Jump to content

[Spoilers] Rant & Rave without Repercussions - First We Take King's Landing Edition


Ran

Recommended Posts

@Ser Quork Well, they didn't cut away from the rape victim to focus on someone else, and this was the victim's real book story with a long time adversary, and they realistically portrayed the aftermath. Also while Claire is nude slightly more often, the show makes a strong and widely noted effort to show sexuality from the female perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TepidHands said:

I hope Outlander wins for the two it's nominated in, because they are truly earned: Outstanding Costumes for a Period/Fantasy Series, Limited Series or Movie, and Outstanding Production Design for a Narrative Period Program. Vikings.got three, including one for Outstanding Special Visual Effects, but it's up against GOT's Battle of the Bastards and its amazing wall of dead bodies. Sigh. 

Google Outlander and Emmy nominations and you'll see a LOT of the entertainment press wondering how the entire thing got snubbed, especially the acting and Bear McCreary. 

And I hope Black Sails, also from Starz wins the other 2: sound editing and special visual effects for their finale: they had a mounted attack of a beach of English Regulars arriving by launch... never done before on screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

@Ser Quork Well, they didn't cut away from the rape victim to focus on someone else, and this was the victim's real book story with a long time adversary, and they realistically portrayed the aftermath. Also while Claire is nude slightly more often, the show makes a strong and widely noted effort to show sexuality from the female perspective. 

They spent more time on the rape than they did on the aftermath by quite a long stretch.  Whether it was a faithful adaptation of the book plot isn't really the point I was making.  As a visual medium, depicting something of that nature they way they did was rather distasteful, in my opinion.

I do agree that we do get Claire's perspective on her sexuality, and that is refreshing and unusual in that regard, and (back on topic) something I think I can only pinpoint once in GoT (in one scene between Dany & Daario).  GoT is pretty much Male Gaze Personified.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit, Outlander is not the kind of program I'd seek out either, but to hear folks here tell it, it manages to be engaging television while pleasing book fans. It can be done! And it is a television adaptation of a long, reasonably popular book series on cable TV at the same time. Comparisons are inevitable, and Outlander seems to win the Consistency War. 

If I had to choose, I'd take a show where a serious issue like a rape affected the character for longer than, what, five episodes for poor Sandra? Or heck, a character death. Anyone think Jon or Sandra is going to show the stages of grief or any depression about Rickon next season? Cersei apparently forgot she had a daughter. Will Bran get to miss Hodor? Did Meera mention Jojen? Davos conveniently forgot about Shireeen until Plot Requirements happened. I'll watch a show or read a book where people act like people.

As for Cersei's character, I think her personality is now Hellraiser Dress. That's pretty much the extent of her motivation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Liver and Onions said:

I admit, Outlander is not the kind of program I'd seek out either, but to hear folks here tell it, it manages to be engaging television while pleasing book fans. It can be done! And it is a television adaptation of a long, reasonably popular book series on cable TV at the same time. Comparisons are inevitable, and Outlander seems to win the Consistency War. 

If I had to choose, I'd take a show where a serious issue like a rape affected the character for longer than, what, five episodes for poor Sandra? Or heck, a character death. Anyone think Jon or Sandra is going to show the stages of grief or any depression about Rickon next season? Cersei apparently forgot she had a daughter. Will Bran get to miss Hodor? Did Meera mention Jojen? Davos conveniently forgot about Shireeen until Plot Requirements happened. I'll watch a show or read a book where people act like people.

As for Cersei's character, I think her personality is now Hellraiser Dress. That's pretty much the extent of her motivation. 

Yes, that's putting it well. People act like people.

One show is a faithful adaptation of a book series, one is not. And this season was quite complex, the way it was written, they were juggling several time periods. As a reader of both series, the difference in approach and results is night and day.

And in the Outlander books, characters drive the plots in a big way, just as they do in ASOIAF. The difference is, the Outlander show maintains that, from the books, but Game of Thrones does not. And they don't replace it with something that does.

Also here's an article I just read, but there are a bunch comparing it to Game of Thrones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

No, actually the explicit handling of the aftermath extended throughout the second season. And my point was, the reason it was brought up on this thread was only to critique Game of Thrones.

Actually, very little time was given to that aftermath in the second season.  I disagree with you - very much so. Obviously, YMMV about what constitutes 'aftermath', but - for me - it was not enough especially compared with the amount of time/gaze/detail spent on the brutal event itself.  In a series which had done so well in many respects, this let it down a great deal.  I expected better. And to a degree, it shows I had higher standards for Outlander, as I now to expect nothing at all from GoT with regard to the aftermath of anything at all now!

