Olivia Cooke says House of the Dragon won’t include “egregious graphic violence towards women”

oliviacooke
Olivia Cooke, who is set to play Alicent Hightower in House of the Dragon, is well aware of Game of Thrones’ tumultuous legacy and, honestly … it’s a little nerve wracking.

In a recent interview with Telegraph (if you’re stuck at the paywall, the content of the interview has also been covered by IndieWire), Cooke addressed some of the controversies surrounding Game of Thrones, and stated that House of the Dragon will not include the sort of gratuitous violence against women that plagued her show’s predecessor.

“I wouldn’t feel comfortable in being a part of anything that has just egregious graphic violence towards women for no reason whatsoever, just because they want it to be tantalizing in a way that gets viewers,” she said. “I was lucky enough to read the [prequel] script before, and it has changed a lot from the first few seasons [of Game of Thrones]. I don’t think they’d be in their right minds to include any of that any more.”

That’s reassuring to hear. The highly divisive episode “Unbent Unbowed Unbroken” which featured Sansa’s disturbing wedding night to Ramsay Bolton aired six years ago this May (good lord), and, frankly, everything that needs to be said about it and the show’s overall handling of sexual violence has already been said several times over. However, since Fire and Blood‘s account of Targaryen history and the Dance of the Dragons in particular is hardly free of such content, I feel better knowing that the folks at HBO are more conscientious about how they approach such issues than, perhaps, they’ve been in the past.


Cooke actually hadn’t watched any of Game of Thrones before she was cast as Alicent Hightower but, cultural osmosis being what it is, she was nonetheless clued in on the main plot points of the show.

“I saw too many clips, just being alive at the time, so I knew what was going to happen,” she said, regarding the series finale. “What happened with Daenerys, I was ok with it, because I was expecting it, but it’s hard, you know… I’m a bit nervous about the new one. You’re never gonna please everyone, so I’ve just got to not listen to that stuff.”

It’s a little heartbreaking to hear just how intimidated actors feel to be in a Game of Thrones prequel due to the intensity of the fandom (Naomi Watts expressed similar feelings about Blood Moon). Mayhaps we can take a hint from these interviews and avoid toxic behaviors in the future.

164 responses

Jump to (and Always Support) the Bottom

    1. As for Olivia Cooke’s statement statement referring to sexual violence in House of the Dragon:

      Given the controversy Game of Thrones generated with its use of sexual violence against women, did she think twice before taking the role?

      “I wouldn’t feel comfortable in being a part of anything that has just egregious graphic violence towards women for no reason whatsoever, just because they want it to be tantalising in a way that gets viewers,” she says. “I was lucky enough to read the script before, and it has changed a lot from the first few seasons. I don’t think they’d be in their right minds to include any of that any more.”

      Sexual violence does take place in this story per Fire & Blood but perhaps this means they’ve toned it down, will film it differently, or won’t add to the canon instances/cut some out. Perhaps Petra is right that HBO as become “more conscientious about how they approach such issues.”

        Quote  Reply

    2. Here are some samples from the above article: “…egregious graphic violence towards women,” “…more conscientious about how they approach such issues than, perhaps, they’ve been in the past,” and my favorite, “….avoid toxic behaviors in the future.”

      You know Julius Caesar was stabbed multiple times by multiple people, right? And that is the lighter side of violent human history, what you call, uh, “toxic behaviors.” Get off Facebook for a while, and pick up a history book. Please, I beg you, learn about the real world that isn’t filtered through Facebook’s comment section.

        Quote  Reply

    3. Adrianacandle,

      I’m all for the discussion what I don’t understand is D&D get so much hate for sexual violence yet George seems to get almost zero hate for it. I’m not saying one or the other is better but it always seems a little one sided with D&D getting most of the hate and George getting almost zero for some of the stuff in his books.

        Quote  Reply

    4. Fireblood87: I’m all for the discussion what I don’t understand is D&D get so much hate for sexual violence yet George seems to get almost zero hate for it. I’m not saying one or the other is better but it always seems a little one sided with D&D getting most of the hate and George getting almost zero for some of the stuff in his books.

      I’m not here to unfairly vilify D&D. I’ve seen plenty of criticism for the sexual violence GRRM does include in his books in book-centered discussion areas, criticism which I share. However, in talking about D&D, I think part of the problem comes from D&D adding in sexual violence to main characters’ storylines that had not been in the source material (examples: Sansa’s season 5 storyline, adding the Jaime-Cersei rape scene by Joffrey’s body) and I think this can feel gratuitous. D&D changed Sansa’s storyline season 5 onward because, per their words, they didn’t feel Sansa’s book arc was enough and they wanted to give Sophie Turner a more dramatic storyline. I’m not here to start a battle over whether D&D’s choices here improved the story or not (but I’m sure that’s coming) and I’ve already been outspoken about that but I can see where these criticisms are coming from.

      I don’t think this stuff is to vilify D&D for the sake of vilifying D&D. This criticism of GoT (and other media) has long existed, beginning with the amount of female nudity (and took off with Sansa’s storyline in season 5 especially). Perhaps this criticism will induce a change to how these topics are dealt with in the future. I mean, I am beyond fed up with the rape in Outlander.

      Just about every main character in Outlander has been raped now

      so, for me, this truly isn’t just about D&D or GoT. I have the same criticism of media in general. Perhaps HBO is going to go about this stuff differently or take another approach — especially since 2011 (when GoT started airing) was a bit of a different time happening in a different landscape.

        Quote  Reply

    5. Adrianacandle,

      I’m going to have to disagree a little bit. I have read tons of articles calling D&D sexist, racist, and basically just evil men. I believe it was Lindsey Ellis who said they support spouse abuse. I think some of the criticism of them has been blown way over the top. I’m not saying George hasn’t got some hate he has but it’s nothing close to some of the ridiculous accusations D&D have had. Just this last month I read almost a dozen articles claiming D&D failed upwards and are sexist and why would Netflix give them all that money. It’s fine to debate something like what happened to Sansa which I have no problem with the show going that route since the in the books with Jeyne it’s much worse and she’s not a character in the show. I think if they just introduced a new character and had her raped like she was in the books they would be accused of introducing a new female character just to rape that character. I guess my point is sometimes it seems like no matter what D&D did some people were just frothing at the mouth waiting to pounce on them. I don’t think I ever read an article saying George was sexist and racist. D&D on the other hand I have read countless articles calling them that since basically the beginning of the show. Things like critic Emily Vanderworf saying they think women are too emotional to rule. Some really just ridiculous statements. Author N.K Jeminson saying people should be horrified at what D&D did. Different things like that. I mean George posted on his blog when casting the show he had to go take a cold shower after looking at all the female actresses audition tapes implying well you get the point. Not one article about those comments he made. Now I guarantee if D&D ever said anything like that the next day we would see dozens of articles accusing them of being sexist.

        Quote  Reply

    6. Sansas “rape scene” was nothing. We only heard her quiek, ramsays belt dropping and theons face. Thats it.

      HotD os supposed to play 150 years begore main saga where i would think things where even rougher than at the start of got… i dont like this censorship and toning down of the story to please people who arent made for such a show anyways.

        Quote  Reply

    7. AndreaswGw,

      AndreaswGw,

      That’s my only fear I don’t mind having a debate about the sexual violence and how much is too much but I also don’t want this show to go soft on use because of fear of social media backlash. I was specifically attracted to the books and the show because it never Shied away from these controversial things. I couldn’t imagine if social media was around when The Sopranos had DR. Melfi raped and the rapist gets away with it an also becomes employee of the month at his job.

        Quote  Reply

    8. Fireblood87,

      All I can do is speak for myself and what I’ve seen. People are going to have different opinions and, especially on the internet, people can say some pretty hateful and unwarranted stuff. I’ve seen people say all sorts of disgusting things about GRRM simply because he hasn’t gotten out TWOW but I can’t control that. All we can do is speak our own opinions, we can’t control those of others.

      I think the personal attacks against D&D are too much, myself. I don’t know them, they’re strangers to me. However, as far as sexual violence in television goes, I think rape as a plot/shock/dramatic tool is used too liberally in fictional media and I think that goes right back to soap operas (ie. “rape as redemption” for “bad girls”).

      Just this last month a read almost a dozen articles claiming D&D failed upwards and are sexist and why would Netflix give them all that money. It’s fine to debate something like what happened to Sansa which I have no problem with the show going that route since the in the books with Jeyne it’s much worse and she’s not a character in the show.

      We can’t control the opinions of others or deem what’s fine and what’s not fine to discuss. I think D&D have always had an uphill battle because from the first, they were dealing with some serious, serious book purists since ASOIAF had already developed a following over 15 years by the time GoT aired.

      As for Sansa, I disagree with D&D’s choices on where they went with her storyline. To me, that did feel gratuitous. I’m not saying D&D are deviants for doing so but per what they said, I think it was for the sake of giving Sansa a dramatic storyline and personally, I don’t think that was a great reason to do that Sansa-Ramsay rape storyline.

      I’m also not discounting what happened in the Jeyne-as-fArya and Ramsay storyline. GRRM has gotten some hate for that. However, a television show is kind of more visible and GoT became a worldwide phenomena, exposing this storyline to that many more people. And with more visibility comes more criticism.

      I think if they just introduced a new character and had her raped like she was in the books they would be accused of introducing a new female character just to rape that character.

      Well, if it were done with a new character, I wouldn’t love this storyline either and I think it would still feel gratuitous unless it served a very specific and fairly important narrative purpose. The Jeyne storyline had a very very specific story purpose in the books — it wasn’t to add drama but to tempt Jon into rescuing fArya (which works and this choice directly kickstarts a series of events leading to utter disaster and risking the defense of the realm) and to rally a faction of Northern lords to rebel against the Boltons. Meanwhile, the Sansa adaptation was to expand Sansa’s storyline from the books to give her a major role in the show and to give Sophie Turner the opportunity to do a more dramatic storyline. That’s why it feels gratuitous to me — it’s not so much the sexual violence itself but the purpose of including it.

      D&D said they loved the Jeyne storyline so they wanted to incorporate it somehow, even though Jeyne was no longer a character, which admittedly made me raise an eyebrow.

      I guess my point is sometimes it seems like no matter what D&D did some people were just frothing at the mouth waiting to pounce on them. I don’t think I ever read an article saying George was sexist and racist.

      Oh, I’ve seen people say that about GRRM…

      I think there were always people who D&D could never win over (the extreme book purists — if anything was changed between book and show, it’s automatically bad and D&D are horrible, those types) but with other people, D&D did make choices that I think warrant some criticism.

      As for the other opinions, people are going to think what they think. That’s a big risk of putting yourself out there to an audience of different brains, especially when that audience constitutes just about the entire world.

        Quote  Reply

    9. It’s not like I want to see the show because I’m looking forward to seeing violence against women or sexual violence being portrayed on screen. I’m guessing that most well adjusted, rationally thinking adults aren’t either. Anyone of the people who want to watch ” House Of The Dragon” (or watched GOT before) for those reasons have serious problems and issues that go far beyond what is portrayed on a TV show.

      Sanitizing a TV series for the reason so as not to offend people’s sensibilities, never works out well for anyone, including the show itself and those involved. As long as the violence is part of the story, or something that is a troubling and traumatic but necessary part of any character’s journey then there should be no problem.

      I hesitate to say “gratuitous” this or that, because it is a fairly broad range and definition and there are soo many movies, TV series, books and what have you, that could fall under the category. Besides it may also be in the eye of the beholder to a certain degree. So for the purposes of our purposes here let’s say, unecesary.

      Now if Olivia Cooke feels uncomfortable with the notion of having to perform said scenes, then by all means she shouldn’t feel pressured or worse forced to do so. Use a body double, or stand-in under a controlled and monitored environment. Or you can say no and remove yourself from the show. Point being (hopefully) there are options to be had and conditions in place to facilitate them before ever getting to that point in the production. Especially these days, while it is incumbent for those involved in the behind the scenes making of the series to create that environment, it is also up to the actors and actresses to exercise their own agency and sense of what to do or are willing to.

      If you want to see one show that has suffered because of this type of “sanitizing”…look no further than “The Walking Dead”…and the death scene of the characters of Abraham and Glenn at the hands of the villain, Negan. It is particularly brutal, prolongued and hard to watch. But it also makes the show absorbing, engrossing and it gives the moment the weight and gravitas it deserves. Life can at times be brutal, merciless and cruel. But of course cue in the complaints, the outrage…aaaaand the then showrunner Scott M. Gimple not only ended up apologising (big mistake) but also backtracked and over the next few seasons the show either eliminated, diminished or skirted around including any other scenes of a similar nature. Well, the show suffered as a result and it’s quality saw a marked downturn (to be fair there were other reasons as well not only this). It has taken a change in showrunners, now under the helm of longtime writer and producer Angela Kang (👍👍) for the show to re-discover it’s vitality and edge…

      Honestly…I really wish HBO would snatch Angela Kang away from AMC and “TWD”…and bring her over to “House Of The Dragon”….

