Rant and Rave without Repercussions [S7 Leaks Edition]

[Newstar]

34 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

LOL misquoting and taking what people say out of context AGAIN.

No, you were very clear about what you said: "for things like romance, women writers add a dimension of understanding there that is important." The insinuation--that women writers are inherently superior "for things like romance"--was clear.

Those types of arguments about women inherently writing romance and such better, as innocuous as they may seem, are often used to dismiss women's writing when they write things other than romance under the guise of benevolent sexism: women are "naturally" more gifted at writing romance and such, so they should "stay in their lane" and stick to what comes to them easily, rather than bothering their pretty little heads with more historically male-dominated genres. It's gender essentialist nonsense of the type that women have struggled against.

Women don't have some special inborn gift for writing romance, and it's sexist against women to suggest otherwise. Benevolent sexism, but sexism nonetheless.

GOT should have women writers on staff because it's important to have representation, not because they inherently have some magical sexism-curing insight or inborn gift for writing "things like romance" as some have been suggesting. That's nonsense. It's also demeaning to women to suggest that the main reason to keep them around on writing staff is to cure sexism and not because having women on staff should be an important goal in of itself.

[Le Cygne]

7 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

To the argument that men can write well for women, I would respond that women can write well for men.

We all notice unique things in our life experience, that often never come up if we aren't there to bring them up.

So give more women a chance to be there. And it helps if the showrunner encourages their voices.

I also find for things like romance, women writers add a dimension of understanding there that is important.

Having that mix of men and women in the writer's room, where they break the stories, is a great chance to hear all of those voices.

Yeah, I wish I said that. Oh, that's right, I did.

And while I have this opportunity, I'd like to honor one of my favorite romance writers, George RR Martin.

I like that George honors the classics, but makes the stories his own. This is my favorite, a wonderful romance.

[Le Cygne]

Just to hammer the points I'm seeing that many of us are making here:

It's not about men or women writing better, it's about adding a good mix of male and female perspectives to the writing room to tell a more balanced and realistic story.

When scenes require intimacy, a man and a woman have very interesting ways of approaching the emotional and physical aspects of those stories. There, especially it's good to have both perspectives.

Listening to Ron Moore talk about the wedding night episode on Outlander, he said he made the point of having a mix of male and female writers and polling them at various opportunities.

The story is broken down as a group in the writers' room and that's where it's really good to have a mix of men and women. He made the choice for a woman writer and director, because he wanted to make sure Claire's perspective was represented.

It's not that he didn't care about Jaime's perspective, but he wanted to make especially sure that Claire was not overlooked, and that episode is widely praised (and lots of jabs at Game of Thrones, like why can't they do scenes like that?)

[Tijgy]

24 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

It's not about men or women writing better, it's about adding a good mix of male and female perspectives to the writing room to tell a more balanced and realistic story.

 

This indeed! 

Women and men do have different perspectives on things, which why it is better to have both men as women in writing rooms. 

While a man can talk with women to get their perspectives on things, he would never really completely "get it" as women do, just like how women would never completely understand men's perspective on things. 

And I believe this doesn't only count for gender but also for sexuality, ethnicity, ...Gay people would give a more realistic view on their perspective, transsexuals on their's, ... 

[Meera of Tarth]

58 minutes ago, Newstar said:

No, you were very clear about what you said: "for things like romance, women writers add a dimension of understanding there that is important." The insinuation--that women writers are inherently superior "for things like romance"--was clear.

Those types of arguments about women inherently writing romance and such better, as innocuous as they may seem, are often used to dismiss women's writing when they write things other than romance under the guise of benevolent sexism: women are "naturally" more gifted at writing romance and such, so they should "stay in their lane" and stick to what comes to them easily, rather than bothering their pretty little heads with more historically male-dominated genres. It's gender essentialist nonsense of the type that women have struggled against.

Women don't have some special inborn gift for writing romance, and it's sexist against women to suggest otherwise. Benevolent sexism, but sexism nonetheless.

GOT should have women writers on staff because it's important to have representation, not because they inherently have some magical sexism-curing insight or inborn gift for writing "things like romance" as some have been suggesting. That's nonsense. It's also demeaning to women to suggest that the main reason to keep them around on writing staff is to cure sexism and not because having women on staff should be an important goal in of itself.

No, it can't be clear because it's not her point. She has not said such a thing, in fact she has said the opposite. That both men and women should be included, and in the case of GOT, we have also talked about the fact that more writers in general would also improve the current situation.

