[BOOK SPOILERS] Gendry and Melisandre Scene

[ugashep]

The term "sex-phobic" is a new one on me, I don't necessarily care about the nudity, its HBO after all, however I don't think those who dislike gratuitous nudity are all wrong, sometimes sex and nudity in film advances a story and sometimes its just an appeal to our base instincts. If you just want to get your rocks off, go watch a porno, too much useless nudity is kind of like too many fart jokes, its just a lame and low in excess.

[silentwanderer]

My take on this scene is Mel still has every intention of sacrificing Gendry at a later date. This was as she said clearly," He didn't believe in the power of kings blood, he wanted a demonstration." Speaking of Davos. The leeching is the demonstration and fulfills a necessary part of her plan. The seduction was to lull him into a false sense of security so she could strap him down and have the time needed to leech him. He freaks out because he doesn't have any idea where this is going or how it will end since she seems to take all of this with a cavalier attitude. And with this done, he will think the worst is over, again falling into a false sense of security. With no real harm done, and with Stannis and Davos there taking this all in stride, Gendry will feel like they have used him for their purposes. Only the real plan is to sacrifice him.

I agree, Melisandre is not going to stop until she sacrifices Stannis's nephew.

The only reason he went for Davos is because Stannis knows how wrong this is, but for some reason, he couldn't tell Melisandre himself.

[NedStark2013]

Nots sure what it is but I think the show is working really hard to make her seem a villain. Yes she did bad things but there are scenes where I think she is a not so bad person really. I think she truely believes she is serving a God. While I think its a more powerful sorcerer or being like a walker but not per say a God. I think she is being used to aide the walkers return

[chris999]

Dull. And hard to believe that (book) Gendry would fear leeches so much that he begs mercy. :read: :smug:

She put one 'down there' though...

I dont think that would be very enjoyable.

[DarkAndFullOfTurnips]

You're right, I didn't find it funny, but that's not it. It wasn't a light remark, nor the right place to do it, it was a very bad joke.

You really need to lighten up if you think it wasn't a light remark. I'm fine with you not finding it funny or thinking it was a bad joke, but if you think that's a genuine personal attack, well...lighten up.

You realize people are complaining about a man's reaction to getting his penis leeched as if anybody knows what that would be like or it was consequential in the least? The irony in my comment was that it's just so typical of the constant negativity and pessimism on these boards ("Character assassination", "White washing", "Male gaze", "gratuitous nudity") to make a big deal out of the stupidest little things.

My apologies for calling leeches insects. I meant no offense and I will get right on that research.

[The Mondrian Oak]

I'll drop it here just because you're asking nicely.

As long as you don't bring your bad jokes back to the discussion.

Mate, again, chill out. Granting me your royal pardon makes you look like you're trying to win the internet. Don't.

You really need to lighten up if you think it wasn't a light remark. I'm fine with you not finding it funny or thinking it was a bad joke, but if you think that's a genuine personal attack, well...lighten up.

You realize people are complaining about a man's reaction to getting his penis leeched as if anybody knows what that would be like or it was consequential in the least? The irony in my comment was that it's just so typical of the constant negativity and pessimism on these boards ("Character assassination", "White washing", "Male gaze", "gratuitous nudity") to make a big deal out of the stupidest little things.

My apologies for calling leeches insects. I meant no offense and I will get right on that research.

You know, DarkAndFullOfTurnips, I've just seen a freshly written "Mary Sue" on another thread. How poignant.

And I just asked my girlfriend (my personal biology Wikipedia) about leeches: they're anellids, like earthworms!

[Q the Cat]

I thought this thread was about leaches, no?

Gross. And poor, innocent Gendry. No shipping him off with Arya now.

[Ser Cookie Monster]

You really need to lighten up if you think it wasn't a light remark. I'm fine with you not finding it funny or thinking it was a bad joke, but if you think that's a genuine personal attack, well...lighten up.

You realize people are complaining about a man's reaction to getting his penis leeched as if anybody knows what that would be like or it was consequential in the least? The irony in my comment was that it's just so typical of the constant negativity and pessimism on these boards ("Character assassination", "White washing", "Male gaze", "gratuitous nudity") to make a big deal out of the stupidest little things.

My apologies for calling leeches insects. I meant no offense and I will get right on that research.

