[SpectreofEschaton]

If I can say this without managing to offend everyone on the board this time, I actually find this show, as a whole (not just the sex scenes) a bit too show-off-y. I guess I just don't really understand how it serves the story that everything has to be so explicit and not left remotely up to the imagination.

Like Ser Hugh's death. That was over the edge, I contend. I have no problem with it being part of the story, but I don't really want to see that kind of violence. I can imagine it just as well without needing to witness a (very convincing rendition of) human being dying horribly as though I were observing the act from 2 feet away. I'm sure it's "realistic" but I guess I don't really get why we need that kind of "realism". Can't we infer that Westeros is an awful, awful place without needing to have that sort of thing shoved in our faces?

Also, watching it again, the Mountain's horse decapitation looks pretty fake. The way he swings his sword doesn't look like it would be able to cut off the horse's head like that in one stroke, even with all his titanic strength behind it. So... there goes the "realism" aspect, and we're left with, what? A shocking image of equine murder to establish the Gregor Clegane is a Bad Guy? Did we really need to have a shot from that close, capturing every drop of arterial blood as it sprayed out? What does that add to the story again, that a more distant shot (that would probably be a lot cheaper on CGI and be easier to fake) wouldn't?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why should I care if the show is "like you're really there"? I wouldn't *want* to be there. This applies to the sex scenes too. Why do we need to see Drogo savagely taking Daenarys in the "Dothraki fashion"? This could be suggested or implied many different ways, but instead, it for some reason needs to be shown in as much detail as they can legally include. Why? I ask. Surely good stories have been told in film and on t.v. before without resorting to this sort of device. Why is it necessary here?

To put it another way, if they made a film of Memories of Ice, would you want to watch the Mothers of Dead Seed doing their holy duties for the Seer? I sure wouldn't. That doesn't mean I object to that element of the story, but if it was shown with the attention to detail HBO is showing in GoT, I'd be disgusted. Why do we need to hear Theon's savage moans of pleasure to apprehend his character? Why do we need to see Daenarys' pained, horrified face to realize what a terrible situation she's in? Why do we need to hear the sound of Loras' lips to understand that he and Renly care for each other deeply (and are one of the only true friendships in the story)?

[worry]

Violence is awesome.

Sex is even better.

Two gay men rubbing their boners together like they're trying to start a fire: the best!

[QuickTidal]

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

If I can say this without managing to offend everyone on the board this time, I actually find this show, as a whole (not just the sex scenes) a bit too show-off-y. I guess I just don't really understand how it serves the story that everything has to be so explicit and not left remotely up to the imagination.

Because it is TV and not a book. If I wanted to imagine it, I'd read the book.

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Like Ser Hugh's death. That was over the edge, I contend. I have no problem with it being part of the story, but I don't really want to see that kind of violence. I can imagine it just as well without needing to witness a (very convincing rendition of) human being dying horribly as though I were observing the act from 2 feet away. I'm sure it's "realistic" but I guess I don't really get why we need that kind of "realism". Can't we infer that Westeros is an awful, awful place without needing to have that sort of thing shoved in our faces?

No, actually you can't infer that without showing it. The fact that it was graphic enough to put you off shows that both GRRM and HBO have done their job well. Medieval history was NOT a nice place...It's part of why we take history in school...to show how brutal we can be (and have been in the past) as humanity...as a lesson and warning.

and as someone said upthread. If you CHOOSE to watch, it's not being "shoved in your face".

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Also, watching it again, the Mountain's horse decapitation looks pretty fake. The way he swings his sword doesn't look like it would be able to cut off the horse's head like that in one stroke, even with all his titanic strength behind it. So... there goes the "realism" aspect, and we're left with, what? A shocking image of equine murder to establish the Gregor Clegane is a Bad Guy? Did we really need to have a shot from that close, capturing every drop of arterial blood as it sprayed out? What does that add to the story again, that a more distant shot (that would probably be a lot cheaper on CGI and be easier to fake) wouldn't?

That's the quickest someone said one statement in one paragraph and then completely contradicted themselves in the next paragraph. Well done I guess...Also, you're saying it looked fake because of all the horses you've seen decapitated live I am assuming? It's a horse decapitation, not the kind of thing they really need to spend oodles of money making it look super realistic, blood spatter and head sliding down...that's pretty much all that is required. Or were you looking for artery tubules and rent muscle and flesh ect.? (contradicting the last paragraph of course)

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, why should I care if the show is "like you're really there"? I wouldn't *want* to be there. This applies to the sex scenes too. Why do we need to see Drogo savagely taking Daenarys in the "Dothraki fashion"? This could be suggested or implied many different ways, but instead, it for some reason needs to be shown in as much detail as they can legally include. Why? I ask. Surely good stories have been told in film and on t.v. before without resorting to this sort of device. Why is it necessary here?