If you read that line again, she is referring to another dimension, another insight as a person, as a life experience. And romances can benefit from the insight of both genres, and that not necessarily meaning that a man can't come up with a script with a woman's insight or vice versa (something we all agree with) BUT she never said that man can't write on romance properly.

In fact, George, as man has written amazing romances inside asoiaf, and sometimes the writers of GOT have understood it as well (as female writers do as well). And many female writers write about genres that are not romantic but very " historically male dominating", quoting your own words. This is known.

Your own assumptions have nothing to do with the discussion because the thing you quoted clearly  didn't insinuate what you are saying.

And, in fact, women do write about different genres, like men without fear or shame. Another thing is that if they are hired or how hard is being chosen to write anything in general. GOT is not a good example of that- (not only about women, but also about diversity of writers).

54 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

Just to hammer the points I'm seeing that many of us are making here:

It's not about men or women writing better, it's about adding a good mix of male and female perspectives to the writing room to tell a more balanced and realistic story.

When scenes require intimacy, a man and a woman have very interesting ways of approaching the emotional and physical aspects of those stories. There, especially it's good to have both perspectives.

Listening to Ron Moore talk about the wedding night episode on Outlander, he said he made the point of having a mix of male and female writers and polling them at various opportunities.

The story is broken down as a group in the writers' room and that's where it's really good to have a mix of men and women. He made the choice for a woman writer and director, because he wanted to make sure Claire's perspective was represented.

It's not that he didn't care about Jaime's perspective, but he wanted to make especially sure that Claire was not overlooked, and that episode is widely praised (and lots of jabs at Game of Thrones, like why can't they do scenes like that?)

good example of the point you have been talking about all the time. I loved that scene in Otlander!

[SuperMario]

33 minutes ago, Newstar said:

No, you were very clear about what you said: "for things like romance, women writers add a dimension of understanding there that is important." The insinuation--that women writers are inherently superior "for things like romance"--was clear.

Those types of arguments about women inherently writing romance and such better, as innocuous as they may seem, are often used to dismiss women's writing when they write things other than romance under the guise of benevolent sexism: women are "naturally" more gifted at writing romance and such, so they should "stay in their lane" and stick to what comes to them easily, rather than bothering their pretty little heads with more historically male-dominated genres. It's gender essentialist nonsense of the type that women have struggled against.

Women don't have some special inborn gift for writing romance, and it's sexist against women to suggest otherwise. Benevolent sexism, but sexism nonetheless.

GOT should have women writers on staff because it's important to have representation, not because they inherently have some magical sexism-curing insight or inborn gift for writing "things like romance" as some have been suggesting. That's nonsense. It's also demeaning to women to suggest that the main reason to keep them around on writing staff is to cure sexism and not because having women on staff should be an important goal in of itself.

But representation for the sake of representation is meaningless. That makes it seem like they are adding women writers just to hit a quota. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, but a woman writer can write about experiences or feelings that can be different from a man's perspective. Gender is just one of many different things including life experiences, race, age, social status that can influence a writer. I agree that having women writers does not cure sexism as this show is clearly misogynistic enough, but female writers can bring a different perspective on various issues the show is touching on. It's not sexist to suggest a woman can bring a different perspective to the table.

[Meera of Tarth]

8 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

 

And I believe this doesn't only count for gender but also for sexuality, ethnicity, ...Gay people would give a more realistic view on their perspective, transsexuals on their's, ... 

Exactly, different people, different life experiences. Sometimes a writer knows them, sometimes he/she doesn't. The more variety of writers of different backgrounds results into a better quality of the writing, and it also helps providing new inssights for those writers who didn't know that life experience, making that writer know more things, and in other projects he/she will be able to also talk about them because he has been helped before.

If everybody Works alone, the insight between people is lost, and cliches are perpetuated, unless the writer is good and has a lot of previous knowledge from other life experiences that he/she has experienced or have read about in depth.

[Karmarni]

47 minutes ago, Le Cygne said:

When scenes require intimacy, a man and a woman have very interesting ways of approaching the emotional and physical aspects of those stories. There, especially it's good to have both perspectives.

I think this is especially true. It isn't that women might do it better, that doesn't seem to be the point being made. It's that there needs to be an opportunity for women's view, the Female Gaze, to be seen. Outlander does a good job of that. GoT is all about the male gaze, and that's a problem for me. It's catering to a sexist view of women. Not having women involved, at every level, has resulted in a deficit of the female gaze. And it's not just showing a butt or penis, it's HOW you look at a man that shows he's desirable. GoT doesn't get that right at all.

