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

[Le Cygne]

Former head of HBO on the Emmys:

Quote

"I was part of a team that invented how to campaign for Emmy votes. Trust me, it's not a level playing field. I spent years inside the TV Academy working it. It took a lot of money and there's a certain momentum that goes along with that."

 

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, NutBurz said:

Depicts only idealized females = you´re a shitty feminist who thinks women are better than men.

Depicts some idealized and some clearly broken females who happened to have some sort of power = you´re a shitty feminist who thinks murder is cool.

 

Sometimes, you just can´t win.

 

ps-in other words, if you think that Sansa smiling after feeding someone to hungry dogs is meant to be an empowering feminist message, maybe the problem is not in the series.

I don't know about it being a "feminist" message, but I don't doubt that the producers expected us to cheer when Ramsay got fed to his dogs.  In one sense, he got what he deserved, but it does turn Sansa more into the protagonist of I Spit on Your Grave rather than the far more complex character of the books, someone who tries to remain ethical, even as she has to do some morally dubious things in order to keep alive.

It would have been much more in keeping with the Sansa of the books had she recited Ramsay's crimes before her supporters, and then Jon took is head off with Longclaw.

[NutBurz]

37 minutes ago, SeanF said:

but I don't doubt that the producers expected us to cheer when Ramsay got fed to his dogs.

I don´t think so, I personally think that anyone who cheers for something like that is a little sick and fed with "us vs them" mentality. The scene was supposed to sadden anyone who still thought of Sansa as a good person.

Characters also don´t have to develop like in the books since it´s a different story.

[Liver and Onions]

1 hour ago, NutBurz said:

Characters also don´t have to develop like in the books since it´s a different story.

You can say that again. 

I'd like to give a show the benefit of the doubt that when characters do horrible things, we're meant to be horrified. But Sansa's smirking seems like the last of a long list of bizarre character beats. Honestly, I'm more disappointed she didn't seem to care about RIckon towards the end. Or Jon almost getting killed in battle. 

[rosehustle1]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don't know about it being a "feminist" message, but I don't doubt that the producers expected us to cheer when Ramsay got fed to his dogs.  In one sense, he got what he deserved, but it does turn Sansa more into the protagonist of I Spit on Your Grave rather than the far more complex character of the books, someone who tries to remain ethical, even as she has to do some morally dubious things in order to keep alive.

It would have been much more in keeping with the Sansa of the books had she recited Ramsay's crimes before her supporters, and then Jon took is head off with Longclaw.

The show isn't feminist but they sure like to put that message out there with EW articles entitled Women on Top. And the media sure likes to call it feminist. But it's really the furthest thing from it and it would be great if people just looked at it as a mindless show instead of something as actually trying to make real commentaries on issues. The books are trying to tackle issues of sexism, racism, ableism, classism,corruption etc. George doesn't do it perfectly but he definitely works to explore these issues in a way that makes sense to the world of the story and the characters.

Your scenario for Sansa executing Ramsay The Old Way was one I had too. That would have actually been an empowering parallel because instead of her utilizing Ramsay's tactics (her abuser), she would be utilizing Ned's. It would show she's carrying that torch and setting the North back to the way the Starks have protected it for thousands of years. It would show that the cruel, evil, vicious Bolton rule is over and the Stark way is back.

[Primalsplit]

I don't know about you, but my aunt said it's so great and so feminist that women also have some power in the show now. I was horrified, but as a straight white cis male I kept my mouth shut.

[rosehustle1]

11 hours ago, Primalsplit said:

I don't know about you, but my aunt said it's so great and so feminist that women also have some power in the show now. I was horrified, but as a straight white cis male I kept my mouth shut.

I think it's because people only look at the results (having power) and not the journey there. It's not great that Ellaria is in power because she killed the entire Martell family, who Oberyn loved, and an innocent girl. It's not great that Dany destroys a sacred religious place and then automatically gains those people as followers when in reality they would be frightened and angry. It's not great that Sansa basically utilized Ramsay's own tactics, down to the cruel smirk, to gain 'revenge' instead of actually gaining justice (The Old Way) for not just herself but everyone victimized by the Boltons.Cersei gets rewarded for blowing up another sacred religious site when in reality smallfolk would be in revolt and other nobles would be ready to take her down. And Arya just became a complete psychopath. Everything is fueled by revenge and violence instead of logic and mercy. They took two characters, Ellaria and Sansa and made them completely blood thirsty and remorseless when in the books they see the futility of violence and actually try to be compassionate. And you know I think it's great that some men like you are noticing this warped view of feminism. It really is what I think MRA groups worst fear of feminism is, that all the women grow violent, crazy, and destroy all the men. The show actually is a parody of feminism I think.