You don't have to care. In fact reading your posts make me wonder why on earth you are watching at all. Or reading the books for that matter..this is a really visceral, and dark series, and this is the stuff that goes on in it...if you don't like that why are you reading it/watching it?

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

To put it another way, if they made a film of Memories of Ice, would you want to watch the Mothers of Dead Seed doing their holy duties for the Seer? I sure wouldn't. That doesn't mean I object to that element of the story, but if it was shown with the attention to detail HBO is showing in GoT, I'd be disgusted. Why do we need to hear Theon's savage moans of pleasure to apprehend his character? Why do we need to see Daenarys' pained, horrified face to realize what a terrible situation she's in? Why do we need to hear the sound of Loras' lips to understand that he and Renly care for each other deeply (and are one of the only true friendships in the story)?

That you seem to think that reading it (the dead seed ladies) is less disgusting than seeing it says to me you must have little to no imagination....or your brain has a v-chip that you click on when you read....and that kind of boggles my mind. We hear Theon's savage moans of pleasure because otherwise he's f*cking a girl and not enjoying it...which is so ludicrous I can't fathom it...we need to see Daenerys pained and horrified face because IT'S PART OF WHAT MAKES HER WHO SHE WILL BE...it's called character depth. We hear Loras lips/sucking sounds ...wait for it...because that's what it would have sounded like...they are just being true to how things are.

I'm not offended so much as I am absolutely mind-boggled that you read the books, let alone watch a TV series that you seem to abhor.

Feeling comfortable with reading material that has dark and nasty aspects, then being disgusted by it when it's presented to you in a visual medium...doesn't that say something about the disconnect between your mind and the words on the page?

I dunno, I say don't watch and solve all the problems.

[Ceda Cicero]

Let's pump the brakes here and recognize that Spectre is making a point about gratuitousness in general in the presentation of film/TV. And let's further recognize that even if you don't agree with the point, it was well made, and well worth making as TV and film continue to escalate in the portrayals of graphic content.

[Ulrik]

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

If I can say this without managing to offend everyone on the board this time, I actually find this show, as a whole (not just the sex scenes) a bit too show-off-y. I guess I just don't really understand how it serves the story that everything has to be so explicit and not left remotely up to the imagination.....
.......To put it another way, if they made a film of Memories of Ice, would you want to watch the Mothers of Dead Seed doing their holy duties for the Seer? I sure wouldn't. That doesn't mean I object to that element of the story, but if it was shown with the attention to detail HBO is showing in GoT, I'd be disgusted. Why do we need to hear Theon's savage moans of pleasure to apprehend his character? Why do we need to see Daenarys' pained, horrified face to realize what a terrible situation she's in? Why do we need to hear the sound of Loras' lips to understand that he and Renly care for each other deeply (and are one of the only true friendships in the story)?

I dont want to offend you too, so dont worry:) And quote is shortened only because of its lenght. But I have to disagree. Why we have to see it? Well.... because its part of the story. Otherwise, it could be only one long look at Old Nan 2.0 telling it to some Bran Targaryen-Dayne... and that would be boring. I want to see dead Hugh, because its important to story and that bloody part is pretty weak against reality:) I want to see Drogo mounting Daenerys, because it shows difference between cultures better than tens of words.
Im a little bit confused why are you watching it. You dislike many parts and still... Dunno, you cant blame show, you choose to watch it, you can choose to stand only at books too. But for me, violence in books and TV is almost same. If we are talking about non-reality TV. Thats something different.