And women and men provide different views, experiences, that make a show or book or whatever art form, great. It's their je ne sais quoi that matters.

[Le Cygne]

6 hours ago, Tijgy said:

This indeed! 

Women and men do have different perspectives on things, which why it is better to have both men as women in writing rooms. 

While a man can talk with women to get their perspectives on things, he would never really completely "get it" as women do, just like how women would never completely understand men's perspective on things. 

And I believe this doesn't only count for gender but also for sexuality, ethnicity, ...Gay people would give a more realistic view on their perspective, transsexuals on their's, ... 

Yes, it's important for there to be both men and women.

And indeed, it's important for everyone to be part of telling stories about us.

6 hours ago, SuperMario said:

But representation for the sake of representation is meaningless. That makes it seem like they are adding women writers just to hit a quota. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, but a woman writer can write about experiences or feelings that can be different from a man's perspective. Gender is just one of many different things including life experiences, race, age, social status that can influence a writer. I agree that having women writers does not cure sexism as this show is clearly misogynistic enough, but female writers can bring a different perspective on various issues the show is touching on. It's not sexist to suggest a woman can bring a different perspective to the table.

I missed this one, I agree, too!

[Le Cygne]

6 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

No, it can't be clear because it's not her point. She has not said such a thing, in fact she has said the opposite. That both men and women should be included, and in the case of GOT, we have also talked about the fact that more writers in general would also improve the current situation.

If you read that line again, she is referring to another dimension, another insight as a person, as a life experience. And romances can benefit from the insight of both genres, and that not necessarily meaning that a man can't come up with a script with a woman's insight or vice versa (something we all agree with) BUT she never said that man can't write on romance properly.

In fact, George, as man has written amazing romances inside asoiaf, and sometimes the writers of GOT have understood it as well (as female writers do as well). And many female writers write about genres that are not romantic but very " historically male dominating", quoting your own words. This is known.

Your own assumptions have nothing to do with the discussion because the thing you quoted clearly  didn't insinuate what you are saying.

And, in fact, women do write about different genres, like men without fear or shame. Another thing is that if they are hired or how hard is being chosen to write anything in general. GOT is not a good example of that- (not only about women, but also about diversity of writers).

good example of the point you have been talking about all the time. I loved that scene in Otlander!

Thank you.

We have made no secret we like romances written by men, notably a certain GRRM. Hey, maybe we should talk about them some more! 

Yeah, I like what Ron Moore did, I can find clips where he talks about it, but he felt it was essential to have both men and women writers.

[sweetsunray]

It's valid criticism to criticise a show in how far their staff reflects the audience: deliberately favoring male staff for writing and directing or unable to hire female staff for their product shows they have a gender issue. Writing and directing 4-5 seasons of an 8 season show as big and as complex with such a big general viewing populace with only male staff is by itself a total social disgrace. The executive producers clearly have a problem with 50 % of the population.

The show was mysoginistic and catering to one gender of the audience from the get go, and was critcised and called on it. We know the two writers and executive producers who wrote like that from the start. Instead of getting better, it only got worse. When the sole female writer they have as staff leaves, the raping gets ramped up, including a scene that was directed and acted as not being a rape scene, but somehow got edited and cut to look like a rape scene. Then their female director is gone too. And we've got the producers and writers saying on DVD commentary how strong the actress plays her rape scene while the camera focuses on Theon's face, and shit like that. And then for S6 we get a deleted scene that the director cut, because he comments how he basically couldn't even believe that the producers and writers were that insipid that you can't put in the following scene: two Braavosi women comment on Tyrion raping Sansa in the Braavosi play and Arya quipping "If you don't like it, watch something else". The male director cut that scene, and instead somehow inserted a non-scripted scene about an actress criticising the author of the play. It's gotten so mysoginistic that male directors have to cut out scripted scenes and ad-lib their own to make sure that they don't provoke the female audience in the season that was called "women on top".

Meanwhile you've got a male director teasing an actress who's a minor about "getting a romance next season" and then the actress learns her character is getting raped by reading the script. They didn't even warn her, called her, had a conversation with her. That's how the all male writers and a male director dealt with a 17 year old who was set up to act a rape scene: like it's a joke. And then the scene when it was shot was called "Romance dies". WTF?!!!! That's how these men look at rape: something to joke about. It's utterly disgusting.

