Where do we go from Here, part 2 (Spoilers Galore)

[Chilli]

I think I read/heard in an interview that Sophie Turner loved to film the almost rape scene in Kingslanding. She only had problems with singing for the hound/Sandor Clegane.

[GoldHandTheGood]

In the books, a man writes about -

1. Thirteen year old girl married, raped in graphic detail, along with her subsequent sexual conquests.

2. Brother and sister have three kids together with graphic sex scenes.

3. Little person who is a sex addict and constantly talks about his cock, with numerous detailed sex scenes.

4. Graphic taking of a 15 year old boy's virginity.

5. Multiple accounts of rape, genital mutilation and sexual slavery.

Result? Widely beloved author.

In the TV series, the show-runners HINT that they MIGHT have an 18 year old woman remove her clothes and they're denounced as "perverts".

Logic. It's a thing.

:cheers: :agree:

[clawson24]

Everyone loved to hate Joffrey for 3 seasons, I'm sure Ramsay could pull the same kind of reaction for 2.

re Sansa and Theon, I'm starting to think they will escape and be captured again. I'm getting worried about the lifespan of the Mannis this season. I'm thinking the Pink Letter is the truth in the books and we are going to see the content enacted in the show.

I'm guessing you haven't read the WoW sample chapters yet?

[ummester]

I'm guessing you haven't read the WoW sample chapters yet?

I read Mercy, because a lot of folks were talking about it - but that was it.

[Mithras]

Stannis is pumped up so much. So, the terrible winter will strike him hard. Some of them will start eating their dead. Mel will force him to burn Shireen.

[Anythingatall]

Every time Stannis says something cool, is nice to Jon Snow or sweet with Shireen it's just another nail in his coffin.

I wish that the writers were unpredictable enough for me to draw no conclusion about his sudden decent characterisation. No way he survives the season, they need their shock death. The real shock would be if they let him live... oh well.

[Anythingatall]

In the books, a man writes about -

1. Thirteen year old girl married, raped in graphic detail, along with her subsequent sexual conquests.

2. Brother and sister have three kids together with graphic sex scenes.

3. Little person who is a sex addict and constantly talks about his cock, with numerous detailed sex scenes.

4. Graphic taking of a 15 year old boy's virginity.

5. Multiple accounts of rape, genital mutilation and sexual slavery.

Result? Widely beloved author.

In the TV series, the show-runners HINT that they MIGHT have an 18 year old woman remove her clothes and they're denounced as "perverts".

Logic. It's a thing.

There is this other thing called context.

I actually don't care about Sansa boning Ramsey. I am more interested in why TITS are seemingly shoved into every scene possible regardless of whether it adds anything to the story. Those things you listed serve to enrich the story (mostly). Even the times were GRRM seems needlessly graphic I am cool with it because, generally speak, he has earned my trust.

[StepStark]

In the books, a man writes about -

1. Thirteen year old girl married, raped in graphic detail, along with her subsequent sexual conquests.

2. Brother and sister have three kids together with graphic sex scenes.

3. Little person who is a sex addict and constantly talks about his cock, with numerous detailed sex scenes.

4. Graphic taking of a 15 year old boy's virginity.

5. Multiple accounts of rape, genital mutilation and sexual slavery.

Result? Widely beloved author.

In the TV series, the show-runners HINT that they MIGHT have an 18 year old woman remove her clothes and they're denounced as "perverts".

Logic. It's a thing.

No they are not denounced as perverts but they themselves call themselves perverts. I'm talking about that Neil Marshal interview when he said that one of D&D told to him that he represents "pervert side of the audience". Maybe that will help you understand difference between how the show uses sex and nudity and how the books uses sex and nudity.

[Ser Sinister]

Logic. It's a thing.

Prove it. :lol:

[chambraigne]

No they are not denounced as perverts but they themselves call themselves perverts. I'm talking about that Neil Marshal interview when he said that one of D&D told to him that he represents "pervert side of the audience". Maybe that will help you understand difference between how the show uses sex and nudity and how the books uses sex and nudity.

So you're arguing that GRRM's terrible borderline erotica is somehow not an appeal to the "pervert side of the audience" in the same way that D&D's nudity is? Go back and read the Jon+Ygritte, Aerys+Arianne and Tyrion+Shae chapters. It's basically romance novel writing. D&D are working with the source material they were given. Tits are "shoved into your face in the show" because they are literally shoved into the pages of the books.

The words "teat" and "nipple" occur (combined):

Game of Thrones - 14 times

A Clash of Kings - 22 times

A Storm of Swords - 32 times

A Feast for Crows - 40 times

A Dance with Dragons - 43 times

I'll let you do the searches for "cock" and "cunt".

It's fine to be mad that D&D are changing the stories. It's futile, obstinate and a bit pedantic, but it's fine. But don't pretend that there is some moral boundary that has been crossed because you've been "forced" to view a woman's (or a man's!) body. If you don't like it, please return to such wonderful, non-pornographic and legitimate prose that certainly would never deign to appeal to "perverts" such as

"More, oh more, yes, sweet, my knight, my sweet white knight, yes you, you, I want you." - FFC

"His climax came on him sudden as a storm, and he filled the girl's mouth with his seed. Startled, she tried to pull away, but Theon held her tight by the hair." - CoK

Do I really need more examples to show exactly how silly the argument is that only the show appeals to people's perverted side?

