Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Game of Thrones: Season 4Follow

#1 Apr 06 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,045 posts
Not a bad start to the season. Oberyn Martell was pretty spot on, though the actor seemed a bit too young. I'm pretty sick of Sansa's whining, but I was pretty sick of Sansa's whining at this point in the books too. Arya is getting scary, which is a good thing. Dany's scenes were pretty uninteresting, but so is Dany at this point in the story, so I'm not sure what else they can do with her. Since I already know what is going to happen at Joffrey's wedding, I don't have much patient with the scenes that are leading up to it, but aside from that, I'm looking forward to see what this season has in store.
#2 Apr 06 2014 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
I just don't want Jaime to go back to being someone we hate. I kind of like liking him now. And yes, I was glad to see even more of Arya's transformation into murderous psychopath. And her horse.
#3 Apr 07 2014 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
Turin wrote:
Not a bad start to the season. Oberyn Martell was pretty spot on, though the actor seemed a bit too young.
That was my very first impression as well, but then as you actually got to see the guy walking and talking and close-up it was obvious he wasn't that young.

Quote:
Arya is getting scary, which is a good thing.
It was weird the way they make it appear like she was sliding Needle into man bodies with no resistance at all. She's coming off as much more ruthless than had expected.

Quote:
Dany's scenes were pretty uninteresting, but so is Dany at this point in the story, so I'm not sure what else they can do with her.
Steamy sheet-scenes with Dario already!

Quote:
Since I already know what is going to happen at Joffrey's wedding, I don't have much patient with the scenes that are leading up to it, but aside from that, I'm looking forward to see what this season has in store.

I feel like the tv story is implying that Gramma Tyrell is far more the puppet- master than I had ever gotten from the books.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Apr 07 2014 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
Arya is getting scary, which is a good thing.
It was weird the way they make it appear like she was sliding Needle into man bodies with no resistance at all. She's coming off as much more ruthless than had expected.


Even in the books I felt like she kind of jumped from "little girl" to "stabbing people with Needle" a little too quickly for me to follow.

Edited, Apr 7th 2014 11:05am by IDrownFish
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129

#5 Apr 09 2014 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,721 posts
In case you missed Season 3.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#6 Apr 14 2014 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
**
826 posts
What a lovely wedding. So much playful banter. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Osseric
#7 Apr 14 2014 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
TherealLogros wrote:
What a lovely wedding. So much playful banter. Smiley: lol

It was interesting watching the camera pan all the different faces during the dwarf show. It was almost like a little mini-reveal of who is is an actual good guy and who is a bad guy in the mind of JRRM.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#8 Apr 14 2014 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
**
826 posts
Elinda wrote:
It was interesting watching the camera pan all the different faces during the dwarf show. It was almost like a little mini-reveal of who is is an actual good guy and who is a bad guy in the mind of JGRRM.


I especially liked Varys' smirk when Tyrion ridiculed Joffrey.
____________________________
Osseric
#9 Apr 14 2014 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
It was interesting watching the camera pan all the different faces during the dwarf show. It was almost like a little mini-reveal of who is is an actual good guy and who is a bad guy in the mind of JRRM.


More like who's a sadistic moron and who isn't, really. I don't think anyone thinks of Tywin as a good guy.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#10 Apr 15 2014 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,998 posts
So, what're your thoughts on the Purple Wedding? Who did it?

I'm talking about Joffrey's death, of course, and I'm leaning towards this theory: http://imgur.com/a/wzN8x
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#11 Apr 15 2014 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,492 posts
So is this discussion for non-book readers only? Even then, I thought it was pretty obvious...
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#12 Apr 15 2014 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,045 posts
I was surprised that they did the wedding so early in the season. I thought that it would have been closer to episode five or six. Now that I think about it, there isn't a whole lot of material left from Storm of Swords to play with. Unless they add a bunch of non-book material, they'll pretty much have to add a bit of Feast for Crows into the season.

Mazra wrote:
So, what're your thoughts on the Purple Wedding? Who did it?

I'm talking about Joffrey's death, of course, and I'm leaning towards this theory: http://imgur.com/a/wzN8x


If you really want to know, it was Olenna Tyrell. The jeweled hairnet that Sansa was gifted by Sir Dontos had a gem made of poison, which Olenna palmed when she was fixing Sansa's hair. She dropped it into the wine when everyone was distracted by the confrontation between Joffrey and Tyrion. Sansa handling the cup is a bit of red herring. Tyrion is the obvious suspect, though he really did have nothing to do with it. Sansa's disappearance from the capital thanks to Sir Dontos's warning, doesn't help his case much. Sansa is eventually taken to the Eyrie by Littlefinger, who by that point has married Lysa. Most of the rest of this season, the King's Landing bits will focus on Tyrion's trial. It's actually a tad more convoluted in the book than that, but that's basic plot.


Edited, Apr 15th 2014 5:56pm by Turin
#13 Apr 15 2014 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
The actors and actresses didn't actually know about the Dwarf War (which sounds like a book series I would totally read).

Quote:
"The moment where the dwarves came out, we didn't actually know what was going to happen," said Loras Tyrell actor Finn Jones. "The director said, 'I don't want to tell you what's going to happen. Just react to it.' They came out, and it was shocking."


You could see Cersi's actress was struggling to not laugh, which fits her character perfectly.