And for brutality in TV and movies - I say yes! More of it! I dont believe it will make people more resilient to it. But I hope they will see closer to reality. If many young turds would see what can knife really do, they wont be carrying it like some street heroes. And they would be more horrified about raping news and not only saying "hm, bad...show me some happy animals"... Ups, it went other way I wanted. I dont need brutalized Smurfs, but I really like sort of programs that arent shy and dont need to pretend that killing isnt messy thing.
And for sex? Oh, cmon people. I have to say hard way, but we all (OK? mostly) fuck. And its not always after dinner with candles, roses and shy blushing, climaxing with perfect tear and whispering poems. Im a little bit tired of programs trying to be mature and afraid of showing sex in its natural form. Its hypocrisy. And again, Im not talking about Smurfs:)

[worry]

The Beric thing has to happen quite a while after the tourney, because he's sent after Gregor's gang specifically, right? And Gregor doesn't really get started until word of Tyrion's arrest is everywhere. As far as I remember, it happens while Ned is once again Hand -- I think he does it while Robert is off hunting, but before the accident. The hunting trip lasts quite a long time, IIRC, perhaps over a week. Ned would have gone himself (after Gregor, I mean, not hunting) if his leg wasn't injured.

[Ulrik]

Briar King, on 20 May 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Everyone seems to be talking nonstop about Renly/loras.

Ive nothing to add to that part Im just bummed we didnt get see Thoros flaming sword at he tourney and Ned sending Berric Dondarrion off to do the Kings Justice on the road whitch becomes a plot line all by itself. That happened before Ned and Roberts "fight" in the book correct?

Beric is send after clash Ned with Jaime. And Thoros´ sword is missing, but...melee would be costly and add nothing to story:)

[SpectreofEschaton]

Blah, I just had a long response typed up, but it isn't worth it. I'm not offended, Ulrik, I just disagree.

@Quick Tidal: one word. Subtlety. I won't post about it anymore here, as I clearly can't express myself without riling you up.

[worry]

You're allowed to rile people up! It's just folks talking after all. And you've expressed yourself decently, it's clear you're not in the camp spouting absolute braindead caveman nonsense like "gay scenes shouldn't be included because they are icky!"

Anyway, I agree with Ulrik pretty much. Depicting brutality isn't the same as condoning it. Very little of what's depicted in GoT so far has been pleasant, or meant to be. But I also just happen to enjoy really clever, surprising depictions of violence sometimes. I mean, there are genre fans who enjoy some pretty gruesome horror, and some of that kinda stuff does appeal to me I gotta admit. I like seeing zombies bite through skulls once in a while, that's just how it is. Some people want to compare that to Romans sending prisoners to the lions, but as far as I'm concerned all you gotta have is a clear distinction between fiction and reality, and it's all good. Bash as many heads in as you like, just do it artfully. It's not for the squeamish, but I ain't squeamish. On the other hand, if you're showing me a film strip of real open heart surgery, I might vomit up my lunch. People are funny that way, but addressing or presenting these issues in works of art is any less valid or more base subject matter than, say, the Mona Lisa.

As far as subtlety goes, a TV show isn't a text, and it has its own advantages and disadvantages. You can't really have internal monologue without voiceover or soliloquies, and I'm grateful beyond measure that GoT hasn't gone in either of these directions.

[Tsundoku]

Graphic sex and violence = bread and circuses.

You want to see real dead people close up? WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES OF DEAD PEOPLE

http://www.rollingst...photos-20110327

NB: I'm not commenting on US policy, the Afghan war or anything like that, it's just that these were the first graphic examples of the results of real violence that I could recall. I'm sure there's so much more out there, but frankly I don't feel the need to go looking. If you feel the need to, go right ahead, knock yourselves out.

I'm with SofE when it comes to subtlety. If I want graphic sex I'll watch pr0n. The best horror is implied. Realistic violence is quite unnecessary, but that doesn't mean I prefer "whack" and bad guy falls down like in cowboy flicks from the 50s. I'm sure there's a happy medium out there. Maybe like Blackhawk Down? That bit where they're trying to clamp that dudes femoral artery is ... whew.

There's a difference between depiction and loving closeups.

PS - I apologise if the link violates forum policy, but I thought it quite pertinent to the current discussion. If anyone follows it and is offended - YOU WERE WARNED.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 20 May 2011 - 10:47 PM

[QuickTidal]

SpectreofEschaton, on 20 May 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

@Quick Tidal: one word. Subtlety. I won't post about it anymore here, as I clearly can't express myself without riling you up.

I'm not riled up. LOL.

Subtlety is NOT something this series is about dude. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree there.

I mean this is a series where this family gets split up all over hell and some of them die, and some of them have to deal with atrocious things...at like the age of 9...Arya has to kill a man...SLICE HIS THROAT ear to ear...she's NINE. If i don't see how visceral that is, how am I supposed to feel the gravity of such a situation, and on a broader scope of the life she has to lead.

