[Book Spoilers] EP404 Discussion

[Gargarax]

I'm trying to say people have a double standard when it comes to these type of characters. GRRM can have the Mountain, Lurch and the Murmmers be as evil as he likes. Rape, hurt, steal and kill people for fun. Once D&D do it though, well we have a right to bitch because it's not real and the characters aren't grey.

Okay, but I still think you're pretty quick there with the word 'double standards'. I'm not saying make every bad guy somebody who's only bad because his daddy beat him. I love Ramsay. The castration intro was bad, the torture close-ups unnecessary, but the scenes itself served a clear purpose. Ramsay was translated well into screen and nobody is complaining that he isn't grey. But him being naturally evil serves the story in many ways. At Craster's, having the mutineers being worse than Ramsay does not serve the story, it simplifies it, makes it less interesting it, takes away complexity.

[Dany's Silver]

So this is something confirmed? Or is it possible some fan put it online, as a fact, while it actually was his/her own interpretation?

Earlier in this thread someone posted a screen shot of the original post by HBO.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

Okay, but I still think you're pretty quick there with the word 'double standards'. I'm not saying make every bad guy somebody who's only bad because his daddy beat him. I love Ramsay. The castration intro was bad, the torture close-ups unnecessary, but the scenes itself served a clear purpose. Ramsay was translated well into screen and nobody is complaining that he isn't grey. But him being naturally evil serves the story in many ways. At Craster's, having the mutineers being worse than Ramsay does not serve the story, it simplifies it, makes it less interesting it, takes away complexity.

What complexity is gone by having some random NW deserters who were probably rapists or thieves be bad people? We know there's all sorts of NW men, good, bad, somewhere in between. These are the really bad ones, you know since they killed their previous commander and the guy that offered them shelter. Having them raping women off screen instead would've made them more complex? Or if he was just drinking out of a cup and not a skull, that makes him much more interesting? Ok, then.

[briantw]

At Craster's, having the mutineers being worse than Ramsay does not serve the story, it simplifies it, makes it less interesting it, takes away complexity.

But the mutineers pretty much did, or were implied to have done, the same things in the books, so how is it really any different?

Also, I wouldn't say they're remotely worse than Ramsay.

[Dany's Silver]

So this is something confirmed? Or is it possible some fan put it online, as a fact, while it actually was his/her own interpretation?

The Lizard King made a screen capture of HBO's site before they changed it:

http://i.imgur.com/G1pdcan.png

[johndance]

Two things:

1. Martin includes a lot of depth that the show omits. Percentage-wise, the show has more of those characters and has developed a tendency to favour them. Oberyn's introduction (which I didn't mind so much) is one example. More unnecessary brothel scenes that were not in the book. What was the purpose of those?

2. Martin leaves more to the imagination than the show. There are very few direct, first-hand descriptions of sexual violence. Much is in retrospect, the worst are rumours and hearsay. Sure, TV and film are supposed to "show, don't tell" - but then, you need to reduce the things you show to what furthers the storyline. Often tough, the show adds sex and sexual violence to a scene that didn't have any in the books. Some for good reason. Many for no good reason at all.

People need to understand the difference between books and TV for this. Martin has the "luxury" of writing the scenes on paper. He has no time allotment, is able to use internal monologue to help include much of the "depth that the show omits", and does not have to physically produce a set with real people, animals, etc. Martin could have taken 25 pages with a 'Karl' or 'Rast' viewpoint to flesh out all of the details on that scene to make the readers completely despise these mutineers. He could include many other ways of making it known that Craster's wives were being beaten and raped without a first hand description of what was happening.

It's impossible for the runners to do anything close to this. They have to show it on the screen, and it has to be done within an allotted period of actual screen time. There is just no way anyone can compare the two and say that GRRM does it much more 'tastefully', etc. It comes down to whether or not fans want the show to try to be as impactful as the books are. If they do, then these types of scenes need to be shown, there's really no way around it. There's no right or wrong answer either. I'd be fine with it if someone said something like 'the rape scenes were to disturbing, I'd prefer it if the show wasn't as dramatic as the books in this area and they toned this down". Nothing wrong with this at all. When comparing these two mediums though I think people lose sight of #1 how different they really are and #2 How immensely challenging it is to take a television show and try to match the level of impact a book does.