Why do I even bother? Did you read all my posts on the matter? I understood the irony of your joke. I know many people here use those terms way too often, and incorrectly. Even I get tired of it sometimes. I know many people here complain about very small details, and sometimes make a big deal out of nothing. I admit I complain about little details, too (accents, Sam not picking up the dagger, inconsistences of the placement of the dragon skulls, Grey Worm understanding the Common Tongue, etc). I don't use those terms, though. The only one I have used is "whitewashing" and only with Tyrion (because I believe it is whitewashing).

But what I mean is: the poster who you replied to was giving his opinions on why Gendry shouldn't have screamed. Instead of giving valid arguments back, you just replied with a bad joke. In your joke you use the term "character assassination", which implies he is a whiner, and that he is claiming a "character assassination" has happened; when actually he never said such thing, and when nobody had used that term in this thread. It is mockery, and it's mocking other posters and their opinions about the scene. Your joke was unnecessary and out of place.

That's what I mean, not that you should apologize, or anything. Just understand that replying with that joke to another poster and his arguments, and specifically in this thread, was improper and a bad move.

Mate, again, chill out. Granting me your royal pardon makes you look like you're trying to win the internet. Don't.

LOL. I'm very calmed down. When did I grant you my pardon, or asked you to apologize? And this is hilarious, isn't it? The same person who told me "Stop it here, please" is the one who continues arguing about the matter. Who is the one that looks like is trying to "win the internet"? I wonder.....

[The Mondrian Oak]

LOL. I'm very calmed down. When did I grant you my pardon, or asked you to apologize? And this is hilarious, isn't it? The same person who told me "Stop it here, please" is the one who continues arguing about the matter. Who is the one that looks like is trying to "win the internet"? I wonder.....

"I'll drop it here, but just because you're asking nicely, but as long as you no don't bring your back jokes here again." We could argue for a thousand posts more, yet neither of us cares any longer. That's it. Noone has won the internet. Everyone will be free to express their point of view, everyone will be free to make jokes you don't find funny, everyone will be free to bring rational arguments. Now, me first, back on topic.

[Master Forel's Fro]

Nots sure what it is but I think the show is working really hard to make her seem a villain. Yes she did bad things but there are scenes where I think she is a not so bad person really. I think she truely believes she is serving a God. While I think its a more powerful sorcerer or being like a walker but not per say a God. I think she is being used to aide the walkers return

Thoros was sent to convert Robert baratheon and she's sent to make sure the next king of westeros serves The Lord of light (in the show at least)

[Ser Cookie Monster]

"I'll drop it here, but just because you're asking nicely, but as long as you no don't bring your back jokes here again."

I wasn't "granting you my royal pardon" with those lines. I was sealing our agreement on leaving the matter. But seems like we both broke the deal, and we are both terrible at keeping our words.

We could argue for a thousand posts more, yet neither of us cares any longer. That's it. Noone has won the internet. Everyone will be free to express their point of view, everyone will be free to make jokes you don't find funny, everyone will be free to bring rational arguments.

OK. (I was going to add something else, but nevermind, why bother).

Now, me first, back on topic.

After you.

P.S: Now, I'll leave the matter for good. "I swear it by ice and fire".

[The Mondrian Oak]

I wasn't "granting you my royal pardon" with those lines. I was sealing our agreement on leaving the matter. But seems like we both broke the deal, and we are both terrible at keeping our words.

OK. (I was going to add something else, but nevermind, why bother).

After you.

P.S: Now, I'll leave the matter for good. "I swear it by ice and fire".

I swear it by earth and water. I swear it by bronze and iron.

[Master Forel's Fro]

Nots sure what it is but I think the show is working really hard to make her seem a villain. Yes she did bad things but there are scenes where I think she is a not so bad person really. I think she truely believes she is serving a God. While I think its a more powerful sorcerer or being like a walker but not per say a God. I think she is being used to aide the walkers return

The stannis from begining of GoT was a good man and would have made a good king, she's there to destroy him and his character and turn the kingdom againt him. The whole "you'll betray everything you once held dear....." Line and all.

[Miodrag]

The irony in my comment was that it's just so typical of the constant negativity and pessimism on these boards ("Character assassination", "White washing", "Male gaze", "gratuitous nudity") to make a big deal out of the stupidest little things.

Constant negativity and pessimism? Making big deal out of the stupidest little things? Really?

