Re: Game of Thrones [2]

by Mrs Figg Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:44 pm

first off the way they set up the demise of Stannis almost exactly mirrors Blackwater bay.

1. there is blood magic sacrifice of a member of his family (only Stannis didn't have the guts to kill Renly face to face, he got a woman to do it for him)
2. Melisandre gives him a 'pep talk' on his omnipotence. Stannis looks into the belly of the fire and sees victory.
3. the battle.
4. defeat. once by fire, once by ice. this is significant.
5. Melisandre goes oops! first time is nearly strangled, second time she flees just in time to save herself.
6. the only difference is the first battle he loses he is still on the up and full of vigour, the last battle he is finished, mentally and physically.

its exactly the same framework, so I don't get how people are confused. By the time Stannis reaches the castle of the Boltons he has fallen from the warrior who defeated the Wildlings to this grey sunken hollow man. he has littered his career by dishonourable acts which have led him to this pass. he murders his own blood, brother and daughter, he betrays his old gods, Northern gods, he shouldn't have been defeated by ice, but he has been taken in by Melisandre, he has an honourable man of the North killed, Mance. Stannis is fallen and his end is inevitable. I think it was poetic justice. also the Baratheons have a cowardly streak which causes mayhem. Robert mentally abdicates and takes to drink, Renly runs away at the first sign of trouble, leaving Ed Stark to die, Stannis doesn't have the balls to kill his brother man to man, they are arrogant power hungry shits who use people. they are all killed how they lived their lives. Robert by hunting as that was all he loved, Renly by smoke and mirrors, vanity and betrayal a thief in the night who fades into nothing. Stannis killed as a result of a dishonourable act, the murder of his kin.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:18 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:first off the way they set up the demise of Stannis almost exactly mirrors Blackwater bay.

1. there is blood magic sacrifice of a member of his family (only Stannis didn't have the guts to kill Renly face to face, he got a woman to do it for him)
2. Melisandre gives him a 'pep talk' on his omnipotence. Stannis looks into the belly of the fire and sees victory.
3. the battle.
4. defeat. once by fire, once by ice. this is significant.
5. Melisandre goes oops! first time is nearly strangled, second time she flees just in time to save herself.
6. the only difference is the first battle he loses he is still on the up and full of vigour, the last battle he is finished, mentally and physically.

its exactly the same framework, so I don't get how people are confused. By the time Stannis reaches the castle of the Boltons he has fallen from the warrior who defeated the Wildlings to this grey sunken hollow man. he has littered his career by dishonourable acts which have led him to this pass. he murders his own blood, brother and daughter, he betrays his old gods, Northern gods, he shouldn't have been defeated by ice, but he has been taken in by Melisandre, he has an honourable man of the North killed, Mance. Stannis is fallen and his end is inevitable. I think it was poetic justice. also the Baratheons have a cowardly streak which causes mayhem. Robert mentally abdicates and takes to drink, Renly runs away at the first sign of trouble, leaving Ed Stark to die, Stannis doesn't have the balls to kill his brother man to man, they are arrogant power hungry shits who use people. they are all killed how they lived their lives. Robert by hunting as that was all he loved, Renly by smoke and mirrors, vanity and betrayal a thief in the night who fades into nothing. Stannis killed as a result of a dishonourable act, the murder of his kin.

Confused about what? Who said anything about confusion? Exact same framework at what? The issue here is the character assassination and utter ruin of Stannis to no good plot purpose at all. Our point is not about what the character deserves, it's about what was the use of this character in service to the plot. He amounts to absolutely nothing for the plot in the TV show.

Renly didn't run off like a thief in the night. He knew he was in danger if he stayed there unless he and Stark pulled off a coup, which Start refused. That's not cowardice, that's self-preservation. Robert wasn't fit to be king and abdicated responsibility to others, but I don't see how that makes him a coward.

And, not to defend Stannis' fratricide at all, but he couldn't practically face Renly man-to-man at the time. The only other way he could have killed Renly was in a costly battle. Again, though, his killing of Renly was a despicable act, no question about it.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:23 pm

Eldorion wrote:
Radaghast wrote:Was it in this thread? I'd be interested to read it.