        Quote  Reply

    10. loco73,

      I will say whatever people think of D&D I admire them for sticking to the story they wanted to tell and not going on some apology tour when people got outrage. When they were asked about Sansa being raped and people saying they were horrified they basically said yea that’s the point you’re suppose to feel horrified. I think they took really big swings and that’s obviously not going to work for everyone but I admire that they did instead of trying to play it safe and please everyone. I would rather watch something that might not of worked for me but the artist was trying to take a big swing than watching something that’s run of the mill and playing it safe. I can’t comment on the Walking Dead as I only watched around the first three seasons.

        Quote  Reply

    11. loco73,

      Fair points 🙂

      Now if Olivia Cooke feels uncomfortable with the notion of having to perform said scenes, then by all means she shouldn’t feel pressured or worse forced to do so. Use a body double, or stand-in under a controlled and monitored environment. Or you can say no and remove yourself from the show. Point being (hopefully) there are options to be had and conditions in place to facilitate them before ever getting to that point in the production. Especially these days, while it is incumbent for those involved in the behind the scenes making of the series to create that environment, it is also up to the actors and actresses to exercise their own agency and sense of what to do or are willing to.

      This is true.

      And I think the reason for the inclusion of sexual violence is important as well. It’s not really a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. I’m unsure if Cooke has read the source material for Fire & Blood or if, like some actors from GoT, she left herself in the dark so she knows as much as her character (Alicent) does as they move through the story. When it comes to HotD and its source material, “The Brothel Queens” comes to mind. Personally, I’m hoping it’s decided this part of history isn’t true since Fire & Blood and other in-universe records of this time in history were meant to be an in-universe texts written by maesters with human biases.

      For those interested, text concerning ‘Brother Queens’, what it is, and dispute over its credibility is as follows:

      Here again Mushroom differs. The dwarf [Mushroom] would have us believe that Rhaenyra ordered her stepmother’s tongue torn out at once, rather than merely threatening this. It was only a word from Lady Misery that stayed her hand, the fool insists; the White Worm proposed another, crueler punishment. King Aegon’s wife and mother were taken in chains to a certain brothel, and there sold to any man who wished to have his pleasure of them.

      The price was high; a golden dragon for Queen Alicent, three dragons for Queen Helaena, who was younger and more beautiful. Yet Mushroom says there were many in the city who thought that cheap for carnal knowledge of a queen. “Let them remain there until they are with child,” Lady Misery is purported to have said. “They speak of bastards so freely, let them each have one for their very own.”

      Though the lusts of men and the cruelty of women can never be gainsaid, we put no credence in Mushroom here. That such a tale was told in the wine sinks and pot shops of King’s Landing cannot be doubted, but it may be that its provenance was later, when King Aegon II was seeking justification for the cruelty of his own acts. It must be remembered that the dwarf told his stories long years after the events that he related, and might have misremembered. Let us speak no more of the Brothel Queens, therefore, and return once more to the dragons as they flew to battle. Caraxes and Sheepstealer went north, Vermithor and Silverwing southwest.

      After half a year of captivity, why should Aegon’s queen choose this night to end her life? Mushroom asserts that Helaena was with child after her days and nights of being sold for a common whore, but this explanation is only as creditable as his tale of the Brothel Queens, which is to say, not creditable at all. Grand Maester Munkun believes the horror of seeing Ser Thoron and Ser Denys die drove her to the act, but if the young queen knew the two men it could only have been as gaolers, and there is no evidence that she was a witness to their hanging. Septon Eustace suggests that Lady Mysaria, the White Worm, chose this night to tell Helaena of the death of her son Maelor, and the grisly manner of his passing, though what motive she would have had for doing so, beyond simple malice, is hard to fathom.

        Quote  Reply

    12. The point of that long-winded and empty-headed rant was also to say that you cannot sanitize and child proof every aspect of life.

      It seems as if these days we have either lost the ability, or are unable to, make any kind of critical decisions. Sooner or later you will be faced with a situation where reality will slap you upside the head (no pun intended).

      That is coming from someone who is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed…if you catch my drift! I mean, I read “Star Wars” books…on purpose…so there’s that…

        Quote  Reply

    13. loco73: That is coming from someone who is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed…if you catch my drift! I mean, I read “Star Wars” books…on purpose…so there’s that…

      I think you made your points well and articulated your thought process in a coherent way! And I think you make good points (and this is coming from somebody who has come to despise any rape portrayal in fictional media but I know there are some important story reasons for including it).

      As for reading the Star Wars books… well, there are some books in my reading history that aren’t exactly a point of pride and I liked them… 🙂

        Quote  Reply

    14. I’ll be fully honest here… this worries me, a LOT! The Dance of Dragons is a horrific event, in my eyes way more twisted than GoT. Trying to tone it down in order to “not offend people” can do nothing but hurt my experience in my eyes. I may seem a guy who loves pretty much everything he watches but what I truly despise in TV shows is that the show starts with very dark premise and uses thriller/horror tone in its early stages, but with later seasons it gets more light hearted and the ground basis becomes… less dark. If any TV show does that, it gets a huge kick from the top of my ranklist ranklist, no matter how much I originally loved it… the experience is stained for me. Either remain as dark as you started or go even further… that’s how I feel. I know HotD is technically a separate show but being set in GoT universe, if it tries to be “nicer” than GoT, it automatically loses a chance for me to firmly love it. Because for me, GoT’s ground base is dark, brutal, cruel, grim and I really love that the show stayed true to its dark roots in final seasons instead of going the expected fantasy route, deconstructing all protagonists to messed up people instead of fantasy heroes on linear development path, keeping brutal rug-pulling twists in the story and such… because that’s what GoT always was at its core for me. Not a pleasant story, but a grim traumatic story where nothing is glorified. Now these statements from Olivia Cooke are truly worrying me in terms of preserving this tone over the story.

        Quote  Reply

    15. Correction!

      *For those interested, text concerning *‘The Brothel Queens’, what it is, and[…]

      (Not ‘Brother Queens’ XD)

        Quote  Reply

    16. I was trying to watch Olivia Cooke in a new movie “Little Fish”, but I couldn’t make it through the first 20 minutes. The movie has to do with a pandemic virus where people lose their memories. I was going to fight my way through the topic to see how Olivia was doing, but the movie itself didn’t hold my interest for some reason. I’m not sure why yet…

      On the topic, I agree with some that they can’t dumb down the brutality of the world, but I think the showrunners can stay away from being gratuitous about it. It’s a fact in this world that women were taken as spoils of war. But will the showrunners make us feel like voyeurs? There is a line somewhere between what is real and needed for the story and what feels like it is being done just to shock people and stir up buzz for the show. IMHO Sansa’s scene went too far, especially since it wasn’t even in the books. I think D&D went too far with Ramsay in general. Ramsay’s repeated Theon torture scenes felt gratuitous. D&D also made Danny’s wedding night much worse in the show than the books.

        Quote  Reply

    17. Tron79: was trying to watch Olivia Cooke in a new movie “Little Fish”, but I couldn’t make it through the first 20 minutes. The movie has to do with a pandemic virus where people lose their memories. I was going to fight my way through the topic to see how Olivia was doing, but the movie itself didn’t hold my interest for some reason. I’m not sure why yet…

      My messed up self does like pandemic movies, even in the midst of a pandemic. I’ll try it out and see how I do. I am curious to see Olivia Cooke in more — I had trouble staying with Vanity Fair. Anyway, thanks for the report!

        Quote  Reply

    18. Tron79:
      IMHO Sansa’s scene went too far, especially since it wasn’t even in the books.

      I found Sansa’s rape to be quite tame compared to the other depictions of sexual violence we’ve seen on the show and compared to Ramsay’s wedding night in the books. The scene in the books is much worse. It may have happened to a different character, but I fail to see what difference that makes.

        Quote  Reply

    19. Young Dragon: I found Sansa’s rape to be quite tame compared to the other depictions of sexual violence we’ve seen on the show and compared to Ramsay’s wedding night in the books. The scene in the books is much worse. It may have happened to a different character, but I fail to see what difference that makes.

      I completely agree. Up to this day, I still don’t understand why there was such outrageous response to that scene even though the scene is very tame compared to several other scenes in the show… it occurs pretty much off screen, there’s no nudity involved and let’s not forget its book counterpart is waaaaaay worse. I sometimes wonder if this wasn’t Sansa but some xyz character, would the response still be so heated? Or if such scene happened in first three seasons instead of S5 because I’m starting to notice violence and brutality and nudity started to firmly draw criticism in later seasons even though first three seasons are full of it… which makes me think people expected that at one point, bad stuff will simply stop happening to the protagonists even though the premise of this show was always very brutal and there was never any guarantee that the characters would at one point become safe from it.

      You know what scene I find really uncomfortable to watch? Arya killing ser Meryn. I get unpleasant shivers any time I watch that scene because it doesn’t shy away from violence and is very drawn out and to make matters worse for me, such violence comes from one of the main protagonists. But if I remember right, people cheered in that scene.

        Quote  Reply

    20. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas: I completely agree. Up to this day, I still don’t understand why there was such outrageous response to that scene even though the scene is very tame compared to several other scenes in the show… it occurs pretty much off screen, there’s no nudity involved and let’s not forget its book counterpart is waaaaaay worse. I sometimes wonder if this wasn’t Sansa but some xyz character, would the response still be so heated? Or if such scene happened in first three seasons instead of S5

      My issue is not the sexual violence itself really but the purpose of the sexual violence. What Jeyne undergoes in the books is horrific, I agree, and I don’t care to read that more than once. Sometimes, I think GRRM himself goes overboard with this stuff (per my own preferences and feelings). However, there seemed to an important narrative purpose to Jeyne’s storyline because it prompted significant, necessary change in the stories of others to progress the story whereas with Sansa, this is why D&D made that change:

      And it’s because of Turner’s strength, Benioff continued, that it made sense to give Sansa a dramatic storyline this season and to use Ramsay’s engagement for that very purpose. In fact, the showrunners first thought about putting Sansa and Ramsay together back when they were writing season 2. “We really wanted Sansa to play a major part this season,” Benioff said. “If we were going to stay absolutely faithful to the book, it was going to be very hard to do that. There was as subplot we loved from the books, but it used a character that’s not in the show.”

      This is where my issue is, the reasons for changing Sansa’s storyline to include this rape-by-Ramsay storyline. Not that there was rape-by-Ramsay. Per D&D’s words, it seems this change was made for drama, to give Sansa a more major role because they enjoyed Sophie Turner. GRRM himself said his Littlefinger would never give Sansa to the Boltons. I just don’t think this storyline made sense on several levels.

      You and I have debated this before and I don’t anticipate you’d agree with me here, which is fine! However, you said, “I still don’t understand why there was such outrageous response to that scene even though the scene is very tame compared to several other scenes in the show,” and this is my reason why I particularly didn’t like this story.

      If this didn’t happen to Sansa but “some xyz character,” it’d depend on the purposes of this inclusion of sexual violence and the objective it’d be serving this story. Some instances I view are a necessary evil. Others can feel gratuitous (like many of the Outlander rapes in my view).

        Quote  Reply

    21. So we’re back to the awful, awful Sansa-Jeyne Poole shoehorning debacle.

      “It’s deja vu all over again.”
      Yogi Berra.

      How long before we dredge up Sansa concealing the KotV from Jon, and beat that dead horse a little more?

        Quote  Reply

    22. Adrianacandle,

      Well, your reason may be what you said above but I’m still sure that overall, the problem with audience and critics was that this scene simply happened and that the only way of going around it was… well, that it should have never happened. Especially considering the scene was as tame as it could have been in a show that generally didn’t shy away from brutality and definitely waaaaaaaaay more tame than its source material

      As I said before, I never thought for a second that Sansa’s abuse from Ramsay backtracked her character in any way. I saw all these dark events in S5 as necessary evil in her story… that despite what horrors happened to her, she kept going strong and never got broken by Ramsay. Her enduring such horrible treatment while still remaining strong, she set several crucial events in motion such as pulling Theon out of his Reek person (and she actively did that by trying to “get to him”), taunting Ramsay about his bastard status AFTER this abuse already happened (which indirectly led to Ramsay killing Roose in S6), actively plotting her escape during her stay at Winterfell and after she escaped, she immeditately set the wheels in motion to retake Winterfell that eventually suceeded, even though with LF’s help. She definitely suffered in S5, but knowing where her character ends, it doesn’t bother me at all and in fact I find it even more satisfying seeing her crowned at the end and getting her peaceful ending, knowing what horrors she had to suffer through the story.

      I personally way more prefer something like that happening to a main character whose story is to be strong and survive through all the horrors than to a minor character whose only story is to be abused by Ramsay in order to prompt other main character to do something. While I don’t know where Jeyne’s story will go, Jeyne’s story is so far being a victim (in my eyes) while Sansa’s story is not being a victim, but being a survivor, being strong.