[kacunnin]

He'll be the same as LSH, or Beric - remember that guy who Ned sent after the Mountain and got killed 13 times - a resurrected leader. But, more than just being resurrected, like Beric, he will get cold imbued, like that baby in season 4. Kind of like cold jesus - but not, because in ASoIaF, Lucifer is Lightbringer.

But LSH and Beric were very different characters -- Beric seemed human, in spite of his many resurrections. He could speak normally, he had a personality, he passed for a regular guy. LSH was pretty much a zombie -- she was vengeance personified, she was unable to speak, she may or may not have any memory of her children or the world around her.

I could see Jon ending up like Beric (resurrected but still Jon), but not like LSH. Then again, I've always thought the Others were good guys, and not evil, so maybe he could get "cold imbued," as you said.

And I like your vision of Jon ("ice") and Dany ("fire") in the endgame.

[StepStark]

So you're arguing that GRRM's terrible borderline erotica is somehow not an appeal to the "pervert side of the audience" in the same way that D&D's nudity is? Go back and read the Jon+Ygritte, Aerys+Arianne and Tyrion+Shae chapters. It's basically romance novel writing. D&D are working with the source material they were given. Tits are "shoved into your face in the show" because they are literally shoved into the pages of the books.

The words "teat" and "nipple" occur (combined):

Game of Thrones - 14 times

A Clash of Kings - 22 times

A Storm of Swords - 32 times

A Feast for Crows - 40 times

A Dance with Dragons - 43 times

I'll let you do the searches for "cock" and "cunt".

It's fine to be mad that D&D are changing the stories. It's futile, obstinate and a bit pedantic, but it's fine. But don't pretend that there is some moral boundary that has been crossed because you've been "forced" to view a woman's (or a man's!) body. If you don't like it, please return to such wonderful, non-pornographic and legitimate prose that certainly would never deign to appeal to "perverts" such as

"More, oh more, yes, sweet, my knight, my sweet white knight, yes you, you, I want you." - FFC

"His climax came on him sudden as a storm, and he filled the girl's mouth with his seed. Startled, she tried to pull away, but Theon held her tight by the hair." - CoK

Do I really need more examples to show exactly how silly the argument is that only the show appeals to people's perverted side?

Maybe you are just a kid and you still didn't have sex but once you do you will find out that people often talk like that while they're having sex. Also when they think about sex they often think words like "cock" and "cunt". So it is only realistic that Martin describes sex and sexual feelings that way. LOL many modern authors use same expressions or even worse. Difference between that and pornography isn't about what words are used and what aren't but in what way are those words used. If you don't like Martin's sexual scenes that is fine. To tell the truth I dislike some of them. But to confuse that with pornography is simply absurd because all those scenes involve important characters and their relations to other characters. But in the show sex is very often used just for "pervert side of the audience" like D&D themselves explained. So you don't have to argue with me but with D&D. And by the way it is not that D&D simply change things but that their writing is ridiculous and stupid. It is embarrassing how poor they write. So don't try to teach me about morality if you don't have problem with writing that is as stupid as D&D's. It would be better for you to develop some critical thinking instead of blindly defending writers without any talent.

[Titan]

In the books, a man writes about -

1. Thirteen year old girl married, raped in graphic detail, along with her subsequent sexual conquests.

2. Brother and sister have three kids together with graphic sex scenes.

3. Little person who is a sex addict and constantly talks about his cock, with numerous detailed sex scenes.

4. Graphic taking of a 15 year old boy's virginity.

5. Multiple accounts of rape, genital mutilation and sexual slavery.

Result? Widely beloved author.

In the TV series, the show-runners HINT that they MIGHT have an 18 year old woman remove her clothes and they're denounced as "perverts".

Logic. It's a thing.

So true! So many people seem to have just glossed over the lurid details in the books.

[chambraigne]

Maybe you are just a kid and you still didn't have sex but once you do you will find out that people often talk like that while they're having sex. Also when they think about sex they often think words like "cock" and "cunt". So it is only realistic that Martin describes sex and sexual feelings that way. LOL many modern authors use same expressions or even worse. Difference between that and pornography isn't about what words are used and what aren't but in what way are those words used. If you don't like Martin's sexual scenes that is fine. To tell the truth I dislike some of them. But to confuse that with pornography is simply absurd because all those scenes involve important characters and their relations to other characters. But in the show sex is very often used just for "pervert side of the audience" like D&D themselves explained. So you don't have to argue with me but with D&D. And by the way it is not that D&D simply change things but that their writing is ridiculous and stupid. It is embarrassing how poor they write. So don't try to teach me about morality if you don't have problem with writing that is as stupid as D&D's. It would be better for you to develop some critical thinking instead of blindly defending writers without any talent.

