Game of Throngs

[LaserGuy]

Spoiler:

The scene with Dany and Drogo should've been kept closer to how it was in the book. As it stands, it changes the nature of their relationship, in a disturbing way.

Spoiler:

Well, how much does a "Yes" count in that situation (as seen on screen)? "No, I changed my mind. I think I'll just go to my brother so he can beat me up some more" doesn't seem like a viable option.

The white walkers...

Spoiler:

Show up again in the first book. They recover the bodies of some fallen rangers on the far side of the wall, and one of them comes to life and attacks Jon and Mormont.

I think White Walkers = Others. The ones that attack them are supposed to be Wraiths.

As far as the show is concerned, it doesn't make much difference at this point I don't think.

Spoiler:

The wights that attack them in that scene still have the shiny blue eyes and the murderous violence going for them. The distinction between wights and Others can be made clear when it is necessary.

[blu]

Spoiler:

The wights that attack them in that scene still have the shiny blue eyes and the murderous violence going for them. The distinction between wights and Others can be made clear when it is necessary.

I hope there is one and that they didn't just mash it up together.

[the_bandersnatch]

Haven't read the books, but watched the Pilot last night. Wasn't overly impressed, I guess I was hoping for something that was a departure from "standard" fantasy faire. I think I'll give the second episode a watch before deciding whether to continue or not, but it's not a good sign so far.

Just curious... what do you see as standard fantasy fare in your mind?

The "medieval Europe with monsters" type setting, the endless long silly names. And this is coming from someone who ranks Tolkien amongst his favourite writers, and the LOTRs books as my all-time favourites (at least Tolkien had a thorough grasp of word etymology and used it to great effect). Actually, maybe it's just me getting jaded with the whole genre. In any case, I think my main gripe was the attempt to show how fantasy has grown up by including the teenage boy staples of boobs, violence and swearing. It just felt like it was trying too hard.

[blu]

The "medieval Europe with monsters" type setting, the endless long silly names. And this is coming from someone who ranks Tolkien amongst his favourite writers, and the LOTRs books as my all-time favourites (at least Tolkien had a thorough grasp of word etymology and used it to great effect). Actually, maybe it's just me getting jaded with the whole genre. In any case, I think my main gripe was the attempt to show how fantasy has grown up by including the teenage boy staples of boobs, violence and swearing. It just felt like it was trying too hard.

Hang around some more, those are not the reasons why the book series is considered to be more mature than most (and some of that was added by HBO).

About the names, most of them are pretty normal, I think. The weirdest of the bunch are Daenerys and Viserys, and even those aren't that silly, are they?

[Sarr]

Spoiler:

The wights that attack them in that scene still have the shiny blue eyes and the murderous violence going for them. The distinction between wights and Others can be made clear when it is necessary.

I hope there is one and that they didn't just mash it up together.

I would be rather gobsmacked if they did, as it's a very important distinction in the books. Also, IIRC in the books, it's the others who off that watch scouting party, not wights.

[natraj]

Spoiler:

The wights that attack them in that scene still have the shiny blue eyes and the murderous violence going for them. The distinction between wights and Others can be made clear when it is necessary.

I hope there is one and that they didn't just mash it up together.

I would be rather gobsmacked if they did, as it's a very important distinction in the books. Also, IIRC in the books, it's the others who off that watch scouting party, not wights.

Spoiler:

Well, it's both in the book -- one of the Others kills Ser Waymar Royce while Will is watching in the tree, but then he comes down from the tree and Royce comes back as a wight and kills him. So it is 50% Other and 50% wight! The last guy Gared doesn't get killed by either of them cuz he's beheaded by Ned later for deserting.

[LaserGuy]

Haven't read the books, but watched the Pilot last night. Wasn't overly impressed, I guess I was hoping for something that was a departure from "standard" fantasy faire. I think I'll give the second episode a watch before deciding whether to continue or not, but it's not a good sign so far.

Just curious... what do you see as standard fantasy fare in your mind?

The "medieval Europe with monsters" type setting, the endless long silly names. And this is coming from someone who ranks Tolkien amongst his favourite writers, and the LOTRs books as my all-time favourites (at least Tolkien had a thorough grasp of word etymology and used it to great effect). Actually, maybe it's just me getting jaded with the whole genre. In any case, I think my main gripe was the attempt to show how fantasy has grown up by including the teenage boy staples of boobs, violence and swearing. It just felt like it was trying too hard.

