[BOOK SPOILERS] Discussing Sansa XVIII - DeReekerization

[artihcus022]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I couldn't find a quote but I found an EW article which addresses this. The article said, "In fact, the showrunners first thought about putting Sansa and Ramsay together back when they were writing season 2". I know that a sentence in an article doesn't make it true, but the same one quotes Bryan Cogman (who wrote that episode) saying, "The seeds were planted early on in our minds". So having this happen to Sansa was something they planned from way back.

All of your other questions are good ones, though. The fact that their story-telling is so illogical and painfully incoherent isn't because they came up with this idea at the last minute. It's because they had to make it incoherent to make it happen at all.

I disagree with that, if they planned this from the first than Sansa backing Littlefinger to the Lords Declarant makes no fucking sense whatsover. They went ahead on the book plotline in Season 4 and the understanding viewers took from that was that regarding Sansa was that in Season 5 the show will go ahead of the books, have a show-exclusive plot or have padding much like Arya and the Hound. There is absolutely zero hints or foreshadowing, not even like Roose Bolton hinting that Ramsay will soon get married and the like. They just dropped that entirely in Season 5.

More importantly, Sophie Turner herself didn't know about the story until she got the script for the 5th Season. GRRM also definitely did not know until Season 5 hence the release of the Alayne chapter before Season 5 opened, hence him deciding that he's not going to write the next two seasons anymore.

That is why I think Mr. Cogman's statement is plainly an exaggeration (like say an idea, among many others, that they tossed around about the fifth book in writing sessions) or a lie. They do not plan out the adaptations in advance and take a season-by-season approach. We will obviously not know the truth until the show is done and researchers get access to the archives but its clear from the show itself that they make up the show and what subplots they will or will not stick to season-by-season and are not coherent at all.

[artihcus022]

Why has Martin not once said this - `Sansa has not been raped in the books and This is a show-only deviation.` He said it for the Cersei rape.

But he goes out of his way to avoid even saying the word Sansa. Read his blog post, never says Sansa.

What GRRM does say in the two key blog-posts (which hints a lot) is this:

1) In the meantime, we hope that the readers and viewers both enjoy the journey. Or journeys, as the case may be. Sometimes butterflies grow into dragons. ((I am closing comments on this post. Take your discussions to the other sites I have mentioned. And for those who may be curious as to the road the books are taking, I direct you to the WINDS OF WINTER sample chapters on my website)

http://grrm.livejournal.com/427713.html

He says "journeys" in that he sees the show has taking a separate direction from his books.

2) "Yes, I know, I'd said there would be no more sample chapters, but (1) it had been more than a year since Mercy, (2) lots of you were asking, and (3) Anne Groell and my friends at Bantam twisted my arm."

http://grrm.livejournal.com/416453.html

That line "Anne Groell and my friends at Bantam twisted my arm" suggests that they knew what was going to happen and wanted to clearly give readers to know where the book plotline is heading so that people don't confuse it for the show.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I disagree with that, if they planned this from the first than Sansa backing Littlefinger to the Lords Declarant makes no fucking sense whatsover. They went ahead on the book plotline in Season 4 and the understanding viewers took from that was that regarding Sansa was that in Season 5 the show will go ahead of the books, have a show-exclusive plot or have padding much like Arya and the Hound. There is absolutely zero hints or foreshadowing, not even like Roose Bolton hinting that Ramsay will soon get married and the like. They just dropped that entirely in Season 5.

More importantly, Sophie Turner herself didn't know about the story until she got the script for the 5th Season. GRRM also definitely did not know until Season 5 hence the release of the Alayne chapter before Season 5 opened, hence him deciding that he's not going to write the next two seasons anymore.

That is why I think Mr. Cogman's statement is plainly an exaggeration (like say an idea, among many others, that they tossed around about the fifth book in writing sessions) or a lie. They do not plan out the adaptations in advance and take a season-by-season approach.

