27 replies to this topic

[Catastrophe]

Arya The Assassin, on 01 June 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

Do you mean executive producer David? Or Dan? Or a co-executive producer called George R.R. Martin?

I seriously doubt any of them would claim to represent the "pervert side of the audience" or downplay ASoIaF's drama.

Woman of War, on 02 June 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

But, seriously, there is nothing wrong with nudity and sex if it is definitely part of the story and not only added for thrills.

Did you read the OP? Neil's whole point was that the nude scene wasn't relevant to the story or characters in any way, it was added solely because some old fat rich scumbug working for HBO wanted to see tits and vag. Utterly disgusting.

On the bright side, I think Neil's decision to have Stannis fight his way up the walls was brilliant. That was an amazingly epic scene, and it really made me root for the one true King of Westeros. I agree with Ran, I hope that Neil will be back to work on GoT again, he's a great director.

Edited by Catastrophe, 02 June 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[Ran]

Uhm. It was an executive producer. There's only three of those who can be referred to. It was not an executive at HBO. HBO execs do not hang around on set, leaning over and telling directors what to do. That's the job of the executive producers of the show, and specifically the impression the production give is that it's D&D who call those shots.

And as I said, I didn't see Doelger anywhere when I was at Magheramorne -- maybe he was in Malta, I don't know -- but my impression is that D&D are the only ones who are always on hand for shooting; Doelger's around and does his part, but I don't think he's at all as hand's-on as either of them. So... I continue to think it's one or the other of them.

I don't think the "pervert side of the audience" thing is meant to suggest that the person saying it is there just for that, or denigrating the drama side of things, merely that he feels that the earthiness and sexiness of the series is a real part of what appeals and he wants to make sure that the opportunities to show it are in there ... and, sometimes, shoehorned in there even when it's not really adding anything useful beyond more T&A.

I'm not saying it's a great thing or at all supporting it, but I don't think hyperbolic stereotypes are very useful here. People say stuff because they have reasons and beliefs and obligations that combine to make them say it. It's not just 'I want T&A just because I can get it', usually.

Edited by Ran, 02 June 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[Currawong]

Ran, on 02 June 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I don't think the "pervert side of the audience" thing is meant to suggest that the person saying it is there just for that, or denigrating the drama side of things, merely that he feels that the earthiness and sexiness of the series is a real part of what appeals and he wants to make sure that the opportunities to show it are in there ... and, sometimes, shoehorned in there even when it's not really adding anything useful beyond more T&A.

Also, we weren't there to see or hear "how" this was said to Neil (tongue in cheek, nudge and a wink, etc), because his interview cannot convey those things.

[Catastrophe]

Alright. You seem to have some very extensive knowledge of the show's production, so I'll concede your point. I was originally under the impression that the executive in question was someone from HBO unnecessarily micro-managing the series. That type of executive meddling is unfortunately very common in the television and film industries, and while I'm pleased to know that it doesn't happen on GoT, you can understand why I was initially so cynical. I also realize that the executive's comment about representing the "pervert side of the audience" may have been a joke, or a tongue-in-cheek statement not meant to be taken 100% seriously. I was jumping to conclusions, and I apologize for that, I'm just annoyed with how much gratuitous nudity and sex has been forced into the show.

It's not that I mind nudity or sex in themselves-- I recognize that some sex scenes are absolutely necessary to the story-- it's just very irritating to me when they serve no purpose and detract from the overall plot. They've also tarnished the show's reputation to some extent, as evidenced by all of the reviews, articles, and comedy sketches making fun of GoT's use of "sexposition." On a more personal level, I know several people who dislike the show and refuse to watch it because they believe it to be "exploitative trash" or something of that sort. (I had a lot of trouble convincing my girlfriend to give the series a chance for precisely that reason, and if I hadn't read the books I might have felt the same way too.) Maybe the producers think that overwhelmingly frequent doses of nudity and sex will make the show more popular, but it seems like they're sadly mistaken, since it's done the exact opposite.