This leads into your comments about Ser Hugh...why do we need to see it so gory? Because he was just a young squire, who ends up being promoted to knight and then killed...simply because of who he was squire for (Jon Arryn)....his vile, gurgling, blood spitting death is what gives that scene its reasons (and players/orchestrators)...it's what makes it mean something more than just, oh someone had him killed. It tells me...holy shit...someone wanted him killed bad enough to send the biggest, most asshole-like dude in the place against him...that's nasty and whoever did that is evil. It's called dramatic gravity.

You're looking for the Disney-fied version of a very dark series...I'm afraid it doesn't exist brother.

Again...why are you watching if it repulses it so?

Why are you reading the series if these sequences repulse you so? How does your brain do the disconnect with these gory or overly sexual scenes in the book? That's a neat trick.

How you want a death scene or a sex scene to look realistic and to be subtle is kind of beyond me.

Sex is messy, juicy, sweaty, and primal. End of story. You can try to have "nice" candles and flowers sex...but I guarantee you it will always turn into animal grunting and moaning.

I hope i don't have to explain that subtlety belongs nowhere near a man who just had 2 feet of wood splintered into his effing throat...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 May 2011 - 11:08 PM

[worry]

"The best horror is implied" is a common enough opinion, and sure it holds water in some cases (especially with boogeymen stories where the actual reveal of the monster is disappointing), but I wouldn't consider it a truism. If you want to be spooked, it's a good rule, but if you want to be viscerally disgusted or disturbed, then a good horse beheading does the trick. As does, say, the thumbs in the eye scene of 28 Days Later. Or a little girl puking up pea soup and masturbating with a crucifix, as we get in the Exorcist. Or all the slimey, bloated, creepy gruesomeness featured in that blessing of a film, Slither. There's all kinds of awesomeness to be had in all kinds of ways. There's a time and place for Jaws being mostly under water and unseen, and there's a time for sticking a knife through someone's eye and out the back of their head, or bashing faces in with shields. Both can be a pretty delightful, as can be the happy medium you speak of.

Realistic violence is "unnecessary" in the same way TVs are unnecessary, or oxygen, or all of existence. It's all unnecessary, if you're not considering what it might be necessary to. A TV is necessary if I want to watch the TV shows I want to watch. Oxygen is necessary if I want to breathe. Existence is necessary if I want to exist. And realistic violence is necessary if I want to watch depictions of realistic violence. I mean, that may seem a pretty simple thing to say, but it's a fact that some people like seeing realistic, gruesome violence depicted fictionally while they would not enjoy watching the same thing non-fictionally. It's not a sign of anything they might enjoy in the real world, it's just a matter of taste.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 20 May 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

"The best horror is implied" is a common enough opinion, and sure it holds water in some cases (especially with boogeymen stories where the actual reveal of the monster is disappointing), but I wouldn't consider it a truism. If you want to be spooked, it's a good rule, but if you want to be viscerally disgusted or disturbed, then a good horse beheading does the trick. As does, say, the thumbs in the eye scene of 28 Days Later. Or a little girl puking up pea soup and masturbating with a crucifix, as we get in the Exorcist. Or all the slimey, bloated, creepy gruesomeness featured in that blessing of a film, Slither. There's all kinds of awesomeness to be had in all kinds of ways. There's a time and place for Jaws being mostly under water and unseen, and there's a time for sticking a knife through someone's eye and out the back of their head, or bashing faces in with shields. Both can be a pretty delightful, as can be the happy medium you speak of.

Realistic violence is "unnecessary" in the same way TVs are unnecessary, or oxygen, or all of existence. It's all unnecessary, if you're not considering what it might be necessary to. A TV is necessary if I want to watch the TV shows I want to watch. Oxygen is necessary if I want to breathe. Existence is necessary if I want to exist. And realistic violence is necessary if I want to watch depictions of realistic violence. I mean, that may seem a pretty simple thing to say, but it's a fact that some people like seeing realistic, gruesome violence depicted fictionally while they would not enjoy watching the same thing non-fictionally. It's not a sign of anything they might enjoy in the real world, it's just a matter of taste.

Perfectly worded WorryWort. I agree completely.

