Game of Thrones [2]

Ah, well. Try reading just the Coggman bits and see if you agree with those then.

I don't agree with Martin being random though, there's definitely themes that he explores in the books that are definitely left out or completely contradicted in the show.

   “It’s an upsetting scene, it’s a horrifying scene, it’s meant to be … [But] the accusation that our motives were [that we] just threw in a rape for shock value, I personally don’t think the scene as shot, or as written, or as acted by our wonderful actors, supports that argument. Nor do I think the aftermath of the scene supports that argument. Not only in these episodes, but also in future episodes. This story is not over. This is a long ongoing story. Sansa has a journey ahead of her, and what happens to her in that room is a huge part of that journey, and one that we’ve thought through.”

It’s very well acted, but actually, everything we’ve seen supports this argument. Because there was no reason for her to be in this situation. And because nothing else from A Dance with Dragons even made it into this plotline. And because Sansa’s personality roulette is not exactly handling this in any sort of sensitive way.

And you know what else supports this? Your fucking words:

   “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.” -Bryan Cogman (x)

If it had been a woman the viewers didn’t love and adore, we couldn’t have given a shit, right? Apparently Ramsay getting a bride to rape was a non-negotiable, based on your words. Which are full and in context, buddy. And you literally just owned up to the fact that Sansa being the one to be brutalized was the way to go because we’re invested in her. Because you wanted to shock us. Because you think a “gothic horror story” is “dramatically satisfying.” Not thematically. Dramatically. You wanted drama. THIS WAS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF RAPE = DRAMA.

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/139613553742/here-we-go-again-ew

I see two sensible arguments that kinda cancel out to me. He's not 100% convincing; she's doing some serious word twisting.

I'm interested in what you think Martin's themes are. Though I think he has them, he also throws in randomness to show that they don't save you in the end.

Actually, i think that's one of the most clear cut contradicitons I've seen for a while. But it's normal for people not being held to account switching positions like that. One should just not let them get away with it.

As for Martin and themes re the show, it's all been written down rather eloquently.

http://www.fandomfollowing.com/game-of-thrones-is-officially-passing-the-books-in-season-6-and-why-we-shouldnt-care/

Those aren't themes, they are consistency checks.

Arguing that the show makes characters do things that aren't realistic is valid. Stannis burning his daughter at that particular stage in the story did not fit his character. But the Sansa rape scene didn't violate character in the same way. Whether or not they dragged the viewer through the rape for voyeuristic purposes is a whole different argument. But themes are not being involved the same way Tolkien does.

I have a book in which the author attempts to demonstrate that Tolkien was trying to convert his readers into good Catholics without them realizing it. It's pretty definitely going too far in the argument, but at least Tolkien is open to such readings. Martin is too much a realist to have such thematic readings.

I agree with you Halfy. Martin seems to be about chaos and random acts of savagery like real life. Tolkien has a moral core, good triumphant, loyalty and friendships and Martin doesn't particularly reward goodness, and loyal people sometimes look like fools for trusting. Good people die for no reason in Westeros, that wouldn't happen in Middle Earth, they would have a noble end, and it would mean something.

I can't buy into that. What happens in the books is not random at all. It might seem so on a first reading, but if you actually gt into the story you realize things happening like The Red Wedding or Neds beheading, only seemed surprising because you didn't want it to happen. But on closer inspection everything in the story was leading inevitably up to it.

George writes thematically and narratively consistently. His story grows out naturally by his world his characters and their motivations. The show does constant one-eighties when it suits it. It's a different ballpark, and a different game, and I know which one i prefer.

