Outlander: Waiting for April [SPOILERS: First Season]

[Hippocras]

Quote

GoT doesn't deconstruct anything (other than ASOIAF). Any exploration of ideas comes by accident through adaptation of the source material. Themes are for 8th grade book reports according to David Benioff.

Completely unsubstantiated BS, proven false is numerous interviews, and in the structure of the show itself.

Since this thread is about Outlander here are my thoughts:

I don't like the show at all. Its premise is terrible. The relationship between the protagonist and her second hubby is thoroughly unconvincing. It is supposedly intended for the female gaze but I am female and do not see myself in anything about the show. There is not a single character I root for and the story depth is vastly inferior to GoT. The lead may be female, but she is so fucking stereotypically so from her manerisms to her profession, her indecisiveness, I could go on. There is not a single Arya, or Brienne, Ros the climber from the bottom, Ygritte, or resolutely dignified in spite of it all Sansa to make the audience truly feel the richness of human experience.

Being female is not about "the female sexual gaze" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Being female is about being engaged in the story and the characters. Outlander fails.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

19 minutes ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

GoT doesn't deconstruct anything (other than ASOIAF). Any exploration of ideas comes by accident through adaptation of the source material. Themes are for 8th grade book reports according to David Benioff.

Sex Fantasy may not necessarily be a primary goal of GoT, but you simply cannot deny that there is a considerable element of appealing to men's sexual desires. Otherwise, why is there an executive on set with the specific goal on set of pushing the director towards increasing the amount of female nudity in the scene? GoT often uses female nudity as window dressing designed to serve a male faction of the audience. And regarding brothel scenes, presenting this male-dominated world with prostitution as a fundamental normality and depicting pretty much ALL prostitutes in such a sexually titillating way is testament to the fact that the show runners don't care about internal critique of inherent sexism of the world they are depicting. This simply isn't how you explore ideas. GoT has become a product rather than a story.

Outlander is a romance fantasy whose primary protagonist is female and as such sex and the objectification of the male love interest would be a natural part of it. GoT has no primary protagonist and should be presented in a more balanced way than it is.

And at the same time GoT often includes male nudity, and panders to female viewers as well. There are plenty of male characters that have had to strip off and wander around with very little on. 

I'm really not sure how else you expect brothels to appear, if the women weren't titilating then they wouldn't be making much money.

I'm actually fine with saying that Outlander has a 'female gaze' and so its objectifiying men is ok. I don't 100% go along with it, but if its for a female audience, which is really is, then why not allow them to enjoy a bit of man flesh. The problem for me is comparing it to something like GoT and holding it up as some sort of ideal, because 'the sex is better'.

In my opinion Outlander is just as guilty as GoT when it comes to objectification, in fact it might even be worse seeing as how it presents most men as stupid backwards violent rapists, and has a women arrive to come and educate them all in modern day feminism. But thats another topic. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

17 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

Completely unsubstantiated BS, proven false is numerous interviews, and in the structure of the show itself.

Since this thread is about Outlander here are my thoughts:

I don't like the show at all. Its premise is terrible. The relationship between the protagonist and her second hubby is thoroughly unconvincing. It is supposedly intended for the female gaze but I am female and do not see myself in anything about the show. There is not a single character I root for and the story depth is vastly inferior to GoT. The lead may be female, but she is so fucking stereotypically so from her manerisms to her profession, her indecisiveness, I could go on. There is not a single Arya, or Brienne, Ros the climber from the bottom, Ygritte, or resolutely dignified in spite of it all Sansa to make the audience truly feel the richness of human experience.

Being female is not about "the female sexual gaze" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Being female is about being engaged in the story and the characters. Outlander fails.

Interesting to get a female opinion on the show that doesn't enjoy it. I'm not a female, and I did actually find it quite interesting for a while, until I realised that actually it wasn't the original concept I thought it was, but actually was falling back on so many tired old tropes that I had to stop watching it. 

It was actually the sexism that turned me off of it. I think after the wife beating episode I really couldn't take very much more of it. It was just one thing on top of another by that point for me, and as a guy I felt like I was being preached at so heavily, the message being that we are all a bunch of brutes who should be put in our place. It wasn't very balanced and it made me feel pretty uncomfortable. 

 

[Dolorous Gabe]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

And at the same time GoT often includes male nudity, and panders to female viewers as well. There are plenty of male characters that have had to strip off and wander around with very little on. 

I'm really not sure how else you expect brothels to appear, if the women weren't titilating then they wouldn't be making much money.