11 minutes ago, Liver and Onions said:

I admit, Outlander is not the kind of program I'd seek out either, but to hear folks here tell it, it manages to be engaging television while pleasing book fans. It can be done! And it is a television adaptation of a long, reasonably popular book series on cable TV at the same time. Comparisons are inevitable, and Outlander seems to win the Consistency War. 

If I had to choose, I'd take a show where a serious issue like a rape affected the character for longer than, what, five episodes for poor Sandra? Or heck, a character death. Anyone think Jon or Sandra is going to show the stages of grief or any depression about Rickon next season? Cersei apparently forgot she had a daughter. Will Bran get to miss Hodor? Did Meera mention Jojen? Davos conveniently forgot about Shireeen until Plot Requirements happened. I'll watch a show or read a book where people act like people.

As for Cersei's character, I think her personality is now Hellraiser Dress. That's pretty much the extent of her motivation. 

I do agree with this.  It has a great deal to recommend it, and its characters are utterly consistent, which cannot be said for GoT whose characters just service whatever the plot demands from one minute to the next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are actually quite wrong. Not only was the aftermath explicitly addressed in season 1 throughout both episodes, the aftermath was explicitly addressed throughout season 2. The victim and his loved ones explicitly and repeatedly talked about what happened, and that explicitly and repeatedly played into multiple key plots (some directly involving his adversary) throughout the season. The aftermath was addressed in profound ways, they spent a lot of time on what happened, because the books do.

Here's a good article, everything is tied together, but called out quite clearly... (this all directly happened because of what happened in season 1, and they addressed how they were all feeling about that and why these things were happening before, during, and after this, all throughout season 2... also she critiques Game of Thrones in the article, lots of them are contrasting the two in this respect)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Le Cygne said:

You are actually quite wrong. Not only was the aftermath explicitly addressed in season 1 throughout both episodes, the aftermath was explicitly addressed throughout season 2. The victim and his loved ones explicitly and repeatedly talked about what happened, and that explicitly and repeatedly played into multiple key plots (some directly involving his adversary) throughout the season. The aftermath was addressed in profound ways, they spent a lot of time on what happened, because the books do.

Here's a good article, everything is tied together, but called out quite clearly... (this all directly happened because of what happened, and addressed that directly before, during, and after, and there's more after this... also she has a critique of Game of Thrones in the article, lots of them are contrasting the two in this respect)

I also have eyes in my head to see how it was addressed - 'explicitly' does not equal 'adequately' and - to my mind - it was not dealt with adequately in a way that realistically addressed the issue.  Indeed,

Spoiler

Fergus recovered rather too rapidly as well. 

You'll have to accept that I do not agree with you.  So, I'll leave that here because this is not the thread for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you'll have to accept that I do not agree with you. And I'll just leave that here that they could not possibly have addressed it any more than they did... in fact, they addressed it perhaps too much, but too much is better than not enough. And it was most certainly quite realistic, he suffered through most of the season.

Again, my point was that the show is a faithful adaptation, and as such, addressed everything, including this, quite faithfully to the way the books did, which many agree is quite well. What happened was central to the story. I only wish that Game of Thrones had addressed everything quite so faithfully. That would solve much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find I like about Outlander in contrast to GOT is that they had a character, a young girl who was raped, have someone get vengeance on her behalf, but the moment wasn't played as some great victory. She seemed more in shock by Murtagh's action than soothed by it. And we never get a sense that her trauma is magically gone just because the person responsible for her rape is dead. Also in the finale we have followers of Clan Mackenzie upset at Jamie

Spoiler

for killing Dougal. Kinslaying a is a big deal. They will out him and no longer follow him

These same things happen in GOT: rape-revenge scenario and kinslaying but neither is depicted with any realism or focus on consequences. That's what really separates Outlander and even The Walking Dead from GOT. There are real consequences for these incidents in those shows. The characters are changed by them. Trauma isn't magically erased because the bad guy is. Familial bonds matter and when that bond is betrayed there are real repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rosehustle1 said:

These same things happen in GOT: rape-revenge scenario and kinslaying but neither is depicted with any realism or focus on consequences. That's what really separates Outlander and even The Walking Dead from GOT. There are real consequences for these incidents in those shows. The characters are changed by them. Trauma isn't magically erased because the bad guy is. Familial bonds matter and when that bond is betrayed there are real repercussions.