LF did not think of the marriage plan until Sansa reviled herself to the Lords of the Vale.

GRRM release Alyane due to TWOW not coming out and Sansa was going past published material. It makes sense even to do it even if they stayed in the Vale,did Henry the Heir, and the poisoning of Sweet Robin.

[artihcus022]

GRRM release Alyane due to TWOW not coming out and Sansa was going past published material. It makes sense even to do it even if they stayed in the Vale,did Henry the Heir, and the poisoning of Sweet Robin.

Not at all. He released Mercy before the premier of Season 4 when the show had her kill "dude who killed Lommy" (Raff the Sweetling in the books, Polliver in the Show). He was obviously getting irritated with the show's butterfly effect. Then next year he followed it up with the new Alayne chapter when the show started diverging from it again.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Not at all. He released Mercy before the premier of Season 4 when the show had her kill "dude who killed Lommy" (Raff the Sweetling in the books, Polliver in the Show). He was obviously getting irritated with the show's butterfly effect. Then next year he followed it up with the new Alayne chapter when the show started diverging from it again.

Your conclusion is just an opinion with alot of conjuctures. I do not have your ability to read GRRM intentions on these manners. He could as easily be happy the whole INN scene from the Hound to Arya killing Polliver and wanted to show what part they were adapting from a unpublished part of the book. People are free to judge but does not mean you know what he intended.

[Woman of War]

I have bigger issues with them feeling the need to inform us about how they were looking this beautiful teenager growing up and making plans for her rape. I mean, WTF... Even thought, some things should never be spoken.

They saw Sophie Turner the young actress grow up and no one made any plans for her rape.

They may have made a plan for the fictional character Sansa to be raped by Ramsay, just like Martin had longterm plans for the boy Theon to get tortured. Is he evil, planning abuse for years already when he imagined Theon as cute ten years old?

You are getting outright insulting towards the showmakers.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

I disagree with that, if they planned this from the first than Sansa backing Littlefinger to the Lords Declarant makes no fucking sense whatsover. They went ahead on the book plotline in Season 4 and the understanding viewers took from that was that regarding Sansa was that in Season 5 the show will go ahead of the books, have a show-exclusive plot or have padding much like Arya and the Hound. There is absolutely zero hints or foreshadowing, not even like Roose Bolton hinting that Ramsay will soon get married and the like. They just dropped that entirely in Season 5.

More importantly, Sophie Turner herself didn't know about the story until she got the script for the 5th Season. GRRM also definitely did not know until Season 5 hence the release of the Alayne chapter before Season 5 opened, hence him deciding that he's not going to write the next two seasons anymore.

That is why I think Mr. Cogman's statement is plainly an exaggeration (like say an idea, among many others, that they tossed around about the fifth book in writing sessions) or a lie. They do not plan out the adaptations in advance and take a season-by-season approach. We will obviously not know the truth until the show is done and researchers get access to the archives but its clear from the show itself that they make up the show and what subplots they will or will not stick to season-by-season and are not coherent at all.

Well, have you read the "Rant and Rave" thread? 90% of the complaints are about how nothing makes any fucking sense whatsoever! :D So them not making any fucking sense whatsoever with this Sansa/Jeyne switcheroo is really just par for the course for them. The lack of sense, to me, argues that they were so determined to have Sansa in this storyline that they jettisoned any need for coherence to get it.

And Sophie and George not knowing about this in advance is not actually evidence that the showrunners didn't have it planned. It could simply mean that they didn't tell anyone about it.

But, at any rate, you say "po-tay-to" and I say "po-tah-to". I respect your posts even though I don't see this particular issue the same as you do.

:cheers:

[artihcus022]

They may have made a plan for the fictional character Sansa to be raped by Ramsay, just like Martin had longterm plans for the boy Theon to get tortured. Is he evil, planning abuse for years already when he imagined Theon as cute ten years old?

You are getting outright insulting towards the showmakers.