If you're jaded with the fantasy genre, I suspect you'll probably find Game of Thrones quite enjoyable. I guarantee you this: the story will not follow a plot anything remotely like what you'd expect a Tolkienesque style story to follow. And the story will be decidedly lacking in any of the idealism you might expect from a traditional fantasy.

[ArgonV]

Never read the books, but a friend of mine who read the books recommended the show.

I like it, though I had to admit I had IMDB-pages with names and photos open to learn the names of the characters a bit faster, save for the actors I knew like Iain Glenn, Lena Headey and Sean Bean or the ones who stood out more, like Tirion (sp?), Bran and Jon. And the white-haired brother and sister.

Anyhoo, I'm gonna wait for the second episode. And I'm not sure what spoilers are save to click here

Just a question about the end of the episode,

Spoiler:

the queen was having twincest with her brother, right? I think they mentioned somewhere they were twins, but there were so many characters I kind lost track of everything that was introduced

Also, what breed of dog (or wolf-dog hybrid) is being used for the dire wolf pups? They look awesome!

[pseudoidiot]

Just a question about the end of the episode,

Spoiler:

the queen was having twincest with her brother, right? I think they mentioned somewhere they were twins, but there were so many characters I kind lost track of everything that was introduced

Correct.

And, true, there are a lot of characters. I think they were easier to keep track of in the books and the first episode sort of bombarded you with most of the major players of the series all in one episode.

[Midnight]

Spoiler:

The wights that attack them in that scene still have the shiny blue eyes and the murderous violence going for them. The distinction between wights and Others can be made clear when it is necessary.

I hope there is one and that they didn't just mash it up together.

Spoiler:

I'm pretty sure that they saw both, actually. The girl who popped back up was a wight; the first skull-lookin' one was a Walker, but I'm not sure.

and yeah, if you saw this episode and thought 'standard fantasy' just cause there's some fantastical shit and a lot of middle ages stuff... yeah-no.
The fantastical elements really AREN'T that common--eg, all the beasties (such as dire wolves, white walkers, & dragons) are ruh-heally rare. It's mostly a story of political intrigue, and how everything is messy, nasty, and frustrating.
I mean, obviously Tolkein is omnipresent in anything with a fantasy tinge, but this is some next-level shit.

[blu]

Never read the books, but a friend of mine who read the books recommended the show.

I like it, though I had to admit I had IMDB-pages with names and photos open to learn the names of the characters a bit faster, save for the actors I knew like Iain Glenn, Lena Headey and Sean Bean or the ones who stood out more, like Tirion (sp?), Bran and Jon. And the white-haired brother and sister.

Anyhoo, I'm gonna wait for the second episode. And I'm not sure what spoilers are save to click here

Apparently HBO has an official viewer's guide to the series. Check it out if you're feeling lost.
Whatever you do, don't go to the IMDB boards for information. The place is overrun by assholes.

I guess it'd be a good idea to write what kind of spoiler is inside the spoiler tags (books or series).

Spoiler:

I'm pretty sure that they saw both, actually. The girl who popped back up was a wight; the first skull-lookin' one was a Walker, but I'm not sure.

After watching the opening scene again, I think that the one with the white sword is supposed to be a Walker.

[Yakk]

Spoiler:

The inability for the scared character to distinguish between them is ... well, expected.

[Diadem]

Finally managed to watch the first episode. And it's absolutely amazing. Very good acting all around, and they capture the setting of the book very well. I'm wondering if it's followable for people who haven't read the books though. A lot of different characters with often very little introduction.

Spoiler:

I too though was deeply disturbed by the scene where Daenerys gets raped by Khal Drogo. It seems like a completely unnessecary and very problematic deviation from the books. I don't understand why they changed it either. Just to shock people? To stress how evil Viserys was by proxy? They didn't need to do that anymore after the "I would let his whole tribe fuck you, all 40,000 men and their horses too if that's what it took [to get my kingdom" line (very good acting on Viserys by the way. Spot on. It's a shame two of the best actors are set to leave the series after 1 season). It seems problematic as well. Daenerys basically goes insane after Khal Drogo dies, and this insanity leads her to step commit suicide by stepping into his funeral pyre, which leads to the birth of the dragons. How are they going to explain this now? Unless they are going to play the "if you rape a women often enough she'll start loving you" card. That would be ... very ... disappointing

.