As a matter of fact, I don't have any problems with GRRM's writing. I love these books. I have a problem with people that are blatant GRRM fanboys who view any deviation from the source material as problematic, but want to hide behind some sort of moral curtain to make their own judgements. If you don't like the direction of the show, fine. Really, it's not an issue. When you start to say that the show runners are "perverts" because there is nudity that you didn't expect in the series, you really are just being hypocritical. I would suggest you put on your own "critical thinking" hat and actually read my posts instead of assuming things about my age/sexual experience/etc and flaming off about how I shouldn't be teaching you anything.

It's obvious that many of the "pervert" crowd have a vested interest in keeping Sansa pure and unspoiled for a hypothetical return to Winterfell as the Wardeness of the North. I doubt she survives the books unless she starts to deviate from her "courtesy is a lady's armor" way of thinking. She's too one-dimensional to be a proper GRRM heroine. The talk of the righteousness of her claim to the seat seals it for me in the same way that it seals Stannis' fate. If there is one thing that these books should have taught you, it's that your RIGHT means nothing if you're missing your head or someone cuts your throat.

[HodoringHodor]

I love how it gets repeated everyday here no matter what D&D do they're stupid worthless hacks who only started making the series so they destroy the books.

[chambraigne]

TL;DR -

If you expected a TV adaptation to not include gratuitous sexual imagery when it's based on a series by GRRM, one of the most lecherous, dirty old men to pick up a fantasy pen, picked up by a production company whose previous credits include Hung, Tell Me You Love Me, True Blood and many others, you have UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, and those are your fault and yours alone. The end.

[StepStark]

As a matter of fact, I don't have any problems with GRRM's writing. I love these books. I have a problem with people that are blatant GRRM fanboys who view any deviation from the source material as problematic, but want to hide behind some sort of moral curtain to make their own judgements. If you don't like the direction of the show, fine. Really, it's not an issue. When you start to say that the show runners are "perverts" because there is nudity that you didn't expect in the series, you really are just being hypocritical. I would suggest you put on your own "critical thinking" hat and actually read my posts instead of assuming things about my age/sexual experience/etc and flaming off about how I shouldn't be teaching you anything.

It's obvious that many of the "pervert" crowd have a vested interest in keeping Sansa pure and unspoiled for a hypothetical return to Winterfell as the Wardeness of the North. I doubt she survives the books unless she starts to deviate from her "courtesy is a lady's armor" way of thinking. She's too one-dimensional to be a proper GRRM heroine. The talk of the righteousness of her claim to the seat seals it for me in the same way that it seals Stannis' fate. If there is one thing that these books should have taught you, it's that your RIGHT means nothing if you're missing your head or someone cuts your throat.

How ironic that it is you who actually failed to read my post. Did I mention Sansa at all? Of course I didn't. If and when something happens then I will discuss it but for now I can't discuss nudity of Sansa because it didn't fucking happen right? So I was only replying to your post in which you put equality between books sex+nudity and show sex+nudity. And that is simply ridiculous sorry to say. Yes, there is lot of ridiculous and exploitative nudity in the show like all those brothel scenes. It is not problematic because it wasn't in the books but because it is exploitative. It serves only pervert side of the audience. And the funny thing is that D&D don't even try to hide it so I really don't know why are you apologists denying it. And by the way if Sansa looks one-dimensional to you then you better read books again because a lot escaped you. Instead of doing this mental gymnastic to defend two terrible writers maybe you'd better be reading books again and find out what you missed. Or you could start watching really quality TV like Sopranos and Wire and see the difference between that and this garbage that is GOT.

[chambraigne]

This is obviously a very personal issue for you, so I'll let you rant for a bit and maybe come back to the conversation with a bit of perspective. I won't let the thread devolve into a name-calling contest because you're more interested in discussing the aesthetic rather than the rhetorical merits of the show. Enjoy your frothing rage.

[ummester]

And I like your vision of Jon ("ice") and Dany ("fire") in the endgame.

Cheers, though it isn't entirely mine - it's based on the Ragnarok thoery, which I read and thought - wow, that fits better than any other theory I've read - so have been thinking about how it can work with book and show since.

[intheswamp]

I'm guessing you haven't read the WoW sample chapters yet?

I think the sample chapter you are thinking of from Winds actually happens before the end of Dance. The timeline is really screwed up, which can make things confusing. Either way, I don't think Stannis is actually dead in the books, at least, not dead yet.

TL;DR -

If you expected a TV adaptation to not include gratuitous sexual imagery when it's based on a series based on something written by GRRM, one of the most lecherous, dirty old men to pick up a fantasy pen, picked up by a production company whose previous credits include Hung, Tell Me You Love Me, True Blood and many others, you have UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, and those are your fault and yours alone. The end.

You are right about GRRM using gratuitous, and worse yet, cheesy sex scenes throughout the series. I also always find it interesting when viewers complain about how women are depicted as stupid, crazy, and/or sex-crazed on the show. What do they expect? Outside of tomboys and old women, nearly every major female character in the books is depicted as stupid, crazy, and/or sex-crazed. Characters like Cersei and Margaery, who can barely be called a character in the books, are much more well-rounded on the show.

That's not to say that most of the male characters are depicted as any better.