I had to go digging back through the old threads to find the post I had in mind. Turns out it was actually written in response to Sansa's rape scene, not Shireen's sacrifice scene, but IIRC it's the fullest version of my thoughts on the show's handling of sex and violence as well as the whole "you're only criticizing it because it's different from the book" thing.

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t958p735-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-2#172703

In terms of Shireen's sacrifice, the biggest issues are the inconsistent powers of King's blood (why were leeches good enough before, and also why does no one point out that the king-killing curse has only completed 2/3 so far?), Stannis' inconsistent characterization (they give him happy cuddly scenes with Shireen for no reason but to set up the gut punch), the absurdity of Stannis' entire baggage train and all of his siege weapons being destroyed at once (with the "20 good men" thing just the shit cherry on top), and Stannis -- who is famous for surviving a siege by eating the glue out of book bindings -- resorting to burning his daughter after only a couple hours or whatever.

And, of course, the absurdity of Brienne being able to find him on the battlefield without being accosted by any of Bolton's men.

And then on a separate note, the stupidity of Brienne staring at a tower. The idiocy of not having Pod take up watch of the tower. It honestly does seem there is some sort of running joke about Brienne being awful at fulfilling her oath. Even if there isn't, it's pretty awful stuff.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Forest Shepherd wrote:
Radaghast wrote:I like good storytelling. The rest is just icing, but only if the storytelling is good. Otherwise, it's just fluff.
But boobies! Who can resist!

Orson Scott Card, for one Very Happy

https://www.facebook.com/notes/game-of-thrones-fans/harsh-game-of-thrones-review-by-orson-scott-card/218357401509977

This review sounds like it applies to S5 but is surprisingly about S1. Also, I disagree with Card about GRRM's sex scenes.

by Mrs Figg Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:54 pm

Radaghast wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:first off the way they set up the demise of Stannis almost exactly mirrors Blackwater bay.

1. there is blood magic sacrifice of a member of his family (only Stannis didn't have the guts to kill Renly face to face, he got a woman to do it for him)
2. Melisandre gives him a 'pep talk' on his omnipotence. Stannis looks into the belly of the fire and sees victory.
3. the battle.
4. defeat. once by fire, once by ice. this is significant.
5. Melisandre goes oops! first time is nearly strangled, second time she flees just in time to save herself.
6. the only difference is the first battle he loses he is still on the up and full of vigour, the last battle he is finished, mentally and physically.

its exactly the same framework, so I don't get how people are confused. By the time Stannis reaches the castle of the Boltons he has fallen from the warrior who defeated the Wildlings to this grey sunken hollow man. he has littered his career by dishonourable acts which have led him to this pass. he murders his own blood, brother and daughter, he betrays his old gods, Northern gods, he shouldn't have been defeated by ice, but he has been taken in by Melisandre, he has an honourable man of the North killed, Mance. Stannis is fallen and his end is inevitable. I think it was poetic justice. also the Baratheons have a cowardly streak which causes mayhem. Robert mentally abdicates and takes to drink, Renly runs away at the first sign of trouble, leaving Ed Stark to die, Stannis doesn't have the balls to kill his brother man to man, they are arrogant power hungry shits who use people. they are all killed how they lived their lives. Robert by hunting as that was all he loved, Renly by smoke and mirrors, vanity and betrayal a thief in the night who fades into nothing. Stannis killed as a result of a dishonourable act, the murder of his kin.
Confused about what? Who said anything about confusion? Exact same framework at what? The issue here is the character assassination and utter ruin of Stannis to no good plot purpose at all. Our point is not about what the character deserves, it's about what was the use of this character in service to the plot. He amounts to absolutely nothing for the plot in the TV show.

Renly didn't run off like a thief in the night. He knew he was in danger if he stayed there unless he and Stark pulled off a coup, which Start refused. That's not cowardice, that's self-preservation. Robert wasn't fit to be king and abdicated responsibility to others, but I don't see how that makes him a coward.