I thought that the whole Sansa plotline in S5 made no sense, and the fact that it was actually all about Theon and especially Ramsay was even more disappointing (kinda hard to even call it the Sansa plotline, tbh). I just don't think that the fact a bunch of people were involved in creating a poorly written rape scene is sufficient justification for some of the personal attacks that have been made. On the other hand, there have certainly been some moments of poor writing that it feels like kinda had to come from someone's problematic attitudes about women and/or sex (I'm thinking mainly of Tyrion and the sex slave here).

https://ia801504.us.archive.org/30/items/UBSCogmanSpecial/UBS%20Cogman%20Special.mp3

Those two sound cute, wish they put out videos. I'm impressed that they recognize the medieval tune as a salterello. No time to listen to a whole hour now, but may tune in later.

Looked at their website. Actually not impressed as they seem like the types who pick a target to endlessly torment.

Showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss (D&D) have, over time, demonstrated to us that they have a very limited understanding of the characterizations and themes at play in a series that is about so much more than twists and gasps. In the case of LOTR, it was clear that Peter Jackson, despite his changes, understood Tolkien’s vision. From our perspective, while D&D may know plot-wise where ASOIAF will end up, what they are giving us is a story that relies on overused tropes and trite interpretations, which ultimately misses “the point.”

Okay....can't entirely agree with PJ getting Tolkien's vision while D&D do not get GRRM's vision.

Here she is discussing some dialogue she didn't like:

Varys: I did what I did for the good of the realm.
Yes, good. This is in keeping with what we know of Varys’s characterizations in the book. Except for the part where he’s confronting Littlefinger (LF) but w/e.

Baelish: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It’s the thousand blades of Aegon’s enemies- a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it’s a lie.
What? LF has always kind of worked within the system and played the political game for his own long-term strategy. Is more opportunistic than nihilistic, but maybe okay, it’s just his way of being like “I’m so above the game the high lords play.” Let's see where this goes:

Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.
Well Varys and Illyrio are actively working to create chaos within the realm so that it is ripe for the taking, but because they have a plan in mind Varys might be inclined to view chaos in and of itself as a negative? Maybe?

Baelish: Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder.
Yes, that’s what we just said–both Varys and LF need the realm fucked up.

Too me this is bending over backwards to pick on what is actually some very nice writing. It wasn't from the books, but it defined the characters very nicely. If GRRM had some equally nice dialogue that was ignored I can see being upset, but he didn't offer us conversations between Varys and Littlefinger - just overheard snatches which we later find out was probably them, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, those two young women sound quite delightful in the podcast, and have put considerable effort into eviscerating the show, but I think they go overboard in much the way Petty has gone overboard criticizing grass length and color. Just looking for things to attack. I'm happy to leave them to it and no doubt they have some good points, but I won't agree with 70% of what they say.

I don't understand how anyone can call it a rape scene, when nobody actually saw the rape. anyone would think it was a gratuitous and graphic rape scene, but it wasn't, because we didn't get to see it. it was seen mirrored in Theon's gaze, that doesn't make it about Theon, because that is deliberately missing the point. The point is that its perfectly on line with Ramseys character as seen in the show.The so called rape scene was pretty subtle by GOT standards so I think its just an excuse to moan about D&D. its a bit rich to criticise them for something Martin does all the time in the books, sexual violence, why are people so skittish over the Sansa scene beats me.

Mainly because it's a departure from the books.

I've come to terms with some of the LotR departures from the books: to me the only reason to pull Aragorn over the cliff during the Warg fight was to provide the stunning helicopter shot of him seeing the armies of Isengard approaching, then dramatically pushing the doors open. Some silliness in there, but it didn't really violate Tolkien's characters or themes. I can live with it. But it takes some time to get over it.

Same with many of the things being criticized in Games of Thrones. If it's not a major violation, get over it.

halfwise wrote:Looked at their website.  Actually not impressed as they seem like the types who pick a target to endlessly torment.

Actually, if you dig a bit deeper you'll find they both were major fans of the show, who even ferociously defended it during season 4, but just couldn't kid themselves about way the show was going anymore. I'm sure you know what they say about spurned lovers and all that.