[johndance]

What complexity is gone by having some random NW deserters who were probably rapists or thieves be bad people? We know there's all sorts of NW men, good, bad, somewhere in between. These are the really bad ones, you know since they killed their previous commander and the guy that offered them shelter. Having them raping women off screen instead would've made them more complex? Or if he was just drinking out of a cup and not a skull, that makes him much more interesting? Ok, then.

It doesn't make them more interesting, I think that's the wrong word, but it does make them out to be much more than just bad guys. They are downright, terrible scumbags. We've been told they were rapists, thieves, etc, but that was back in the first season. Other than this scene, and the scene where Craster and Mormont are killed, what have we seen to substantiate that these guys are so bad? And even when Craster and Mormont were killed, I took that more of this was a group of starving, freezing, tired men who have been outside in the sub-freezing temps for a really long time, and were more at the point of lunacy then just being down right terrible people. Craster gives them shelter, probably because he knows he has to. If he says no, what's stopping Mormont from saying, well tough we are staying anyway, there are x amount of us and 1 of you. Craster knows this. Then he mocks them by giving them small portions of practically gruel to eat.

So making them rape women on screen and drink blood out of skulls certainly does serve a HUGE purpose. It doesn't make them more interesting, but it takes them from 'bad men' to 'scum of the earth, horrible people, the lowest of the low.' I think this is what the show runners were going for, and this was what the needed to to do accomplish it.

[King Theon]

I'm firmly in the camp of thinking that there was nothing wrong with having rape scenes at Craster's Keep. Well, obviously it's horrifically wrong, but from the perspective of the TV show I think it was necessary. The implication of rape has nowhere near the same effect (in my opinion, at least) as gruesomely showing the horror of it when in the following scene involves characters you love being captured by the bad guys.

They made it tasteless, they made it terrifying and they made us hate the characters. That's exactly what that scene needed, I thought.

So what if we're not given a backstory about why these people are evil? When a minor character goes around doing selfless things, do we demand an explanation on why they haven't descended into anarchy? Karl Tanner will almost certainly be dead soon, what's the point in fleshing out why he's horrendous?

The best example of why I thought it worked was Meera's reaction to realising that the Night's Watch people at Craster's are rapists. She's the one who cowered in fear upon realising what these people are capable of, while Bran - who is seemingly too young to understand what evil men can do in the world of Westeros - is oblivious. I immediately empathised with Meera's fears, knowing how awful the people inside that shelter were having seen moments ago, and wanted them to get away. When they get caught seconds later, it makes the feeling of dread intensify too.

[Gargarax]

So making them rape women on screen and drink blood out of skulls certainly does serve a HUGE purpose. It doesn't make them more interesting, but it takes them from 'bad men' to 'scum of the earth, horrible people, the lowest of the low.' I think this is what the show runners were going for, and this was what the needed to to do accomplish it.

Totally agree that this effect was achieved. I only wonder why it is necessary for them to be scumbags. We have enough of them, and they are all of them more interesting and balanced than the mutineers. We can totally agree to disagree whether they should be portrayed this or that way. All I'm saying is: It's easy to portray them as scumbags. That's easy screenwriting. We see scumbags a lot. Recent series, especially on HBO, have shown us that TV can go other ways. Making it less easy and thereby often more interesting. Fox could do scenes like the one at Craster's. HBO could do more. I resent them for not doing so.

[Cas Stark]

Sorry, this to me is an example of people bending over backwards to excuse the show for injecting pointless sexual violence. We don't need to "see" them raping anyone to know they are bad, we already know they are bad because they killed Mormont. And, the show does this ALL the time, like throwing in the two naked women to sex up the torture of Theon. Or Ros. Or 90% of the brothel scenes. Or Jamie and Cersei in the sept, If this was an isolated incident, fine, but it isn't. They do it in every episode.