To the first paragraph, it's still incredibly unbalanced but that's not really the point.

to the second, try watching Deadwood, in which two establishments that offer prostitution become central locations. It's a vastly difference depiction.

there's a difference between showing prostitutes trying to gain customers and intensely sexualising them in their profession. It's all about how it's depicted.

[Humble AK]

4 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

GoT doesn't deconstruct anything (other than ASOIAF). Any exploration of ideas comes by accident through adaptation of the source material. Themes are for 8th grade book reports according to David Benioff.

You don't need themes in order to explore ideas, or deconstruct conventions. They are independent concepts that can be related, but don't have to be. I've argued in other threads that I agree with Benioff, that themes are an unnecessary artifice whose primary function is to give Lit Professors a job, but they do not add anything for me, other than an occasional "hey, that was a cleverly implemented sense of harmony".

And I find that GoT does a terrific job of exploring ideas.

Quote

Sex Fantasy may not necessarily be a primary goal of GoT, but you simply cannot deny that there is a considerable element of appealing to men's sexual desires.

I haven't even attempted to deny it. Notice how often I've used the word 'titillate' in conjunction with GoT?

Quote

GoT often uses female nudity as window dressing designed to serve a male faction of the audience. And regarding brothel scenes, presenting this male-dominated world with prostitution as a fundamental normality and depicting pretty much ALL prostitutes in such a sexually titillating way is testament to the fact that the show runners don't care about internal critique of inherent sexism of the world they are depicting.

Yes, as I said, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to explore the idea of oppression, including sexism, but they also want to have the shock/titillation factor to, which does perhaps go against the original notion. Although I ponder whether visual objectification is really sexism if applied to males and females, because in GoT for every shirtless woman, you have dozens of shirtless males. And I think there's been an equivalent amount of full frontal male and female nudity. (Let's see if I can tabulate from memory: Genital bearing females: Ros, Osha, two prostitutes from season 2, Melisandre, prostitute in season 5; Genital baring males: Jaime (briefly in the bath scene, there's a glimpse of his testicles), Hodor, guy who tried to poison Dany, Theon, Loras' lover, two guys in brother raid in season 5. So actually there's more male nudity). But let me guess, shirtless males are not the same as shirtless females, even though girls do find abs and muscular chest visually stimulating, just as guys like breasts (that double standard I'd call sexist).

But certainly the nudity is presented to titillate, in addition to whatever ideas they are exploring.

Quote

This simply isn't how you explore ideas. GoT has become a product rather than a story.

It's not how you want ideas to be explored. I'm fine with the way GoT does things.

Quote

Outlander is a romance fantasy whose primary protagonist is female and as such sex and the objectification of the male love interest would be a natural part of it.

There's nothing natural about the romance in Outlander. It's a pure fantasy for the reasons I've already expressed.

Quote

GoT has no primary protagonist and should be presented in a more balanced way than it is.

I think it's more than properly balanced in that everybody is miserable and caught in the vortex, male and female both. And, as I suggested above, the nudity quotient seems perfectly balanced and slightly in favor of the objectification of the male cast (though I don't care either way - I don't need gender equality in nudity, and find it rather absurd even, as it's artificial implementation, but then I hate tokenism in all things).

[Veltigar]

4 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

GoT doesn't deconstruct anything (other than ASOIAF). Any exploration of ideas comes by accident through adaptation of the source material. Themes are for 8th grade book reports according to David Benioff.

Sex Fantasy may not necessarily be a primary goal of GoT, but you simply cannot deny that there is a considerable element of appealing to men's sexual desires. Otherwise, why is there an executive on set with the specific goal on set of pushing the director towards increasing the amount of female nudity in the scene? GoT often uses female nudity as window dressing designed to serve a male faction of the audience. And regarding brothel scenes, presenting this male-dominated world with prostitution as a fundamental normality and depicting pretty much ALL prostitutes in such a sexually titillating way is testament to the fact that the show runners don't care about internal critique of inherent sexism of the world they are depicting. This simply isn't how you explore ideas. GoT has become a product rather than a story.

That's a very reasonable and very correct assesment you made here imo  

4 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Outlander is a romance fantasy whose primary protagonist is female and as such sex and the objectification of the male love interest would be a natural part of it. GoT has no primary protagonist and should be presented in a more balanced way than it is.

I'd like to add here that, while Outlander does celebrate the female gaze (and I think a lot of complaints about the objectification are more based on trailers than in the actual series), you can't get around the fact that Claire is nude a lot as well. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a fan of the series (see my review of the finale), but one of the most admirable things about this show is that the male to female ratio of nakedness is pretty much equal. 