[Liver and Onions]

14 hours ago, rosehustle1 said:

I think it's because people only look at the results (having power) and not the journey there. It's not great that Ellaria is in power because she killed the entire Martell family, who Oberyn loved, and an innocent girl. It's not great that Dany destroys a sacred religious place and then automatically gains those people as followers when in reality they would be frightened and angry. It's not great that Sansa basically utilized Ramsay's own tactics, down to the cruel smirk, to gain 'revenge' instead of actually gaining justice (The Old Way) for not just herself but everyone victimized by the Boltons.Cersei gets rewarded for blowing up another sacred religious site when in reality smallfolk would be in revolt and other nobles would be ready to take her down. And Arya just became a complete psychopath. Everything is fueled by revenge and violence instead of logic and mercy. They took two characters, Ellaria and Sansa and made them completely blood thirsty and remorseless when in the books they see the futility of violence and actually try to be compassionate. And you know I think it's great that some men like you are noticing this warped view of feminism. It really is what I think MRA groups worst fear of feminism is, that all the women grow violent, crazy, and destroy all the men. The show actually is a parody of feminism I think.

Good observation; the show does feel like a parody. It's been called troll-fiction before on these threads, like a deliberate warping of the books' themes and characters. It's most likely that the writers feel like they're giving the audience what they want (women in power) but not at all thinking about how that makes those women appear. 

Same for the feminist perspective; how likable are some of these female characters now? They're "winning" by getting one over on the bad guys by using the same tactics for personal gain. I agree that the ends don't justify the means here. 

[NutBurz]

If I had this very sweet character who is scarred by the violence of their times, I would never presume that "what the audience wants" is to see such character turned into a sociopath. I wouldn´t presume to think that "any victory is what the audience wants, even despite the character´s soul".

 

Is it really that hard to assume that, if we here, non-professionals, are able to understand that that would not be a feminist message, maybe the professionals working with the story also realise that, and if they do it anyway, it´s maybe because they´re not trying to convey a feminist message?

 

If I had this character who is seeking to avenge a beloved dead character whose motto is "We don´t hurt little children in Dorne.", I would never presume to use such character to convey a feminist message by have the character kill little children. The irony is so painfully obvious that I can´t even understand where would anyone get the idea that that´s supposed to be a feminist message.

 

That´s like saying that every single female is "good", and that everything that every single female does is "feminism", and that´s ridiculous. Murder is murder, and murderers are bad people however much you like moral relativism, like I do.

[RetconKillah]

The problem I have with all of this is that it's not even fan service, it's psuedo-societal-service and at the end of the day it detracts from the quality of the content. It's something that is being done that so whoever can turn around and say 'we're fair and balanced' 'we're giving a voice'  (whatever the old rhetoric is for the new focus group). It makes them feel better about themselves and delude themselves into thinking they are making groundbreaking television or whatever, and not being done for the betterment of the story or the overall quality of the show.

People (whoever those people are I don't really know who they are lol) seem to think that if something is popular then it needs to speak to an issue or whatever is happening in (western) society at that time. That it has to be a vehicle for change and not a good fantasy show that has made people that wouldn't even blink at high fantasy become avid fans because it is a good show that they can watch to blow off some steam that has a good story with political intrigue, characters that they empathise with even in this distant setting and some TnA and violence thrown in for good measure.

The overall effect is less focus on the show and more focus on the issue, less on the overall quality and more on how 'inclusive' or 'right' the show is (at the time no less). So that the people who analyse the show to spread whatever agenda they have can say 'watch this show because it supports what we believe' and not 'don't watch this because it is racist/sexist/religiously intolerant/whatever/etc'.

And ultimately the people who watch it (probably because its popular and because all their friends watch it) can pat themselves on the back and feel good, they have done something to better society by watching a tv show. LOL!

Things like this cause a show to stop being a timeless show and turn into a show that was good at the time.

[SeanF]

It's based on quite a naïve view of medieval politics, IMHO. A view that one had to be a violent, ruthless, killer to win and hold power, and only the most violent, ruthless, killer could expect to win.

Any successful medieval ruler was - undeniably - ruthless by modern standards, but if he or she was to succeed, had to utilise soft power, and had to broadly conform to the ethical standards of their societies.  Rape, child-murder, murder of close family members, were all regarded with abhorrence in medieval Europe, and rulers who were believed to engage in such practices (eg King John, Richard III) lost support as a result.

 

[rosehustle1]

13 hours ago, NutBurz said:

If I had this very sweet character who is scarred by the violence of their times, I would never presume that "what the audience wants" is to see such character turned into a sociopath. I wouldn´t presume to think that "any victory is what the audience wants, even despite the character´s soul".