Agreed. In Outlander, the victim was clearly traumatized and unable to regain his bearings for much of the season, and there were grave consequences to his desire for revenge, and he realized that's not empowering at all. And this was extended, as you noted, to minor characters, that's not normally done, if you take time for supporting players, you will never get done telling the story, but they wove that into the narrative of the main characters (and Game of Thrones could have done the same).

And you can tell from the title of the episode, Vengeance is Mine, there was a spiritual element to that, that's missing in Game of Thrones, but is there in ASOIAF. Revenge is not empowering. So say nearly all religions and philosophers. Confucius: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Here the author was going for: "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Or, listen to book Ellaria.)

In other words, let these things happen in their own time, justice will be served, but you won't destroy yourself in the process. As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Revenge is not empowering. Lip gloss and "scolding" a pimp then letting him mess with you some more is not empowering. Nor risking the lives of your brothers to get revenge. Nor smirking while you feed someone to dogs. Instead of letting her realize this, and move on, they did this.

Also I meant to add, I agree, The Walking Dead does it better than Game of Thrones, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now I've caught up and it seems I am so late to the party that the next three have come and gone. But since I'm here now I may as well say I agree that many shows do everything so much better than this one. Since other adaptations have been mentioned I was wondering who else is looking forward to the TV adaptation of His Dark Materials?

I wish GoT was better, I so wanted to see proper Frey Pies, Roose vs Stannis, Arianne, The Griffs, proper Jaime arc, proper Sansa arc and the second Dance of the Dragons. Many other things besides. I didn't want to see the Rape Revenge fic, the evil Sand fakes and a whole lot of character assassinations, plot assasinations and even logic assassinations, but alas GoT is what it is, and what it is is nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2016 at 4:35 PM, Le Cygne said:

Yes, that's putting it well. People act like people.

One show is a faithful adaptation of a book series, one is not. And this season was quite complex, the way it was written, they were juggling several time periods. As a reader of both series, the difference in approach and results is night and day.

And in the Outlander books, characters drive the plots in a big way, just as they do in ASOIAF. The difference is, the Outlander show maintains that, from the books, but Game of Thrones does not. And they don't replace it with something that does.

Also here's an article I just read, but there are a bunch comparing it to Game of Thrones...

The phrase "people act like people" is very apt. Outlander does this, no matter my other complaints about the show. GOT does not.

I noticed it with Sansa in even the earliest seasons; she wasn't a character that acted like a person, she was a mouthpiece for the part a particular episode had for her. But season 6 is awash with people who don't act like people. 

Did the Waif act like a person? No, Arya needed someone to fight against so she was inexplicably horrible to her.

Did Sansa act like a person? Possibly. If that person had a severe head injury and had no idea what they were doing or what they were trying to achieve.

Did Jon act like a person? Again, possibly, but he was a rather stupid person, and noticeably unaffected by return from the dead. Fucking Buffy the vampire slayer dealt with this narrative conceit more believably. 

Did Davos act like a person? No; a person who loves a little girl who inexplicably dies does not wait nine episodes to discover what happened to her. Nor does a person opposed to black magic champion the (necromantic) cause of someone he barely knows.

Did Dany act like a person? In a way. She acted like a person who knew the she was about to be pitted against an army of strawmen who she could easily defeat by pushing over a small fire. But really; what kind of a person knows that?

Did Arya act like a person? No. People don't recover in a day from a lethal stab wound to the gut. People hunted by an assassin's guild do not stand around in broad daylight admiring the scenery. People's loyalties do not change dependent upon the requirements of a scene.

Did Cersei act like a person? No. People don't blow up churches full of people to protect their children and then not care when their children die. People don't declare themselves the ruler of a kingdom when they have no believable way of maintaining it.

I can go on and on. Time and time again the motivations and actions of a characters is decided entirely by what the plot requires, instead of the characters propelling the plot.

We never had this in the books. We barely saw it in the earlier seasons of the show. How can a show so blatantly ignoring consistency, tone or basic characterization be praised so highly? D and D are in all out "wrap this shit up" mode and I am baffled as to why they are being rewarded for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCasualObserver said:

The phrase "people act like people" is very apt. Outlander does this, no matter my other complaints about the show. GOT does not.

I noticed it with Sansa in even the earliest seasons; she wasn't a character that acted like a person, she was a mouthpiece for the part a particular episode had for her. But season 6 is awash with people who don't act like people. 