[Diadem]

The "medieval Europe with monsters" type setting, the endless long silly names.

What long names? Jon? Robb? Ned? Arya? Robert? Those are all completely normal names. All of the names in the book feel pretty realistic. Some are a bit more exotic, but that's only realistic in a book covering many different cultures. and yes at the start it's mostly set in 'medieval Europe' but much of the book actually isn't.

Actually, maybe it's just me getting jaded with the whole genre. In any case, I think my main gripe was the attempt to show how fantasy has grown up by including the teenage boy staples of boobs, violence and swearing. It just felt like it was trying too hard.

Perhaps you are jaded. Or perhaps you just haven't seen enough yet. It's only the first episode. The reason why the books are considered so great is because of the excellent character development, and because it breaks many genre conventions. You can't develop a great many complex characters in just one episode though, that takes time. I don't know yet either how well the series will capture the books, but the books definitely are worth it.

I really don't want to give away any spoilers. But the rate at which he kills off characters has lead to some people asking Martin if anyone will be left alive by the 6th book, to which he answered: "No they won't be. In fact they'll all be dead by the end of the 5th book, and the 6th one will be about wind blowing over graves for a thousand pages". He might not be kidding.

[blu]

I liked the guy who plays Viserys since that Doctor Who episode. The man knows how to play crazy.

Spoiler:

I too though was deeply disturbed by the scene where Daenerys gets raped by Khal Drogo. It seems like a completely unnessecary and very problematic deviation from the books. I don't understand why they changed it either. Just to shock people? To stress how evil Viserys was by proxy? They didn't need to do that anymore after the "I would let his whole tribe fuck you, all 40,000 men and their horses too if that's what it took [to get my kingdom" line (very good acting on Viserys by the way. Spot on. It's a shame two of the best actors are set to leave the series after 1 season). It seems problematic as well. Daenerys basically goes insane after Khal Drogo dies, and this insanity leads her to step commit suicide by stepping into his funeral pyre, which leads to the birth of the dragons. How are they going to explain this now? Unless they are going to play the "if you rape a women often enough she'll start loving you" card. That would be ... very ... disappointing

I don't think it could have gone any other way. After deciding to put a certain scene at the end of the season, the writers had to choose when the wedding will take place.
Putting the wedding in the first episode gives them enough time to tell everything that needs to be told in the Daenerys plotline between the wedding and the ending. The downside is that this didn't give them enough time to explore the Daenerys/Drogo early relationship, and we get what we saw in that scene.

[Lucrece]

My pet peeve with the fantasy genre is that it adopts medieval backgrounds straight out from our history and then cloaks the social problems that plagued those times under "historical accuracy". To which of course, I'll reply "my ass".

Black Plague and unsanitary living conditions (throwing bucketfuls of shit and piss out a window stands out alongside no plumbing) were also part of the history, but you don't see them mentioned constantly. And yet rape, sexism, and heterosexism seem to govern the settings. And who seems to be behind such unsympathetic writing? Often straight white men who just don't get it. They don't see just why a rape scene might be upsetting even if it's portrayed as something bad done by a bad character.

I bet you they would get it if they were in turn bombarded with constant scenes of explicit male on male sex slave rape. When they can actually identify with the victim. Or if it were males in the genre who were sitting back being aesthetic fixtures and passive figures while the females get all the development. Or if all the relationships were male/male and they basically never saw straight relationships depicted.

But what's unbearable to them they suddenly think is perfectly fine for others to stomach.

I'll close it with a nice quote from Bioware developer, David Gaider when a flap came up about gay storylines in Dragon Age:

And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as "AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!!" if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

...

And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least. And that's my opinion, expressed as politely as possible.

[Ulc]

They don't see just why a rape scene might be upsetting even if it's portrayed as something bad done by a bad character.

Do you honestly believe this?

Because to be honest, we're talking about fairly intelligent people, that have made a career out of knowing how to get a certain reaction from a audience - there's no way that they don't realise what effect a rape scene has on the audience.