        Quote  Reply

    23. Ten Bears,

      You’re right x_x I’m hoping we can avoid that stuff this time. I’m trying to tread extra carefully — the topic of this article being fraught and wearisome at this point (imo), resembling debates done time and time again, with individuals having drawn lines in the sand over this too. New material would be really welcome at this point!

        Quote  Reply

    24. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      Well, your reason may be what you said above but I’m still sure that overall, the problem with audience and critics was that this scene simply happened and that the only way of going around it was… well, that it should have never happened. Especially considering the scene was as tame as it could have been in a show that generally didn’t shy away from brutality and definitely waaaaaaaaay more tame than its source material

      Well, and with all due respect, Erik, I think some assumptions are being made here and this is something I’d like to avoid. People can have (and do have) very good reasons for some of their criticisms with this material. Not everyone, I’m sure, but quite a few people that I’ve seen with thoughtful considerations behind their opinions. The reasons can also be varied and dependent on the individual.

      I, personally, wouldn’t consider that scene tame but that’s per my own experiences and feelings. I can’t speak for anyone else. In saying this, I’m not trying to say the source material is any less brutal, it’s not, but I didn’t feel the show’s depiction was “tame”.

      Yes, I remember you expressing your feelings to me on this change in Sansa’s storyline. I don’t share your views or feelings but I’ve been pretty vocal about that numerous times already (and recently so). In doing my best to avoid going over that same debate again (particularly since we’ve had this discussion fairly recently), I’m going to hold off for now. For me, as much as I didn’t like the Jeyne being forcibly married to Ramsay storyline, I think Jeyne served a pretty crucial narrative purpose in setting significant things in motion that brought important moments and stories to a head in ADWD. I suppose I don’t need to restate how I felt about Sansa taking over Jeyne’s storyline again as I’ve already stated where I think the difference lies.

        Quote  Reply

    25. Adrianacandle,

      ”…We really wanted Sansa to play a major part this season,” Benioff said. “If we were going to stay absolutely faithful to the book, it was going to be very hard to do that. There was a subplot we loved from the books, but it used a character that’s not in the show.””

      ……….
      Adrianacandle: This is where my issue is, the reasons for changing Sansa’s storyline to include this rape-by-Ramsay storyline. Not that there was rape-by-Ramsay. Per D&D’s words, it seems this change was made for drama, to give Sansa a more major role because they enjoyed Sophie Turner. GRRM himself said his Littlefinger would never give Sansa to the Boltons. I just don’t think this storyline made sense on several levels.

      ——-
      Exactly. The storyline was so illogical on so many levels, from the stupid LF marriage “plan” to Sansa inexplicably agreeing to it.

      Worse, it turned Sansa back into a human punching bag, after that beautiful scene on the staircase in S4e8 (“Shall we go?”) when it seemed she finally had become a “player” rather than a pawn.

      What I still can’t figure out is, what was it about the “subplot we loved from the books” that Benioff [and Weiss] “loved” so much?

      From what I gather, the elements in the books that gave the fArya/Jeyne Poole some narrative purpose were absent from the show.

      For me, everything about the adapted “subplot” was repulsive; nothing was redeeming. What was there to “love” about it???

      Wasn’t there anything else they could have come up with for Sophie/Sansa to do in Season 5 other than getting brutalized non-stop by sick f*ck Ramsay?
      Why not have Sansa team up with Jamie Lannister on an undercover mission to Dorne to exfiltrate Myrcella from the Water Gardens in broad daylight?

      That made just as much sense as Sansa agreeing to marry into the family that butchered hers, or LF giving away the virtue of Cat 2.0 to a stranger – which GRRM affirmed LF would never do.

      Damn it! I told myself I wouldn’t jump back into this reignited GoT S5 WF debate. 🤥

        Quote  Reply

    26. Ten Bears,

      I agree with all that you’ve said here 🙂

      I hope to make this short! I do have hills I will die on (but I’m willing to give this hill up) and I totally agree with you about deja vu debates with dead horses that won’t move so in the interest of that, I’ll pull my punches here a bit:

      What I still can’t figure out is, what was it about the “subplot we loved from the books” that Benioff [and Weiss] “loved” so much?

      From what I gather, the elements in the books that gave the fArya/Jeyne Poole some narrative purpose were absent from the show.

      For me, everything about the adapted “subplot” was repulsive; nothing was redeeming. What was there to “love” about it???

      Yes, these are my thoughts. I wish I was friends with D&D so I could ask 🙂 To be fair, it wasn’t just D&D. It was also Bryan Cogman who supported this change. From what they’ve said per the link above, it seemed to offer them an opportunity to explore Turner’s range and expand Sansa’s storyline. Beyond that, this may be a good question to ask them one day if ever given the opportunity.

      Wasn’t there anything else they could have come up with for Sophie/Sansa to do in Season 5 other than getting brutalized non-stop by sick f*ck Ramsay?
      Why not have Sansa team up with Jamie Lannister on an undercover mission to Dorne to exfiltrate Myrcella from the Water Gardens in broad daylight?

      I’d read that fic 🙂

      As for what else Sansa could do, it seems GRRM has different plans for her. They could have gone with that but.. well, they explained why they didn’t.

      That made just as much sense as Sansa agreeing to marry into the family that butchered hers, or LF giving away the virtue of Cat 2.0 to a stranger – which GRRM affirmed LF would never do.

      Yeah. I agree.

        Quote  Reply

    27. Adrianacandle,

      ”I, personally, wouldn’t consider that scene tame but that’s per my own experiences and feelings. I can’t speak for anyone else…”

      Speaking for myself, that scene was anything but tame. It was ghastly, sickening, abhorrent, and totally f*cking unnecessary.

      What purpose did it serve? To show Alfie Allen as Theon sweating and twitching as if Theon was on a three-day meth binge?

      For me, the gory, gruesome and repugnant aspects of GoT weren’t what made watching the show a rewarding experience. A gratuitous rape scene is certainly not on my rewatch menu.

      I for one am glad that HotD is going to forego
      egregious graphic violence towards women.” There’s really no reason for it.

        Quote  Reply

    28. Ten Bears,

      There is some sexual violence in Fire & Blood, I don’t think it can be wholly eliminated in stories like these, but perhaps sticking to what’s in the source material and a different approach can help things out.

        Quote  Reply

    29. Adrianacandle,

      Another thing I never understood and still don’t understand about LF “convincing” Sansa to agree to his dumb marriage “plan”: LF reminded Sansa of the murder of her family by Roose Bolton et al. at the Red Wedding and implored her to “Avenge them!” And then he just plopped her in WF, defenseless, by herself, with no “plan.”

      (When she filched that corkscrew I thought she might give Ramsay an impromptu castration, but nope.)

      How was Sansa supposed to “avenge them”?

      If the objective was to infiltrate the castle of the traitors who slaughtered your family, and “avenge them,” here’s how you do it:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1HUAWaxMX8

      ⚠️ #ARLTA

        Quote  Reply

    30. Ten Bears,

      I’m not sure and this was admittedly one of my issues with this storyline.

      Right, Sansa was on her own and only Brienne seemed to care she was there. Theon cared too but he was trapped inside with her and they needed out. Maybe LF left her with some wine-flavoured poisoning and she misplaced it? 🙂 I don’t know.

      In the books, Jeyne is forced by the Lannisters to pose as Arya and marry Ramsay in order to solidify the Bolton claim on the North. However, the Lannisters don’t really have another Stark daughter at their disposal since that second Stark daughter got away.

      However, they’re hopeful Jeyne can pull it off since it’s believed most of Arya’s family is dead and nobody will be in proximity to point out that hey, this isn’t Arya. The Boltons do know, though, that this isn’t truly Arya.

        Quote  Reply

    31. Adrianacandle:
      Ten Bears,

      There is some sexual violence in Fire & Blood, I don’t think it can be wholly eliminated in stories like these, but perhaps sticking to what’s in the source material and a different approach can help things out.

      I’m guessing the source material’s sexual violence won’t be wholly eliminated from the story. The big difference (hopefully) is that the show will avoid “egregious graphic violence” towards women.
      They don’t have to portray every detail visually, even if it’s integral to a character or to a storyline.
      Here’s what I mean, using a scene from my favorite GoT episode as an example:
      When Sandor described to Arya how it felt when Gregor burned his face, I didn’t need to see a reenactment of a screaming little boy with his face pressed to the fire. The dialogue and acting conveyed the physical and emotional pain, and the scars they left.
      I could make the same observation about Oberyn describing how Young Cersei tortured Baby Tyrion. I didn’t need to see if to understand it.
      “Graphic violence against women” isn’t really indispensable for a show or movie to be “edgy,” “realistic,” “gritty,” or “dark,” is it?
      And I don’t buy the “it is (or was) part of real life” excuse. Wisdom teeth extractions are part of real life, but I don’t need to see them on screen to be convinced of a show’s realism.

        Quote  Reply

    32. Ten Bears,

      Right and that may be an option sometimes. However, I don’t think it can be wholly dealt with via expository detail told afterward. I think the show will have to deal with it at some point and show it at some point but perhaps they can cut down on how graphic it can be.

      For instance, Mysaria’s own walk of shame as described via Fire and Blood:

      Nor was the mistress of whisperers, Lady Mysaria of Lys, spared on account of her sex. Taken whilst attempting to flee, the White Worm was whipped naked through the city, from the Red Keep to the Gate of the Gods. If she were still alive by the time they reached the gate, Ser Perkin promised, she would be spared and allowed to go. She made it only half that distance, dying on the cobblestones with hardly a patch of her pale white skin left upon her back.

      I don’t know how they’ll deal with that. Not sure it will work as told in exposition afterward. If HotD were to deal with all instances of sexual violence this way, I think it’d look run the risk of being a bit obvious in what it’s avoiding. However, maybe they don’t have to deal with this so graphically,

      perhaps we can see Mysaria’s head as she walks through the crowd, perhaps we can see bloody footprints instead of a bleeding back, perhaps we can rely on the audio sounds to get part of the scene’s essence across.

      I’m thinking back to all my art school “creative and alternative angles” stuff XD;;

      I don’t know. It’s a tough thing to deal with and balance.

        Quote  Reply

    33. In principle society has an issue with violance towards women which needs to change but that said there is violence in the novels, so are they simply going to change/skip that in the TV show?!

        Quote  Reply

    34. Adrianacandle,

      ”Right and that may be an option sometimes. However, I don’t think it can be wholly dealt with via expository detail told afterward. I think the show will have to deal with it at some point and show it at some point but perhaps they can cut down on how graphic it can be.”

      Semi-related observation/whinge:

      I recall apologists defending the Sansa rape scene, insisting that it didn’t actually depict the assault itself but rather focused on Theon’s face, and that instead of cutting away, continuing on with the scene was necessary in connection with the Reek vs. Theon identity crisis storyline, to show Theon’s reaction to what was happening to Sansa.

      I would ask then what was the excuse for abruptly cutting away from the sisters’ reaction to the big reveal of Jon’s parentage in S8e4?

      “Well, it happened off-screen” and “the audience already knows the information” were some of the excuses I recall reading.

      Bottom line: Watching Sansa getting raped, or watching Theon watching Sansa getting raped, was neither necessary nor a justifiable use of screen time.

      (Excuse the baseball metaphors and references to follow):

      Look, I don’t expect every adaptation decision to be a home run. Nobody bats 1.000. Benioff & Weiss had an impressive batting average. But in the case of the Sansa-Jeyne Poole mashup, they whiffed.

      Didn’t even put the ball in play. Struck out badly on three consecutive pitches without making contact.

      And yet they dusted themselves off, and later in S5 hit a grand slam into the upper deck with “Hardhome”

      – the TV equivalent of the dramatic “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” homerun by Bobby Thompson.

        Quote  Reply

    35. Ten Bears,

      Bottom line: Watching Sansa getting raped, or watching Theon watching Sansa getting raped, was neither necessary nor a justifiable use of screen time.

      My own issue isn’t that a rape occurred on-screen. I mean, I don’t like it, I tend to FF such scenes, and that’s due to personal reasons. My issue is with why the rape happened: per D&D, it was to showcase the actor, expand the character’s role from the books and give her something dramatic. If this instance of sexual violence were part of the source material and I agreed it served an important narrative purpose that was crucial to the story, I’d accept it as being necessary.

      However, I don’t think this change to Sansa’s storyline was necessary but instead, I thought it caused character and narrative problems.

      I’ll probably receive pushback on that 😉

      As for sexual violence in stories, I think it’s a tricky balance. Unfortunately, I don’t think all instances of sexual violence in a story can be relegated to occurring off-screen and included via expository script.