And, not to defend Stannis' fratricide at all, but he couldn't practically face Renly man-to-man at the time. The only other way he could have killed Renly was in a costly battle. Again, though, his killing of Renly was a despicable act, no question about it.

actually lots of people have mentioned confusion. I wasn't aiming the statement at you in particular. Stannis had had his character assassinated long before he killed Shireen, and the riun of Stannis has a perfectly valid purpose as far as the plot. It echo's many other so called 'pretenders' for thrones throughout Westeros. Renly thought he was the rightful heir, he amassed an army and went out in a poof of smoke, if you will pardon the pun. Mance thought he would amass an army to take over the North, was snuffed out without much trouble. Rob thought he was the king of the North... blah blah... as does Stannis the Mannis. theres a hell of a lot of this stuff going on, and one by one they are put down. people seem to really object to Stannis being seen in a bad light, but he wasn't right for the job, he had to go. they all played the game of thrones, and lost. whats the big deal.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:10 pm

Anyway, I thought it was pretty well spelled out what the big deal was. No point in repeating it. If you don't think it's a big deal to have invested that much screen time on Stannis only to have it go down the sewer pipes, I don't have the will or wherewithal to convince you. I will say this crap doesn't occur in the book which, while they have their flaws, don't have nearly as many flaws as this series. Very few, if any, from a sheer storytelling perspective.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:15 pm

Interesting review, which I agree with:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/game-of-thrones-needs-to-put-us-out-of-its-misery-1711317572

Basically it remarks on the unrelentingly nihilistic nature of this series. That that's basically its main schtick now (that and tawdry and lurid sex crap and utterly boring conversations). The finale gave the viewer very little of the positive to go on till April.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:45 pm

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:34 pm

Pretty good piece on how the rape of Sansa by Ramsay robs the story of context and how Sansa being in that position at all makes no logical sense in the first place; brings up the same points that occurred to me.

http://www.therainbowhub.com/jeyne-poole-and-bad-storytelling-why-we-need-to-stop-making-excuses-for-gratuitous-rape-scenes/

by Mrs Figg Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:25 pm

these blogs are very aggressive, makes you wonder why. they get so caught up in forcing their opinions on you, 'silencing' is the term I would use, and the reasoning just isn't convincing.

by Eldorion Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:30 pm

Radaghast wrote:Interesting review, which I agree with:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/game-of-thrones-needs-to-put-us-out-of-its-misery-1711317572

Basically it remarks on the unrelentingly nihilistic nature of this series. That that's basically its main schtick now (that and tawdry and lurid sex crap and utterly boring conversations). The finale gave the viewer very little of the positive to go on till April.

I dunno, reading that and some of the other posts linked to from the bottom of the post makes it seem to me like the author's issue is less with the execution in season five and more with the whole thematic premise the show has been working with from day one. I don't agree that the show is becoming more bleak or joyless at all, though I would say that the quality of the non-shocking moments has gone down, which is doubtless related to the show leaning more and more on the shocks to keep viewers interested. Also, while someone's tone isn't grounds for dismissing their argument, I kinda see what Mrs Figg is saying in that the guy is just actively looking for stuff to piss him off. I can't relate to the proud declaration of hate-watching an allegedly unwatchable series at all. If that's what gets him off, cool, but there are so many things I'd rather spend my time on than something that upsets me. And GOT really seems to upset him.

Radaghast wrote:Pretty good piece on how the rape of Sansa by Ramsay robs the story of context and how Sansa being in that position at all makes no logical sense in the first place; brings up the same points that occurred to me.

http://www.therainbowhub.com/jeyne-poole-and-bad-storytelling-why-we-need-to-stop-making-excuses-for-gratuitous-rape-scenes/

I agree with most of the plot and character related criticisms though not some of the broader cultural stuff. Like, I'm sure unhealthy attitudes about women and sexual violence fuel part of the problem, but I'm sure plenty of people think of female fictional characters as interchangeable simply because they don't put all that much thought into fictional characters period, or at least not supporting ones (which female characters are disproportionately likely to be). Unfortunately D&D themselves seem to consider characters interchangeable; for which reason, I can't say. Anyway, there are plenty of good points in the post. Kinda weird how like half of it is just block quotes from the GOT Gifs and Musings essay on the subject. She really has become the guiding light of GOT criticism now.

by Radaghast Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:35 pm

Eldorion wrote:
Radaghast wrote:Interesting review, which I agree with:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/game-of-thrones-needs-to-put-us-out-of-its-misery-1711317572

Basically it remarks on the unrelentingly nihilistic nature of this series. That that's basically its main schtick now (that and tawdry and lurid sex crap and utterly boring conversations). The finale gave the viewer very little of the positive to go on till April.