I agree with this. Look let's leave out the behind-the-scenes stuff. This is acting after all, and in Taxi Driver they had a scenes with an actual teenage Jodie Foster and that was done with body-doubles, parents consent and creative film-makers. That is a masterpiece of cinema after all.

Let's stick to legitimate criticisms on aesthetic grounds. Aesthetically my main problem with them saying they planned this since Season 2 is that nothing in the show between S2 to S5 shows anything that supports that amount of planning. We see belated introductions of new cast material after their introductory scenes. The actors don't know the direction the plot is taking and think they are playing a completely different character and story at the end of a season then at the start of the next.

And then in defense they offer bold-faced lies.

[artihcus022]

But, at any rate, you say "po-tay-to" and I say "po-tah-to". I respect your posts even though I don't see this particular issue the same as you do.

:cheers:

No perhaps you are right. I have been overestimating the showrunners skill. When I say they plan this season-by-season I was giving them a benefit of doubt and excusing some of the plotlines and stuff they emphasize. Now I realize that they actually do write that way and think they have set up and foreshadowed events in that manner.

[Mladen]

They saw Sophie Turner the young actress grow up and no one made any plans for her rape.

They may have made a plan for the fictional character Sansa to be raped by Ramsay, just like Martin had longterm plans for the boy Theon to get tortured. Is he evil, planning abuse for years already when he imagined Theon as cute ten years old?

You are getting outright insulting towards the showmakers.

Thank you for that needless explanation. I never thought that something like that needs to be cleared out and downright spelled out, but apparently we kinda do :bang: :bang: :bang:

Thing is that the show started to despicably sexualize children's actors through the characters. This is nothing new, after all, we are talking about Hollywood, where the likes of Taylor Lautner or Emma Watson have been named sex symbols before they could even vote. So, this is nothing new. But, let we not pretend it is not something disturbing. I have no problem with 26 years old Madden playing 16 year old Robb having sex. I do have problems with 16 years old Chapman playing 12 years Tommen being a "breaking records" sex machine. I had problems with "creative decisions" that turned Podrick into sex beast. I have problems with the necessity of over-sexualizing Sansa's storyline for no apparent reason whatsoever. Because not only that they haven't missed a single opportunity they legally could have exploited, but they have added couple of things for no reason other than "spicing it up". I have problems when we have one of the writers is basically saying "we have been looking for this chance since she was 15, but you know, our hands were tied, because of those pesky laws about minors" If this is supposed to be just the scene, then why couldn't she have shot it earlier? Because we all know that little thing... It is not just a scene.

Let's stick to legitimate criticisms on aesthetic grounds. Aesthetically my main problem with them saying they planned this since Season 2 is that nothing in the show between S2 to S5 shows anything that supports that amount of planning. We see belated introductions of new cast material after their introductory scenes. The actors don't know the direction the plot is taking and think they are playing a completely different character and story at the end of a season then at the start of the next.

And then in defense they offer bold-faced lies.

I would agree that they are full of BS about planning this. But, I have no knowledge that would dispute their words, so I kinda have to take it as true. Interestingly enough, it is like choosing which one is worse...

[Woman of War]

Well, TV shows, and really all sorts of Literature, really sell on the basis that you buy these characters as real people. That's the entire point of the fourth wall. So, in some way, they're real and they cause real emotions. The same way they can be used to emotionally manipulate the audience, whatsoever. Why do you think people reacted at Cat's death and Ned's death? I don't understand how you can like these, or any books, if you don't connect with characters. I mean, where you laughing at the RW? After all, they are only "fictional".

Not to mention people that have empathy form bonds with said characters, which is why it's understandable that it causes emotional impact.

Martin is a writer who keeps the fourth wall very upright, he may though give us the illusion of holes in it when certain characters act as his voice in the story, seem to have his dreams for the world and may entertain ideological values ahead of their time. It is still conventional theater. This is not Tyrion or Septon Meribald talking to us about their world like Frank Underwood might, or Lemony Snicket, this is Tyrion or Septon M. talking to others or to himself within the story.