That these two producers and writers continue on without female writing staff and directors is a total sign on the wall they have issues with women, and it shows in their product and their production.

Female writers and directors aren't necessarily better writers, and the majority of men are empathic and sensitive about issues such as rape. But with the amount of good female writers and directors available in Hollywood it's a damning sign if those female writers or directors are either not interested in working with D& D or if the producers do not work with them anymore.

[Le Cygne]

39 minutes ago, Karmarni said:

I think this is especially true. It isn't that women might do it better, that doesn't seem to be the point being made. It's that there needs to be an opportunity for women's view, the Female Gaze, to be seen. Outlander does a good job of that. GoT is all about the male gaze, and that's a problem for me. It's catering to a sexist view of women. Not having women involved, at every level, has resulted in a deficit of the female gaze. And it's not just showing a butt or penis, it's HOW you look at a man that shows he's desirable. GoT doesn't get that right at all.

And women and men provide different views, experiences, that make a show or book or whatever art form, great. It's their je ne sais quoi that matters.

Agreed. And GoT just doesn't get it. They just haven't made an effort, and it shows. And there was so much potential in the source material that they just squandered. The books are very sexy, the show is a snooze.

[SecretWeapon]

7 hours ago, StepStark said:

She trusts Littlefinger more than Jon? After everything? Does that seem like a good writing to you?

So she reads through Jon like a book but she's not able to influence him in any way. Really, does that seem like a good writing?

She still trusts LF more than Jon in S7 and that's after the actual battle despite stating that he sold her before. But to be fair, LF is a sweet-talker, he saved her more than once and he did come with the KOTV.

Regarding your second point, I think it's less "knowing how to read Jon" and more "knowing Ramsey knows how to read people"

Now that being said, i didnt state anywhere it was well written, hence the word SUPPOSED in caps. If those were supposed to be the ideas, then in broad strokes i don't think they were bad, but they were sloppily done.

[Meera of Tarth]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's valid criticism to criticise a show in how far their staff reflects the audience: deliberately favoring male staff for writing and directing or unable to hire female staff for their product shows they have a gender issue. Writing and directing 4-5 seasons of an 8 season show as big and as complex with such a big general viewing populace with only male staff is by itself a total social disgrace. The executive producers clearly have a problem with 50 % of the population.

The show was mysoginistic and catering to one gender of the audience from the get go, and was critcised and called on it. We know the two writers and executive producers who wrote like that from the start. Instead of getting better, it only got worse. When the sole female writer they have as staff leaves, the raping gets ramped up, including a scene that was directed and acted as not being a rape scene, but somehow got edited and cut to look like a rape scene. Then their female director is gone too. And we've got the producers and writers saying on DVD commentary how strong the actress plays her rape scene while the camera focuses on Theon's face, and shit like that. And then for S6 we get a deleted scene that the director cut, because he comments how he basically couldn't even believe that the producers and writers were that insipid that you can't put in the following scene: two Braavosi women comment on Tyrion raping Sansa in the Braavosi play and Arya quipping "If you don't like it, watch something else". The male director cut that scene, and instead somehow inserted a non-scripted scene about an actress criticising the author of the play. It's gotten so mysoginistic that male directors have to cut out scripted scenes and ad-lib their own to make sure that they don't provoke the female audience in the season that was called "women on top".

Meanwhile you've got a male director teasing an actress who's a minor about "getting a romance next season" and then the actress learns her character is getting raped by reading the script. They didn't even warn her, called her, had a conversation with her. That's how the all male writers and a male director dealt with a 17 year old who was set up to act a rape scene: like it's a joke. And then the scene when it was shot was called "Romance dies". WTF?!!!! That's how these men look at rape: something to joke about. It's utterly disgusting.

That these two producers and writers continue on without female writing staff and directors is a total sign on the wall they have issues with women, and it shows in their product and their production.

Female writers and directors aren't necessarily better writers, and the majority of men are empathic and sensitive about issues such as rape. But with the amount of good female writers and directors available in Hollywood it's a damning sign if those female writers or directors are either not interested in working with D& D or if the producers do not work with them anymore.

good essay on what is happening. It really summarizes the whole thing. They even joke about it.

[Meera of Tarth]

2 hours ago, Karmarni said:

I think this is especially true. It isn't that women might do it better, that doesn't seem to be the point being made. It's that there needs to be an opportunity for women's view, the Female Gaze, to be seen. Outlander does a good job of that. GoT is all about the male gaze, and that's a problem for me. It's catering to a sexist view of women. Not having women involved, at every level, has resulted in a deficit of the female gaze. And it's not just showing a butt or penis, it's HOW you look at a man that shows he's desirable. GoT doesn't get that right at all.