Did the Waif act like a person? No, Arya needed someone to fight against so she was inexplicably horrible to her.

Did Sansa act like a person? Possibly. If that person had a severe head injury and had no idea what they were doing or what they were trying to achieve.

Did Jon act like a person? Again, possibly, but he was a rather stupid person, and noticeably unaffected by return from the dead. Fucking Buffy the vampire slayer dealt with this narrative conceit more believably. 

Did Davos act like a person? No; a person who loves a little girl who inexplicably dies does not wait nine episodes to discover what happened to her. Nor does a person opposed to black magic champion the (necromantic) cause of someone he barely knows.

Did Dany act like a person? In a way. She acted like a person who knew the she was about to be pitted against an army of strawmen who she could easily defeat by pushing over a small fire. But really; what kind of a person knows that?

Did Arya act like a person? No. People don't recover in a day from a lethal stab wound to the gut. People hunted by an assassin's guild do not stand around in broad daylight admiring the scenery. People's loyalties do not change dependent upon the requirements of a scene.

Did Cersei act like a person? No. People don't blow up churches full of people to protect their children and then not care when their children die. People don't declare themselves the ruler of a kingdom when they have no believable way of maintaining it.

I can go on and on. Time and time again the motivations and actions of a characters is decided entirely by what the plot requires, instead of the characters propelling the plot.

We never had this in the books. We barely saw it in the earlier seasons of the show. How can a show so blatantly ignoring consistency, tone or basic characterization be praised so highly? D and D are in all out "wrap this shit up" mode and I am baffled as to why they are being rewarded for it.

Yeah, when all the character motivation is happening conveniently off-screen or just comes out of nowhere it shows how little the writers really care about character. It's all about checking off things even if this checklist doesn't make sense anymore because of all the changes they've made to a character's arc and personality.

4 hours ago, Davros Seaworth said:

And now I've caught up and it seems I am so late to the party that the next three have come and gone. But since I'm here now I may as well say I agree that many shows do everything so much better than this one. Since other adaptations have been mentioned I was wondering who else is looking forward to the TV adaptation of His Dark Materials?

I wish GoT was better, I so wanted to see proper Frey Pies, Roose vs Stannis, Arianne, The Griffs, proper Jaime arc, proper Sansa arc and the second Dance of the Dragons. Many other things besides. I didn't want to see the Rape Revenge fic, the evil Sand fakes and a whole lot of character assassinations, plot assasinations and even logic assassinations, but alas GoT is what it is, and what it is is nothing at all.

It's sad because the show was able to do this stuff a lot better in the first three seasons. It seems like they just left it all behind once they had their Red Wedding moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this article. It's got some really good points and doesn't just blatantly state "the books are better". It says "the books are better" and gives really good reasons as to why the show isn't as good as it was anymore. It's something many of you have been saying since S5 but it's nice that some mainstream media sites are picking up the valid criticisms. 

 

Also, I have a question for you guys. Some of you were saying how a lot that happened in S6 was due to the checklist effect. So how much do you think will actually happen in the books? Let's forget about how it will happen but just focus on the events themselves. Like will Jon be KITN? Will the Vale join the North? Martin said a couple of people will sit upon the IT so who will get it? Will Dany finally sail for Westeros? Just wondering lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheCasualObserver said:

I can go on and on. Time and time again the motivations and actions of a characters is decided entirely by what the plot requires, instead of the characters propelling the plot.

We never had this in the books. We barely saw it in the earlier seasons of the show. How can a show so blatantly ignoring consistency, tone or basic characterization be praised so highly? D and D are in all out "wrap this shit up" mode and I am baffled as to why they are being rewarded for it.

Yeah, they just don't seem real, do they. That was the thing that drew you in with the books, or with any good story. Something happens, but no one with any sense would have ever done that, and then they respond in a way no one ever would, so you just have to keep pretending it makes sense, or else it's like you are watching a bunch of badly programmed androids.

Also the praise and reward thing, there has been plenty of criticism lately, but it's a game. It's a show about a game (not people), and HBO is playing the game. It's a spectacle. A violent, bloody spectacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is increasingly hard, if not impossible to predict what the characters are going to do or where they will go and why on AGOT. There is so much nonsense that it has taken away the intrigue, especially in this offseason as to what might happen. Some may say this is a good thing but I for one would like some logic in their "High Jacking" of GRRM's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...