I dunno, reading that and some of the other posts linked to from the bottom of the post makes it seem to me like the author's issue is less with the execution in season five and more with the whole thematic premise the show has been working with from day one. I don't agree that the show is becoming more bleak or joyless at all, though I would say that the quality of the non-shocking moments has gone down, which is doubtless related to the show leaning more and more on the shocks to keep viewers interested. Also, while someone's tone isn't grounds for dismissing their argument, I kinda see what Mrs Figg is saying in that the guy is just actively looking for stuff to piss him off. I can't relate to the proud declaration of hate-watching an allegedly unwatchable series at all. If that's what gets him off, cool, but there are so many things I'd rather spend my time on than something that upsets me. And GOT really seems to upset him.

I agree that watching something you hate is a questionable thing, but as for moments that exist just to shock, I think S5 had more of that than previous seasons, which I think the blog made a point of; how the show seemed to devolve into nothing but shock value. Again, I was struck by how little of anything uplifting was offered by the season finale. The one arguably uplifting moment featured two of the protagonists jumping from a tall tower. I just found it a plain old drag on just about every level and I don't like where Benioff & Weiss (I refuse to refer to them as "D&D" because fuck them) are taking this story, overall. At this point, I'd rather see only GRRM's unadulterated version of the story, if any at all. I had my doubts about an HBO series when I first heard of it and now, in my perspective at least, my doubts seem justified. I think GRRM made a big mistake selling the rights to his story.

Radaghast wrote:Pretty good piece on how the rape of Sansa by Ramsay robs the story of context and how Sansa being in that position at all makes no logical sense in the first place; brings up the same points that occurred to me.

http://www.therainbowhub.com/jeyne-poole-and-bad-storytelling-why-we-need-to-stop-making-excuses-for-gratuitous-rape-scenes/

I agree with most of the plot and character related criticisms though not some of the broader cultural stuff. Like, I'm sure unhealthy attitudes about women and sexual violence fuel part of the problem, but I'm sure plenty of people think of female fictional characters as interchangeable simply because they don't put all that much thought into fictional characters period, or at least not supporting ones (which female characters are disproportionately likely to be). Unfortunately D&D themselves seem to consider characters interchangeable; for which reason, I can't say. Anyway, there are plenty of good points in the post. Kinda weird how like half of it is just block quotes from the GOT Gifs and Musings essay on the subject. She really has become the guiding light of GOT criticism now.

I think the reason is that Benioff & Weiss not really giving the text the same thought as some of the more avid readers are, which is a shame. I know it's a difficult thing to put a series or movie together, but that shouldn't preclude a more sensitive treatment of the source material.

Just watching the episode, I was incredulous they'd do that to Sansa. I'd completely forgotten that Jeyne was made to be the false Arya and what her fate was until the article reminded me. Makes me think I really should reread the books just to pick up on all the subtext I missed or had forgotten.

by Mrs Figg Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:50 am

I really don't think they gave Sansa Jayne Pooles role for some dark and sexist reason known only to D&D, as this blog person was ranting on about. It was probably a simple case of not wanting thousands of subplots clogging up the story. they have limited time each episode. so they gave Sansa the fake Arya role. big deal. its nothing to do with nefarious sexism. give me a break. I have a sexism radar as big as ..well.. a big thing.. and I notice that stuff when it happens.. and Sansa getting a very bad honeymoon wasn't pinging it. GOT has some of the most brilliantly unsexist female characters on tv. EVER. you just don't get females like that on tv, what..a plain looking woman...ON TV? its unheard of, not only that she has a major role? and is strong and its unpatronising? there are many pretty unusual female roles like the Queen of Thorns, old lady rocks da house, Brienne, Yara, Arya, these are revolutionary in their non sexist agenda. its totally absurd for ranting blog people to whine on about Sansa, do they know what sexism is? I don't even think they know what it means.

by Radaghast Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:10 am

There was no reason, besides shock value, for having that happen to Sansa. They wanted all the shocking and lurid parts of this plot without all the context or logic.