[MrsManderly]

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread (did not have a chance to go through all 50 pages) but did people spot that little reference of Tyrion's regarding Sansa: "she is not a killer... not yet"

Things not looking too rosy for Sweet Robin it seems ...

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

Sorry, this to me is an example of people bending over backwards to excuse the show for injecting pointless sexual violence. We don't need to "see" them raping anyone to know they are bad, we already know they are bad because they killed Mormont. And, the show does this ALL the time, like throwing in the two naked women to sex up the torture of Theon. Or Ros. Or 90% of the brothel scenes. Or Jamie and Cersei in the sept, If this was an isolated incident, fine, but it isn't. They do it in every episode.

GRRM takes every chance he can get to be brutally graphic. The point is he does it for a reason. I don't think we needed to see rape or anything, but there's plenty of violence and terror in both mediums so let's at least try to be consistent in our scrutiny.

[rmholt]

One difference I think I see in this season is more direct guidance to the watchers.

[Ghost wind]

In a general opinion a good transition episode, probably next episodes will have more action or something, but this was a very good set up in all places treated.

More detailed:

• Daenerys: I'm liking Grey Worm more each day. Already liked him a lot in the books (his speech about keeping his name because Dany freed him is one of my favorite parts in the books) and making him more sentimental allows the audience to sympathize with him. When the slaves attacked the master I just thought of the Sons of the Harpy with the blood on the walls and everything. And woow Meeren is huuuge! And the flag, every guy who climbed up there to put the flag should be given a lordship or something...
  
• Bronn/Jaime: Average Bronn awesomeness..
  
• Jaime/Tyrion: very good scene pictures really well Tyrion's situation.
  
• Littlefinger/Sansa: good dialogue, especially liked the fading out to Qot and Marge in the gardens.
  
• QoT/Margaery: as we say in Spain "de tal palo tal astilla" (Like father, like son). We do know now where Marge gets form all her seducing knowledge....
  
• 1st scene on the Wall: very positive things such as Locke kicking the other guy's ass at fighting or the "Guess I was wrong.." Anyway I was a little annoyed at Slynt suggesting Jon as a Lord Commander. This is supposed to be a surprise nobody expects which Sam only achieves to prevent Slynt from being LC.
  
• Margaery/Tommen: poooor kid he was completely shocked! I loved that scene. The look on his face, the way he could barely talk like he was enchanted or something... "When we marry I become yours, forever" and he is like and what does that mean?? hahahaha. Also at the end when he is kind of expecting a kiss and he gets one on the forehead.. I laughed so much with this scene...
  
• Brienne leaves: Pod is so much better than in the book.. The way his smile fades completely when Brienne rejects him was so funny... hahaha.
  
• Jon's speech: loved it! Especially how nobody was getting up and I was almost shouting: "Please Grenn please!!" And the when Locke got up I was like ooooh yeah! Anyway I like how we are seeing Jon being someone loved in the NW and everything!
  
• Craster's keep: there's a big change but too soon to say if it is good or bad, anyway interesting to see what happens from now on...
  
• WW: man that was creepy! And anyway a great shock because we don't know almost anything about the Others so a nice clue for us to work on!
  

[johndance]

Sorry, this to me is an example of people bending over backwards to excuse the show for injecting pointless sexual violence. We don't need to "see" them raping anyone to know they are bad, we already know they are bad because they killed Mormont. And, the show does this ALL the time, like throwing in the two naked women to sex up the torture of Theon. Or Ros. Or 90% of the brothel scenes. Or Jamie and Cersei in the sept, If this was an isolated incident, fine, but it isn't. They do it in every episode.