      I also think we’re now getting into areas that have been retreaded over and over :/

        Quote  Reply

    36. FYI – reference in 8:22 am Comment

      (Per wikipedia):
      In baseball, the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”

      was a game-winning home run by New York Giants outfielder and third baseman Bobby Thomson off Brooklyn Dodgers pitcher Ralph Branca at the Polo Grounds in New York City on October 3, 1951, to win the National League (NL) pennant. Thomson’s dramatic three-run homer came in the ninth inning of the decisive third game of a three-game playoff for the pennant in which the Giants trailed, 4–1 entering the ninth, and 4–2 with two runners on base at the time of Thomson’s at-bat.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_Heard_%27Round_the_World_(baseball)

      In hindsight, I probably should’ve looked for a clip from the movie “The Natural”

      of the dramatic at-bat of Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford) with two runners on base and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, and his team trailing by two runs.

      Now that was some Hardhome-level, edge of your seat drama. Except no Night King showboating at the end.

        Quote  Reply

    37. Adrianacandle,

      ”My own issue isn’t that a rape occurred on-screen. My issue is with why it happened: per D&D, it was to showcase the actor, expand the character’s role from the books and give her something dramatic. If this instance of sexual violence were part of the source material and I agreed it served an important narrative purpose that was crucial to the story, I’d accept it as being necessary.

      However, I don’t think this change to Sansa’s storyline was necessary but instead, I thought it caused character and narrative problems.

      Ditto. To everything you wrote.
      And I don’t know how it “showcased” Sophie or gave Sansa a “dramatic” storyline.

      What’d she do? I kept waiting for her to “avenge them,” I kept waiting for her to be proactive and “make” some justice. She didn’t “manipulate” anyone. All I saw was a traumatized victim victimized all over again; someone who professed to be tormented by images of the way her mother and brother were butchered and their bodies mutilated [see S2 scene with Tyrion] agreeing to become Roose Bolton’s daughter in law.]/spoiler]What exactly was the dramatic storyline she was given? Staying in the Vale and getting tummy flutters would’ve been more compelling than being Ramsay’s punching bag.

      Listing all of the resultant “character and narrative problems” caused by the change to Sansa’s storyline would take longer than TWOW. [spoiler](I’ve whinged at length in the past how the premature relocation of Sansa to the north caused all kinds of geographical and chronological problems with the show’s internal logic and with other characters’ storylines.)

        Quote  Reply

    38. I’ve mentioned before that there was a marital rape in the 1960s version of ‘The Forsyte Saga’ (which is actually in the source novel) though you saw the husband grab the wife, then the camera panned away, and then focused on the wife crying after the dastardly deed was done. So they kind of did what GoT did, not showing the actual attack. Telling a grim subplot of a story is always going to be difficult. I know I’m in the minority but I didn’t like the Winterfell plot in ADWD so I didn’t mind Sansa having the Jeyne P arc (though I wouldn’t have objected if Jeyne P had been included in the TV show). The Jeyne P/Ramsay wedding night I found very hard to read if I’m honest. BTW, I’m just mentioning my thoughts – not perforce to open up the can of worms of should they/shouldn’t they have changed the story yet again. If the forums were working maybe I’d open a thread there on suggestions about adapting problematic plot points generally and not just in GoT.

        Quote  Reply

    39. Adrianacandle,

      ”I also think we’re now getting into areas that have been retreaded over and over :/“

      Amen.

      What was it you said in the other thread about the beaten-to-death horse’s bones? 🐴

      I think I’m going to bow out of this discussion, and look for ‘70’s Soundtrack songs to post for the upcoming Jojen & Arya King’s Road crossover series.

        Quote  Reply

    40. Ten Bears,

      And I don’t know how it “showcased” Sophie or gave Sansa a “dramatic” storyline.

      All I saw was a traumatized victim victimized all over again; someone who professed to be tormented by images of the way her mother and brother were butchered and their bodies mutilated [see S2 scene with Tyrion] agreeing to become Roose Bolton’s daughter in law. What exactly was the dramatic storyline she was given?

      You’ve got it right here! 🙂 This is it, this is the dramatic opportunity, the torturous storyline. Trauma, torment, struggle. Rape is a popular way to showcase an actor’s talent because it is so fraught with some of the worst emotions human beings can face (which is the entire basis of the Rape as Drama trope). Not only that, it’s very much a real-life occurrence people can relate to on some level. It’s appalling, it’s capable of destroying a life in a single stroke, it’s one of the worst things that can happen to somebody and has an incredibly high (if not certain) potential to irreversibly change a person forever on after that. That’s the dramatic opportunity. It’s an acting challenge, to be able to convey all of that.

      In soap operas, rape storylines were straight up used as Emmy bait for certain actresses (susanluccitryingtogetthatelusivedaytimeemmy).

      I hope that makes sense!

        Quote  Reply

    41. Ten Bears,

      Amen.

      What was it you said in the other thread about the beaten-to-death horse’s bones? 🐴

      I think I’m going to bow out of this discussion, and look for ‘70’s Soundtrack songs to post for the upcoming Jojen & Arya King’s Road crossover series.

      Amen to that too! 😀

      (On that note, the Jojen paste theory doesn’t get nearly enough discussion time imo, especially since it turns Bran into a “humanitarian” ;D)

        Quote  Reply

    42. Ten Bears:
      Adrianacandle,

      For me, everything about the adapted “subplot” was repulsive; nothing was redeeming. What was there to “love” about it???

      I can write a whole bunch of stuff what was there for me to “love” about this subplot. And also acknowledging the fact that the overall brutal, grim dark tone was one of the things that made GoT GoT for me and that if the show already started on such dark premise, in my opinion they had to fully stick to it through the story or otherwise, I would grow to despise the TV show if they tried to be “nicer” later. If I wanted a clean fantasy story, I would watch LOTR.

      So what was there for me to love about Sansa’s S5 WF story when I look at overall story:

      – Her being one of the characters, I was attatched to from quite early on, I obviously appreciated her 9-episode presence this season with possibly most screentime so far compared to other seasons. In the 2000 page AFFC/ADWD, Sansa in total has three chapters where she’s (in my eyes) barely more than a passive walking camera when nothing big occurs around her, and the only two notable characters present are Littlefinger and Robin.

      – The fact that despite the horrific events, Ramsay never broke her. That’s a BIG deal for me, especially for character I love.

      – The fact that she planted a seed of doubt in Ramsay (and AFTER the abuse) which eventually led to Ramsay killing Roose, which automatically put Ramsay to more disadvantage in upcoming battle. I’m sure that conversation was there for a reason.

      – The fact that she actively managed to penetrate THeon’s Reek personality. And again repeating the word, ACTIVELY. She tried more than once and her second conversation with Theon in “Hardhome” is very powerful to me. “Tell me you didn’t kill my brothers!” – I would argue this is probably the most intense that Sansa got in the entire duration of the show so far. This time exploding with emotions and anger and resistance and for a change, she was the one having the initiative in conversation instead of being the one to be talked down by someone more powerful. Was there any scene like that from her prior to this one? I really can’t think of any and while I obviously remember Hardhome the most by its… well, Hardhome sequence, Sansa/Theon confrontation is the second favorite scene that I connect with this episode.

      – The fact that she plotted her own escape. SHe wasn’t successful, but we actually saw her do something on her own for the first time without any powerful figure pulling strings on her.

      – The fact that a STARK is brought back to Winterfell. S5 is the first time Winterfell is featured after S2 and while it’s occupied by Boltons, seeing Sansa walk through its hallways was a ray of light for me in otherwise twisted season.

      – The fact that THeon and Sansa reunited… possibly the first reunion after multiple seasons of protagonists not being in presence of each other.

      – The fact that Theon’s awaited breakthrough was a direct result of an important character

      – The fact that Sansa is never the same after this… she’s never a passive character again. THe old “little bird” Sansa is fully gone now because now she’s fed up with everything, full of anger, full of her own agency. Not saying this change always brought her to good places, especially certain coversations, but I hell of appreciate the person who emerged from all this. In the novels, she’s still very passive and in my eyes, she’s not much different than she was during her captivity in KL. Here, already starting DURING her captivity in Winterfell (in my opinion), she’s already different and I could very quickly see the contrast, even before she escaped. And I really don’t think she would have become this character at the end of S5 if she was still under Littlefinger’s strings, sitting in the Vale and doing nothing.

      – THe fact that this story leads to her reunion with Jon, which I must have watched like 30 times in the same day because I was so immensely touched by that scene. Not to Littlefinger, to Jon! And while Littlefinger still has some influence over her, it’s in my opinion nowhere close to how it was prior to S5.

      – THe fact that it’s her who sets in motion the events for reclaiming Winterfell. Jon was fully ready to just go away and live his life on his own. But Sansa convinced him otherwise and the wheels were set in motion for in my opinion second most positive moment for the story itself, second only to defeating WW and saving the world.

      So I have 11 points now, I imagine if I thought more about it, I would have been able to dig up some more but this will do for now. If I’m given a choice between this and the written mess that I tormented myself too many times to read until S5 proved to me I never need to bother with that again, I take this hundred times over.

        Quote  Reply

    43. In ‘Poldark’ (though I haven’t seen the 2000s and teens adaptation) a rape in the books was somewhat toned down I believe in the most recent dramatisation. I’ve read (most of) the Poldark books and there was no doubt in my mind that in the the source material the female character in question was taken forcefully. That wasn’t a marital rape though Winson Graham (author of the Poldark books) did use marital rape as a plot point in two of his standalone novels to my knowledge (‘Marnie’ and ‘The Forgotten Story’). Mind you, on reading ‘The Forgotten Story’ I never picked up on that being the reason one of the main female characters had separated from her husband.

        Quote  Reply

    44. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      Forgot to add something:

      – The fact that Brienne’s story moves to the North and has a payoff to the story set way back in S2 which is finding one of the Stark daughters and pledging service to her. Certainly better for me than her aimless wandering in Riverlands that the show thankfully condensed into S4.

        Quote  Reply

    45. Dame of Mercia,

      I’d never heard of Poldark! I appreciate you describing another way of depicting sexual violence in a story. It seems like tricky and difficult business to approach.

      In your points about a marital rape, was it not made clear enough what it was? Did you have to reread in order to glean that was what happened?

        Quote  Reply

    46. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      I think that it was Sansa was definitely the issue. People keep asserting that D&D should have kept to the books in regards to this storyline.

      Arya is my favorite character, but I was also disturbed by her killing Meryn Trant and Walder Frey, not because of the killing itself, but by how much she was enjoying it.

        Quote  Reply

    47. Young Dragon:
      Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      I think that it was Sansa was definitely the issue. People keep asserting that D&D should have kept to the books in regards to this storyline.

      Arya is my favorite character, but I was also disturbed by her killing Meryn Trant and Walder Frey, not because of the killing itself, but by how much she was enjoying it.

      This! The enjoying of killing somebody. I always find it way more uncomfortable to watch if a protagonist gets all brutal when killing a bad guy and finds satisfaction in it, than an antagonist brutally killing a protagonist. Vigilante “justice”… when a protagonist believes their (usually violent) actions of killing are justified, that’s something I’ll never side behind. I was uncomfortable watching Arya killing ser Meryn, I also didn’t cheer for Sansa killing Ramsay as much as I think Ramsay deserved it… I didn’t like that she obviously found satisfaction in it. And I can say the same for many Dany scenes.

        Quote  Reply

    48. On this whole debate/discussion. Think about a movie like “Schindler’s List”. It contains some really harrowing, disturbing and hard to watch scenes, some brief and some painfully long.

      Would you want that movie sanitized or edited to the point so as not to offend someone or other? Or is it important to show the whole, unvarnished story in order to preserve the full extent of the horrors that happened (as much as a movie can do so) and give people a better understanding of what the Holocaust entailed?

      When the movie first aired on broadcast TV, specifically on NBC, back in 1996, the network wanted initially to show a heavily edited version with commercials. Spielberg’s response was to come out immediately against that and pull the movie from NBC’s programming lineup demanding that the movie be shown uncut and commercial free, which at the time was quite something…I mean you couldn’t even show people smoking (and still can’t) on broadcast networks…

      Spielberg prevailed and NBC aired the uncut, commercial free version of the movie. Before the movie aired Spielberg did an intro, explaining the decision to show the movie as is rather than some censored version…

      Just something to think about…and for us to decide, for ourselves not for others, whether we want to watch or not. Or are we no longer capable of make any such decisions?

        Quote  Reply

    49. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas: This! The enjoying of killing somebody. I always find it way more uncomfortable to watch if a protagonist gets all brutal when killing a bad guy and finds satisfaction in it

      You’re supposed to feel uncomfortable watching Arya kill Trant though. You’re not supposed to feel good about the way Arya did it.

      Not every scene is supposed to make the audience jump for joy or feel warm and fuzzy.

      That’s what good art does. It makes people confront uncomfortable issues.

      Art dies the moment you cave in to the censorship of the perpetually offended.

        Quote  Reply

    50. Adrianacandle,

      Well, as for “rape” as a dramatic device, I suppose perceptions vary. I’m kind of fed up with “rape” as a go-to device for female empowerment or character development.

      I absolutely loathed Sansa’s conversation with Sandor in S8e4.