They choose to include it anyway, because they considered too important for establishing the the characters and their relationship with each other - it's perfectly fine to dislike their choice, but to think that it's not a conscious choice..

Personally I found the scene disturbing as hell.

[Telchar]

My pet peeve with the fantasy genre is that it adopts medieval backgrounds straight out from our history and then cloaks the social problems that plagued those times under "historical accuracy". To which of course, I'll reply "my ass".

Black Plague and unsanitary living conditions (throwing bucketfuls of shit and piss out a window stands out alongside no plumbing) were also part of the history, but you don't see them mentioned constantly. And yet rape, sexism, and heterosexism seem to govern the settings.

So because they don't address everything they can address nothing?

My ass.

Minor complaints about Tryrion below in spoiler:

Spoiler:

I was excited when they cast Dinklage for the role, but I didn't enjoy the character at all. The first scene was just a "Hey, we can show boobs in HBO!" scene in my mind and served little purpose except to show that about the only person that likes Tyrion is Jaime. Then he shows up drunk, they mangle the dialogue with Jon, and he just comes off as completely disinterested. I never got that from the books. He comes off as more Robert Baratheon than Robert Baratheon did. That, and Dinklage seemed to accent some of the words oddly. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't watched it again, but I remember thinking it sounded odd.

[Lucrece]

My ass.

You be careful with that sort of phrasing around me!

[jawdisorder]

Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of Bran's three-eyed-crow vision before waking up?

[Midnight]

Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of Bran's three-eyed-crow vision before waking up?

maybe that'll be covered? I dunno.

still, liked episode two. thought they went a little far with the Daenrys-trying-to-please-Drogo bits. It was in the book, but there was what felt like ten minutes of sex scene in an hour long episode, which is a ratio I enjoy significantly less when I'm watching it with my family. thought the assassin scene was done pretty well, thought that the fight between the kids was done fairly well. I love how fucking annoying and stupid Cersei is.

where's Theon? or the Greyjoys in general? they getting cut out entirely? i loved 'em.

[jawdisorder]

There was another person that looked to be near Robb's age standing next to him in the god's wood scene with Catelyn talking about her suspicions that I think was supposed to be Theon, though he was never named that I noticed.

[Amarantha]

Yep, that was him. He had some brief appearances in Ep. 1 also, but they haven't said his name yet.

[Diadem]

Theon is a pretty minor character in the first few books. But he gets rather important later on so they couldn't cut him out entirely. Makes sense the way he's portrayed so far.

I still don't like the Daenerys / Drogo story line. Drogo is supposed to care about her quite a lot. Instead he just brutally rapes her. Yes, she wants to learn how to pleasure him as well in the books, but that's hardly the same, if she does it for entirely different reasons. The books have "Wild, suppposedly barbarian warlord turns out to be surprisingly kind and they fall deeply in love". Now it is "Barbarian warlord uses her as fuckmeat until she goes out of her way to pleasure him, after which he starts appreciating somewhat". It's a stupid change that completely ruins Drogo's character, and threatens to do the same to Daenerys.

I really really liked the rest of the series so far though. The scene with the assassin is absolutely awesome. Cersei and Joffrey are portrayed very well, they are absolutely insufferable. I liked Arya and Tyrion as well. This series is going to be great.

[SamaraLexx]

I still don't like the Daenerys / Drogo story line. Drogo is supposed to care about her quite a lot. Instead he just brutally rapes her. Yes, she wants to learn how to pleasure him as well in the books, but that's hardly the same, if she does it for entirely different reasons. The books have "Wild, suppposedly barbarian warlord turns out to be surprisingly kind and they fall deeply in love". Now it is "Barbarian warlord uses her as fuckmeat until she goes out of her way to pleasure him, after which he starts appreciating somewhat". It's a stupid change that completely ruins Drogo's character, and threatens to do the same to Daenerys.

I haven't read the books, but during Episode 1 I thought that's where they were going, that he was going to turn out to be kind. I was surprised when he turned into a lovable rapist, or whatever they're going for now.

[JudeMorrigan]

I still don't like the Daenerys / Drogo story line. Drogo is supposed to care about her quite a lot. Instead he just brutally rapes her. Yes, she wants to learn how to pleasure him as well in the books, but that's hardly the same, if she does it for entirely different reasons. The books have "Wild, suppposedly barbarian warlord turns out to be surprisingly kind and they fall deeply in love". Now it is "Barbarian warlord uses her as fuckmeat until she goes out of her way to pleasure him, after which he starts appreciating somewhat". It's a stupid change that completely ruins Drogo's character, and threatens to do the same to Daenerys.