Spoilers in the article.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129

#14 Apr 15 2014 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
**
826 posts
Does it make me a bad person if I laughed at some bits of the Dwarf War (I like that) too? Smiley: frown Dwarf-Stannis riding a Melisandre-mount and Dwarf-Renly riding a Loras Tyrell-mount were just hilarious.
____________________________
Osseric
#15 Apr 19 2014 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Just caught up. I'll miss the Joffrey vs. Tyrion scenes. Those absolutely oozed tension.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#16 Apr 21 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Turin wrote:
IIf you really want to know, it was Olenna Tyrell. The jeweled hairnet that Sansa was gifted by Sir Dontos had a gem made of poison, which Olenna palmed when she was fixing Sansa's hair. She dropped it into the wine when everyone was distracted by the confrontation between Joffrey and Tyrion. Sansa handling the cup is a bit of red herring. Tyrion is the obvious suspect, though he really did have nothing to do with it. Sansa's disappearance from the capital thanks to Sir Dontos's warning, doesn't help his case much. Sansa is eventually taken to the Eyrie by Littlefinger, who by that point has married Lysa. Most of the rest of this season, the King's Landing bits will focus on Tyrion's trial. It's actually a tad more convoluted in the book than that, but that's basic plot.


Ok. Not having read the books (yet. Seriously have them waiting, but have a list of other stuff to read in the way), this kinda doesn't make much sense. Unless she's really just that upset about the whole mixing and matching of marriages by Tywin and is willing to more or less toss any connection to the Throne in the trash out of spite, that is. From a political perspective, wouldn't it have made a **** of a lot more sense to wait until her daughter had a child (preferably a son) by Joffrey, then kill him? Then it would be her daughter acting as Queen Regent, not Cersei, and her family most able to influence the future king.

Seems like by killing Joffrey, she's just handed the Lannisters more control (and a more manageable king). She basically just made Tywin that much more powerful. Maybe I'm missing something that was explained more clearly/fully in the books, but I'm just not seeing any sense to her action here at all. Her character doesn't seem to be one given to rash actions. Now, at least based on what's been in the show, it's leaning more towards Little Finger, which actually makes a **** of a lot more sense. He's always been someone more interested in some degree of stability (or chaos he can control), and may be more inclined towards a power structure he's more familiar with (the Lannisters) compared to the Tyrells. Plus, I suspect he'd kill pretty much anyone to steal away Sansa. So there's that.


Edited, Apr 21st 2014 3:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Apr 22 2014 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
**
826 posts
gbaji wrote:
Turin wrote:
IIf you really want to know, it was Olenna Tyrell. The jeweled hairnet that Sansa was gifted by Sir Dontos had a gem made of poison, which Olenna palmed when she was fixing Sansa's hair. She dropped it into the wine when everyone was distracted by the confrontation between Joffrey and Tyrion. Sansa handling the cup is a bit of red herring. Tyrion is the obvious suspect, though he really did have nothing to do with it. Sansa's disappearance from the capital thanks to Sir Dontos's warning, doesn't help his case much. Sansa is eventually taken to the Eyrie by Littlefinger, who by that point has married Lysa. Most of the rest of this season, the King's Landing bits will focus on Tyrion's trial. It's actually a tad more convoluted in the book than that, but that's basic plot.


Ok. Not having read the books (yet. Seriously have them waiting, but have a list of other stuff to read in the way), this kinda doesn't make much sense. Unless she's really just that upset about the whole mixing and matching of marriages by Tywin and is willing to more or less toss any connection to the Throne in the trash out of spite, that is. From a political perspective, wouldn't it have made a **** of a lot more sense to wait until her daughter had a child (preferably a son) by Joffrey, then kill him? Then it would be her daughter acting as Queen Regent, not Cersei, and her family most able to influence the future king.

Seems like by killing Joffrey, she's just handed the Lannisters more control (and a more manageable king). She basically just made Tywin that much more powerful. Maybe I'm missing something that was explained more clearly/fully in the books, but I'm just not seeing any sense to her action here at all. Her character doesn't seem to be one given to rash actions. Now, at least based on what's been in the show, it's leaning more towards Little Finger, which actually makes a **** of a lot more sense. He's always been someone more interested in some degree of stability (or chaos he can control), and may be more inclined towards a power structure he's more familiar with (the Lannisters) compared to the Tyrells. Plus, I suspect he'd kill pretty much anyone to steal away Sansa. So there's that.


Edited, Apr 21st 2014 3:08pm by gbaji



If I remember correctly they marry Tommen to Margaery so no influence lost for the Tyrells, but instead of the greatest **** imaginable the new husband is a pretty decent guy. Littlefinger almost certainly knew about the plot somehow and used it to his advantage.
____________________________
Osseric
#18 Apr 22 2014 at 4:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
TherealLogros wrote:
If I remember correctly they marry Tommen to Margaery so no influence lost for the Tyrells, but instead of the greatest **** imaginable the new husband is a pretty decent guy. Littlefinger almost certainly knew about the plot somehow and used it to his advantage.


I suppose that makes sense in a "make a plot twist for the book" kind of way, but Joffrey being a major **** was kinda part of what makes the plot work (because there's a ton of people who want him dead anyway, right?). If you're going to kill him off anyway, why not wait? I suppose they get the same thing in the long run with Tommen, but then they have to wait until he's of age first, all the while with only a promise of influence, while Cersei/Tywin are really running things. Then still have to deal with their influence while the child is growing up (cause they're presumably *not* going to bump off Tommen, so the Lannisters will have most of the influence on the future king to be). Wait until Margaery has a boy, then kill Joffrey, and they essentially gain control of the crown for the next 10-15 years.

I'm also not seeing why the need for the whole poison gem thing. Throwing off suspicion, I guess, but usually the more complex you make your plot, the more likely it is to come back and bite you in the rear. Since it appears that the key action was palming the poison into the wine right before Joffrey drank it anyway, why bother with all the other complex bits? Just sneak some in and be done with it. She's already taking the biggest risk right there. The whole "have Littlefinger make a poison gem, then have Ser Dontos give it to Sansa, then have her wear it, then pull the poison gem off of it, then palm it into the wine" seems unnecessarily complex. Not to mention, you've now involved like 4 or 5 more people in the plot and know who's really behind it all (not to mention, we can assume that Littlefinger isn't himself a master at making poison in the shape of a gemstone).