 

Is it really that hard to assume that, if we here, non-professionals, are able to understand that that would not be a feminist message, maybe the professionals working with the story also realise that, and if they do it anyway, it´s maybe because they´re not trying to convey a feminist message?

 

If I had this character who is seeking to avenge a beloved dead character whose motto is "We don´t hurt little children in Dorne.", I would never presume to use such character to convey a feminist message by have the character kill little children. The irony is so painfully obvious that I can´t even understand where would anyone get the idea that that´s supposed to be a feminist message.

 

That´s like saying that every single female is "good", and that everything that every single female does is "feminism", and that´s ridiculous. Murder is murder, and murderers are bad people however much you like moral relativism, like I do.

I have to disagree for one big reason: the motto this season starting from the EW article was 'Women on Top'. They had their actresses reinforcing the idea that this was the season when all the women were getting power and the article itself stated that GOT's 'sexism debate is crushed'. It's important to note that the author of the EW related GOT articles has been pre-approved by HBO to all exclusives with the cast. So, this was a message that HBO wanted conveyed prior to the start of season 6. It's because of the biting criticisms last season is why this message was put out there so heavily prior to season 6 and that the show contorted the narratives to make these things happen even if it didn't make sense( Ellaria and Sand Snakes in control of Dorne without any resistance from nobles) or was such a simplistic solution to a complex trauma (Sansa's trauma disappears because she killed Ramsay), or really wasn't the best idea of representation i.e. Yara raping a sex slave and verbally abusing her brother because he is still suffering from trauma.

Also I don't get the sense that the way these events were framed within the show were with a nuanced lens. I get the sense that we are supposed to fist bump when Sansa and Arya get revenge instead of feel disturbed that they both have no qualms about doing such vicious things to other human beings, thus losing more of their humanity. I also think we're supposed to be on Ellaria's side when she kills Doran for being a 'weak' man and her taking back 'power' even though she is basically killing her dead lover's whole family, who he loved. We're supposed to be excited that Dany beat those misogynistic khals and destroyed that holy place, but it's really more white saviorism and more people of color bowing to her without any thought.

[rosehustle1]

12 hours ago, RetconKillah said:

The problem I have with all of this is that it's not even fan service, it's psuedo-societal-service and at the end of the day it detracts from the quality of the content. It's something that is being done that so whoever can turn around and say 'we're fair and balanced' 'we're giving a voice'  (whatever the old rhetoric is for the new focus group). It makes them feel better about themselves and delude themselves into thinking they are making groundbreaking television or whatever, and not being done for the betterment of the story or the overall quality of the show.

People (whoever those people are I don't really know who they are lol) seem to think that if something is popular then it needs to speak to an issue or whatever is happening in (western) society at that time. That it has to be a vehicle for change and not a good fantasy show that has made people that wouldn't even blink at high fantasy become avid fans because it is a good show that they can watch to blow off some steam that has a good story with political intrigue, characters that they empathise with even in this distant setting and some TnA and violence thrown in for good measure.

The overall effect is less focus on the show and more focus on the issue, less on the overall quality and more on how 'inclusive' or 'right' the show is (at the time no less). So that the people who analyse the show to spread whatever agenda they have can say 'watch this show because it supports what we believe' and not 'don't watch this because it is racist/sexist/religiously intolerant/whatever/etc'.

And ultimately the people who watch it (probably because its popular and because all their friends watch it) can pat themselves on the back and feel good, they have done something to better society by watching a tv show. LOL!

Things like this cause a show to stop being a timeless show and turn into a show that was good at the time.

I think that they do best when they stick with the book material. It's when they try to make their own strawmen antagonists (The high Sparrow really hates gay people) or try to create anachronistic moments just so that they can pretend to be progressive (have Randal Tarly berated by his daughter and wife when he is supposedly a terrifying misogynistic abuser-because a man like that would just let this slide) or they make female characters that have no business existing in this universe i.e. Talisa the noble woman who is wandering a war zone alone, talks back to a king, and knows how to do medical procedures- is when the show becomes unnecessary nonsense.

[NutBurz]

I´m sorry, I really don´t see how EW would be a reasonable source of evidence. They will say whatever the current editor thinks will sell. If the editor has this "meninist" view of feminism, he will obviously print something that backs his (rather popular) view. Doesn´t make him the ultimate critic of the piece of work. I doubt the first concern in the mind of HBO´s executives is to make clear that there´s a nuance on the approach to feminism that the series makes, as much as it is to just scream "feminism" because it sells.