Go back and reread the Dany chapter *after* their wedding. The one where her body adjusts to life on horseback. Some choice quotes:

"Saddle sores opened on her botton, hideous and bloody .... Even the nights brought no relief. Khal Drogo ignored her when they rode ... and spent his evenings drinking with his warriors and bloodriders .... Yet every night, some time before the dawn, Drogo would come to her tent and wake her in the dark, to ride her as relentlessly as he rode his stallion. He always took her from behind, Dothraki fashion, for which she was grateful; that way her lord husband could not see the tears that wet her face, and she could use her pillow to muffle her cries of pain." (pgs 227-228, A Game of Thrones, Bantam paperback edition, 1997)

Yes, he was halfway decent to her on their wedding night and yes, Dany came to love him in the books, but it wasn't exactly a storybook romance.

[Lucrece]

It still doesn't help that Stormborn looks 15 and you see the sexual aggression from Drogo for a while, with the courtesy of dangling teenage tits. It's pretty annoying and an obvious indicator that the ones calling the shots are not women; otherwise you'd have understanding of why violent sex between a man who can benchpress the girl wouldn't be appreciated by many viewers.

But this is HBO. They will milk out ravenous sex, and hasten the appearance of lesbian sex (from book 2 I think) for the ratings.

With that said, Lena Headey is brilliant as Cersei. Damn, that's what you call a magna-PITA. Her tearful tale toward Cat was unbearably cynical and it just worked so well to depict what kind of shitty being she is.

[Midnight]

It still doesn't help that Stormborn looks 15 and you see the sexual aggression from Drogo for a while, with the courtesy of dangling teenage tits. It's pretty annoying and an obvious indicator that the ones calling the shots are not women; otherwise you'd have understanding of why violent sex between a man who can benchpress the girl wouldn't be appreciated by many viewers.

But this is HBO. They will milk out ravenous sex, and hasten the appearance of lesbian sex (from book 2 I think) for the ratings.

With that said, Lena Headey is brilliant as Cersei. Damn, that's what you call a magna-PITA. Her tearful tale toward Cat was unbearably cynical and it just worked so well to depict what kind of shitty being she is.

Well, the reason the Stormborn looks 15 is cause... she's supposed to be what, 15?
And the reason that you see the sexual aggression of Drogo is because... he's sexually aggressive. Dothraki are sexually aggressive. It ain't good; they're considered savages for a variety of reasons, and that's one of them. in fact, you're not supposed to really APPROVE of anyone in the whole durned series, cause, barring a few folks, everyone is an asshole at least some of the time. The imp is a funny dude and he's one of my favorite characters, but he's also a deranged maniac! Like everyone else.

and I believe you're being hyperbolic by implying that ANY general audience 'appreciates' violent sex between a man who can benchpress the girl. Again, even moreso than the book, it's displayed more as a heinous act than what becomes sort of loving. in the book, the love bit is there from the getgo. And not too many HBO watchers really enjoy watching rape, and just because I'm male doesn't mean I am less inclined to view rape as a horrific act.

NOW: is there too much sex in the series? I would agree with you. There's such a density of characters and a breakneck plot that I find it unconscionable, from a directorial standpoint, to have more than 5 or 10% of the episode dedicated to sex scenes & their ilk--especially when they add in LATER scenes just to fill in some space. Seriously guys? You really need FILLER? nooope.
BUT, I don't disagree with the underlying, I guess, concept that's present in the sex scenes(that's worded terribly. I DOOOOOO disagree with the content of the sex, obviously, because, again, rape is bad. Like, pretty much entering 'as bad as you can get' territory, but I don't think rape, within the show, is being displayed as an acceptable act.)

Whereas, from what I'm reading, it seems as though you're saying that HBO is showing these scenes and saying "Hey everyone, look! we've got rape! hooray!" or some less-absurd variety thereof.