Maybe it's my innate KISS mentality when it comes to stuff like this. Makes for a great plot twist, but not so much a great actual plot to kill someone.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Apr 22 2014 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,045 posts
gbaji wrote:
TherealLogros wrote:
If I remember correctly they marry Tommen to Margaery so no influence lost for the Tyrells, but instead of the greatest **** imaginable the new husband is a pretty decent guy. Littlefinger almost certainly knew about the plot somehow and used it to his advantage.


I suppose that makes sense in a "make a plot twist for the book" kind of way, but Joffrey being a major **** was kinda part of what makes the plot work (because there's a ton of people who want him dead anyway, right?). If you're going to kill him off anyway, why not wait? I suppose they get the same thing in the long run with Tommen, but then they have to wait until he's of age first, all the while with only a promise of influence, while Cersei/Tywin are really running things. Then still have to deal with their influence while the child is growing up (cause they're presumably *not* going to bump off Tommen, so the Lannisters will have most of the influence on the future king to be). Wait until Margaery has a boy, then kill Joffrey, and they essentially gain control of the crown for the next 10-15 years.

I'm also not seeing why the need for the whole poison gem thing. Throwing off suspicion, I guess, but usually the more complex you make your plot, the more likely it is to come back and bite you in the rear. Since it appears that the key action was palming the poison into the wine right before Joffrey drank it anyway, why bother with all the other complex bits? Just sneak some in and be done with it. She's already taking the biggest risk right there. The whole "have Littlefinger make a poison gem, then have Ser Dontos give it to Sansa, then have her wear it, then pull the poison gem off of it, then palm it into the wine" seems unnecessarily complex. Not to mention, you've now involved like 4 or 5 more people in the plot and know who's really behind it all (not to mention, we can assume that Littlefinger isn't himself a master at making poison in the shape of a gemstone).

Maybe it's my innate KISS mentality when it comes to stuff like this. Makes for a great plot twist, but not so much a great actual plot to kill someone.


Yeah, that thing about Cersei and Tywin being a bad influence, it's not really going to be a problem for much longer...

In the book, Margaery really didn't have the same level of control over Joffrey as she did in the show. Killing him was her grandmothers best move to protect her, while still being able to make Margaery queen. The plot was certainly too involved for something as simple as poisoning Joffrey though. The bit with the jewels was fairly unnecessary, but having Dontas befriend Sansa, something that is far more involved in the book, was the best way for Little Finger to keep himself removed from the assassination plot.



Edited, Apr 22nd 2014 6:56pm by Turin
#20 Apr 22 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Turin wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TherealLogros wrote:
If I remember correctly they marry Tommen to Margaery so no influence lost for the Tyrells, but instead of the greatest **** imaginable the new husband is a pretty decent guy. Littlefinger almost certainly knew about the plot somehow and used it to his advantage.


I suppose that makes sense in a "make a plot twist for the book" kind of way, but Joffrey being a major **** was kinda part of what makes the plot work (because there's a ton of people who want him dead anyway, right?). If you're going to kill him off anyway, why not wait? I suppose they get the same thing in the long run with Tommen, but then they have to wait until he's of age first, all the while with only a promise of influence, while Cersei/Tywin are really running things. Then still have to deal with their influence while the child is growing up (cause they're presumably *not* going to bump off Tommen, so the Lannisters will have most of the influence on the future king to be). Wait until Margaery has a boy, then kill Joffrey, and they essentially gain control of the crown for the next 10-15 years.

I'm also not seeing why the need for the whole poison gem thing. Throwing off suspicion, I guess, but usually the more complex you make your plot, the more likely it is to come back and bite you in the rear. Since it appears that the key action was palming the poison into the wine right before Joffrey drank it anyway, why bother with all the other complex bits? Just sneak some in and be done with it. She's already taking the biggest risk right there. The whole "have Littlefinger make a poison gem, then have Ser Dontos give it to Sansa, then have her wear it, then pull the poison gem off of it, then palm it into the wine" seems unnecessarily complex. Not to mention, you've now involved like 4 or 5 more people in the plot and know who's really behind it all (not to mention, we can assume that Littlefinger isn't himself a master at making poison in the shape of a gemstone).

Maybe it's my innate KISS mentality when it comes to stuff like this. Makes for a great plot twist, but not so much a great actual plot to kill someone.


Yeah, that thing about Cersei and Tywin being a bad influence, it's not really going to be a problem for much longer...

In the book, Margaery really didn't have the same level of control over Joffrey as she did in the show. Killing him was her grandmothers best move to protect her, while still being able to make Margaery queen. The plot was certainly too involved for something as simple as poisoning Joffrey though. The bit with the jewels was fairly unnecessary, but having Dontas befriend Sansa, something that is far more involved in the book, was the best way for Little Finger to stay removed from the plot.


Edited, Apr 22nd 2014 6:35pm by Turin


It's true about Olenna's motives in the book, butGbaji is also right in the sense that littlefinger was involved from the start. Dantos was his puppet, and he knew exactly when to ask sansa to leave. Which means little finger knew it was about to happen. It was LF that gave dontos the poisoned necklace and told him to tell the dead mum story. It's got his dirty little, erm, fingers all over it. He's the one that stands to gain most from all this. And obviously the chaos ladder theory. That left Olenna with only one task, to take it from the necklace to the glass. Slightly convoluted though, i agree.


Edited, Apr 22nd 2014 10:51pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#21 Apr 22 2014 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
It's true about Olenna's motives in the book, butGbaji is also right in the sense that littlefinger was involved from the start. Dantos was his puppet, and he knew exactly when to ask sansa to leave. Which means little finger knew it was about to happen. It was LF that gave dontos the poisoned necklace and told him to tell the dead mum story. It's got his dirty little, erm, fingers all over it. He's the one that stands to gain most from all this. And obviously the chaos ladder theory. That left Olenna with only one task, to take it from the necklace to the glass. Slightly convoluted though, i agree.