      (As I remember it – not verbatim – he told her he regretted that she didn’t leave KL with him; if she had then there would’ve been no LF, no Ramsay. She replied that she’d still be a little bird if it weren’t for LF and Ramsay.

      It was if she were saying “Being raped and abused made me a stronger person.” At least that’s how it came off to me.

      Isn’t there any other impetus for female character evolution? Why is it always some violent assault that makes a woman a “heroine,” e.g., a kickass vigilante in a catsuit, a stone cold killer, a no-nonsense leader, a Goth punk hacker, or an inscrutable, mistrusting loner?

      Deliberately choosing to diverge from the source material to have a character get beaten and raped…out of all the show-only storylines one can imagine, how did that one seem like a great idea? I don’t get it.

      I don’t see that happen very often to men

      (except on Outlander, in which I understand everybody gets raped.)

      . Although too often the hero’s wife and kid get killed at the beginning to set him on his vengeance trail, or his partner gets killed the day before his retirement. F*ck! It’s almost always the same lazy, cliched construct.

      Maybe it would have taken too much planning and effort to actually show, rather than tell us, that Sansa had become a “savvy politician” and according to Arya, “the smartest person I’ve ever met.”
      😡 I thought the notion that sexual assault can be a “positive,” transformative event had been debunked.

      It’s like watching old black and white movies, in which a man slaps a “hysterical” woman across the face, she calms down, and they kiss. WTF? That went by the boards, thankfully.

      Why not retire the stupid “rape f*cked me up but now I’m better for it”trope?

      It’s my understanding HotD has a diverse writing staff. It’s not just two or three guys. That’s reassuring. The show doesn’t need graphic violence to excite an audience –

      unless they’re planning on catering to the modern day Meryn F*cking Trants who get off watching girls being beaten and raped.

      – End Rant. For Now –

        Quote  Reply

    51. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      As much as I’d like to controvert your eleven points about why you liked Sansa’s modified storyline – and I do appreciate that you articulated them so well – let me just say for now that I wholeheartedly agree that Sansa’s reunion scene with Jon was beautifully done. Everything about it was perfect – the music, the pacing, the cinematography, the acting, directing, the emotion…
      It was what I call a “perpetually rewatchable” scene.

      In fact, I remember telling myself at the time – and maybe writing here –

      ”They’d better make Arya’s reunion with Jon this good or I’ll be pissed.” And I was. 😡

        Quote  Reply

    52. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      Just adding something to my comment, I do genuinely wonder how much of a “big character” Sansa is supposed to be in the novels. We do know that she wasn’t part of GRRM’s original “Big 5” plan. In 2000 pages of AFFC/ADWD, she only has three chapters and even there, she’s very passive character… and considering that Benioff and Weiss knew as early as in S2 that they won’t go along with her post-ASOS book story, I seriously wonder how much of a role she may even have in first place. TV Sansa is definitely one of the, as I like to call them, Class A characters, among which I also count Tyrion, Dany, Jon, Arya, Bran, Cersei, Jaime and potentially Sam and Theon. Characters that I could firmly say they carry their own story that is not limited with any other character’s story. But novel Sansa? One thing that I also came to my mind is that she disappears for entire second third of ASOS… if S3 was a page-to-page adaptation of first two thirds of ASOS, Sansa would have three scenes in total, not appearing in entire second half of the season. Is this just GRRM’s writing style or is it possible that Sansa’s presence in novel story is nowhere as big as we might expect? Or maybe her character is the victim of GRRM’s abandoned 5 year gap post-ASOS? Maybe he expected her to learn all the needed about politics off-screen during this gap but when he abandoned the gap, Sansa is now stuck in stagnant position?

      Let me just add at the end that while my first reading of ASOIAF novels only predates GoT S1 for a few months regarding first two novels and ASOS overlaps it, I wasn’t really “personally attached” to Sansa in the novels. It was the TV medium that made me grow fond of her very early on and her eventually becoming my favorite character. And I don’t know whether that’s because of Sophie’s performance, her increased screentime compared to the novels, the absence of gloomy internal monologue (which more than often makes me distance myself from the characters because I find it burdening) or simply that it’s a visual medium where I’m automatically more personally attached to characters compared to written words on paper where I need to strain my mind in order to visualize them.

        Quote  Reply

    53. Ten Bears,

      Well, as for “rape” as a dramatic device, I suppose perceptions vary. I’m kind of fed up with “rape” as a go-to device for female empowerment or character development.

      Yes. I am fed up with it too and have been for years and years. My intent was only to describe why it’s used as a dramatic device but I don’t like it by any means. This has been an ongoing (and discussed) topic in pop culture but the use of rape as a dramatic device hasn’t slowed much. There are times that if a rape happens in the first season to a main character, I’ll stop watching because I’m so tired of it.

      Isn’t there any other impetus for female character evolution? Why is it always some violent assault that makes a woman a “heroine,” e.g., a kickass vigilante in a catsuit, a stone cold killer, a no-nonsense leader, a Goth punk hacker, or an inscrutable, mistrusting loner?

      This is a criticism of it being used for drama or to transform a character in a storyline.

      Deliberately choosing to diverge from the source material to have a character get beaten and raped…out of all the show-only storylines one can imagine, how did that one seem like a great idea? I don’t get it.

      Well, I think this goes back to D&D liking this Jeyne subplot, wanting to use it to showcase Sophie Turner’s acting strength, and wanting to expand her role. It seems they thought this was the way to go.

      I don’t think D&D opted to go this route to avoid effort at this point, I think they did it for the reasons they said and it would offer a more dramatic storyline.

      I thought the notion that sexual assault can be a “positive,” transformative event had been debunked.

      Individual experiences heavily vary in response to rape so I hesitate to say people finding strength from surviving their experience, or even viewing it as making them stronger, has been debunked. Some people may have felt this way, I don’t know them. Responses to something like this and coping with it vary widely.

      My own personal experiences disagree and heavily so, but I can’t speak for everyone. Each individual’s experience matters.

      I didn’t like that aforementioned conversation at all for a variety of reasons though, I thought a statement like that could have been more carefully handled and I think it would have been wise to get some external consult on these issues, like those who have professionally dealt with these experiences.

      Why not retire the stupid “rape f*cked me up but now I’m better for it” trope?

      I think rape in fictional media needs to be cooled down in general and definitely as something to induce a character transformation. As for why it hasn’t been retired yet, I think the reason for that is because of those points I went over upthread. Over the past 20 years or so years, when this topic in pop culture is discussed, more and more people feel rape is overused and there’s pushback against it being used as a dramatic device. For example, while not applicable to Sansa, “rape as redemption” for “bad girls” in soap operas has been a huge issue and been noted to be a plot device since the 80s. Pushback started to trickle in but grew stronger and stronger.

      Hopefully, sexual violence will handled with thought and care in HotD. I don’t think it can be eliminated or prevented from being on-screen totally but the way it’s handled can be changed.

        Quote  Reply

    54. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas: Is this just GRRM’s writing style or is it possible that Sansa’s presence in novel story is nowhere as big as we might expect? Or maybe her character is the victim of GRRM’s abandoned 5 year gap post-ASOS? Maybe he expected her to learn all the needed about politics off-screen during this gap but when he abandoned the gap, Sansa is now stuck in stagnant position?

      I don’t think Sansa is a victim of GRRM’s abandoned 5 year time gap or is now in a stagnant position because this idea was abandoned. I think this is a bit premature to say before even seeing TWOW, ADOS, etc. It just may be that, while Sansa is a POV, her role may not be as big as it was on the show and that may be the right choice for the story as a whole. Her role can still be important and influential but it may not require an expansion to be important. I think there are a ton of places Sansa can go, five year time gap or no, in her starting to absorb and practice what she’s learned and observed more and more (perhaps starting off small and taking careful, bigger steps from this point onward).

      Sansa’s transformation from a piece to a player seems to be GRRM’s plan based on what he said here:

      She is beginning to at least try to understand how she can play the game of thrones and be not a piece, but a player. With her own goals, and moving other pieces around. And she’s not a warrior like Robb, Jon Snow. She’s not even a wild child like Arya. She can’t fight with swords, axes. She can’t raise armies. But she has her wits! Same as Littlefinger has.

      And she’s learning from Littlefinger, who also relies on his wits.

      In AFFC, Sansa is starting to see that perhaps Littlefinger isn’t all he’s claiming he is and that there is something up. She also is participating a storyline that may have a major impact:

      The slow poisoning of Robert Arryn with sweetmilk. Sansa has been outright told this isn’t good for Robert but Sansa feels there are “more important” concerns:

      She pushed through the door and crossed the yard. Colemon only wanted the best for his charge, Alayne knew, but what was best for Robert the boy and what was best for Lord Arryn were not always the same. Petyr had said as much, and it was true. Maester Colemon cares only for the boy, though. Father and I have larger concerns.

      Although, how fatal the sweetmilk is to Robert, Sansa may be unaware. She is only 13.

      If Robert dies — partially due to Sansa’s actions — and Sansa marries to take the Vale, Sansa may utilize this marriage to exert control she didn’t have (especially since she’s starting to doubt LF’s intentions) and go over LF’s head. I don’t think marriage would have to make Sansa a passive pawn. She could use marriage to make herself a player, use it as a strategy and tool, starting to strive for her own goals and ambitions — beating the system at is own game with the moves that once held her hostage.

      But that’s book spec 🙂

      My main point is I think the books and AFFC offer Sansa many ways forward. I don’t think she’ll be coming North anytime soon, though I think that’s where she’ll eventually end up and be a leader, but I think further time in south will help out her game.

        Quote  Reply

    55. Adrianacandle,

      In ‘The Forgotten Story’ I just didn’t pick up on the reason for the estrangement of the couple (which had happened before the opening of the story). I read about the reason in a criticism of the novel. I’ve mostly liked Winston Graham’s novels and he doesn’t include rapes in all his stories I hasten to add. The non-marital rape in one of the Poldark novels was between two characters who had been in a relationship (though I don’t think it had been consummated) before one of them married. I did find one component of the story – that the man tells the woman he didn’t think she found it totally repulsive (paraphrasing) – hard to process. Still marital rape wasn’t made illegal in the UK till the early 1990s. In ‘Marnie’ the book (which had some differences to the film) it was a honeymoon night gone wrong. In TFS and ‘Marnie’ the couples reconcile. BTW I don’t want to put anyone off reading Winston Graham’s books as I did find them “good reads” though they might be a little old-fashioned for Generation Y or Z people (though I don’t 100% understand those terms but I think they roughly translate as “young”). Links to write-ups of a couple of Winston Graham books https://leavesandpages.com/2018/11/25/a-trinity-of-desiring-angell-pearl-and-little-god-by-winston-graham/ https://leavesandpages.com/2018/10/20/a-collection-of-damaged-people-marnie-by-winston-graham/

        Quote  Reply

    56. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      ”I can write a whole bunch of stuff what was there for me to “love” about this subplot…”

      Let me just say that I acknowledge that perceptions can make all the difference. Everybody can view the same thing differently. I thought the subplot sucked. You loved it. I “saw” something different.

      A recent example impressed this upon me. (Feel free to skip over this if you’ve had enough of my YouTube rabbit hole musical travelogues.)

      I was watching a fund-raising music video filmed in 1985 featuring an all-star assembly of pop singers.* I listened as some of the best vocalists in the country, including Michael Jackson, Steve Perry, Dionne Warwick, and Diana Ross, each sang a few verses in succession.

      Then it was Bruce Springsteen’s turn. Now I like some of Bruce Springsteen’s songs. He is a dynamic performer. I know he’s won lots of awards and sold lots of records. But on this song it sounded to me like he was growling, or grunting his lines as if he’d forgotten to take his Metamucil that morning and was dealing with a gastrointestinal compaction issue.

      And yet… there were hundreds of comments about how amazing Bruce sounded; that his singing was the highlight of the song; and how much they enjoyed his parts of the song, including his duet with Stevie Wonder near the end.
      I’ve listened to that song a few more times. I still cannot for the life of me understand what there was to “love” about his singing. To me he sounded awful.

      I’ve reconciled myself to the simple fact that either I listened to the same thing as other people and heard something different; or that what does and does not sound pleasing to me isn’t the same as what’s pleasing to other listeners.
      I can rant and rave that Bruce sounded like gravel in a blender, but that is my opinion. I am not an expert. It would not be fair to try to persuade anyone who liked what they heard that they’re wrong and I’m right.

      *USA for Africa, “We Are the World.” Not the greatest song even written, but it was for a worthy cause, and some of the individual parts were outstanding. (*cough* Cyndi *cough*)

        Quote  Reply

    57. Adrianacandle,

      POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE CONTENT AHEAD

      My girlfriend’s friend was raped in her youth… SHe’s in her 50s now and I don’t know much about it but from what my girlfriend told me, this lady found inner strength on long term that she didn’t know she had inside her after she overcame the trauma. According to what my girlfriend told me, this event and some more hard ones had part in shaping her to become a person who she is now and using my girlfriend’s words, she’s one of the strongest people she knows.