[Humble AK]

43 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

That's a very reasonable and very correct assesment you made here imo  

I'd like to add here that, while Outlander does celebrate the female gaze (and I think a lot of complaints about the objectification are more based on trailers than in the actual series), you can't get around the fact that Claire is nude a lot as well. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a fan of the series (see my review of the finale), but one of the most admirable things about this show is that the male to female ratio of nakedness is pretty much equal. 

Equal only if you use the sexist convention of shirtless female = nudity, shirtless male =/= nudity.

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

To the first paragraph, it's still incredibly unbalanced but that's not really the point.

to the second, try watching Deadwood, in which two establishments that offer prostitution become central locations. It's a vastly difference depiction.

there's a difference between showing prostitutes trying to gain customers and intensely sexualising them in their profession. It's all about how it's depicted.

But they ARE intensely sexualized in their profession. Are the Deadwood prostitutes actually characters? Because many of the GOT ones actually are. Denying that whether you like it or not, for many women in the past and present prostitution is actually a profession is not a "feminist" stance to take at all. It is the opposite.

What GOT does, and which Deadwood most likely does not (I haven't seen it) is make the viewer actually feel the full range of things they might feel in a brothel. I don't find that exploitative, I find it good TV.

[Dolorous Gabe]

4 hours ago, Hippocras said:

But they ARE intensely sexualized in their profession. Are the Deadwood prostitutes actually characters? Because many of the GOT ones actually are. Denying that whether you like it or not, for many women in the past and present prostitution is actually a profession is not a "feminist" stance to take at all. It is the opposite.

What GOT does, and which Deadwood most likely does not (I haven't seen it) is make the viewer actually feel the full range of things they might feel in a brothel. I don't find that exploitative, I find it good TV.

The reference to Deadwood was in response to C4JS' comment that you would expect to see lots of fully naked women in a brothel. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be depicted this way. I think we'll never agree on what the full range of things that one might feel in a brothel are.

Tricksy and Joanie are two of the most interesting characters in Deadwood.

 

@Humble AK  i will agree with your comments about tokenism and artificial implementation. I believe GoT is incredibly guilty of these. We will certainly disagree on whether GoT explores ideas or not.

 

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this since I'm not discussing Outlander.

[Hippocras]

7 hours ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

The reference to Deadwood was in response to C4JS' comment that you would expect to see lots of fully naked women in a brothel. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be depicted this way. I think we'll never agree on what the full range of things that one might feel in a brothel are.

Tricksy and Joanie are two of the most interesting characters in Deadwood.

 

@Humble AK  i will agree with your comments about tokenism and artificial implementation. I believe GoT is incredibly guilty of these. We will certainly disagree on whether GoT explores ideas or not.

 

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this since I'm not discussing Outlander.

So you somehow disagree that in a brothel, you would be both "titilated" and feel a little bit slimy about it all at the same time? Again, I have not seen Deadwood, but I have never seen any other show that actually conveys that slime+titilation+commerce+prostitutes with their own personalities and levels of comfort with the world they find themselves in dynamic as GoT. I think it is really quite remarkable, and the reaction to the brothel scenes is basically just prudism disguised as moral outrage. What is really going on is that those scenes made people feel something...in large part the slime aspect.

[Mladen]

21 hours ago, Hippocras said:

A review of non-brothel scenes of female nudity reveals a series of very complex scenes that were generally important to charcters' stories and that were not titliating in the slightest.

 

23 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Completely agree with this post. 

I would add that I would find the suggestions that it's worse in GoT absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.

I am sorry, but do we remember the scene where Baelish speaks about his history and in the background we see Ross orally satisfying the other prostitute? I am yet to be convinced that the scene in particular, or its background to be precise, had any narrative or meta purpose whatsoever. And that was just a tip of the iceberg. Nudity in GoT most of the times, not always, but most of the times have no actual purpose in the story. 

That is something we can't say about Outlander. Yes, they don't shy away from taking the shirt off or showing how good looking the Scottish man is, but it actually has some purpose. Part of Claire's romantic liaison with Jaime is sex. And while they could have done everything with closed doors and a kiss, it was their artistic decision to go different route. Yes, in many ways, Jaime's body is supposed to arouse viewers, but that is because this is story from Claire's POV. 

Simply put, these are two stories in which sex plays different roles. That said, nudity in GoT in some scenes, most of them in the first years of the show, had literally no point. That of course speaks nothing of the quality of the stories. 