That and it would require that Olenna trust Littlefinger with the plot. Something that, given his history, and the precarious nature of her position (which we have to assume is the motivation for doing this at all) would seem to be an incredibly dangerous and foolish thing for her to do. It serves the purpose in the books of moving certain plotlines forward, but really does make close to zero sense from a true-political point of view. I could see reasons for either one of them doing this, but not together. Neither has any reason to trust the other in a plot so dangerous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Apr 23 2014 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
It's true about Olenna's motives in the book, butGbaji is also right in the sense that littlefinger was involved from the start. Dantos was his puppet, and he knew exactly when to ask sansa to leave. Which means little finger knew it was about to happen. It was LF that gave dontos the poisoned necklace and told him to tell the dead mum story. It's got his dirty little, erm, fingers all over it. He's the one that stands to gain most from all this. And obviously the chaos ladder theory. That left Olenna with only one task, to take it from the necklace to the glass. Slightly convoluted though, i agree.


That and it would require that Olenna trust Littlefinger with the plot. Something that, given his history, and the precarious nature of her position (which we have to assume is the motivation for doing this at all) would seem to be an incredibly dangerous and foolish thing for her to do. It serves the purpose in the books of moving certain plotlines forward, but really does make close to zero sense from a true-political point of view. I could see reasons for either one of them doing this, but not together. Neither has any reason to trust the other in a plot so dangerous.


I suppose they both shared a temporary common interest. But I agree it is an extremely risky strategy from both of their point of view, and unnecessarily complicated.

It is slightly more credible in the books, but even they don't have the most robust narrative either. I really enjoyed reading them, and will buy the 5th one the day it comes out (so 2026, roughly) but they're light entertainment. Fast food for the mind. They're neither deep nor well-written, but good fun I suppose.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#23 Apr 23 2014 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Don't watch GoT, but since I have a bunch of friends who are pissed off about the whole Jaime raping Cersei scene, I'm posting here.

To be clearer, many of them are **** off about them making it into a rape scene, since it wasn't in the book, but all of them are **** off about the fact that the director doesn't think it was one.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2014 1:22pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#24 Apr 23 2014 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,492 posts
#25 Apr 23 2014 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,187 posts

Speaking of which Amazon Prime Instant Video will be getting HBO shows.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#26 Apr 23 2014 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,492 posts
Yes but not any of the good ones.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#27 Apr 23 2014 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,045 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
Don't watch GoT, but since I have a bunch of friends who are pissed off about the whole Jaime raping Cersei scene, I'm posting here.

To be clearer, many of them are **** off about them making it into a rape scene, since it wasn't in the book, but all of them are **** off about the fact that the director doesn't think it was one.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2014 1:22pm by idiggory


Actually, that scene is in the book, but doesn't play as a rape scene. At first Cersei is resisting because she's a bit turned off by his lack of hand and his long hair, not to mention the location and timing, but she gives in fairly quickly and gets into it a bit. I can see how that scene in the show can come off as more rapey than it was intended. It should have been redone, the tone is all wrong. Since they can't go as deeply into the relationship between the two of them in the show as the book, they could be using this scene to justify Cersei's upcoming change of feelings towards Jaime.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2014 5:52pm by Turin
#28 Apr 23 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Sorry, that was really unclear phrasing on my part, I meant the rape wasn't in the book, not that there wasn't a **** scene.

The big problem people are having with it isn't the fact that it was turned into a rape scene, in general. Most people are willing to accept fictional depictions of rape when that actually serves a purpose and the rape isn't being used as a plot device, which is the case ridiculously often (and GoT is a big offender there).

A rape scene that exists to actually serve as a commentary or discussion about the horror of rape? A scene done in the context of the Jaime/Cersei dichotomy? That's not a horrible idea.

If that was the idea. That's what has people really **** off. The director doesn't think this was a rape; his language about the scene has literally been the sort of "you know she wanted it" defense you get from rapists. So it pretty much guarantees that there's not going to be an honest approach to the aftermath of the event, because the director didn't think there was anything different from the scene from the book.

He thought it was just an honest-but-twisted expression of perverse love, like in the book. Instead we got a scene of Cersei screaming at Jaime to stop as he quite obviously rapes her, and a director who thinks those two are interchangeable.

Put into the context of the other pretty horrible ways GoT bothers to diverge from the books, at the expense of women but almost never at men, it becomes even more problematic. Things like stabbing a pregnant woman in the stomach for shock value, excessive brothel scenes for no reason other than to get naked women on the screen (plus a relocation of other scenes to brothels for the same reason), a cavalier use of rape as a plot device (not considering this example), prostitutes torturing each other for shock value, etc.

So, yeah, none of my friends have their fingers crossed at this point. The director's surprise that people saw it as a rape pretty much ensures the follow-up to this episode will be as rape-culturey as it gets.

____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#29 Apr 23 2014 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
Don't watch GoT, but since I have a bunch of friends who are pissed off about the whole Jaime raping Cersei scene, I'm posting here.

To be clearer, many of them are **** off about them making it into a rape scene, since it wasn't in the book, but all of them are **** off about the fact that the director doesn't think it was one.


I think that article is more than a bit inflammatory though. The director was clearly speaking of his interpretation of how those two fictional characters would view what happened, not whether this would or wouldn't be rape in any other context. She turns it into a broad claim by the director about rape in general, which I'm reasonably certain wasn't at all what he meant when he was being interviewed about it. In this case, you have two characters who clearly have a long standing (and arguably quite screwed up) relationship. Jamie presumably knows his sister better than the audience does. Given that the series has limited time in which to portray this relationship, something which appears as rape to the audience might very well be their normal form of foreplay.