*EDITOR'S NOTE: midnight is gonna have to do a serrious edit of it because it doesn't sound like he's particularly anti-rape. He certainly does not think that shit's kosher. and, actually, I'm just gonna leave this messy post as it stands so an enterprising individual can dissect it so midnight can more articulately explain his viewpoint. So, again, this post is like a trial run to see what people think, so then we can get to the real addressin'.

[Ulc]

otherwise you'd have understanding of why violent sex between a man who can benchpress the girl wouldn't be appreciated by many viewers

You really believe that the directors, the board that approves series and all the screeners didn't notice "Hey this might upset people"?

My ass.

The scenes are really nasty, and it's a horrific act, but it's downright silly to claim that they didn't know what they were doing when they choose to put in the scenes. *I* understand that, and find the scenes upsetting, despite being male, so claiming that people that have made it their career to manipulate viewers into certain reactions, does not realise what reactions a violent rape scene of a 15 year old girl does to the viewers..

Well, I'll repeat myself: My ass.

I think I've made this point already (and you didn't deign to give a response, I might add), it's understandable to be very upset about the scenes, and it's understandable to be angry that they included the scenes in the way they did* - but to claim that it wasn't a conscious choice, and it's all based in them not figuring out that "gee willikers, rape is nasty" is sort of silly.


*If you want to keep at least somewhat true to the story, you really have to present that dany is upset - they could however have made it a whole lot less distressing than they choose to did.

[Lucrece]

otherwise you'd have understanding of why violent sex between a man who can benchpress the girl wouldn't be appreciated by many viewers

You really believe that the directors, the board that approves series and all the screeners didn't notice "Hey this might upset people"?

My ass.

The scenes are really nasty, and it's a horrific act, but it's downright silly to claim that they didn't know what they were doing when they choose to put in the scenes. *I* understand that, and find the scenes upsetting, despite being male, so claiming that people that have made it their career to manipulate viewers into certain reactions, does not realise what reactions a violent rape scene of a 15 year old girl does to the viewers..

Well, I'll repeat myself: My ass.

I think I've made this point already (and you didn't deign to give a response, I might add), it's understandable to be very upset about the scenes, and it's understandable to be angry that they included the scenes in the way they did* - but to claim that it wasn't a conscious choice, and it's all based in them not figuring out that "gee willikers, rape is nasty" is sort of silly.


*If you want to keep at least somewhat true to the story, you really have to present that dany is upset - they could however have made it a whole lot less distressing than they choose to did.

Why I didn't deign to give you a response is because you keep skipping the part where I don't object to the introduction, but rather the presentation. And given the prevalence of rape and violent porn toward women in our culture, yes, a goddamned protracted scene of Drogo going to town on Stormborn only to be followed by Stormborn wanting in turn to grow to please him is a pretty obnoxious and chopped up way of developing the Dany/Drogo relationship. Drogo comes off way less sympathetic (even if he's still a savage) because of what they choose to emphasize for scenes.

Moreover, it's not about the manipulation. Yes, they are aware that the act will be perceived as heinous and as a bad thing. But they keep displaying it instead of using more implication and less visuals. This is where they come off as insensitive because they don't understand the notion of rape triggers. Yes, rape happens (and more frequently in the later books). They don't need to shoot a full display rape scene-- they could pan away into another scene. For the sake of manipulating emotion and titillating, they sacrifice sensitivity to rape. Switch that 15 year old girl with a 15 year old boy and shoot extensive rape scenes, and I'd like to see you pay a visit to the message boards to hear how pleased the viewers would be, even if it is part of the story.

Again, scurvy and all sorts of unpleasant medieval conditions also happened, but you don't see them being presented to the viewer in full display constantly.

P.S. Midnight : Yes, obviously Dany is 15 years old. She's also pretty much developed physically and conventionally attractive (exotic platinum blonde hair aside). I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that the scene where she is "taken like a dog does a bitch" (by the episode's words) is curiously explicit and long just to get the message across that "poor girl, mean savage rapes her all for her brother's goals".

It becomes particularly suspect when they already shoehorned the whore orgy scene for Tyrion in the first episode.

[LaserGuy]

P.S. Midnight : Yes, obviously Dany is 15 years old. She's also pretty much developed physically and conventionally attractive (exotic platinum blonde hair aside). I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that the scene where she is "taken like a dog does a bitch" (by the episode's words) is curiously explicit and long just to get the message across that "poor girl, mean savage rapes her all for her brother's goals".