I'll go one further and say that though I like reading about medieval war, it would be quite another thing to be in one, up against another dude with a big-as-fuck sword...and something being so visceral like GOT is what reminds me that this isn't just words on a page I can forget about...this can be as brutal as it gets...If it's bloodless then I laugh it off and become one of those douches who runs around thinking "war is cool"....no, war is NOT cool, and it takes a realism like this to bring that home to the reader/viewer.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 May 2011 - 11:13 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

QuickTidal, on 20 May 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

MTS, on 20 May 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 20 May 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

Battalion, on 20 May 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

We didn't ALL think it made the series better. I found it uncomfortable to watch and nobody on here's going to make me change my opinion on that. There were plenty of other ways to get the point across that the two men were close, but I found this hard to swallow - pun intended.

Sorry, I wasn't actually including you in my statement. I should have clarified. I meant that damn near everyone else in the thread seems to have had little to no problem with it.

Ain't it always interesting when some straight folk find light gay scenes disturbing or disgusting? I'm a straight guy, and I had no problem with it. They didn't show you mouth-on-wiener did they? Nopers. I'm comfortable in my sexuality, and therefore it doesn't bother me if two dudes in a story love off each other. Whatever floats their respective boats.

Can I hazard a guess that you'd have no problem with lesbian action (in which I bet you HBO would show it more explicitly than this)?

Not to derail the thread into a discussion about attitudes to homosexuality, but of course straight men have no problems with watching two women get it on. It's a fairly pointless question to ask, and not really analogous at all. He obviously has no problems with seeing one woman naked, why would two be any different? Plus, it's two naked chicks rubbing up against each other, what is there for a straight man to object against? Even if you objected to lesbianism on principle as a straight male I doubt you'd deny the aesthetic quality on display.

Indeed. Sorry, this is a good point MTS.

Let me put it down another way then...I know VERY few girls who would have a problem with Lesbian scenes...and quite a few who, though straight, entertain thoughts of lesbian stuff or don't mind watching it. Have you ever known a girl to be flat out disgusted by a lesbian scene (I've maybe met like 4 of those in my life)? Meanwhile there seem to be a lot of men who have serious issues even watching two dudes kiss. Battalion not being a girl though defeats that point as referenced to him...but I guess my point should be that when things are flipped the other way round most people (both sexes) have less of a problem.

But that just may be because the male body is fugly, and the female body is all yummy curves....lol...sorry.

Okay, let's get back on topic then.

The dude playing Littlefinger reminds me of someone...but I can't place my finger on who...another actor though.

How many men are awaiting the Dany and hand-servant boat-travel scene in Storm? Well, it's not to really be waited for anymore, they already received it in like the third episode, but nonetheless. Doubt there will be an uproar.

(Late to the party, but never behind.)

[amphibian]

The best horror film I have ever watched was Let The Right One In. I do not get creeped out at all and I was skeeved like nothing ever before after that movie. I was actually creeped out way more by the regular kid than the special kid, if you get what I mean.

[Tyr]

And now for something completely different: how fucking bad ass will the Bronn duel be in the next episode!

[HoosierDaddy]

Tyr, on 21 May 2011 - 08:46 AM, said:

And now for something completely different: how fucking bad ass will the Bronn duel be in the next episode!

I hope the Eyrie Knight wins. If only to cease your continual and over the top masturbation of him.

I like Bronn. Don't make me hate him.

[Tyr]

HoosierDaddy, on 21 May 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

Tyr, on 21 May 2011 - 08:46 AM, said:

And now for something completely different: how fucking bad ass will the Bronn duel be in the next episode!

I hope the Eyrie Knight wins. If only to cease your continual and over the top masturbation of him.

I like Bronn. Don't make me hate him.

I see.

I love Dany. I hope she becomes Queen of the universe and kills all the Others and marries Jon and has 100 children who all warg into dragons. Man, she is such a fantastic character! I mean the way she outsmarted those slavers! WOW.

From now on I jerk off to Dany. I wonder what the reaction will be.

[Battalion]

Looks like I've upset someone with my constant drizzle of puns regarding the gay scene. Sorry for being a pain in the arse.
Quick Tidal, The actor who plays Littlefinger was reminding me of someone too, I think it's Gary Oldman.

[MTS]

Battalion, on 21 May 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

Looks like I've upset someone with my constant drizzle of puns regarding the gay scene. Sorry for being a pain in the arse.
Quick Tidal, The actor who plays Littlefinger was reminding me of someone too, I think it's Gary Oldman.

It wasn't the puns. I like puns. It was the 'pun intended' line after every single one that was annoying.