If they wanted to avoid clogging up storylines, why do they have all the extraneous bullshit and failed attempts at humor such as one of the Sand Snakes Flyene flirting with Bronn? So much time is wasted in this season (and some last season) I'm just not buying the argument of expediency.

It's just bad writing all around.

by Radaghast Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:51 am

Eldorion wrote:
Lancebloke wrote:The Boltons in the book are bit evil... only really Ramsay who seems a bit mental. Roose actually begins to turn Theon back to being The on in the way he treats him.

Roose "don't make me regret the day I raped your mother" Bolton is a "bit evil"? One of the leading perpetrators of the Red Wedding too.

He's not as bad as Ramsay but that's a really, really low bar. Certainly quite competent, though.

Yeah, Roose is a full-on sociopath. Ramsey is a full-on sadist.

by Mrs Figg Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:25 pm

Radaghast wrote:There was no reason, besides shock value, for having that happen to Sansa. They wanted all the shocking and lurid parts of this plot without all the context or logic.

If they wanted to avoid clogging up storylines, why do they have all the extraneous bullshit and failed attempts at humor such as one of the Sand Snakes Flyene flirting with Bronn? So much time is wasted in this season (and some last season) I'm just not buying the argument of expediency.

It's just bad writing all around.

er this show has been shocking and lurid from day one. nothing changed. nobody was up in arms about the threat of violent sexual paedophilia to Arya In Harrenhal, she is a child. nobody was up in arms about Theon getting his manhood chopped off. or two prostitutes pleasuring each other in front of LF. or the sexual torture by Geoffrey of a prostitute, he is also a child btw. these blogs strikes me as rank hypocrisy. its not Disney, people watch it because its got violence and sex. what happened to Sansa was fully in keeping with Ramseys character he would psychologically want to dominate her using sex as weapon and that led to her desperate fleeing with Theon. Myranda was also one of the snobs and her hatred of Sansa was as much class based as sexual jealousy.

by Radaghast Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:08 pm

You're missing the point. Sansa shouldn't have been there in the first place; she is not interchangeable with the character from the book.

Theon? He placed himself in that situation? He also did some terrible things? Sansa, in the show, was put there by the supposedly crafty Littlefinger. It does nothing for her arc and demeans a character that has already been dragged through the mud.

As for Arya, of course it was unsettling to witness her being threatened by a violent criminal, but nothing actually happened to her.

by Mrs Figg Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:40 pm

I know she isn't supposed to be there in the book, but its not the book, its the tv show. LF was obviously using her from day one, even though he gave her the talk, she still trusted his judgement, big mistake, she is still on her character arc, only its got very nasty very quickly. In the beginning all Sansa wanted was to become a princess and have babies, she slowly learnt how to lie and then she decided she was 'dark Sansa' which was just more girlish posturing, and it soon evaporated as she washed her hair. she wasn't really changing or developing but I think the turning point in her real transformation was the leap into the unknown with Theon. he turned back into Theon and 'killed' Reek, and Sansa left her childhood and became a woman. what happens to both of them next is anyones guess. but at this moment in time all the young characters are going through traumatic transformations, Jon 'killed the boy' probably some kind of metamorphosis, Arya has transformed physically, Theon, Sansa, Bran, Dany are all being transformed into who they were meant to be. baptisms of fire and ice.

by Mrs Figg Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:20 pm

more thoughts on Sansa. throughout her life she has been used abused and manipulated by other people, Geoffrey, Cercei, Littlefinger, she has drifted along with the tide only occasionally standing up for what is right, and when she does she is generally punished for it. she has had to pretend she is someone else in the eyrie, so kind of already taking on a part of the Jayne Poole story, although she has to pretend she isn't a Stark. so used and abused she has come to the end of the road, either to jump into a new life or die. There was no point in introducing a secondary character when they could more fully tell Sansa's story, even though it diverges from the book.