Perhaps it should have been shot differently, with Cersei more clearly agreeing to the sex, but I don't think that would have satisfied Laura Hudson. Her primary argument appears to be the mere fact that Jamie didn't stop with the first "no" from Cersei. Which is problematic given that the scene more or less requires Jamie pressuring her into having **** with him (which most feminists will automatically label as rape anyway). She's angry at the whole "push yourself on her because you know she really wants it" angle to the scene. Which, to be fair, is a common excuse given by rapists, so she's got a point. But in this case, it's a freaking fantasy story, with characters that the author can state categorically view the event in a specific way.

I doubt very much that the rate at which men push themselves on women is going to change because of this scene, and ultimately that's her real complaint (that it perpetuates this kind of idea). No one misses the fact that these two have a screwed up relationship from the start, so maybe we shouldn't try to use them as a replacement for "normal" people.

Also, I kinda have to agree with one of the commentors who took exception with her tossing around very questionable stats (and promptly got blasted for it, just as I'm sure I will here). Repeating such stats isn't really helping the cause IMO. 1 in 6 women will be the victims of rape or attempted rape? Pretty sure that stats been debunked back and forth and sideways. Similar issues with her 97% of rapists don't serve any time. The commentor is absolutely right in that this rests on a "guilty until proven innocent" assumption. It's only a valid statement if 100% of all people accused of rape are actually guilty of rape. When you dig into the stats though, you find that 60% of rapes are unreported (so we're not even talking about people accused of rape). Of the 40% remaining, only 10% result in an arrest (which you can interpret a couple different ways btw). Of that 10%, 8% result in charges being filed (which speaks volumes to police being pretty savvy about only making arrests when there's actually sufficient evidence of the crime). Of the 8% charged, 4% are convicted (50% conviction rate isn't too bad). Of the 4%, 3% serve time (additional to whatever time they served waiting for trial).

I'm not sure if those stats are really that uncommon for criminal outcomes. But parroting a stat without such context is really just about driving hysteria over an issue and not so much about informing the public. I get why she does it, I just don't agree with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Apr 23 2014 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that article is more than a bit inflammatory though.


Shocker.

I didn't read the rest of your response, but given what I know of your character, I can pretty much assume what it says.

How long-standing a relationship does not matter. Ignoring someone's lack of consent is rape; there is literally no situation in which assumed consent can trump a spoken refusal. Ever.

And, even if we're supposed to assume Cersei secretly wanted it, the very fact that we have to be told that was the case is the very fabric of rape culture. We're told to accept a rape, despite literally every discernible cue telling us Cersei was not consenting, merely because of the argument that she secretly wanted it.

This is literally the overwhelmingly effective defense actual rapists use against their actual victims in our culture.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#31 Apr 23 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
If that was the idea. That's what has people really **** off. The director doesn't think this was a rape; his language about the scene has literally been the sort of "you know she wanted it" defense you get from rapists. So it pretty much guarantees that there's not going to be an honest approach to the aftermath of the event, because the director didn't think there was anything different from the scene from the book.


I think he believed that in the context of these two characters, something which would be rape for some other couple is not for them. In the same way that someone tying someone up and beating them would be battery in one case, and fun bedroom play for another. The "I know she really wants it" is an excuse for rape when it's the man projecting what he wants on the woman (which it is 99% of the time). But in this case, Jamie actually does know that Cersei actually does want it. I know that's an uncomfortable thought for some, but we're not dealing with a random teen girl and her boyfriend here.

Quote:
He thought it was just an honest-but-twisted expression of perverse love, like in the book. Instead we got a scene of Cersei screaming at Jaime to stop as he quite obviously rapes her, and a director who thinks those two are interchangeable.


I saw it more as the innate differences of the two mediums. In the book, you can write what the characters are thinking. In film/TV you have to show it visually. If she doesn't say no initially, then it's just sex. But the point is to highlight how twisted their love is. Kinda hard to do that any way other than how it was done. And yeah, that's going to make some people uncomfortable. But I suspect that's the point.

Quote:
The director's surprise that people saw it as a rape pretty much ensures the follow-up to this episode will be as rape-culturey as it gets.


Maybe I missed something, but the quote used in the linked article was from an interview done the week before the episode aired (at least a week before). It was not a response to people's reactions to the episode.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Apr 23 2014 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
How long-standing a relationship does not matter. Ignoring someone's lack of consent is rape; there is literally no situation in which assumed consent can trump a spoken refusal. Ever.


Even if their long standing sexual action involves her pretending she doesn't want to have **** until he gets frustrated enough to force her, and they both get off on it? I get that this isn't healthy, but no one's claiming these two are. To translate that into a stock "OMG! It's RAPE!!!!" bit is silly at best. It's two fictional characters in a fictional world, where dead things walk and dragons fly. Seriously? Get over it.

Quote:
And, even if we're supposed to assume Cersei secretly wanted it...


Um... We are. Again, I get that this makes people uncomfortable, but it was abundantly clear from the scene (and others in the series involving them) that she did indeed want it (and not even that secretly). I got more of a "we shouldn't be doing this next to our dead son" vibe from the scene than that she just didn't want to have **** with him at all.

Quote:
...the very fact that we have to be told that was the case is the very fabric of rape culture. We're told to accept a rape, despite literally every discernible cue telling us Cersei was not consenting, merely because of the argument that she secretly wanted it.


Again, it wasn't that secret.

Quote:
This is literally the overwhelmingly effective defense actual rapists use against their actual victims in our culture.


Sure. And if this were a depiction of some couple on their first date, I'd be the first to agree with you. But a depiction of two people who've been involved in a harmful incestual sexual relationship for the better part of 20 years? Not remotely so. Heck. Even if this were the first example of Cersei rebuffing him only to have him pursue her anyway (implying this was a normal part of their relationship) you might have a point. But it wasn't. This part of their relationship was foreshadowed way back in season 1 (just rewatched the series so it's fresh in my mind). I've always gotten the impression that their relationship has involved a fair amount of sick, twisted, and yes, forceful elements to it. Nothing about their relationship ever struck me as "loving and tender". So no, I wasn't particularly shocked or surprised by how the scene played out on the screen. Again, that's kinda the way you'd have to do it, otherwise you lose the dynamic of their sick relationship.