      END OF SENSITIVE CONTENT

        Quote  Reply

    58. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas: My girlfriend’s friend was raped in her youth… SHe’s in her 50s now and I don’t know much about it but from what my girlfriend told me, this lady found inner strength on long term that she didn’t know she had inside her after she overcame the trauma. According to what my girlfriend told me, this event and some more hard ones had part in shaping her to become a person who she is now and using my girlfriend’s words, she’s one of the strongest people she knows.

      This is why I hesitate to paint all experiences of rape and responses to experiences of rape with the same brush. I can only speak for myself and my own experiences. I, personally, didn’t like the referenced conversation myself and thought it could have been handled with more care. Maybe consultation with professionals could have helped with the presentation of this idea.

      However, to be clear, I’m not challenging the idea that people in real life can feel this way though.

        Quote  Reply

    59. Adrianacandle,

      I read many many people who have been raped that defended that scene. Jessica Chastain went on a Twitter rant about Sansa and The Hound and tons of people who said they were raped all defended that scene.

        Quote  Reply

    60. Fireblood87: I read many many people who have been raped that defended that scene. Jessica Chastain went on a Twitter rant about Sansa and The Hound and tons of people who said they were raped all defended that scene.

      Okay. I’m aware of this as I believe I recall you mentioning this before. That others may feel differently is why I said that I don’t want “to paint all experiences of rape and responses to experiences of rape with the same brush.” Personally, I didn’t like how that scene presented the idea it was expressing. Others can feel differently, that’s fine. I don’t really have anything new to add to this conversation other than what I’ve previously stated.

        Quote  Reply

    61. Adrianacandle,

      I’m not saying that Sansa’s story can’t go anywhere in the novels… in fact I’m sure it can and that GRRM probably has something planned for her, otherwise he wouldn’t keep her as POV. But it does feel strange to me that one of the original POV characters is featured so little in what GRRM called “Act 2” of the three-act story. And it’s still an enigma for me why I absorb every single word I read when I’m re-reading first two novels, but as soon as I attempt to start AFFC, I feel like I’m reading a different story and I start realizing I’m not paying half as much attention to words on paper and certainly not getting the excitment feelings. I even got annoyed that Sansa starts being refered to as “Alayne” in her chapters… I’ll be honest, during my first couple readings, I actually forgot at times that I’m reading about Sansa. It’s like the whole identity of this character is gone for me.

        Quote  Reply

    62. Fireblood87,

      Well hold on. Tons of people on Twitter is hardly an authoritative source, especially on such a sensitive subject matter.

      Jessica Chastain criticized the Sandor – Sansa scene, you say? I’ll have to look that up. I like Jessica Chastain.
      Jessica C. as Maya in “Zero Dark Thirty” is exactly the kind of heroine I’m talking about: we were shown how she used her intelligence and perseverance rather than being “told” how smart she was. And she didn’t have to get raped to evolve or to evoke sympathy.

        Quote  Reply

    63. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      ”I’m not saying that Sansa’s story can’t go anywhere in the novels… in fact I’m sure it can and that GRRM probably has something planned for her…”

      We’ll never know. I’m not sure The Gardener even knows. The window of opportunity to finish TWOW and ADOS has closed just as surely as my chances of winning Wimbledon.

        Quote  Reply

    64. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      But it does feel strange to me that one of the original POV characters is featured so little in what GRRM called “Act 2” of the three-act story.

      I don’t think that’s strange, really, nor would I agree that Sansa had such a “little” part. She has six chapters in ASOS, three in AFFC. I don’t think that’s a small amount. I think she had as many chapters as needed to tell her ongoing story in these volumes for the role GRRM has envisioned for her. If we ever get to see it.

      And it’s still an enigma for me why I absorb every single word I read when I’m re-reading first two novels, but as soon as I attempt to start AFFC, I feel like I’m reading a different story and I start realizing I’m not paying half as much attention to words on paper and certainly not getting the excitment feelings.

      I don’t think this is a mystery, I think people have different preferences. You’re certainly free to feel about AFFC as you will and for your own reasons. I’m definitely never going to try and persuade you otherwise 🙂 For me, I thought AFFC was a good set-up for Sansa’s ongoing story and transition but I don’t think she necessarily needs an expanded role or more chapters.

      I even got annoyed that Sansa starts being refered to as “Alayne” in her chapters… I’ll be honest, during my first couple readings, I actually forgot at times that I’m reading about Sansa. It’s like the whole identity of this character is gone for me.

      I believe that does play an important role in Sansa’s arc, fractured identity, given all she’s been through, how she’s been used as a pawn, has been isolated from all that she’s known. Sansa started out the story wishing she were “anywhere but here”, dreaming of court life. She fit the highborn, noble girl to a T — she was an ideal example. However, everything she dreamed of turned out to be a nightmare in reality and her position in society, what made her such an ideal of a highborn girl in this society, also made her into a perfect pawn. And it seems with that, Sansa starts to lose some sense of self because she is so disconnected and does start to absorb into her role as Alayne.

      I believe ‘Alayne’ represents a period where she’s at her most disconnected — she doesn’t even have her own name anymore — and is a low spot she must climb from with her growing realizations about what LF is up to.

        Quote  Reply

    65. I heard something on the radio a long time ago where a woman whose daughter had been raped (names weren’t given obviously) said the culprit would serve his sentence and be out of jail but her daughter would be suffering for the rest of her life (it had affected the daughter’s ability to have a social life). Also the lady worried how her daughter would cope when she (the mother) had died. I’ve mentioned before I have an interest in shorthand though I never had the speed court reporters do. Somebody said that at one time a shorthand exam was given for legal material which had been based on (not using real names obviously) a rape case and a number of the candidates had found it upsetting and requested that such material not be used for test material again.

        Quote  Reply

    66. Ten Bears,

      Ok but I personally know a rape survivor who had no issue with that scene and in fact liked it. Also her character in Zero Dark Thirty might be strong but she literally has people tortured and commits some very bad acts. I’m not saying someone needs to be raped to grow stronger but this is the world D&D and George presented us with. It’s a harsh world especially towards women and Sansa decides to channel it and use it as a weapon instead of letting it consume her. People deal with coping in different ways.

        Quote  Reply

    67. Don’t we all remember the conversation Cersei has with Sansa in Season Two, Episode 9 “Blackwater”…when she explains what will happen to all of them if King’s Landing falls to Stannis? I don’t think that most people who watched that scene thought…”Wow, look, rape is being used as a device for female empowerment!”. I thought, and still, think that as harrowing and dark as that conversation was, it highlighted the brutal reality of what women were facing in those situations and made the unfolding action and subsequent story that much more impactful…and I’m pretty sure there is an unfortunate real-life version of that throughout history from actual sieges and sacking of cities…like Constantinople (Istanbul) for example…

      Should that scene and that conversation have been cut or censored out of the episode because it is upsetting, offensive or vulgar? I fear that we have gotten to a point in our society at large, where we can no longer look at and confront all the ugly and troubling aspects that life entails, aspects that are with us wether we like to acknowledge them or not. Instead we seem to have chosen a collective burying of heads in the proverbial sand, pretending they don’t exist. And when we will eventually hit a wall, individually or collectively, we won’t be ready for the impact of what life has to dole out…

      I think, and am sorry to say this, that the current impact of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world, and how we chose to respond to and deal with it, is unfortunately proving some of that…

        Quote  Reply

    68. I want HOTD to be set in Westeros. If they try to include the civilized real world we live in, it will be a disaster.
      Small example: Proposals don’t exist.
      Small example 2: how Sansa reflected on her “suffered things you can’t possibly imagine” in her conversation with the hound is much more offensive than the suffered things.

        Quote  Reply

    69. Adrianacandle,

      ”I don’t think that’s strange, really, nor would I agree that Sansa had such a “little” part. She has six chapters in ASOS, three in AFFC. I don’t think that’s a small amount. I think she had as many chapters as needed to tell her ongoing story in these volumes for the role GRRM has envisioned for her. If we ever get to see it.”

      From the showrunners’ interviews I’ve read, I thought they said they expanded considerably book! Sansa’s role and storylines because they liked Sophie Turner and they liked the character of Sansa Stark. I’m not sure if those interviews were before or after they “prematurely” relocated Sansa to the North and shoehorned Sansa into the Theon/Jeyne WF plot.

      It’s too early to tell if GRRM intended for Sansa to reunite with Jon at Castle Black and go on a recruiting tour with Jon and Davos but I suspect not:

      [*Dons tinfoil hat*]
      Until I’m proven wrong, I’ll believe that GRRM intends to keep Sansa in the Vale until she learns that Jon is planning to oust the Boltons or he has headed down from Castle Black to take back WF. At that juncture she’ll convince LF, Robyn, or both to ally with Jon’s Army or reinforce Jon’s outnumbered forces.

      Book! Sansa won’t have to conceal KotV from Jon because she won’t have headed north until the Battle for Winterfell. Assuming GRRM shared the broad outline of his intended storylines, this would enable the show to get back on track from its detour and return to GRRM’s timeline: Sansa will show up with LF and KotV just like in the show.
      She just won’t have been a virtual prisoner in WF for a whole year and won’t spend time traveling to CB and hanging out with Jon there or touring the North with him.

      She’ll come off looking better than the arguably unreliable, self-centered show! character.

      We can talk about the “Butterfly Effect” on other characters. Brienne’s rejected offer to help Sansa, Brienne waiting for the candle outside WF,, and all that stuff won’t happen because Brienne will be somewhere else (dawdling in the Riverlands maybe?) And – thank the old gods and the new – Tormund’s silly crush on Brienne won’t be a “thing.”

      The upside is that nobody will be able to accuse Sansa of violating Jon’s trust and endangering the soldiers fighting to take back WF. She will arrive to take her rightful place as Lady of WF, and LF will have positioned himself as her patron and savior of the North – just like in the show. Bonus: LF will not have engineered a ridiculous marriage plan that required Mr. One Step Ahead to be clueless; act completely out of character by trading away his prized pawn’s innocence to a psychopath; and leave her all alone and defenseless with a bunch of traitors and murderers (and no “plan” to protect herself or get rid of the Boltons).

      I’d say it’s even possible that by then Sansa may have a presumptive claim to the Vale – that’s whst book! LF was angling for. LF’s plan to consolidate power and be de facto ruler of the Vale and WF makes more sense (to me) than serving up Sansa to a bunch of skin-flaying, treacherous lunatics.

      LF could even hedge his bets on a Stannis victory by keeping Sansa safe and sound and far enough away, and return to WF only if and when Stannis prevailed.

      [spoiller](Rule #1 from Season 1: Get your girls far away from the zone of danger before the sh*t hits the fan, and keep them there away from the clutches of the bad guys. It’s a shame Ned was oblivious to Rule #1. A careful, behind the scenes schemer like LF would know better.)[/spoiler]

      Since GRRM isn’t going to be finishing the books, I may as well go with my head canon. 🤭

        Quote  Reply

    70. Fireblood87,

      How did Maya “literally” have people tortured? As opposed to figuratively? Or did she force the detainees to read Madame Bovary? (Now that’s worse than waterboarding.)

        Quote  Reply

    71. Ten Bears,

      It’s too early to tell if GRRM intended for Sansa to reunite with Jon at Castle Black and go on a recruiting tour with Jon and Davos but I suspect not

      

I don’t think Sansa will be going to Castle Black either. However, I also don’t think they’ll be reuniting anytime soon. I think Sansa still has a lot to do down south before she makes her way North. I think Rickon and Jon are who will be reuniting first.

      Until I’m proven wrong, I’ll believe that GRRM intends to keep Sansa in the Vale until she learns that Jon is planning to oust the Boltons or he has headed down from Castle Black to take back WF. At that juncture she’ll convince LF, Robyn, or both to ally with Jon’s Army or reinforce Jon’s outnumbered forces.

      

I’m not sure this will happen (Sansa going North with LF and the KotV when/if she hears about Jon — if Jon does indeed try to oust the Boltons. He’s currently dead. I think there’s still too much to do and the political situation is super messy right now as I’ll explain below.)

      First, the battle for Winterfell is going on pretty much now and it’s being waged by Stannis. Ramsay claims Stannis is dead but clearly, if Stannis burns Shireen per GRRM, that’s not the case.

      

Meanwhile, Sansa still has to deal with LF, who is setting up a marriage between Harry the Heir and herself to win her the Vale forces for when Robert kicks it (and I think that’s going to happen per LF’s plot that he’s roped Sansa into and Sansa knows the sweetmilk isn’t good for Robert). And I think she needs time to develop her political skills and plots and sharpen those.

      However, neither Harry or the slow poisoning of Robert (which Sansa is part of) is included in the show and I think that’s going to have to have some consequence in the books (butterfly effect!) I’ve also seen strong speculation both Harry and Robert die.