They who cause the emotions are precisely not the actors but the characters who are fictional through and through. They keep the Fourth Wall very upright, we do not see the machines making artificial snow, we do not see the actors speaking to the audience. We can and should suffer with the characters they let come to fictional life, it's called immersion.

But taking the actor (or any other member of the entertainment industry) as the real thing is the big fandom illusion.

No, Angelina Jolie is not Lara Croft and Sophie Turner is not Sansa, in three years she will have another job.

[Woman of War]

Thing is that the show started to despicably sexualize children's actors through the characters. This is nothing new, after all, we are talking about Hollywood, where the likes of Taylor Lautner or Emma Watson have been named sex symbols before they could even vote. So, this is nothing new. But, let we not pretend it is not something disturbing. I have no problem with 26 years old Madden playing 16 year old Robb having sex. I do have problems with 16 years old Chapman playing 12 years Tommen being a "breaking records" sex machine. .....I have problems with the necessity of over-sexualizing Sansa's storyline for no apparent reason whatsoever. Because not only that they haven't missed a single opportunity they legally could have exploited, but they have added couple of things for no reason other than "spicing it up". I have problems when we have one of the writers is basically saying "we have been looking for this chance since she was 15, but you know, our hands were tied, because of those pesky laws about minors" If this is supposed to be just the scene, then why couldn't she have shot it earlier? Because we all know that little thing... It is not just a scene

Now you have changed your argumentation towards general criticism of tendencies in entertainment. I disagree. If anything the awareness against sexualizing children in Western cultural industries has grown in public, fortunately

And why do you pile up that load of in part justified general cultural criticism on the treatment of precisely the character Sansa by D&D? Actually the contrary of your accusations is the case.

Now imagine those perverts had chosen to film everything Martin has written in the books:

A twelve year old stripped naked to the waist and getting publicly beaten.

An drunk assailant throwing her on her bed, holding a knife at her throat.

A twelve year old undressing herself to a man whom she expects to have sex with against her will and who climbs on her bed naked before he tells her he won't rape her.

That is what Martin the pervert had in mind for Sansa. Clearly not sexualizing a child character before her time, oh no!

But the showmakers decided against showing us all those perversions Martin wrote.

[Mladen]

Now you have changed your argumentation towards general criticism of tendencies in entertainment. I disagree. If anything the awareness against sexualizing children in Western cultural industries has grown in public, fortunately

And why do you pile up that load of in part justified cultural criticism on the treatment of the character Sansa by D&D? Actually the contrary of your accusations is the case.

Now imagine those perverts had chosen to film everything Martin has written in the books:

A twelve year old stripped naked to the waist and getting publicly beaten.

An drunk assailant throwing her on her bed, holding a knife at her throat.

A twelve year old undressing herself to a man whom she expects to have sex with against her will and who climbs on her bed naked before he tells her he won't rape her.

That is what Martin the pervert had in mind for Sansa. Clearly not sexualizing a child character before her time, oh no!

But the showmakers decided against showing us all those perversions Martin wrote.

No, I am not changing an argument, the argument is still the same.

No, showmakers didn't decide against showing us all of that. They were prohibited by laws they had to abide to. Huge difference.

And yes, the awareness against sexualizing children has grown, luckily. That still doesn't mean it is not out there. I am still thinking about Tommen, Sansa, Podrick... I have to thank the God they see Arya as tomboy, otherwise who knows what we would get there...

[earth127]

Have you read the sample chapter Mercy? That's what we would get.

[Woman of War]

Tp, sorry

[Woman of War]

Tp, sorry

[Woman of War]

No, I am not changing an argument, the argument is still the same.

No, showmakers didn't decide against showing us all of that. They were prohibited by laws they had to abide to. Huge difference.

And yes, the awareness against sexualizing children has grown, luckily. That still doesn't mean it is not out there. I am still thinking about Tommen, Sansa, Podrick... I have to thank the God they see Arya as tomboy, otherwise who knows what we would get there...