Not so long ago, a number of posters on these very forums were trying to persuade the rest of us that “Pod the sex god” scene had some higher meaning, like, Littlefinger settling some debts with Tyrion that way, or Tyrion staging everything to boost Pod’s self-esteem, or some other crazy theory. It was amazing how far those people were willing to go in order to justify something that was quite ridiculous from the very start. In fact, ridiculous may be an understatement: of all the books and all the movies and all the TV shows that dealt with prostitution in any way, GoT is probably the first ever to come up with whores giving back the money they’ve been paid in advance. Not one whore, but three of them! And people were actually defending the scene, and in their defense they went the greatest possible lengths. They even argued with Elio, even though he had seen the following episode.

If “constant pessimism” is something that bothers you, just try to imagine how annoying “constant optimism” may be. Even when most irritating, we book-purists are amateurs compared to show-purists and their enthusiasm for each and every on-screen stupidity.

[Khal Pono]

Constant negativity and pessimism? Making big deal out of the stupidest little things? Really?

Not so long ago, a number of posters on these very forums were trying to persuade the rest of us that “Pod the sex god” scene had some higher meaning, like, Littlefinger settling some debts with Tyrion that way, or Tyrion staging everything to boost Pod’s self-esteem, or some other crazy theory. It was amazing how far those people were willing to go in order to justify something that was quite ridiculous from the very start. In fact, ridiculous may be an understatement: of all the books and all the movies and all the TV shows that dealt with prostitution in any way, GoT is probably the first ever to come up with whores giving back the money they’ve been paid in advance. Not one whore, but three of them! And people were actually defending the scene, and in their defense they went the greatest possible lengths. They even argued with Elio, even though he had seen the following episode.

If “constant pessimism” is something that bothers you, just try to imagine how annoying “constant optimism” may be. Even when most irritating, we book-purists are amateurs compared to show-purists and their enthusiasm for each and every on-screen stupidity.

So... how sped up have the sword fights looked this season? We're dying to know.

[The Mondrian Oak]

Constant negativity and pessimism? Making big deal out of the stupidest little things? Really?

Not so long ago, a number of posters on these very forums were trying to persuade the rest of us that “Pod the sex god” scene had some higher meaning, like, Littlefinger settling some debts with Tyrion that way, or Tyrion staging everything to boost Pod’s self-esteem, or some other crazy theory. It was amazing how far those people were willing to go in order to justify something that was quite ridiculous from the very start. In fact, ridiculous may be an understatement: of all the books and all the movies and all the TV shows that dealt with prostitution in any way, GoT is probably the first ever to come up with whores giving back the money they’ve been paid in advance. Not one whore, but three of them! And people were actually defending the scene, and in their defense they went the greatest possible lengths. They even argued with Elio, even though he had seen the following episode.

If “constant pessimism” is something that bothers you, just try to imagine how annoying “constant optimism” may be. Even when most irritating, we book-purists are amateurs compared to show-purists and their enthusiasm for each and every on-screen stupidity.

I tend to agree with you; the fact is that both sides have an extremist approach. Book purists have a tendency to bash on everything: SHIT SHIT WHITEWASHING SHIT MARY SUE SHIT SHIT TORTURE PORN SHIT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. Show apologists tend to look for reasons even for silly aspects of the show, even when it's clear they ARE silly or sensless: the Pod stuff was silly (understatement), and many sex scenes are for the sake of nudity. Plots have been changed WITH NO REASONS AT ALL (Robb palling to take Casterly Rock). Many characters have been reduced to their most basic features, and on goes the list, as you wish. And when I watch the show, and realize the potential it had, I too feel a bit disappointed. The reason the show exixts is because of the books. Hardly masterpieces of licterature, but the best fantasy/medieval/para-historic books ever written, to me. The books are, to me, almost flawless. I will never understand why they replaced Jeyne, and I would have loved to see a transposition of book Robb's story.

Still, coming here, and seeing thousands of comments that look as if they were written by a flock of angry parrots, all screaming with one voice the same things again and again, like "I HATE TULIZZA ASS, KILL DA BITCH ULREADY or TYRION WHIGHTWASHED, WHERE IZ DA MURAL GREYNESS, or STANNIZ WANTZ MEL, CHARACTER ASSARSEINATION" makes you feel like "switching sides", and root for the show.

Another totally different world are those who say: "God, why change Jeyne with Talisa? Why hide Cat in the background? Why not show the Freys leaving?" Those are people with witch I like to discuss matters.