Well, speaking about this one scene in particular, I think yes, we did need to see them raping and drinking out of Mormont's skull. This was not pointless sexual violence. Again, this was taking bad guys to 'terrible, horrible, scumbag, etc, etc. Had a purpose, served it's purpose. I hate these guys. I want them to get mutilated. This whole thing is just about this scene/this episode, and it's why we're talking about it on this particular thread. Has nothing to do with the other stuff. I kind of agree with you about the other things referenced especially Jaime/Cersei, but this scene got the point across and reached the height of impact they were going for and it would not have if it was 'toned down'.

[Widows_Blood]

Sorry, this to me is an example of people bending over backwards to excuse the show for injecting pointless sexual violence. We don't need to "see" them raping anyone to know they are bad, we already know they are bad because they killed Mormont. And, the show does this ALL the time, like throwing in the two naked women to sex up the torture of Theon. Or Ros. Or 90% of the brothel scenes. Or Jamie and Cersei in the sept, If this was an isolated incident, fine, but it isn't. They do it in every episode.

So what about the story of the Mountain raping the innkeepters daughter? What about Ramsay violating corpses of dead women? Or forcing Theon to provide cunnilingus to fArya? There is plenty of sexual violence and pointless gratuity in both mediums, yet for whatever reason, the show gets the brunt of the criticism.

[King Theon]

Sorry, this to me is an example of people bending over backwards to excuse the show for injecting pointless sexual violence. We don't need to "see" them raping anyone to know they are bad, we already know they are bad because they killed Mormont. And, the show does this ALL the time, like throwing in the two naked women to sex up the torture of Theon. Or Ros. Or 90% of the brothel scenes. Or Jamie and Cersei in the sept, If this was an isolated incident, fine, but it isn't. They do it in every episode.

Think about people's strong reactions to sexual violence though. As a society, not many people are more hated than rapists and people guilty of sexual assault. Showing it - and showing how horrible it is - is a valid way of making the viewer loathe the mutineers.

I think saying that they portray sexual violence all the time is a reason not to do it as an argument against this scene is not fair - we're surely discussing an isolated scene in an isolated storyline here. When in Jon or Bran's storylines have we seen rape yet (implied with Craster's in the past, I think, I might be wrong though)? Yes, they killed Mormont, but this is another level of evil (at least in most readers' eyes). So I think it adds to the foreboding and horror for when Bran's captured and the assumed elation when Jon arrives to give them what they deserve.

[Cas Stark]

Well, speaking about this one scene in particular, I think yes, we did need to see them raping and drinking out of Mormont's skull. This was not pointless sexual violence. Again, this was taking bad guys to 'terrible, horrible, scumbag, etc, etc. Had a purpose, served it's purpose. I hate these guys. I want them to get mutilated. This whole thing is just about this scene/this episode, and it's why we're talking about it on this particular thread. Has nothing to do with the other stuff. I kind of agree with you about the other things referenced especially Jaime/Cersei, but this scene got the point across and reached the height of impact they were going for and it would not have if it was 'toned down'.

What is the narrative purpose of taking bad guys who Jon is going to kill and making them terrible, horrible scumbags who Jon is going to kill? It isn't like they've introduced a new set of players who are going to be around a while.

[Widows_Blood]

I also don't understand what people expected was supposed to be happening at Crasters. In the books it is made clear they are being raped. These are men that have profaned their vows, who are at the watch because they were murderers and rapists to begin with, who now have a degree of autonomy from their former lives and are surrounded by young women who they have complete control over. Did you expect them to be sitting around drinking tea and singing songs?

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

So what about the story of the Mountain raping the innkeepters daughter? What about Ramsay violating corpses of dead women? Or forcing Theon to provide cunnilingus to fArya? There is plenty of sexual violence and pointless gratuity in both mediums, yet for whatever reason, the show gets the brunt of the criticism.

The thing that people are forgetting is that watching something happen, even in the background of a TV scene is much different than reading about it. You can choose to visualize it or not when you read, and you don't hear cries of pain or torment. You can kind of block it out and deal with it yourself. Honestly the books are like 100x worse than the show, imagine they showed someone raping a septa and literally chewing her tits off? Or starving a woman and having her chew off her own fingers? It would be ludicrous.