 

 

ps- Isn´t it "strawman" to expect the terrifying misogynistic abuser to not be able to hold back his impulse for violence for the time of a meal, as in to be able to live in society, even if just barely? The series not taking the time to show him moody and snappy on tuesday doesn´t mean he had absolutely no misogynistic reaction; the fact you know he is like that should tell you that something like that happened, if it matters to you.

[Liver and Onions]

It seems to me that the whole "women on top" angle comes from a lot of media outlets, big and small. I've seen a lot of online articles, on site who view media through a feminist/social justice perspective, that praised this season for having its female characters achieve goals and defeat their enemies. It's not the show alone claiming season six is a positive feminist experience. I agree it sells the show, one way or another. Even many people who've grown to hate the show feel like they have to watch it so they can offer criticism. 

Also, anytime you view the actions of women, fictional or not, in relation to society, feminism is going to come into play. I don't feel like it ruins a story for me. I know others who prefer not to analyze something they like, for fear that it ruins the escapism aspect. Nothing wrong with that. 

As an aside, with characters like Ellaria, Sansa, and the Sand Snakes, the change from their book counterparts matters heavily in the analyzation of their actions. I just reread the part where the Sand Snakes, formidable and ruthless women in the books, are shocked into silence at the thought of Cersei orchestrating the murder of their cousin Trystane. And the show has them kill him themselves. That appalling switch-up would matter regardless of the sex of the character. 

[TepidHands]

On 6/26/2016 at 7:59 PM, Ran said:

The topic of the thread is discussing things you dislike about the show. It is not a place to throw insults at one another or to act as if the normal rules of the forum do not apply.

Discussion of why people disliked something is permitted, but remember the topic at hand: this is not a debate thread, it's a discussion thread specifically about episode details or events that posters disliked. Posts that ignore this will be considered off-topic.

One more time: This is not a debate thread. 

[NutBurz]

I hate this show, it´s not pretentious enough.

[Le Cygne]

On 8/8/2016 at 8:49 AM, Liver and Onions said:

Same for the feminist perspective; how likable are some of these female characters now? They're "winning" by getting one over on the bad guys by using the same tactics for personal gain. I agree that the ends don't justify the means here. 

Yep, it's completely meaningless. Here's what Benioff and Weiss said was the key scene in the Battle of the Bastards:

Quote

"Sansa has suffered greatly at this man’s hands, and watched others lose their lives trying to protect her from him. She has spent a good deal of time plotting her revenge, and Ramsay inadvertently provides her with the perfect method for his own execution. … She watches as Ramsay becomes a victim of his own brutality, and his ravenous dogs satisfy their hunger — and Sansa’s."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-en-st-emmy-writers-scenes-20160810-snap-story.html

So sidestep that just getting this character in a position for her to be "hungry" for rape revenge involved stripping her of her own characterization and storyline, replacing that with irrational behavior in an absurdly contrived plot (get revenge on family killers by marrying family killers). Sidestep that Littlefinger, the man who drove all the action, the family killer who pimped her out to family killers, paid no real consequences in the storyline (indeed, he did exactly what he planned on doing in the first place). Sidestep that Stannis tried to kill the rapist and was killed by Brienne, someone who turned away from protecting her and paid no real consequences in the storyline. Sidestep that the revenge is simply doing the same thing to the rapist that he did to others, being as brutal as he was, in the same way, so that's not actually meaningful, they are again bypassing character development. Sidestep that to get this revenge, she was dishonest and manipulative and risked the lives of her brother (whose own story was sidestepped) and many others needlessly. Sidestep the exaltation of revenge as "satisfying" and how this is contrary to the thinking of great philosophers and religions. This is not exceptional writing.

(Also the article says she was married against her will, but that's not what they said.)

[Tijgy]

It looks like Kit was even disappointed in Jon resurrection

Quote

 

I knew I was coming back to life, but I didn’t know if I’d come back as a changed person, as a villain. So I couldn’t pre-plan anything, which was hard.

And then I got the scripts, and actually, he comes back as himself, as the Jon that everyone knows. Which at first I found disappointing. But it’s more subtle than that. He has an insight into what lies beyond that very few people in his world do, and that no one in our world does—he knows that there’s no afterlife. Which does quietly drive who he is and what he wants to do.

 

http://screencrush.com/game-of-thrones-kit-harington-jon-snow-death-change/
 

[A Ghost of Someone]

On 8/11/2016 at 0:47 PM, Le Cygne said:

Yep, it's completely meaningless. Here's what Benioff and Weiss said was the key scene in the Battle of the Bastards:

Snip

D&D&C basically lied through their own writing in season 6 to try and make people forget what they did in season 5. It is quite breathtaking as an example of hypocracy.