feminist awakened! So it's a show made primarily for a male audience is it? I guess no one remembered to tell us girls that. Sorry ladies, we'd best get back to our soap operas. ;p

Podric's got nothing on Hodo...wow.

Ruth wrote: "The difference is, the violence is fake. We all know it is fake. We know that man didn't really get beheaded. "

Saying that it's fake is hardly an excuse. The problem is that the fake violence on TV desensitizes people to the real violence they see there. Switching from GOT to the news and seeing the the Boston bombing is going to have less impact than switching from Wheel of Fortune. If you see what I mean :)

Ruth wrote: "Firstname wrote: "While I think it's a shame that prurience may be overserved, I think asking men to cut down on boob shots for a show made primarily for a male audience may be tilting at windmills..."

Hey, I feel your pain, but there are no girls on the internet, no girls ever game, girls don't read sci fi and they don't poop. There's a reason these are tropes. Sucks, but there it is. If you can convince ad agencies they're wrong, I'll throw you the biggest party you ever saw.

Space opera and faux-medieval opera really are soap operas for males (and everyone else who doesn't care for Young and the Restless of General Hospital on the Edge of Night). I had a student once who said "Boys aren't emotional". I laughed and said "Never been to a soccer/football/baseball game, eh?"

AndrewP wrote: "Saying that it's fake is hardly an excuse. The problem is that the fake violence on TV desensitizes people to the real violence they see there. Switching from GOT to the news and seeing the the Boston bombing is going to have less impact than switching from Wheel of Fortune. If you see what I mean :) "

Ouch. Not an apt analogy...

...and I have to disagree. I don't watch gameshows much, but I'm sure I was no less bothered by the events in Boston than I would have been had I turned from Vanna White (if she's still got that gig) to cable news than whatever it was I had been watching. I'm confident most people are quite able to differentiate between fantasy fiction and reality.

Gary wrote: "AndrewP wrote: " I'm confident most people are quite able to differentiate between fantasy fiction and reality. "

Kinda. I remember laughing pretty hard during Vaginal Fantasy when the question was "How would you know you were a few hundred years in the past's Scotland?" Well, if you're not white...I'm pretty sure it would be immediately obvious.

I agree with the first post. Since the fight with red viper and mountain i'm sort of at the point where i enjoy everything but the unnecessary torture / grit. i really do think we are heading into an age of senselessness where real violence will be emotionally undistinguishable with theatre violence and many steps in between. the grit on GoT doesn't add to the amazing story, it withdraws. crowd mentality in its finest form has everyone saying "nah its good, just the right amount".. i dont like what it does to our minds and i think it does make us more bloodthirsty.

Matt wrote: "I agree with the first post. Since the fight with red viper and mountain i'm sort of at the point where i enjoy everything but the unnecessary torture / grit. i really do think we are heading into ..."

You're kind of contradicting yourself there, you say everyone is becoming desensitised to the violence and darkness and being made more bloodthirsty but at the same time you (and many others, based on some of the reactions I've seen since the Mountain/Viper thing) are feeling burned out on it and have had enough?

For the record, I'm not saying that the level of violence/darkness/grit/gore/rape/whatever is too much one way or the other, but the show is certainly pushing boundaries for what we've seen on mainstream TV to this point.

As for my personal taste, I think they have overdone some of the rape stuff in Season 4, both explicitly and implicitly. I'm thinking of the scene where Meera is threatened at Craster's Keep as an example, I think it's become a bit of a crutch in the writing to quickly show the audience when a female character is in danger.

There's obviously been a wider discussion about rape culture and it's representation in media over the past couple of years as well, and I wonder if that has consciously or otherwise played any part in how it's depicted in the show or received by the audience. Big questions for smarter minds than me to debate.

Answer to original question... no.