[Dolorous Gabe]

1 hour ago, Hippocras said:

So you somehow disagree that in a brothel, you would be both "titilated" and feel a little bit slimy about it all at the same time? Again, I have not seen Deadwood, but I have never seen any other show that actually conveys that slime+titilation+commerce+prostitutes with their own personalities and levels of comfort with the world they find themselves in dynamic as GoT. I think it is really quite remarkable, and the reaction to the brothel scenes is basically just prudism disguised as moral outrage. What is really going on is that those scenes made people feel something...in large part the slime aspect.

Okay, I'll take a small bite. I disagree that GoT conveys the slimy part of it. You're projecting concepts like prudism and moral outrage onto valid critical assessments. I am neither outraged by GoT nor am I prudish.

Again, I'm not discussing Outlander so I don't feel this discussion is acceptable here. I'm open to continuing it through PMs if you want to. If not, I'll leave you with a recommendation to watch Deadwood. Then try suggesting I'm an outraged prude :-)

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Dolorous Gabe said:

Okay, I'll take a small bite. I disagree that GoT conveys the slimy part of it. You're projecting concepts like prudism and moral outrage onto valid critical assessments. I am neither outraged by GoT nor am I prudish.

Again, I'm not discussing Outlander so I don't feel this discussion is acceptable here. I'm open to continuing it through PMs if you want to. If not, I'll leave you with a recommendation to watch Deadwood. Then try suggesting I'm an outraged prude :-)

agreed this is not the right thread. But you not being a prude is very much connected to your lack of outrage IMO.

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, Risto said:

 

I am sorry, but do we remember the scene where Baelish speaks about his history and in the background we see Ross orally satisfying the other prostitute? I am yet to be convinced that the scene in particular, or its background to be precise, had any narrative or meta purpose whatsoever. And that was just a tip of the iceberg. Nudity in GoT most of the times, not always, but most of the times have no actual purpose in the story. 

That is something we can't say about Outlander. Yes, they don't shy away from taking the shirt off or showing how good looking the Scottish man is, but it actually has some purpose. Part of Claire's romantic liaison with Jaime is sex. And while they could have done everything with closed doors and a kiss, it was their artistic decision to go different route. Yes, in many ways, Jaime's body is supposed to arouse viewers, but that is because this is story from Claire's POV. 

Simply put, these are two stories in which sex plays different roles. That said, nudity in GoT in some scenes, most of them in the first years of the show, had literally no point. That of course speaks nothing of the quality of the stories. 

no I am not forgetting at all. That is precisely why and how the show communicates the slime aspect. It is fundamentally creepy and it is meant to be. Littlefinger is a. not turned on in the slightest by what is going on and b. talking about Cat with a whore who looks like her, but ultimately talking about power (which is what actually turns him on). If you couldn't see past the naked ladies, that was part of the point: raw moment where Littlefinger lets his guard down and shows us more of what he is all about are rare, and you are likely to be looking at and thinking about something else when it happens.

[Mladen]

21 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

no I am not forgetting at all. That is precisely why and how the show communicates the slime aspect. It is fundamentally creepy and it is meant to be. Littlefinger is a. not turned on in the slightest by what is going on and b. talking about Cat with a whore who looks like her, but ultimately talking about power (which is what actually turns him on). If you couldn't see past the naked ladies, that was part of the point: raw moment where Littlefinger lets his guard down and shows us more of what he is all about are rare, and you are likely to be looking at and thinking about something else when it happens.

And this is adding subtext where even the authors themselves didn't mean to add it. When it comes to Game of thrones, producers must be happy because regardless of how meaningless something is, the fans will do the homework and find some meaning. The nudity in that scene had no purpose, it was there for the sake of nudity and we do know that in the first two seasons HBO was pushing for more nudity. Plain and simple, whores being there, whores being nude, whores having sex while LF speaks actually bears no importance. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or in this case, a pair of boobs is sometimes just that. 

[Hippocras]

39 minutes ago, Risto said:

And this is adding subtext where even the authors themselves didn't mean to add it. When it comes to Game of thrones, producers must be happy because regardless of how meaningless something is, the fans will do the homework and find some meaning. The nudity in that scene had no purpose, it was there for the sake of nudity and we do know that in the first two seasons HBO was pushing for more nudity. Plain and simple, whores being there, whores being nude, whores having sex while LF speaks actually bears no importance. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or in this case, a pair of boobs is sometimes just that. 

BS. They absolutely meant for that subtext to be there. It was an absolutely deliberately done scene.

If you are going to insist otherwise prove it. Because otherwise you are just pretending to have inside knowledge you don't have because you personally think you are smarter than the people doing the show. But you are not.