And women and men provide different views, experiences, that make a show or book or whatever art form, great. It's their je ne sais quoi that matters.

Female gaze on got versus male gaze...... We could count both separately and see how many of them are there...oh no...wait it's not necessarily because we know which "wins" by far.

It really shows what they care about. So as writers (male writers in this case) they have clearly failed on doing a fair portrayal of both. And it's not that GOT has only a few female characters or that ASOIAF doesn't show feelings or desires from multiple female points of view. They basically switched the food descriptions from the books to sex\male gaze. It's a constant. And when they are not doing this they are obsessed with dicks, and how an eunuch has no dick, how cock merchants work etc.

[StepStark]

2 hours ago, SecretWeapon said:

Now that being said, i didnt state anywhere it was well written, hence the word SUPPOSED in caps. If those were supposed to be the ideas, then in broad strokes i don't think they were bad, but they were sloppily done.

I don't see how they can be anything but bad as ideas. Trusting Littlefinger is actually moronic, as Sansa herself almost spells out in their first meeting in the season. Nobody with any sense would trust LF after that and let alone trust him more than Jon. There is no way for any writer to make something so absurd to work. And about second example, if she's so certain that Ramsay is going to outsmart and defeat Jon, then why did she persuaded Jon to fight Ramsay to begin with? It makes no sense on any level, I'm afraid, because it's one more terrible idea on D&D's part that is not possible to execute in a reasonable way.

[Le Cygne]

Littlefinger's Daily Affirmations (yes, this was in the trailer):

"Fight every battle everywhere always in your mind!"

 

 

[tormond]

After watching the latest trailer It looks like the spoilers were true after all. Jon will be an incompetent shit head most of the season and cersei will rule another season, that would be 7 seasons of getting her way, the true main character of the show. Those show runners truly know what the fans want. I dont even know why they brought Jon back to life, all they've ever done since is poop poop on him and make him look bad.

You know at this point i think fans should start rooting for the white walkers, Maybe they can march all the way to king's landing and end that miserable hag for good.

[Liver and Onions]

6 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

yes, I agree with you @Queen of Procrastination. Sometimes one reads such a lot of things that is difficult to see the sarcasm out there. So again, @Liver and Onions my apologize, as I didn't read it properly.

Meera of Tarth, that is okay.  I probably should have put some sarcasm quotes around it. I was thinking about the notion of a token female writer vs. a show starting out with a good representation of writers of all genders,  not because someone says, "we need women to write the female characters well, " but because everyone in the writers' room is actually good at their jobs. Same for directors and other jobs, really. 

I wonder if a female writer/ director would have/could have pushed back against all the bad story decisions and changes, and how that would have affected anything (or hurt her career). 

 

[SecretWeapon]

On 2017-6-22 at 5:51 AM, StepStark said:

I don't see how they can be anything but bad as ideas. Trusting Littlefinger is actually moronic, as Sansa herself almost spells out in their first meeting in the season. Nobody with any sense would trust LF after that and let alone trust him more than Jon. There is no way for any writer to make something so absurd to work.

It is moronic but how is she supposed to know that? She doesn't know his involvement in Ned's death yet, her pre-escape offer knowledgment of him is that he was her mother's friend, he "protected" her for years already and so far apparently kept his promises to her. The only outright points against him in her view were being ruthless, kinda creepy, selling her to the Boltons (and for the later he basically claimed "I didn't know he was crazy") and Brienne's word.

If show's Jon and Sansa relationship while growing up is anything like the books, they weren't that close and Sansa kinda shared her mother's view towards him, so he's only raking up points since S6

On 2017-6-22 at 5:51 AM, StepStark said:

And about second example, if she's so certain that Ramsay is going to outsmart and defeat Jon, then why did she persuaded Jon to fight Ramsay to begin with? It makes no sense on any level, I'm afraid, because it's one more terrible idea on D&D's part that is not possible to execute in a reasonable way.

She's certain Ramsay will know how to "trigger" Jon and that may cause him to die like a [gendered insult deleted]  so she tells him not to take the bait (which is all she could do) for his sake. Why persuade Jon to fight Ramsey? Because Winterfell is her home and Ramsey is the one holding it?

Saying it was poorly done is accurate but it's neither point is illogical really