*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3132
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #400 on: June 06, 2016, 04:47:17 PM »
Nah, I think she learned some sweet skills. That nice little roll over the bridge being one of them. Others would include better fighting skills, stealth, and observation.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #401 on: June 06, 2016, 08:13:03 PM »
She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.

If it seemed inevitable, it's because it was written that way.  The writers were responsible for the events that led up to that moment as well as the moment itself.

I literally don't understand your position. Do you have the same problem with the dozens of depictions of rape in the books, too, or are you making some distinction I'm not seeing?  ???

Also I think GRRM himself deserves credit for making Ramsay a despicable monster, not the show's writers.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

George

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #402 on: June 06, 2016, 10:33:14 PM »
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7011
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #403 on: June 07, 2016, 12:54:48 AM »
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

Saddam, are you saying writers should never write things that result in undesirable outcomes for story characters?

George

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #404 on: June 07, 2016, 01:19:19 AM »
Yes, that is literally what I'm saying.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #405 on: June 07, 2016, 02:24:35 AM »
You're acting like there were only two options for the writers:

a. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then let the rape happen

b. Set up a situation that would logically end in a rape, and then at the last minute not let the rape happen even though it makes no sense, confusing the audience

Nobody is arguing in favor of the second option.  It was the writers' decision that Ramsay and Sansa would end up in a bedchamber with him ready to rape her, and if the show was going to avoid depicting a rape, that's a scene they probably would have changed.

I don't think this addresses my question at all, and I'm going to explain why.  You can just as easily argue that GRRM could have avoided all the depictions of Dothraki raping women if he wanted to by not having Dany marry Khal Drogo.  He could have very easily written a nice little story about life in the Middle Ages (I know it's not technically, of course, but Martin is on record as saying that this is what he was specifically trying to evoke) and ignored the fact that rape was a common occurrence in such brutal times, but he chose not to (indeed, not whitewashing history was important to him), and it gave depth to the story. 

So we get to Ramsay and Sansa.  The writers didn't have to marry Sansa off to Ramsay, of course... but it definitely helped to move the story along.  I get the idea that you think Ramsay raping Sansa was gratuitous, but once they made the decision about the marriage, they made it an inevitability.  It would have been toothless and cowardly to pretend that it wasn't happening.  And furthermore, his actions toward Sansa are having definite implications now; just two episodes ago even, when Sansa refused Littlefinger's help for putting her in that position.

So the rape served the story.

And it was therefore not only inevitable, but not in the least gratuitous.

Again, if you are drawing a distinction between GRRM brutally depicting rape in the books and Benioff and Weiss doing it on the show, I'd love to understand where that distinction lies.  I'm not seeing it.

She didn't need to be raped to establish that she was in a shitty situation.  She needed to be raped because Ramsay Bolton is a horrible person, and there's no way he's not going to rape his new bride.  It would not have been true to the character to depict it any other way, and it wouldn't have been fair to the audience to just pretend it wasn't happening.  Not all liberal SJW criticisms of mass media are unfair but this one really is.
Eh, not really. Especially when book Sansa is in the Vale and learning to be a Lady Littlefinger. This whole divergence from the books pissed me off more than anything the show has done.. well except maybe for the Sand Snakes.

Seriously?  I applaud the change more than most that they've made.  Sansa's storyline in the Vale was a real snoozer.  But it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much that they showed a rape (or "one rape too many" as George put it) on the show, but rather that they changed what you apparently considered to be a riveting and compelling storyline.  Which is fair enough, but aim your shots where they belong.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #406 on: June 07, 2016, 03:46:48 AM »
i think both are true.  i think it's true that there's real value to being honest about the cruelty that really existed in that time period.  i also think it's true that choice to depict that violence, and the manner in which is is depicted, justifiable or not, can have a plethora of negative effects on some viewers, especially when it comes to sexual violence. 