Just so we're clear here, sixteen seconds is "curiously explicit and long", as far as you're concerned? That's my count for the scene you're discussing.

[Lucrece]

P.S. Midnight : Yes, obviously Dany is 15 years old. She's also pretty much developed physically and conventionally attractive (exotic platinum blonde hair aside). I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say that the scene where she is "taken like a dog does a bitch" (by the episode's words) is curiously explicit and long just to get the message across that "poor girl, mean savage rapes her all for her brother's goals".

Just so we're clear here, sixteen seconds is "curiously explicit and long", as far as you're concerned? That's my count for the scene you're discussing.

Yeah, for the content involved, it is long. You could have someone weave or take a piss for 16 seconds and it'd be deemed longer than necessary. Especially when said scene involves the actress doing all kinds of facial Olympics to convey the discomfort and pain of barely optional sex.

This series is much more than the sex and bleakness that HBO might want to drum about to garner a non-fantasy audience. I'm not saying it's poorly produced-- I, too, think it'll be overall pretty damn good and deserving of all the seasons it can milk out. That shouldn't stop people from discussing some apparent drawbacks, however. 2 hour-long episodes and so far Daenarys's scenes are pretty much revolving more around her body than her person, let alone her surroundings.

[Ulc]

This is where they come off as insensitive because they don't understand the notion of rape triggers.

This is the entire point that I'm arguing against, and you keep spouting it.

They *do* know what feelings a rape scene triggers in people.

As I said, they are professionals, and the screenplay, the scenes and the entire episode goes through multiple screenings by relatively large audiences. Even if they didn't realise *exactly* what this kind of scene triggers, they will have been told.

And they choose to include it anyway, because they considered it important enough to sacrifice triggering some people.

You're basically saying "The scene is only there because men cannot possible understand how horrible rape is".

In short: I'm not arguing against anything other than the notion that this scene is only there because the directors are men, and men cannot possible understand that a rape scene triggers some people.

[Lucrece]

No, you can't possibly understand on a level of feelings what that trigger is like. You can understand it's awful and vexing, but on a gut level you won't even approach the reaction. The kind of reaction that has many women even predicting such a scene from storming out of a room in an extreme state of anxiety.

The Hangover was also supposedly done by professionals and screened by many audiences; that didn't stop the "paging Dr. Faggot" infamous line from going through, or its sequel. Similarly, whitewashing Akira by said "professionals" is set to be screened by many audiences. I don't place my bets on your professionals for the same reason the marginalized get fucked by them over and over.

All because of this so-called artistic integrity excuse that keeps popping up when they introduce elements they themselves claim to understand but haven't experienced in the slightest. Even worse, knowing that it will trigger some people and still including it without any other reason than being recalcitrant about "getting it". As if triggers are ever worth sacrificing -- that's some deeply fucked up shit.

[Ulc]

No, you can't possibly understand on a level of feelings what that trigger is like. You can understand it's awful and vexing, but on a gut level you won't even approach the reaction. The kind of reaction that has many women even predicting such a scene from storming out of a room in an extreme state of anxiety.

*I* probably can't - but saying straight out that *men* of any kind can't, is deeply offending bullshit.

Men experience bad things as well, and if you talk with a war veteran suffering from PS, you'll find that they have triggers in the exact same way, and their reaction isn't much different - it isn't the exact same thing, but they can probably quite easily understand "on a gut level" what it feels like. Not to mention that (if you didn't know) it isn't only women that can be sexually assaulted, while less common it happens that men and (especially) boys get sexually assaulted, those that happen to can quite easily imagine what it feels like.

And you don't think triggers are ever worth sacrificing. Doesn't that prohibit us from ever talking about the problem? I mean, why do we need the "[Trigger warning for X]" thing, if it's never worth it to sacrifice potentially triggering someone? Shouldn't we just *never* talk about it then?

As it happens, it appears that they disagree, and consider that the story element and what it shows is important enough to risk triggering someone. And frankly, they can't really tell the story without showing that it happens, it's a fairly important part of showing just how unpleasant westeros can be. And if you're just saying "if they had done it less brutally, it would have been ok", you're being inconsistent, because it would still have triggered someone.

[markden111]

Yep, that was him. He had some brief appearances in Ep. 1 also, but they haven't said his name yet.

what the reason behind this?