[Mladen]

5 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

BS. They absolutely meant for that subtext to be there. It was an absolutely deliberately done scene.

If you are going to insist otherwise prove it. Because otherwise you are just pretending to have inside knowledge you don't have because you personally think you are smarter than the people doing the show. But you are not.

You mean like when Neill Marshall specifically said that producers pushed more nudity into already scripted material? 

Quote

The weirdest part [of directing Game of Thrones] was when you have one of the exec producers leaning over your shoulder, going, 'You can go full frontal, you know. This is television, you can do whatever you want! And do it! I urge you to do it!' So I was like, 'Okay, well, you’re the boss.'"

 

[Guest]

On 4/1/2016 at 8:34 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

And at the same time GoT often includes male nudity, and panders to female viewers as well. There are plenty of male characters that have had to strip off and wander around with very little on. 

I'm really not sure how else you expect brothels to appear, if the women weren't titilating then they wouldn't be making much money.

I'm actually fine with saying that Outlander has a 'female gaze' and so its objectifiying men is ok. I don't 100% go along with it, but if its for a female audience, which is really is, then why not allow them to enjoy a bit of man flesh. The problem for me is comparing it to something like GoT and holding it up as some sort of ideal, because 'the sex is better'.

In my opinion Outlander is just as guilty as GoT when it comes to objectification, in fact it might even be worse seeing as how it presents most men as stupid backwards violent rapists, and has a women arrive to come and educate them all in modern day feminism. But thats another topic. 

 I am not sure, I am just catching up to Outlander and the relationships are much deeper and more realistic.  I think it is significantly better than GoT.  GRRM books are better, but the Outlander TV adaptation is better.

[Zorral]

On 4/1/2016 at 8:28 PM, Humble AK said:

It's not a the love-lust so much as the characters that generate the love-lust connection. The male subject of Outlander is an unrealistic female fantasy (at least from what I've seen; from what I've heard, the show is fairly faithful to the novels and if the novels are anything like the show, having to read through millions of words of that ridiculous nonsense would make me want to opt for defenestration from a high building to end the agony). You have your incredibly fit and gorgeous male, who is utterly devoted to the female, has the bad boy qualities but is sensitive and caring to the female, is a prime warrior but sentimental to his woman's needs, doesn't stray, is always there to rescue her from raping, is virginal and receptive to guidance but powerfully commanding, absolutely respects his partner as an equal (in 18th century Scotland), he could have any woman he wants but chooses the protagonist of course - essentially the guy every woman says they want.

And sentimental sex is profoundly boring. You can have it all the time in real life, so I don't see what's great or thought provoking about seeing it between a caricature male and a "rah-rah, I'm a powerful female so men will respect me in 18th century Scotland" Mary Sue, who, if we are being realistic, with her attitude wouldn't have been almost raped, as she so often is, but actually raped and probably put to death or severely beaten.

For myself, I don't need to experience love and sex through a proxy source. I kind find it on my own. So a fantasy romance does nothing for me. What I do appreciate is a twist on your typical love story, and GoT has that in spades. It's all betrayal and crushed desire and aberrational dynamics - I find that it's at least interesting, and not banal like in Outlander.

And my definition of pornography is material that is employed with the explicit and singular intention to arouse. That's the relationship in Outlander to a T. Of course, the means of arousal is building the chemistry between the female protagonist and the female fantasy male, and so it's not as direct as just going straight to the sweaty sex, but that is the ultimate intention.

With GoT, the sex is also meant for titillation, but that's not the primary purpose, that's almost a by-product. GoT is about the misery of the world and what people in their quest for power and domination, and those who resist them, are willing to do. And everything is caught in that vortex, including love.

Well, unfortunately, there is tenderness and love in GoT. Jon and Ygritte, for one. Robb and Talisa for another. It fortunately not a focal point. But no one is making the argument that there was no happiness or tenderness in the Middle Ages. That's simply not the focus of GoT, and it's not like a necessary component of validating a show's worthiness is showing that people can be happy. Maybe the happiness occurs offscreen. But seeing people be happy and love-struck certainly isn't why I watch GoT, nor would I care to see that content in GoT.

And they get killed, one whose murder is made particularly gruesome and the corpose is treated in a demeaning manner.  Are these the only two examples you can bring?  In comparison to the uncountable numbers which are impersonal and deliberately humiliating to the woman?

[Guest]

I am watching S108 of Outlander.  On the whole it seems better written and a more coherent story that GoT on HBO.