The Aragorn falling over a cliff thing and the warg attack is one of my least favourite bits of the whole trilogy, that and the escaping kids, it just makes it grind to a halt and its visually scabby. Don't like it.

Actually, if you dig a bit deeper you'll find they both were major fans of the show, who even ferociously defended it during season 4, but just couldn't kid themselves about way the show was going anymore. I'm sure you know what they say about spurned lovers and all that.

Ah, so it all comes down to season 5.  Good point about love gone awry.  

Well, obviously they spot problems, particularily with season 4 in hindsight. But then end of season 4/season 5 was very much what broke the camels back. Very much the same as with me.

I hope Season five did not injure your spine in any way!

halfwise wrote:Those two sound cute, wish they put out videos.

Can we not do this, please?

halfwise wrote:I've come to terms with some of the LotR departures from the books: to me the only reason to pull Aragorn over the cliff during the Warg fight was to provide the stunning helicopter shot of him seeing the armies of Isengard approaching, then dramatically pushing the doors open.  Some silliness in there, but it didn't really violate Tolkien's characters or themes.  I can live with it.  But it takes some time to get over it.

Same with many of the things being criticized in Games of Thrones.  If it's not a major violation, get over it.

I get where you're coming from on the LOTR point. I happen to think that PJ did in fact miss the point of a lot of Tolkien's characters, including Aragorn, but the warg battle is ultimately pretty inconsequential, although I can understand why it bugs people for pacing reasons or just as an example of PJ's (over-)interest in action scenes. Actually, the people who Blue keeps quoting have made the PJ comparison before and I commented on their page about that once, mentioning some of the similarities between PJ and D&D, but they didn't respond. But anyway, I think that he was a lot closer than GOT is at this point, and I agree that both adaptations get way over-scrutinized a lot (I may have been guilty of this myself with LOTR in the past).

Well the reason for the scrutiny is simply that the source material is massively popular. I don't think they do get "over-scrutinized". If we consider how much interest people have in the adaptations of these works, than the corresponding amount of discussion the film versions promote is perfectly understandable.

I had to go back to the original post by Halfwise. What are we not doing right now? I don't get. If Halfwise perving it up a bit, is that it?

It makes me uncomfortable that people seem to find the need to comment on a woman's attractiveness every time a photo/video (or, in this case, an audio recording) of a woman is posted on here. It's nothing new and I don't mean to single out Halfy, but this time I decided to say something about it. Just to be clear, this is solely my opinion, not a moderator action.

Perhaps over-scrutinized was a poor choice of words. I wouldn't argue against close analysis and intense discussion of these works, but I think sometimes such discussions get bogged down in really minor details at the expense of the broader point. Though in the case of the GOT criticisms Blue posted, I think those people offer plenty of general, meaningful criticisms in addition to some that I find kinda nit-picky.

Most importantly I think the criticism points out the random 180s they make in characters and their motivations. And how they see the backstory as applying or not applying to a situation by whether it fits what they want to write in the moment.

Mostly it just highlights a whole lot of sloppy writing going on.

I think it's natural to go a step further and ask whether that poor writing displays any as poor ethical tendencies.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Eldorion wrote:It makes me uncomfortable that people seem to find the need to comment on a woman's attractiveness every time a photo/video (or, in this case, an audio recording) of a woman is posted on here. It's nothing new and I don't mean to single out Halfy, but this time I decided to say something about it. Just to be clear, this is solely my opinion, not a moderator action.

if we are being equal opportunities. does that mean I cant comment on Petty's erm.. attractive hairy red legs?
I am a woman and have been guilty of this, remember the swaying fiddling blonde twins?

Mrs Figg wrote:I think that's a bit of a stretch.

And I'd say the evidence is quite conclusive as to the negligence part of it. So, this is obviously something we disagree on.

But isn't that all part and parcel of being friends, that we can disagree and for it not to be a problem. Oh, wait. This is forumshire..

Joking.. joking..