by Eldorion Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:03 am

I don't really see how season five developed Sansa's story in a new or interesting direction. Even if we pretend that the books don't exist, it just put Sansa back into the same victim position she was in earlier sequences and just pretended that the nascent "dark Sansa" theme which was so prominent at the end of season four never happened (perhaps the exception of Littlefinger's nonsensical claim that Sansa would get revenge on the Boltons by marrying into their family). But if we bring up Littlefingler then we have to deal with the aforementioned fact that neither his nor Roose 's actions with regards to Sansa make any sense (and again, this is true even if we completely ignore the book).

by Radaghast Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:18 am

Mrs Figg wrote:I know she isn't supposed to be there in the book, but its not the book, its the tv show.

Yes. I am making the case that the TV show is inferior to the book. It doesn't make sense, especially as compared to the book.

by Radaghast Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:20 am

Eldorion wrote:I don't really see how season five developed Sansa's story in a new or interesting direction. Even if we pretend that the books don't exist, it just put Sansa back into the same victim position she was in earlier sequences and just pretended that the nascent "dark Sansa" theme which was so prominent at the end of season four never happened (perhaps the exception of Littlefinger's nonsensical claim that Sansa would get revenge on the Boltons by marrying into their family). But if we bring up Littlefingler then we have to deal with the aforementioned fact that neither his nor Roose 's actions with regards to Sansa make any sense (and again, this is true even if we completely ignore the book).

Yup. After the one step forward that was S4, Benioff & Weiss took Sansa two, maybe three steps back in S5.

And Littlefinger's plan was simply terrible. The proof comes with the fact that it didn't work. And I've come to detest this character, not because of who he is, but because of how he's written and how's he's portrayed by Aidan Gillen; horrible and one-note. OMMV.

by Mrs Figg Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:41 pm

Sansa's story makes perfect sense. its so obvious I wonder anyone doesn't get it. since the tv show has diverged from the book there has been a general backlash with people blaming D&D for just continuing the themes it always had. I would wait before you make snap judgements, its ok saying it doesn't make sense over and over, but I have just given a coherent analysis of Sansa's character arc, and I haven't heard anything to make me change my mind.

by Bluebottle Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:24 pm

I'm surprised people still have the energy and bother to debate this stuff. Razz

I'm not sure I want to jump back into it too much considering how much of a train wreck I found season 5, but here's my thoughts on the Sansa thing back when it happened, anyway.

Bluebottle wrote:I started writing out a response about the whole Sansa thing, but I found mself basically just repeating the points of Eldo's rant above. That pretty much says it all. I thought I'd try to write out my view of the whole thing in a very shorthanded bulletpointish form though, as much to try to organize my thoughts as anything else.

As a basic assumption though; No, I do not think there in principle is anything wrong about portraying rape in fiction. As I said on the last page horrible things happen in real life, horrible thngs happen in fiction. (All the while I like to be very clear that it's a heavy handed narrative grip, a traumatic one, one that shouldn't and can't be brushed over as far as narrative consequenses are concerned, and one one should be careful of using, because it very easily becomes gratuitous.) That's not the issue I have with this at all.

When considering the scene I think one first has to look at it's context in the internal narrative of the show. One should look at all the illogical decisions, changes in characterization, all the hoops and knots they tied themselves in to get to a situation where the rape of Sansa was, yes, a logical consequense of the narrative. (Does Ramsay raping his bride on their wedding night make logical sense? Yes. Does Sansa marrying Ramsay? The way they got to that wedding night? No.)

Having faced that fact, one should look at what the showrunners/writers themselves have said about this moment and why they bent over backwards to include it featring Sansa. Here from Brian Cogman;

“You have this storyline with Ramsay. Do you have one of your leading ladies—who is an incredibly talented actor who we’ve followed for five years and viewers love and adore—do it? Or do you bring in a new character to do it? To me, the question answers itself: You use the character the audience is invested in.”

They also stated they loved this storyline, and couldn't wait to get it to screen. So what does that tell us?