For what it's worth, I didn't even mind the naked girl in the scene with Bronn and the Hound. Honestly, I barely even noticed her at all. It's more the general trend of superfluous sex in GoT that I have a problem with.

Edited by Catastrophe, 02 June 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[Morrigan]

Tongue in cheek or not, the person who said that is a moron and should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. It's completely grotesque and makes that SNL parody eerily close to reality.

Ran, on 02 June 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

Executive producer is what he says. That's Benioff, Weiss, or Doelger. He also indicated that Benioff, Weiss, or both were always around to do script changes, consult, etc.

When I was over at Magheramorne during filming of the first season, David was pretty much always present, while Dan was always around at Malta at the time, and... I don't think Doelger really gets involved quite at that level. So I'm pretty sure it's either Benioff or Weiss.

I hope Neil's frankness about what was, basically, a funny anecdote from his perspective does not lead to his not being invited back to direct again, since he actually seemed open to it.

Also, sex scenes less crude? I mean, other than the big error which was the Littlefinger sexposition scene that was all sorts of wrong, I'd have to say this season was actually even cruder about sex than last year. So... we'll see.

Very interesting, thanks for posting that.

Edited by Morrigan, 02 June 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Wouter]

I suspect that the executive producers mentioned was acting on behalf of "suits" higher up the HBO foodchain, anyway. I think that HBO knows/suspects that a not insignificant part of their subscribers demands/expects this kind of thing and they fear cancelled subscriptions if they don't cater to their wants. If that would be true, they might have instructed their showrunners that a certain amount of nudity is to be "encouraged".

[rickonfortheironthrone]

I don't much like the pointless sex scenes, but I am willing to tolerate them if they really do rope in enough viewers year after year to see the series through to its true end.

[Yvonesan]

Wouter, on 03 June 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I suspect that the executive producers mentioned was acting on behalf of "suits" higher up the HBO foodchain, anyway. I think that HBO knows/suspects that a not insignificant part of their subscribers demands/expects this kind of thing and they fear cancelled subscriptions if they don't cater to their wants. If that would be true, they might have instructed their showrunners that a certain amount of nudity is to be "encouraged".

That could be true but their take on it is very telling when the nudity is female only. I mean, how ridiculous was it that Robb and Talesa's sex scene had Robb barely showing his chest and Jeyne Talesa (or whatever her name is supposed to be) baring all?

And what about the significant number of HBO subscribers who watch the show for the original great story it tells ...that includes any scenes where male nudity is required as equally as that of female? If they take it far enough (and S2 was bordering on that), they could well lose those viewers too. I do realize that HBO probably prefer to keep the "pervert" side of the audience happy. How sad that it is when it affects the quality of a show. Generally I don't bat an eyelid when it comes to nudity on screen, but it's getting to me with this show and I think it's because I love GRRM's story so much and on screen there has been an increasing number of scenes where female nudity is being used for no real purpose.  I definitely have no issues with it when it's part of the original story, since GRRM deals with it in his writing as much for both sexes in relevant situations but the depiction of nudity on the show has merely cheapened it and actually does take away from the story. The scene that Ran mentions from S1 is a good example... could anyone actually take in what LF was saying? I found it very difficult to do so when the non-canon naked women sex was practically shoved in our faces.

The long and the short of it for me is that it has reduced my opinion of the showrunners and made me wary of what to expect from the show going forward. What Neil Marshall said has little bearing on it since I've only just read what he said and I had already formed my own thoughts and suspicions on the matter based on what I've watched, in S2 even more than S1. I guess time will tell if the original viewers will stick with it and that's usually a challenge for any long-running show to begin with (even with a fantastic written series as the source to work from) but I'd say continued female nudity purely to keep male perverts happy is not the way to hang on to most of the audience, never mind deviating from the original work a lot when the original work is what hooked people.