i don't think there's anything wrong with writing/displaying cruelty, but i also don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing it.  if anything i think there always ought to be a voice that asks us if our displays of cruelty, even confined to their respective contexts, are morally justifiable, even if we can never reach a consensus opinion.  maybe especially because we can never reach a consensus opinion.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3132
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #407 on: June 07, 2016, 12:18:59 PM »
Seriously?  I applaud the change more than most that they've made.  Sansa's storyline in the Vale was a real snoozer.  But it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much that they showed a rape (or "one rape too many" as George put it) on the show, but rather that they changed what you apparently considered to be a riveting and compelling storyline.  Which is fair enough, but aim your shots where they belong.
Yeah, I guess rape is way more exciting.

And.. I definitely did aim my shots? That's why I said I disliked the whole divergence which would make the rape a moot point.

Are you going to defend how necessary Jaime/Cersei rape was next? GRRM depicts rape, but not to the extent or randomness that the show does. It ruins characters in the show. Jaime wouldn't rape Cersei.. just as Sansa never should have been in a position to be raped. Now she's just "I'm hard cause I'm tired of being a victim" as opposed to book Sansa who is a clever manipulative woman.. not broken. Sansa is supposed to be charming and warm, now she's a generic cold hardass. yawn

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #408 on: June 08, 2016, 12:04:30 AM »
Yeah, but we're supposed to know that Arya is also a pretty badass almost Faceless Man. If they could kill her as easily as anyone else then all that training would have been absolutely worthless.

I think all the training is already absolutely worthless. She seemed to learn nothing from them. Maybe a little bit of stick-fighting, but surely not nearly as good as the Waif. Everything she learned could have been attributed to what Syrio or the Hound taught her. She didn't learn how to change faces or anything supernatural, at best she picked up a bit more combat skills? Worthless, I say!

Arya did learn how to wash dead bodies though. There'll be plenty of dead bodies to wash back in Westeros, so perhaps she could start her own business.

George

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #409 on: June 13, 2016, 08:01:53 PM »
Didn't really like this latest episode.  Tweaking around the Riverrun storyline the way they did didn't sit right with me.  Seeing the Brotherhood of Banners again was cool, but seeing how Beric is still there, it doesn't seem likely that they're going to be introducing Lady Stoneheart at this stage.  And the Arya subplot was terrible, just terrible.  No, you don't get to do an off-screen moment of badassery when she has yet to demonstrate said badassery in the first place!  Seriously, the Waif has spent the whole season kicking Arya's ass, and now at the last minute they think they can cut away and we'll just imagine that this time it went differently?  Bah.  Also, we have a preview for the next episode, which will presumably be set entirely in Winterfell, similar to how other seasons have set their penultimate episodes entirely at the scene of big battles:



I seriously hope they kill off Ramsay.  I've had enough of him, and I suspect so has everyone else.  I suppose we'll have to see him personally kill Wun-Wun first, though, because he's just that awesome amirite.  All jokes aside, Wun-Wun probably will die, and Littlefinger will probably ride in at the last minute to save the day with reinforcements from the Vale.

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #410 on: June 13, 2016, 08:27:05 PM »
And the Arya subplot was terrible, just terrible.  No, you don't get to do an off-screen moment of badassery when she has yet to demonstrate said badassery in the first place!  Seriously, the Waif has spent the whole season kicking Arya's ass, and now at the last minute they think they can cut away and we'll just imagine that this time it went differently?  Bah.

The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark. Since she was blind for a while, Arya has experience fighting without vision. The Waif has always been sighted, so being in the dark gave Arya the advantage. Which is extra satisfying because the Waif is the one who kept beating up a fucking blind girl and made Arya learn to fight without vision in the first place.

George

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #411 on: June 13, 2016, 08:53:32 PM »
The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark.

It was off-screen for dramatic effect.  Just because the characters can't see doesn't mean that we, the viewers, shouldn't be able to see.