We did not actually see Pod (what is his age in the show in season 4???, he was hardly younger than Sansa is now) or Tommen have sex nor did we see Sansa getting undressed.

But the show indirectly tells us that Pod and Tommen had sex. So what?? Children or juveniles have sex all the time. It's the context that makes the music.

"Sexualized" means that they are artificially written towards fantasies of abusers into enjoying their abuse without any bad consequences. This is not the case here:

Pod enjoying that experience is absolutely realistic, the situation as a whole was over the top and this has nothing to do with Pod's age, whatever that may be. But I agree, Pod as sexy beast was thoroughly cliché. Tyrion wanted to show being thankful in the way Tyrion thought fitting, the general idea was not bad but they could have been more subtle with the realization, it was ridiculous sledgehammer.

The case may be different with Tommen. Not his age is the problem, thirteen year olds somtimes have sex, it's the age and intention of people who want to make use of him.

And we will see how that sexual manipulation will turn out as dark exploitation. Subjectively, at that moment, the boy in puberty enjoyed the sex with a beautiful older woman, not being aware of what is done to him. Boys in puberty are randy, this is not not artificial. But exploiting that randyness is evil.

This is not at all "sexualizing" a child artificially, exploiting Tommen is the topic of that plotline, it is presented as manipulative, as making use of Tommen's naiveté. Him formulating those threats after being helpless in the face of Margaery's arrest shows that the adults around him have started to wake the worst in a nice and naive boy.

This is great writing, not "sexualizing" as topic. It is twisting his personality as topic.

And Sansa has been written as object of sexual interest by Martin even as twelve year old. "Sexualized" would mean that she gets written into agreeing to or even enjoying her abuse, fanfiction to alleviate the conscience of child porn consumers. The contrary is the case. Not ever did she enjoy anything that is done to her. She may have entertained the idea of having Loras as husband, a crush but not "sexualization".

Nor is Arya written as "sexualized" in that Mercy chapter. There is no way she is written as enjoying what she believes she has to do in order to get her revenge.

"Sexualizing" means belittling the consequences, means imposing the producers' sexual wishes on a fictional character in an obscene manner. Are you suggesting the scriptwriters dream of raping Sansa? I sometimes got that impression and this idea is offensive.

Using the topic of sexuality around a character is simply not the same as "sexualizing" a character.

[Mladen]

This is not at all "sexualizing" a child artificially, exploiting Tommen is the topic of that plotline, it is presented as manipulative, as making use of Tommen's naiveté. Him formulating those threats after being helpless in the face of Margaery's arrest shows that the adults around him have started to wake the worst in a nice and naive boy.

This is great writing, not "sexualizing" as topic. It is twisting his personality as topic.

LOL... First Melisandre with Gendry, now Margaery with Tommen. That is not great writing (LOL for even thinking about that way), it is just lazy writing. Believe it or not, boys can be manipulated also without women spreading their legs and/or showing breasts.

Have you read the sample chapter Mercy? That's what we would get.

True...

[Woman of War]

I'm so sorry

LOL... First Melisandre with Gendry, now Margaery with Tommen. That is not great writing (LOL for even thinking about that way) it is just lazy writing. Believe it or not, boys can be manipulated also without women spreading their legs and/or showing breasts.

.

I am soooo sorry for having an opinion different from yours.......

Everybody can be manipulated in very different ways. And how would you have manipulated Tommen successfully, the rich king of Westeros? What is it he does not have? Sex and the feeling of being a grownup. Margaery gave him both, using sex, the most promising approach.

[Lord Freypie]

Marg could have used kittens if Tommen hadn't been turned into a 5 years older character than he was the previous day (and the following of his arc, like his lack of reaction in the trial, would have been far more believable).

But out of that I agree, forgetting this uneeded change that only had half the consequences it should have had, Marg/Tommen arc was fine.