Jump to content

Killer B

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Killer B

  1. It is known. I think this gets to the heart of the matter. If this were a one time thing, we would go, "Yuck, but man those guys were messed up." Instead its within the context of watching the abuse and death of two prostitutes, two consensual scenes being turned into rape, and it is in addition to all the rape that will be talked about or even shown as a matter of course since it was in the books (like stories about The Mountain etc). It is too much. It is losing its power as a storytelling device and really does seem about making sure there naked women on the screen every episode. Also I question the people to think sexual violence happens constantly in the books. There are plenty of chapters that do not have any. That advance the plot with dialogue including politicking, storytelling, etc. There are also scenes with action, violence, and yes sexual violence, but they aren't used every chapter because it destroys their effect to do so.
  2. Actually the reason it is OK when Martin does it is because he has gone out of his way to actually write believable and meaningful female characters along with this entire story and world. When Martin does it, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wants to do something important with the story or demonstrate something about the world. The show writers? Not so much. Not since they've made two consensual sex acts rape. I agree. I really think those were just Craster's sons. Interestingly HBO had the recap saying the Night King for a while and changed it to the other. I see two options 1) That was the NK and they messed up putting it in the recap. So they immediately took it down. 2) It wasn't the NK and they messed up putting it in the recap. So they immediately took it down. I lean towards two at the moment just because we saw that there were many other WW dressed the same way. Also I want CH to be the NK.
  3. I think you're missing the point. If they had been there a few months, is there really a need to scream, "Fuck 'em till they're dead"? Why are the women being raped outside in the snow? None of this makes sense. This is a long term hostage situation, not a new development. Surely if a guy wants to rape another of them, they will wait until they're inside and not preparing food etc for them. The scene makes it seem like they just got there in their behavior because that way there can be more naked women on screen. And again, what purpose does it serve? We already know Westeros is brutal. We know these guys are villains. Why add more rape to the mix other than to show more breasts? I feel like the next step in the chain is what is missing for the people arguing this. Rape is offensive to see portrayed for many people. Just like murder. So when a show has it, it should serve a purpose. It shouldn't just be so viewers can gawk at breasts week after week. What if the show started every week with someone randomly killing a child? Wouldn't that start to grate on your nerves and make you wonder why the hell they kept doing it? aussie_ironborn, on 29 Apr 2014 - 09:32 AM, said: I'd call that a swing and a miss for reading comprehension. Seriously, why is it ok for people to get into long involved discussions about the differences or what this means etc, but somehow people who think the amount of rape has become gratuitous and unnecessary just can't handle the "realism" of Westeros.
  4. I hate to bring this up again, but I couldn't agree more with your statement. I know the show has addressed rape before in the context of war, Dothraki vs the Lhazareen for example. It didn't feel the need to declare they were going to rape them until they died and have naked and battered women actively being raped as part of the scenery. This isn't rape for story purposes, character development, or even establishing the type of setting the characters exist in. It seems like a way to get the right number of boobs on the screen per episode. Additionally the stuff at Craster's came in the wake of an episode where the show decided to once again turn consensual sex into non in an incredibly offensive and stupid way. Now they claim, apparently, that they didn't realize it was a rape scene? I don't think people would be near so upset this week if last week's episode hadn't been so bad. And if the writers are adding this nonsense in, and sacrificing actual story with Coldhands or Strong Belwas, it is not only distasteful but bad storytelling.
  5. Well that will be sad. I love Sam actually having an active role and training the ravens. An another note, does anyone else think, "I will answer injustice with justice" is a painfully terrible line?
  6. Which side has he switched from? I thought he was serving Roose Bolton the whole time, including now.
  7. I'm not convinced they had nothing to lose because Jon would automatically win. Most of the men in the hall didn't stand up to go with him, and of course book reader me knows there are a bunch of men in the Watch who know nothing of Jon Snow. They've given him the chance to demonstrate his competency in a leadership position. Coming back to warn of the wildlings, isn't command, it was what a good scout would do. He might be well liked, but I think plenty of the men would still consider him far too young to replace Jeor Mormont. I think the show is bungling the politics because they need to have their main characters do something.
  8. I'm fine with a TWoW reveal, with the Others at the end, if we finally get Coldhands. What's weird to me is that by asking him to get volunteers they put him into a leadership position. If they had just ordered it, and sent some other people, the men looking to Jon as a leader wouldn't have happened. I actually thought it was a big mistake for their side. Yeah he could die but if he comes back triumphant and the men already follow him? Very bad.
  • Create New...