Quote
Since she was blind for a while, Arya has experience fighting without vision. The Waif has always been sighted, so being in the dark gave Arya the advantage. Which is extra satisfying because the Waif is the one who kept beating up a fucking blind girl and made Arya learn to fight without vision in the first place.

I get that, but it's not like it would have been such an easy fight for her that we didn't need to see how it went down.

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #412 on: June 13, 2016, 09:27:39 PM »
The badassery was off-screen because it was in the dark.

It was off-screen for dramatic effect.  Just because the characters can't see doesn't mean that we, the viewers, shouldn't be able to see.

I know it was for dramatic effect. I thought that was made clear when you first brought this up, and I'm not disagreeing with that. It seemed that you were saying that that dramatic effect wasn't deserved. And I'm saying it is, because of the whole advantage of the dark thing.

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #413 on: June 13, 2016, 11:55:09 PM »
i agree with mollete.  personally, i thought that was the perfect way to execute that scene. for one thing, it's a kind of visual representation of what just happened to the waif and what arya is now capable of.  it's not that they omitted some cool action sequence or fight scene that arya won.  it represents how the waif experienced that scene: the light went out, and she was dead just as quickly.  and, that's all the more reason to leave the details to your imagination.  i don't want every little detail of everything that happens to be shoved down my throat.  the way that scene plays out in my head after the candle falls is just so much cooler than anything they could've showed me on screen.

saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 12:11:29 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #414 on: June 14, 2016, 02:42:05 AM »
I agree with mollete too.  Arya was used to not being able to see when fighting the Waif.  She leveled the playing field by snuffing the candle.  It's really all we needed to know.  I don't think it was a cheat at all.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #415 on: June 14, 2016, 03:25:41 AM »
To be fair, I didn't get it at first. I was sitting there trying to figure out if the cut was just a dumb cop-out or if there was something I wasn't getting. I remembered that Arya had been blind when I was in the shower later, because that's where all of life's great revelations occur.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #416 on: June 14, 2016, 01:30:03 PM »
saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...

You should hear him deride the capeshit that he cannot live without.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3132
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #417 on: June 14, 2016, 04:21:37 PM »
I'm getting pretty conflicted about the show.

The writers are relying too much on reveals and epic moments and pretty much trashing any good character arcs or substantial plot.
This season has had some great moments, but overall it feels pretty hollow.

George

Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #418 on: June 20, 2016, 03:48:44 AM »
saddam i seriously don't get why you watch this show.  all you do is complain about it and talk about how awful and terrible it is.  i mean, if they'd showed arya killing the waif, then you'd absolutely be in here complaining about what a terrible scene it was and how they didn't do it right and etc...

Me, nitpick and complain endlessly about something that I claim to enjoy?  Well, I'll be, I am acting completely out of character!

I have no complaints about this episode, though, despite my predictions turning out to be right.  Seeing poor Wun-Wun die was far more distressing to me than seeing Rickon go.  I loved the sheer insanity of the battle, from the black comedy to the claustrophobic air of panic and chaos, and thank fucking God, Ramsay didn't ruin everything with a sudden case of plot armor.  I really liked that his final confrontation with Jon was a one-sided beatdown, rather than a prolonged "boss battle" of sorts (like the fight with Karl back in the fourth season), and his ultimate fate was pure poetic justice.  And then Sansa is all like:



The Meereen subplot was good too.  Dat budget.  But I will be very annoyed if the next episode doesn't include everyone finally going to Westeros.  I seriously won't be able to stand another season of tedium in Meereen.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3132
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Game of Thrones
« Reply #419 on: June 20, 2016, 12:14:13 PM »
I'm all about that Meereen plot. Dany is so awesome.
I will never understand why people prefer emo Jon Snow to alpha af Dany. Every time she's on screen I just wanna yell "yasss kween!"

PS: Soooo fucking glad Tormund didn't die. I don't think my heart could have taken it.