      Also, the situation at the Wall right now is a complete and utter garbage fire with various factions on the verge of war — the queen’s men vs he wildlings (Wun Wun killed one of their knights and that’s got everyone in an uproar), the wildlings vs. the Night’s Watch.

      The upside is that nobody will be able to accuse Sansa of violating Jon’s trust and endangering the soldiers fighting to take back WF. She will arrive to take her rightful place as Lady of WF, and LF will have positioned himself as her patron and savior of the North – just like in the show. Bonus: LF will not have engineered a ridiculous marriage plan that required Mr. One Step Ahead to be clueless; act completely out of character by trading away his prized pawn’s innocence to a psychopath; and leave her all alone and defenseless with a bunch of traitors and murderers (and no “plan” to protect herself or get rid of the Boltons).

      That is an upside but LF is already engineering a marriage between Sansa and Harry. Harry’s not exactly quality people but he’s not a psycho sadist either. LF’s plan is to hitch Sansa to Harry so as to tie the Vale forces to her.

I think this is where the discrepancies between Sansa’s book storyline/the North’s book storyline and what happened with the show really diverge and thus — GRRM’s butterfly effect.
      
I don’t think Sansa will be the first Stark arriving at Winterfell. I think that’ll actually be Rickon or Jon and there may be some conflict over claims.

Currently, Manderly has Davos looking all over Skagos for Rickon because they want to press Rickon’s claim to overthrow the Boltons. Meanwhile, there’s a will floating around with Robb having named Jon his heir. And… LF (and probably Sansa) are trying to figure out a way to retake Winterfell in the Stark name. For Sansa to get the forces she needs, she’ll likely have to marry for them per the books. However, for Sansa to do that, she also needs to get an annulment from her marriage to Tyrion. 

I don’t think this will be a huge full-blown conflict between these three or the factions supporting them but I think it’s going to pose a bit of a mess. 

There’s also that Sansa’s association with LF may cause distrust, much like her marriages to a Lannister and a Bolton did in the show. Sansa’s marriage to Tyrion was way Robb named Jon as his heir because he didn’t want Winterfell going to Tyrion.

      LF could even hedge his bets on a Stannis victory by keeping Sansa safe and sound and far enough away, and return to WF only if and when Stannis prevailed.

      I think Winterfell may be won and done by the time Sansa gets back.


        Quote  Reply

    72. Adrianacandle,

      Corrections!

      (Also, Ten Bears, I’m sorry that I didn’t have any paragraph breaks in my 7th paragraph! There were when I wrote it up in Pages but upon copying and pasting it into the comment box here, they disappeared.)

      And typo!

      *Sansa’s marriage to Tyrion was *why Robb named Jon as his heir because he didn’t want Winterfell going to Tyrion.

        Quote  Reply

    73. Adrianacandle,

      ”

I’m not sure this will happen (Sansa going North with LF and the KotV when/if she hears about Jon — if Jon does indeed try to oust the Boltons. He’s currently dead.”

      Good point. Being dead does put a damper on trying to oust the Boltons. 😬

      Philosophical/Quantum Physics Question: If GRRM never releases TWOW, book! Jon will stay dead and show! Jon will be alive at the same time.
      Schrodinger’s Bastard?

        Quote  Reply

    74. Ten Bears: Philosophical/Quantum Physics Question: If GRRM never releases TWOW, book! Jon will stay dead and show! Jon will be alive at the same time.
      Schrodinger’s Bastard?

      LOL yes.

        Quote  Reply

    75. Adrianacandle,

      Serious question: Do you think that GRRM has any idea how he’s going to pick up from where he left off at the end of the last book, or has he been waiting for the stories to sprout in his garden?

      I suggested a while back that he ought to consider releasing his book in serialized form like Charles Dickens, i.e., a chapter or a few chapters at a time. But that presupposes he’s actually written anything beyond the sample chapters he wrote a while back (and released online or read aloud).

      As a fallback I suggested he ought to whip up a 20-page synopsis of the resolution(s) of his story and stash it in a safe, so his fans get some closure if he never finishes the books. That too presupposes that he knows how he’s going to end the stories.

      (Is it possible all he knows is that somehow Bran will wind up as king and Dany will go off the deep end?)

      It seems to me he was juggling all these different storylines, left them hanging in mid-air, and for ten years hasn’t been able to pick up where he left off. I am not condemning the man. I just wonder if he ought to throw in the towel already.

      If his muse hasn’t returned to him by now…

        Quote  Reply

    76. Ten Bears,

      Serious question: Do you think that GRRM has any idea how he’s going to pick up from where he left off at the end of the last book, or has he been waiting for the stories to sprout in his garden?

      Yes, I do think he knows where he wants to go and has the basic bullet points figured out. He’s spoken about this in interviews and he did sit down with D&D for three days to go over his plans. I think he has the outlines of of his character and storyline plans but I think he’s tripping over the details and how to link everything together.

      He’s thrown up so much in the air, especially with introducing a billion new POV characters that it makes tying this altogether even more difficult.

      I suggested a while back that he ought to consider releasing his book in serialized form like Charles Dickens, i.e., a chapter or a few chapters at a time. But that presupposes he’s actually written anything beyond the sample chapters he wrote a while back (and released online or read aloud).

      I think the more immediate problem is a book (and series) works as a whole. I think I read somewhere that he doesn’t write sequentially (so not chapter after chapter) but per character, to stay in that character’s mind. I do think he’s written quite a bit but he seems like perfectionist and will go back and revise a ton, which is something I do. That can make the process go that much more slowly and be ever more frustrating.

      As a fallback I suggested he ought to whip up a 20-page synopsis of the resolution(s) of his story and stash it in a safe, so his fans get some closure if he never finishes the books. That too presupposes that he knows how he’s going to end the stories.

      This is what I like and I think he does know where he’s going. In a interviews, GRRM has talked up how he’s already included his set-ups for his conclusions (thus the devotion to theorizing) and because he’s already planted these seeds, he’s not going to be changing these set-ups, even if somebody has figured them out.

      (Is it possible all he knows is that somehow Bran will wind up as king and Dany will go off the deep end?)

      No… I think he knows way more than that. Thus the three days of story conferences. The only thing confirmed from GRRM’s ending that we know about is King Bran but nothing else — and that’s the only character conclusion we know about too. I believe GRRM summarized his three twists as Hodor, Stannis burning Shireen, and who ends up on the Iron Throne.

      It seems to me he was juggling all these different storylines, left them hanging in mid-air, and for ten years hasn’t been able to pick up where he left off. I am not condemning the man. I just wonder if he ought to throw in the towel already.

      I think that’s a decision that should lie with him, like the decision should like with an individual on whether or not to give up on the books. I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion but it’s more like, “Hope for the best, expect the worst.” I hope he’ll get those final books out but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he can’t.

      I think GRRM does want to get this series finished but I think he’s stuck because he’s thrown so much into the air. The muse may come and go though — he’s spoken about being on a roll in writing the series recently but when the force has left him, that is probably the time period that poses the most problems.

        Quote  Reply

    77. Adrianacandle,

      “I do think he’s written quite a bit but he seems like perfectionist and will go back and revise a ton, which is something I do. That can make the process go that much more slowly and be ever more frustrating.”

      I get it. It’s something I do too, though I blame it on self-doubt (maybe “imposter syndrome”?) I’ll spend forever looking for just the right word and just the right phrase. Eventually I’m told “Just gimme what you got” and it’s usually good enough.

      There’s a slogan used in politics* that GRRM ought to apply to himself. I think it goes something like this: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
      I’d bet whatever he’s written is good enough.

      *I’ve heard it used to describe progressives who refuse to support a candidate who agrees with 90% of their agenda but doesn’t go along with the remaining 10%. So they vote for some fringe candidate or write-in candidate with zero chance of winning, or don’t vote at all.

        Quote  Reply

    78. Ten Bears: I get it. It’s something I do too, though I blame it on self-doubt (maybe “imposter syndrome”?) I’ll spend forever looking for just the right word and just the right phrase. Eventually I’m told “Just gimme what you got” and it’s usually good enough.

      There’s a slogan used in politics* that GRRM ought to apply to himself. I think it goes something like this: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
      I’d bet whatever he’s written is good enough.

      Yeah. However, I think the issue is, and I’ve observed this in many who are in the creative field, “good enough”… isn’t good enough 😉

      If I have to submit/give up something before I feel it’s ready, it’s a deep deep itch under my skin that I find I’m plagued with. I’ll never feel okay about it. I’ll come to hate it. Too many times, people have told me, “Oh, it’s fine, just be finished.” But the thing is, it’s absolutely not fine, I’ve got to decide when it’s fine, and only then will I declare it finished.

      Of course, I don’t know GRRM though. He has said ASOIAF “is his baby” so I speculate this may be an issue for him, especially with the way he works and that writing a story requires so much of a person, it’s almost coming from the soul. As cheesy as that sounds. I don’t think he’s giving it up before he feels it’s ready, whatever point GRRM deems that to be. I think he’ll keep at it! But sadly, for us, his way of working may mean no book(s) at all :/

        Quote  Reply

    79. Hi guys! I hope everyone is doing great!

      Firstly, I feel sorry for the actors, being part of the sequel to the most succesful show in history must be increibly terrifying, specially after its ending was… well, lets say it didnt sit particularly well with most of the viewers.

      However, Im sure they’ll do an outstanding work and I cannot wait to watch it!! I wish all the best to everyone involved!

      Secondly, whilst Fire & Blood doesnt have a lot of violence against women, the Dance of the Dragon clearly has the most brutal scenes I have ever read in George’s world and it involves a female character. So I dont know how they will manage to get away with that.

        Quote  Reply

    80. loco73: Should that scene and that conversation have been cut or censored out of the episode because it is upsetting, offensive or vulgar? I fear that we have gotten to a point in our society at large, where we can no longer look at and confront all the ugly and troubling aspects that life entails, aspects that are with us wether we like to acknowledge them or not. Instead we seem to have chosen a collective burying of heads in the proverbial sand, pretending they don’t exist. And when we will eventually hit a wall, individually or collectively, we won’t be ready for the impact of what life has to dole out…

      I agree 100%.

      Life can be beautiful, but it’s also difficult and challenging. It gets ugly and you have to fight through it. Life is not all sunshine and rainbows.

      I get that people want to feel safe, but there’s a difference between being safe and insulating yourself in a bubble refusing to deal with reality. You should always be challenging yourself and trying to make yourself better as a person. You can’t do that by hiding from everything and only subjecting yourself to the easiest aspects of life. You will never grow as a human being. You have to occasionally expose yourself to things that make you uncomfortable. This is a consequence of living in a free society where people do not have to conform to group thinking and mob mentality.

      I 100% support not having scenes of sexual violence just for the sake of it, but if it has a purpose then there’s nothing wrong with it. Unless of course the violence is portrayed in a positive light or something like that.

      Censorship in art is a slippery slope. If you start censoring things for one group of people, then where does it end? What’s to stop another group of people from going even further? Whose to say what’s right and what’s wrong in a free society? The beauty of a free society is you can choose not to participate or support a certain aspect of art if you don’t want to. Cancelling/censoring is something else.

        Quote  Reply

    81. There’s a lot that could be said about this interview and the comments posted above, but I’ll try to make it short.

      I think a writer should not sanitize or change their story because of the possibility of shocking or disturbing certain readers/viewers. However, I also think a writer should be thoughtful about what they write and try to innovate on what has been done before. It is true that the writers of GoT used some questionable, stereotypical plot devices when it came to the character development of certain female protagonists (male protagonists too, if we are fair).

      About Cooke, though, I don’t like the fact she kind of went along with the flawed essentialization of GoT that some critics have done of it before. GoT as a story is far from being misogynistic. It is the world GoT takes place in that is misogynistic. As a long-time movie watcher and book reader, I think GoT has some of the most complex and interesting fictional female characters out there and they shine just as much as their male counterparts (if not more).

      If HoTD has no scenes akin to the Jaime/Cersei scene or the Joffrey/Rose scene, I will be glad. However, if a disturbing scene crucial to the plot is excised in fear of offending some individuals, I will be disappointed.

        Quote  Reply

    82. Mr Derp,

      ”Life can be beautiful, but it’s also difficult and challenging. It gets ugly and you have to fight through it. Life is not all sunshine and rainbows.

      I get that people want to feel safe, but there’s a difference between being safe and insulating yourself in a bubble refusing to deal with reality.

      Life is beautiful. And it is sad. Insulating oneself in a reality bubble…
      Ah, proving yet again:

      ”All Roads Lead to Arya.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAAc6qBty8g
      —-

        Quote  Reply

    83. Zalos: If HoTD has no scenes akin to the Jaime/Cersei scene or the Joffrey/Rose scene, I will be glad. However, if a disturbing scene crucial to the plot is excised in fear of offending some individuals, I will be disappointed.

      agree

        Quote  Reply

    84. Mr Derp,

      ”Censorship in art is a slippery slope. If you start censoring things for one group of people, then where does it end?”