It's supposed to highlight how "wrong" their relationship is. Anyone who interprets this in the context of real world relationships and rapist rationale is stretching IMO.


EDIT: Oh. And I think it's important to note that I'm reasonably certain that "she really wanted it", has never actually been successfully used as a defense against an allegation of rape. When people get away with rape, it's either because the woman does not press charges (and yes, that's a problem), or because there isn't sufficient actual physical evidence of rape (go ahead an insert "didn't leave any marks" jokes if you want) to prove the allegation. It may very well be used as an excuse by rapists for committing the crime in the first place, but it's pretty terrible as a defense.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2014 6:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Apr 23 2014 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Okay, I'm going to make this simple.

There is literally NEVER a situation in which it is not rape if a woman tells you no.

Whether or not she wants it is actually not the point at all. Women can choose to have **** without wanting it, and women can choose not to have **** when they want it.

Rape is the decision to ignore someone's decision regarding their own body. It doesn't matter if there was no sign of sexual desire, it doesn't matter if there was blatant sexual desire, it doesn't matter if there's a pre-existing sexual history, it doesn't matter if they are in or out of a relationship, it doesn't matter if the sexual desire was secret, or if it did not exist, etc.

If someone tells you no, and you force the issue, you are RAPING THEM.

There is literally no situation in which this is not the case. Consent has nothing to do with sexual desire; it's about a person's decision about whether or not to partake in sexual activity. I could want someone with every fiber of my being and still say no. I could be disgusted by them and say yes.

But there's no such thing as consensual **** that begins with a "no."
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#34 Apr 23 2014 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
Okay, I'm going to make this simple.


The world isn't simple though. Hence, the problem.

Quote:
There is literally NEVER a situation in which it is not rape if a woman tells you no.


Except, say, when these are two fantasy characters being played by actors, and the director says "she says no, but she actually does want to have **** with him". Please tell me that you get that in this case we can actually know for 100% sure that "no means yes" in this case because it's a character and not a real person?

Quote:
Whether or not she wants it is actually not the point at all. Women can choose to have **** without wanting it, and women can choose not to have **** when they want it.


So not so simple, huh? I agree that in the real world, the man cannot know for 100% sure, so he should always err on the side of "assume she means no" even if the last 100 times she said no she actually did want it, said she wanted it after he stopped when she said no, and was upset with him for not getting her hints that she did all the while (cause this like never happens, right?). But in a world where these are characters and the director/writer actually can say "she really means yes"? Same rules do not apply.

Quote:
Rape is the decision to ignore someone's decision regarding their own body. It doesn't matter if there was no sign of sexual desire, it doesn't matter if there was blatant sexual desire, it doesn't matter if there's a pre-existing sexual history, it doesn't matter if they are in or out of a relationship, it doesn't matter if the sexual desire was secret, or if it did not exist, etc.


That's about the most meaningless thing I've read on this forum (recently at least). So it doesn't matter if there is "blatant sexual desire". WTF? I thought it was about what she said? So now you're saying even if the woman is grinding up against her partner, saying "oh baby take me hard", he's supposed to magically know what her real decision is? That's insane.

Rape is when you force someone to have **** with you despite them clearly informing you (via any reasonable means) that they don't want to. It's not about what she wants, but what she says and does. Here's the problem though. It has to be about the message she's sending. And in a normal case, we can assume that saying no is sufficient to inform him that she doesn't want to have sex. But I disagree with the sexual history bit. If they have a long history of her playing a game where she says no intentionally to get him to be more forceful with her (again, sick relationship, so whatever), then what is she telling him? Not "I don't want to have **** with you", right?

Recall that in the first season of the **** show, there's a scene where Jamie make an amorous move towards Cersei and she pushes him away and says no. He gets a frustrated look on his face like "not this game again". Like I said earlier, they've indicated previously that this is "normal" for their relationship. She "refused him" before he was gone for so long, and before he lost his hand. And it was clear that this was part of their game. Again, that makes people uncomfortable, but that's the point. This isn't the real world and these are not "normal" people.

Quote:
If someone tells you no, and you force the issue, you are RAPING THEM.


Sure. But when Cersei says "no" to Jamie, there's a strong indication that both of them know that she's not actually telling him she doesn't want to have **** with him. We can debate whether this constitutes rape or not (I suppose we are), but it's clearly part of their characters relationship and it should be treated within that context. No one is at all implying that what these two do is normal behavior, nor that anyone should be emulating them.

I just find that the real world desire to treat women as eternal victims is not really well placed here.

Quote:
There is literally no situation in which this is not the case. Consent has nothing to do with sexual desire; it's about a person's decision about whether or not to partake in sexual activity. I could want someone with every fiber of my being and still say no. I could be disgusted by them and say yes.


Sure. And in a relationship where I don't know what you really want, I have to go by what you say. That's the whole point of "no means no", right? I'm arguing that with these two, that isn't the case.

Quote:
But there's no such thing as consensual **** that begins with a "no."


Wrong. Sorry. Not sure how much more clearly to say it. I have personally (twice with two different women) been in a situation where the woman said "no" and I stopped, only to have the woman complain that I stopped and insist that I should have known what she really wanted. I'm not making this up. I literally had one woman tell me, and this is a direct quote: "You should know that when I pull away from you, that I want you to chase me". This after we'd been making out on a couch and she kept pulling away from me, so I'd stop. She'd re-initiate making out, only to do it again. Finally, she literally jumped up, said "no" and ran across the **** room from me. When I asked her what she was doing, she responded with that exact line. I'll never forget it.