It tells us that their reason for doing this, the reason they wanted to do this scene in the show was for the shock it would create. The reason they substituted the tertitary character with Sansa, basically dropping her from her own storyline, dropping her own storyline and dialling back her (empowered ) character development to get there, was that it would make the moment even more shocking and impactful to have a character people were invested in go through it.

This can be further illustrated by a point that will make sense to book readers. When this scene happened in the books, in even horrifyingly more explicit detail, it happened in a context. It happened with Roose Bolton penned up in Winterfell with half a dousin other northern lords, because, amazingly, when the heir to House Bolton and the Warden of the North married the last surviving Stark it was kind of a big deal, they shockingly invited more important people than the Kennel Masters daughter, half of which were ready to stab him in the back at the first opportunity. Outside Winterfell minor northern lords flocked to Stannis to save "Ned's little girl". Ramsays treatment of his false Stark bride drove a wedge between Roose and his so called allies. As Lady Dustin states, "Lady Arya's sobs do us more harm than all of Lord Stannis's swords and spears". I'm not saying this is the reason the rape is included in the story, it very much has an impact in itself, on Theon, on the Northern Lords, on everything, but reflect on how the showrunners from this storyline they apparently love, cut everything, I repeat everything but the horrifying rape. They cut the entier context.

Put shortly they wanted the shocking moment of the rape, and they wanted to make it even more shocking and hurtful by dragging Sansa into it, dropping her entier original storyline form the books, through completely illogical storytelling and characterization.

That is what's wrong with this.

In that context I find their decision to go there completely indefensible. And as Eldo stated above, and one of the critics also pointed out, going by their record I don't trust them to handle the fallout of this. I don't have much more to say about it than that.

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t958p735-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-2#172864

by Bluebottle Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:25 pm

Radaghast wrote:
Bluebottle wrote:http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/stop_defending_game_of_thrones_how_hbo_gutted_the_stories_i_love/

Wow.
Before I even read that, it looks like an article I will heartily agree with

Think you might like this one too. Wink

It's one that has got closest to dissecting the series issues for me.

Bluebottle wrote:I think this review gets pretty close to the heart of the problems the show has.

Yes, of course, Benioff and Weiss don’t know how to deal with rape in a meaningful manner. But they don’t know how to deal with anything in a meaningful manner either. Have you seen the way they deal with death, murder, revenge, punishment, war, love, sex, religion, faith, honor, duty, emotions, slavery, responsibility, parenthood, poverty? Not a bit better than with rape. They are still to meet a sensitive issue they understand, let alone address in a competent way.

When you’re repetitive in a short form of fiction, it’s clumsy and silly. When you’re repetitive in a huge saga, it can be tiring and draining. But when you’re repetitive in an adaptation of the source material that is anything but repetitive, it’s outright pathetic. And when the repetition includes sensitive matters like violence, it’s also insulting and tasteless.

Benioff and Weiss are charlatans, first and foremost. It is, I believe, wrong to ascribe sexism or misogyny to them. Like countless talentless writers, they are even less competent when they write characters of the opposite gender, and generally, characters whose experience they didn’t share personally. And, all in all, they’re no fundamentally better when dealing with male characters and their arcs. Just recall the ridiculous Jon arc in season 2, when his brilliant mission with Qhorin in the books was completely ruined just so he can flirt with and be dumb in comparison to Ygritte. Just look at TV Stannis and everything that happened to him whenever his scenes strayed away from the source material.

Benioff and Weiss endless incompetence suggests privileged backgrounds, which are typically associated with political correctness. Their rare but insightful political comments seem to point in the direction of progressivism as their real-life mindset. All of which could mean that they are not consciously mistreating women or homosexuals (or almost any other group, really) in their writing, but it is the product of their drastic lack of skill and craft.

Perhaps they are not Tywins of the House HBO, in that there is not some dark mission behind their missteps and failings. Perhaps they’re also not Ramsays, because they’re not even enjoying all the damage they’ve inflicted. Perhaps they really are like Theon Greyjoy when he, per some wild chance, took Winterfell under his command: murdering little children, just so they can appear competent and to hide their shortcomings.
https://pawntoplayer.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/unbroken-unbent-unbroken-unbowed-unbowed-unbent/