And of course, those who apologize the show for every bad move it makes by saying "it was to better adapt the story", when it clearly isn't the case, are as "bad" as those who scream and shout about Ygritte's lack of crooked teeth or Dany's delivery of "Where are my dragons".

My two cents.

[Miodrag]

So... how sped up have the sword fights looked this season? We're dying to know.

It’s somewhat tiring to correct you all the time, but OK: sword fights didn’t only look sped up in previous seasons; they actually were sped up, which you can verify by simply looking at them. And if you keep coming back to that point, I’ll even start to think you’re really interested in the matter, even though you always claim it has no importance.

And, by the way, there was no speeding up this season. Truth be told, the biggest fights of the season are yet to come, but, if they stay away from speeding up, may we agree that D&D actually improved?

[Miodrag]

I tend to agree with you; the fact is that both sides have an extremist approach.

Extremism of book-purists is something I could understand. Readership all over the world loved and enjoyed those novels for years and years, and it’s only natural to compare the show based on those novels with the source material. What is less understandable, to me at least, is the rage against the comparisons. And those who rage are often guilty for making comparisons themselves: like “this adaptation is much better than other adaptations I saw”, or “the show is much better than 99 percent of other TV shows”... If I am to compare GOT with anything, isn’t it more logical to compare it to the novels it’s based on, than to “99 percent of other shows”? One is entitled to compare it to whatever one wants, and it’s true that TV shows get constantly compared between them, but measuring GOT against ASOIAF is quite logical and expected. And it’s refreshing, because it’s not often that we have the opportunity to compare countless hours of TV with countless pages of novels.

And even when comparing GOT with the rest of TV, shouldn’t we compare it to the best, like “The Wire”, “The Sopranos”, “Breaking Bad”, “Mad Men”, “Deadwood”? Not that I like all these shows, but I understand the praise they receive, and their reputation. That should be the standard GOT is measured against, at least in terms of writing. And I’m not sure GOT would held gloriously in that regard.

[poggo]

...

Not so long ago, a number of posters on these very forums were trying to persuade the rest of us that “Pod the sex god” scene had some higher meaning,

...

If “constant pessimism” is something that bothers you, just try to imagine how annoying “constant optimism” may be. Even when most irritating, we book-purists are amateurs compared to show-purists and their enthusiasm for each and every on-screen stupidity.

Well... I have to admit, that the “Pod the sex god” scene was so stupid, that my brain almost imploded.

But its still all a matter of taste really... some people actually like very VERY VERY bad jokes now and then. ;)

Yes, I have to admit, that after reading, that even this BS had some apologists... I was deeply disturbed. And for a moment I was even thinking, that these people dont have a brain at all. But well... I mean, dragons arent realistic either, so I guess,

we should be a little more tolerant here.

Its all just oppinions and none is really better then the other.

[Miodrag]

I mean, dragons arent realistic either, so I guess,

we should be a little more tolerant here.

“Iliad” has a number of gods, and a guy who’s immortal except for his heel. Does it mean that it’s OK if an adaptation of “Iliad” is littered with money-returning whores? “Hamlet” has a ghost that actually triggers the main storyline; “Macbeth” has witches with their prophecies; “The Master and Margarita” is about The Devil and his retinue visiting communist Moscow... And yet, supernatural elements in these stories probably wouldn’t justify bad writing in screen adaptations.

Now, you may think ASOIAF isn’t a literary masterpiece. I happen to think it is, and we can debate the matter, but this really isn’t the thread for such a discussion. Much more important is, however, that D&D seemed to think ASOIAF is indeed a masterpiece when they approached it. They acted as the complete opposite of, say, Tim Burton, who directed Batman and then went on to claim he doesn’t read comic-books at all. D&D were quite outspoken in loving and admiring Martin’s work. Now, were they honest while expressing nothing but admiration for ASOIAF, or when they came to the conclusion that a TV adaptation of ASOIAF really needs some money-returning whores? Maybe I’m wrong, but I find these two attitudes mutually exclusive. If adapting “Iliad” or “Hamlet” or any other story that ranks as a masterpiece in my scale, I’d never add charity prostitution, nor a priestess that simulates sexual intercourse only to put few leeches on a guy, nor a caricature of a 20^th century gay, nor a sellsword obsessed with grammar, nor a wizard who kidnaps three dragons and captures their mother and then gets burned to death, nor would I borrow some bitch from “Beverly Hills 90210” and turn her into a medical worker and match her with a medieval king...