I'm sorry, but women do incredibly stupid things (men do too, of course). I fully accept (and have always followed) the rule that when a woman says no (or even just indicates it in some way) that the man should stop. But let's not pretend that this remotely follows from any kind of fact that women actually always tell men exactly what the **** they want. The sad fact is that women actually do say "no" when they mean "yes". All. The. Damn. Time.

Want to address social effects on rape? Have feminists actually get women to stop doing this. Would do more to prevent date rape than anything else that could be imagined. Sadly though, most feminists care more about demonizing men than actually reducing the number of sexual assaults suffered by women.


And in this case? I'm perfectly ok with accepting that in this complete fantasy world that we're watching, Jamie knows better than some uptight feminist how his sister/lover behaves and what she wants. It's not remotely so simple and clear in the real world, so how about we not project that imaginary simplicity onto a fantasy one?

Edited, Apr 23rd 2014 7:00pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Apr 24 2014 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
gbaji wrote:


And in this case? I'm perfectly ok with accepting that in this complete fantasy world that we're watching, Jamie knows better than some uptight feminist how his sister/lover behaves and what she wants. It's not remotely so simple and clear in the real world, so how about we not project that imaginary simplicity onto a fantasy one?

It's hard to say if he left a mark or not. But there's no question it was rape. Make-believe Jaime may know his sister/lover better than some make believe feminist, but he doesn't know his make-believe sister/lover better than his make believe sister knows her make-believe self.

Jaime used physical means to restrain Cersei and stick-his-dick after Cersei quite clearly and audibly refused him.

You can be 'ok' with it, but it's still rape.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#36 Apr 24 2014 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,854 posts
In the book the text basically goes along the lines of Cersei saying "No, Not here you idiot, the churchpeople will walk in and see us, but oh, hey, since you already started anyways you may as well keep going and it might make you more liekely to go murder a certain short person so what the hell, why not enjoy the ride." It does contain the word "no" but the context is completely different and it changes the entire tone of the interaction in the show. In the book, Cersei is trying to use her nether regions to get Jamie to kill Tyrion, and also she's not quite as done with the whole really way to close brother and sister relationship thing at that point. In the book it's very clearly not a rape, and in the show it is one, and one that is a pretty major alteration of the character. "Guy trying to continue his prior relationships as sick as they are to try and see if he can fit into his old life while contrasting against his newfound worldview where he isn't a complete child attempted murdering **** and reconciling other feelings moving forward with other characters who aren't his sister" is a completely different thing than "Guy who sort of kind of tries to change his character a bit after getting his hand removed but now he's a rapist so toss all that character development out the window because shock value is better than story integrity and this is the only way we could think of to sneak all the **** scenes in earlier in the episode and not get a bunch of angry letters about that because everyone will be **** off about this instead"
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#37 Apr 24 2014 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
In the book the text basically goes along the lines of Cersei saying "No, Not here you idiot, the churchpeople will walk in and see us, but oh, hey, since you already started anyways you may as well keep going and it might make you more liekely to go murder a certain short person so what the hell, why not enjoy the ride." It does contain the word "no" but the context is completely different and it changes the entire tone of the interaction in the show. In the book, Cersei is trying to use her nether regions to get Jamie to kill Tyrion, and also she's not quite as done with the whole really way to close brother and sister relationship thing at that point. In the book it's very clearly not a rape, and in the show it is one, and one that is a pretty major alteration of the character. "Guy trying to continue his prior relationships as sick as they are to try and see if he can fit into his old life while contrasting against his newfound worldview where he isn't a complete child attempted murdering **** and reconciling other feelings moving forward with other characters who aren't his sister" is a completely different thing than "Guy who sort of kind of tries to change his character a bit after getting his hand removed but now he's a rapist so toss all that character development out the window because shock value is better than story integrity and this is the only way we could think of to sneak all the **** scenes in earlier in the episode and not get a bunch of angry letters about that because everyone will be **** off about this instead"

For me, this whole season, so far, has been all about messing up personalities. GRRM is cruel.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#38 Apr 24 2014 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
In the book the text basically goes along the lines of Cersei saying "No, Not here you idiot, the churchpeople will walk in and see us, but oh, hey, since you already started anyways you may as well keep going and it might make you more liekely to go murder a certain short person so what the hell, why not enjoy the ride."


Honestly, maybe I was paying more attention than most (or not as much?), but this is exactly the sense I got from the scene. I got far more of a "not right here and now" than "no, I don't want to". Dunno. I definitely got this being more of a power thing than just sex, but a whole lot of that was about the incredible inappropriateness of the location they were in, and not the act itself.

I guess I just don't make any attempt to equate their relationship and actions with anything remotely near "normal", so it didn't bother me so much. I mean, there were so so many things wrong with that **** scene already...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Apr 25 2014 at 6:04 AM Rating: Decent
12 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
In the book the text basically goes along the lines of Cersei saying "No, Not here you idiot, the churchpeople will walk in and see us, but oh, hey, since you already started anyways you may as well keep going and it might make you more liekely to go murder a certain short person so what the hell, why not enjoy the ride." It does contain the word "no" but the context is completely different and it changes the entire tone of the interaction in the show. In the book, Cersei is trying to use her nether regions to get Jamie to kill Tyrion, and also she's not quite as done with the whole really way to close brother and sister relationship thing at that point. In the book it's very clearly not a rape, and in the show it is one, and one that is a pretty major alteration of the character. "Guy trying to continue his prior relationships as sick as they are to try and see if he can fit into his old life while contrasting against his newfound worldview where he isn't a complete child attempted murdering **** and reconciling other feelings moving forward with other characters who aren't his sister" is a completely different thing than "Guy who sort of kind of tries to change his character a bit after getting his hand removed but now he's a rapist so toss all that character development out the window because shock value is better than story integrity and this is the only way we could think of to sneak all the **** scenes in earlier in the episode and not get a bunch of angry letters about that because everyone will be **** off about this instead"

I was just about to go quote that exact part. I was a bit surprised that it wasn't more "trash sex" btw, as it's one of the most described and gruesome **** scene in the book.
aka doing it on the altar, wiping of the candles and Cersei having her "moonblood" if I remember it well. They might have wanted to change the **** part with a raping scene, to keep the gruesome somewhat. It's also the first meeting between the lovers when Jaime arrives in town.
#41 Apr 25 2014 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
gbaji wrote:
Dunno. I definitely got this being more of a power thing than just sex, but a whole lot of that was about the incredible inappropriateness of the location they were in, and not the act itself.