[Amarantha]

Yep, that was him. He had some brief appearances in Ep. 1 also, but they haven't said his name yet.

what the reason behind this?

Presumably because if they introduce everyone at once, there'll be no time left for any actual story. They're introducing characters slowly, a few per episode, so that non-readers don't get lost. All a new viewer needs to know right now is that some kid hangs around with the Starks. When he becomes relevant to the story, they'll name him and explain his presence.

[Lucrece]

No, you can't possibly understand on a level of feelings what that trigger is like. You can understand it's awful and vexing, but on a gut level you won't even approach the reaction. The kind of reaction that has many women even predicting such a scene from storming out of a room in an extreme state of anxiety.

*I* probably can't - but saying straight out that *men* of any kind can't, is deeply offending bullshit.

Men experience bad things as well, and if you talk with a war veteran suffering from PS, you'll find that they have triggers in the exact same way, and their reaction isn't much different - it isn't the exact same thing, but they can probably quite easily understand "on a gut level" what it feels like. Not to mention that (if you didn't know) it isn't only women that can be sexually assaulted, while less common it happens that men and (especially) boys get sexually assaulted, those that happen to can quite easily imagine what it feels like.

And you don't think triggers are ever worth sacrificing. Doesn't that prohibit us from ever talking about the problem? I mean, why do we need the "[Trigger warning for X]" thing, if it's never worth it to sacrifice potentially triggering someone? Shouldn't we just *never* talk about it then?

As it happens, it appears that they disagree, and consider that the story element and what it shows is important enough to risk triggering someone. And frankly, they can't really tell the story without showing that it happens, it's a fairly important part of showing just how unpleasant westeros can be. And if you're just saying "if they had done it less brutally, it would have been ok", you're being inconsistent, because it would still have triggered someone.

When they start showing male rape as illustration of unpleasant environments in most fiction on a frequent and explicit basis, we can talk about similarity of triggers. It just so happens that most directors -- and these ones-- aren't war veterans. Nor are triggers for war veterans that common, and when they're present it's pretty much broadcast by the film, instead of springing up unannounced in some general fantasy genre (as opposed to any war film which pretty much tells PTSD sufferers they can stay away from).

No, I don't think triggers are ever worth sacrificing. Fantasy isn't some thoughtful discussion of touchy topics. These books are first and foremost written with the goal to entertain and sell. There are better mediums for discussing what happens than an HBO show. No, full display rape scenes are not necessary to get the point across that Westeros is unsafe and brutish. Implication is good enough. When Rhaegar's child was murdered in front of her mother and had Clegane rape and murder her thereafter, it didn't need to go in full detail and display of the rape scene to get the message through.

When they think that telling a story their way is worth triggering people they don't even comprehend, it's a pretty clear show of privilege. And it won't be the first time some well-meaning straight, white guy will fuck it up for others.

[Telchar]

When Rhaegar's child was murdered in front of her mother and had Clegane rape and murder her thereafter, it didn't need to go in full detail and display of the rape scene to get the message through.

You might be talking about the book, but the Elia thing hasn't been dealt with in the show yet.

I'll agree that the copious ammounts of rape should warrant some kind of trigger warning, but perhaps it's the directors and producers beleif that flashing the HBO logo before the show is enough. The show definitely has it's share of privileged assumptions. The Daenarys/Drog thing always struck me as an advertisement for how Stockholm Syndrome is awesome.

[Lucrece]

When Rhaegar's child was murdered in front of her mother and had Clegane rape and murder her thereafter, it didn't need to go in full detail and display of the rape scene to get the message through.

You might be talking about the book, but the Elia thing hasn't been dealt with in the show yet.

I'll agree that the copious ammounts of rape should warrant some kind of trigger warning, but perhaps it's the directors and producers beleif that flashing the HBO logo before the show is enough. The show definitely has it's share of privileged assumptions. The Daenarys/Drog thing always struck me as an advertisement for how Stockholm Syndrome is awesome.

Yeah, it hasn't happened yet, but it's a good example of how something horrible can be made to not come off as gratuitous.

I don't object to the existence of rape in shows, but rather the manner of display. There's no denying that the persons behind the directing make the difference in turnout. And I can assure you a female director would've approached that scene differently.