I dunno, but I believe many of the head doc types will tell you that rape is all about power & control versus 'love making'.

The tv scene to me, came off as a very different encounter than what I got from the book.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#42 Apr 25 2014 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Whilhelmina wrote:
They might have wanted to change the **** part with a raping scene, to keep the gruesome somewhat.


And if they actually change the way the characters develop, in response to the rape, then fine.

But it's ridiculous to think that "Okay, we need it to still be gruesome, let's have Jaime rape her" and then have the characters continue developing the same way they did in the books, where he didn't rape her.

I honestly don't care if they want to change Martin's version of what Jaime becomes. I do have an issue if they're going to toss in rapes and pretend like that doesn't have any impact on his relationship with Cersei.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#43 Apr 25 2014 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,721 posts
What if by not changing their relationship, or Cersei going back to him, it's used to show just how **** up she is?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#44 Apr 25 2014 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,668 posts
TirithRR wrote:
What if by not changing their relationship, or Cersei going back to him, it's used to show just how @#%^ed up she is?

I'm hoping the show bears out a similar fate for Cersei to what we've seen in the books. The 'walk of shame' seems made for prime time tv.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#45 Apr 25 2014 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
TirithRR wrote:
What if by not changing their relationship, or Cersei going back to him, it's used to show just how @#%^ed up she is?


It still requires the show to actually write for that, which is really my only major issue here. The fact of the matter is that the director admitted he didn't think it was a rape scene, which it obviously was.

You can't just drop in a rape scene in, and have no character ever acknowledge it or act around it, and have that scene be some kind of non-absurd data point for character building. That's just really sh*tty writing.

I mean, to be fair, the frequency with which male writers try and use rape to develop female characters (both positively and negatively) is already absurd and disturbing in its own right, but if they wanted to try and have an honest go at it, then at least they'd be trying.

My issue isn't with the fact that Cersei and Jaime now have this rape between them, my issue is with the fact that this plot point almost certainly isn't going to be treated with any kind of respect, because the director seems to have been unaware that it was a plot point until the show aired and he got hit with backlash.

I mean, I feel like you aren't getting what I'm angry about? I'm annoyed that it's a clear scene of a rape that the director is treating as being a clear scene of consensual sex, and so it will almost certainly be treated as such in the next episodes.

[EDIT]

I mean, put it in context. Rape is a super violent crime. If Jaime had just severely beaten one of his children in order to vent his frustration of the various motivators that led up to this scene, and in the next episode Cersei and the child both act like that's fine and not even worth commenting about, why would ANYONE think that was okay?

My problem is that this is essentially what rape culture led this director to do. He didn't realize he was doing it, but he did.

Edited, Apr 25th 2014 11:12am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#46 Apr 25 2014 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,721 posts
Wait... wasn't this the last scene of the last episode? How much development do you expect to have come from this so far? Seems like you are getting all twisted out of shape because everyone is acting like it never happened, when we don't even know what their reactions are yet.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#47 Apr 25 2014 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
I... I really don't know how to answer that? Do you think they film and write the next episode the week before or something?

And what we know is that the director was shocked to find out people thought it was a rape. That tells us that the director did not treat it as a rape. Is there something else we need to know?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#48 Apr 25 2014 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,721 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
I... I really don't know how to answer that? Do you think they film and write the next episode the week before or something?


Whether or not they film or write in advanced is meaningless. It's what you know about the character reactions to the event now. So far, no reactions have happened, but you seem to insist that everyone in the show is treating it like nothing. That being my point. You compared it to Jaime beating his children and then Cersei and the kids saying everything is OK.

Edited, Apr 25th 2014 11:56am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#49 Apr 25 2014 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,721 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
And what we know is that the director was shocked to find out people thought it was a rape. That tells us that the director did not treat it as a rape. Is there something else we need to know?


The interview in question took place one week before the episode in question aired. The comment was about the scene in the book and filming of the episode, and not about the audience's reaction to the episode.

Edited, Apr 25th 2014 2:47pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#50 Apr 25 2014 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
TirithRR wrote:
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
And what we know is that the director was shocked to find out people thought it was a rape. That tells us that the director did not treat it as a rape. Is there something else we need to know?


The interview in question took place one week before the episode in question aired. The comment was about the scene in the book and filming of the episode, and not about the audience's reaction to the episode.


Ssssh! Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

I think it's massively telling about our own social obsessions that people are more offended over the issue of consent rather than the fact that they're having **** next to the corpse of their dead son. And that's after already getting past the whole "they're twins" bit. Dunno, I just find the whole thing kinda bizarre. What we choose to focus on...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Apr 25 2014 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
35,998 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
I do have an issue if they're going to toss in rapes and pretend like that doesn't have any impact on his relationship with Cersei.


Why? I get how rape is something major in our world, but do you get the same impression from the Game of Thrones world? Compared to all the other psychotic sh*t happening every episode?

Edit: I'm not arguing whether or not it was rape (director said it wasn't, so...), just whether or not rape is a big deal in the Game of Thrones universe - or at least a big enough deal that the scene could only result in Cersei and Jaime's relationship changing to something inconsistent with their relationship in the books.

Edited, Apr 26th 2014 1:57am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, Tasera, Anonymous Guests (20)