      I’ll grant you that. I’ll admit I loathe gratuitous (and graphic) rape and sexual violence.

      On the other hand, I didn’t like it when the faux outrage over nudity on GoT from the self-appointed morality police forced the showrunners to turn GoT into a more family friendly, PG-13 kind of show.

      I kind of liked the grand entrance of equal opportunity libertines Oberyn and Ellaria. Beautiful people running around naked and having fun. How progressive! But nope, a handful of keyboard warriors bitched and moaned, and pretty much put an end to that.

      But watching Janos Slynt’s head separate from his neck? Or Meryn F*cking Trant get a quickie facelift? The Morality Police had no problems with that.

        Quote  Reply

    85. Ten Bears: But watching Janos Slynt’s head separate from his neck? Or Meryn F*cking Trant get a quickie facelift? The Morality Police had no problems with that.

      Not to defend anything but I think the difference here is sexual connotations. A beheading isn’t sexual whereas nudity and rape is.

      I did think that some people tended to overdo it with objections over nudity but I, personally, don’t like it when it’s gratuitous (ie. doing it because they can) because then it seems overused and tired. Almost like a new 21 year old drinking for the sake of drinking because they can. However, I think there are times where it’s appropriate.

      However, yes, HotD is not going to be a PG-13/family friendly show. I also think that sometimes, sexual violence and disturbing content is necessary to the plot. For me, the reason behind the inclusion of this content matters and the purpose it serves. I also agree that eliminating it for fear of offending individuals can have some damaging impacts.

        Quote  Reply

    86. Adrianacandle: Not to defend anything but I think the difference here is sexual connotations. A beheading isn’t sexual whereas nudity and rape is.

      Heya Miss Candle 🙂

      This is a point that I honestly have trouble understanding. You’re an articulate, kind, considerate person, so maybe you’re the right person to ask.

      Why is violence ok as long as sex is not involved? Why is it only morally questionable when sex becomes part of the equation?

        Quote  Reply

    87. Mr Derp,

      That’s a really loaded question! I don’t think graphic violence has been regarded as “ok” — I should have been more clear there! I was about to write up an amendment to my post because graphic violence has also been the subject of intense controversy and debate. I remember people trying to blame Columbine on graphic video games, FPS games, and media depicting graphic violence. I also remember controversy over GoT’s graphic depictions of violence (ie. Oberyn’s head explosion).

      However, for some, depictions of sex and nudity on TV is the worst and I think that can go way way back into very fraught issues, sometimes regarding very personal (and community) views and beliefs.

      I can’t speak for those who spend their time objecting to sex and nudity on TV since neither make my list of concerns. When I feel it’s being done gratuitously, I tend to find it slightly irritating but not enough so to make a fuss over it. If I also find a scene too graphic or disturbing, I’ll skip it and know to avoid it next time.

        Quote  Reply

    88. Adrianacandle,

      Thanks for the reply!

      Yes, I do think this all comes down to personal beliefs and preferences, which is why I think censorship is troublesome to me. Who’s to say what’s ultimately right and what’s not? I don’t want my life dictated to me by the perpetually offended, but I also think every one of us has a line where art can indeed go too far. It’s different for everyone.

      I do think there are times when rape gets waaaaaaaaaaaaay overused as a lazy plot device. I would use Outlander as a prime example. I’m pretty sure every major character on that show has been raped by now. It doesn’t really do anything for the plot either. It’s constant kidnapping followed by rape, because, well rape.

      If it doesnt move the story along then I would absolutely agree that sexual violence and violence of any kind is unnecessary.

      I just think a lot of people want to remove this stuff simply because it makes them uncomfortable, and I think it’s important for art to occasionally get people out of their comfort zone.

        Quote  Reply

    89. Adrianacandle: If I also find a scene too graphic or disturbing, I’ll skip it and know to avoid it next time.

      Me too. I always skipped through the Theon torture scenes as well as any sexual violence, but I never wanted to it to be banned. I understand that this is someone else’s art. I can choose to accept it or deny it, be offended by it, etc., but what I cannot do is dictate the art itself.

      I would say the infamous “sexposition” scene in GoT 1×7 is a good example of an unnecessary scene. Not that I minded to be honest, but it had nothing to do with the plot. It was basically a way to keep the audience engaged in LF’s exposition. It came off as silly anyway, not sexy to me.

        Quote  Reply

    90. Mr Derp,

      Totally agree!

      Yes, I do think this all comes down to personal beliefs and preferences, which is why I think censorship is troublesome to me. Who’s to say what’s ultimately right and what’s not? I don’t want my life dictated to me by the perpetually offended, but I also think every one of us has a line where art can indeed go too far. It’s different for everyone.

      Right, and I think this is where the slippery slope comes in. This was also something always under debate when I was in art school and there was never any solid conclusion because the line is different for each person and context/purpose matters. It was very much a YMMV issue and I think complete elimination/banning of this content is never the answer because yes, then, what’s next? What else will be deemed unacceptable?

      I do think there are times when rape gets waaaaaaaaaaaaay overused as a lazy plot device. I would use Outlander as a prime example. I’m pretty sure every major character on that show has been raped by now. It doesn’t really do anything for the plot either. It’s constant kidnapping followed by rape, because, well rape.

      Yeah, exactly. Outlander is a frequent example I go to in my head when I think of rape being lazily used (and overused) and for purposes of drama. I have a harder time thinking of main characters who haven’t been raped on that series (book and show).

      If it doesnt move the story along then I would absolutely agree that sexual violence and violence of any kind is unnecessary.

      I agree.

      I just think a lot of people want to remove this stuff simply because it makes them uncomfortable, and I think it’s important for art to occasionally get people out of their comfort zone.

      I think this is an issue too — and also, people love to complain. I think part of this is that people want a cause to fight for, which I think is the basis for “cancel culture” getting out of hand. Instead of focusing on a few very problematic people or things with histories, it feels like people are now looking for things to be offended by. Going 10+ years back into a YouTuber’s history for instance (Jenna Marbles) to find something to get upset about, even if that individual is no longer participating in what was found objectionable. I had a wiki friend whose words were being twisted to indicate she was transphobic when she was trying to maintain the neutral tone/POV of an article on Wikipedia against those who were trying to push a bias or undue weight of a fringe source.

      I saw a theory that this increased during COVID times because people are bored.

        Quote  Reply

    91. Ten Bears: But watching Janos Slynt’s head separate from his neck? Or Meryn F*cking Trant get a quickie facelift? The Morality Police had no problems with that.

      That’s part of my issue with this whole thing. It seems like gratuitous violence is perfectly acceptable yet these same people only get up in arms when something sexual happens. It might be genuine outrage, but it feels very selective. I guess this is another example to show how subjective this all is.

      There also seems to be a misunderstanding about certain scenes such as Arya killing Meryn Trant. The audience IS SUPPOSED TO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE with the way Arya kills him. It’s purposeful. It specifically illustrates the dark path Arya is headed towards. There’s no sanitizing things for the Disney crowd. Shit got real there.

      If you watch that scene and don’t feel somewhat uncomfortable then there’s a problem.

      I think it’s the same when Sansa kills Ramsey. It was obviously deserved, but she smiled the whole time while watching him get eaten alive. That’s disturbing no matter what.

        Quote  Reply

    92. Mr Derp: Me too. I always skipped through the Theon torture scenes as well as any sexual violence, but I never wanted to it to be banned. I understand that this is someone else’s art. I can choose to accept it or deny it, be offended by it, etc., but what I cannot do is dictate the art itself.

      Those are my feelings as well. When I come across scenes I find to be too disturbing, I scrub through those quickly. I may say something if I found a scene or plot direction unnecessary but I’d never advocate for a certain type of content (such as rape) being banned altogether from TV because censorship, slippery slope, all of the things you and others articulated really well.

      I would say the infamous “sexposition” scene in GoT 1×7 is a good example of an unnecessary scene. Not that I minded to be honest, but it had nothing to do with the plot. It was basically a way to keep the audience engaged in LF’s exposition. It came off as silly anyway, not sexy to me.

      That’s what I was thinking of too! And similarly, those are my feelings. While I wish I could understand, I’m not able to get into the head of somebody who has serious problems with this kind of stuff because I don’t really know anybody well enough first-hand to ask them questions.

      I did have one friend who was scandalized by Chicago (that musical) though! She saw me watching it with another friend on my laptop one afternoon at lunch in an empty studio and I was told she started ranting (after I left) that she couldn’t believe I’d bring such material to school.

      Art school.

      Chicago.

        Quote  Reply

    93. • Here’s an interview of Olivia Cooke on March 1, 2021 about preparing for the prequel, and binge watching GOT. It’s only 1:54 long and she doesn’t reveal much. Still,… here’s our Queen Alicent.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yktN2fFhTOs

      • Also, here’s a December 2020 interview about her movie, “Sound of Metal.” It’s 6:41 long. I haven’t watched it yet. I threw it in bc she’s wearing green.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c28wxP9kXZw
      —-

        Quote  Reply

    94. Mr Derp:
      Censorship in art is a slippery slope.If you start censoring things for one group of people, then where does it end?What’s to stop another group of people from going even further? Whose to say what’s right and what’s wrong in a free society?The beauty of a free society is you can choose not to participate or support a certain aspect of art if you don’t want to.Cancelling/censoring is something else.

      This is my worry about HotD and the world of TV shows/movies in future years after reading this article. I more and more see now how the “world” changed during the GoT run, as GoT became more of a target for criticism in later seasons for violence and nudity and such even though that was always present and nudity even got toned down with S4. THe whole thing made me think me of Comic Code Authority that you could say ruined comics in the 50s and lasted all the way to the 70s, disabling any way of mature and dark content, morally ambiguous characters, corrupt officials, antagonists winning and anything like that, supposedly to make the comics more kid friendly. Literally, the world of comics got dictated by a group of people influenced by the “offended” and if you believed otherwise, you were an “outlaw”. And I’m honestly starting to get worried that TV shows and movies are heading down the same route because the world gets more and more easily offended.

      Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for diversity, all for gender equality and such. But I for example don’t appreciate that if you make an ensemble cast story and you don’t include characters from literally every culture/race possible, you’re immediately labeled as misogynistic (if there are not enough women), racist (if there are “too many” white characters) or homophobic (if there are not enough LGBT characters). I personally think no author should be obliged to make characters as diverse as possible for the sake of representing diversity. I don’t think that makes anyone racist or mysoginistic… the problem would be if the author would clearly support the idea of racism/homophobia/misogynism through the story. But when creating a story, I think everyone has right to creative freedom. And I think same applies to elements discussed in this thread… if an author wants to create a horrific twisted or traumatic story, I think they have every right to do that and not be demonized for it, as long as they’re not promoting violence and such.

      For me, GoT was unique because it didn’t shy away from brutal depiction of medieval world. THere were scenes that were nothing less but uncomfortable for me (Arya killing ser Meryn, Theon torture scenes, anything involving Karl Tanner…) but I not once felt that these scenes “shouldn’t be there”. If I felt too uncomfortable, I guess I would stop watching it… like I know there are some hell of disturbing movies out there such as Human Centipede or Cannibal Holocaust, that I got uncomfortable shivers just reading descriptions and I immediately knew I’ll never watch them because there’s no way I could properly stomach them. But I’m not feeling offended that such movies exist out there… obviously someone made them with the intended purpose to invoke unpleasant feelings when watching them and I imagine some people look forward to watching something as disturbing as that. Those who don’t, they probably won’t apply.

      So if the TV world starts moving into the direction of Comic Code Authority (a.k.a submitting to the pressure of the “offended”), that’s something to worry about for me. I don’t know who or what the culprit is that the world became so easily offended about everything but I think it’s becoming a problem. I saw two of my friends become enemies to each other and I was put in ungrateful position because I liked them both and couldn’t pick sides because I felt they were both right and wrong at same time…. and because of this, even my own friendship with them came at stake (thankfully it was resolved, even though they’re still “enemies” to each other). My girlfriend had the same experience with her two best friends. And I’m sure there’s more I could think of in my life.

        Quote  Reply

    95. Adrianacandle,

      Jaime straight up rapes Cersei in the books and the fandom’s obession with denying it is honestly disturbing.

      She says “no” and he continues anyways. That is rape. There is ZERO ambiguity. If someone doesn’t consent and you force them until they do, you raped them.

      The show just removed the part where the rape victim starts liking it. GRRM has this REALLY fucked up tendancy to write scenes that are objectively rape, only to justify them by the fact the woman starts enjoying it.

      Same with Dany and Drogo. She’s THIRTEEN in the books, he’s a grown ass adult. That scene is rape by any sensible definition but George turns it into this creepy pseudo consent to distract the reader from how fucked up it is. D&D changed it to actually SHOW how fucked up their relationship is.

        Quote  Reply

    96. Erik, formerly Lord Parramandas,

      Art dies the moment you cave in to the censorship of the perpetually offended.

      I 100% agree. We live in such a bizzare situation, forced by people who live on twitter. Since they don’t have any social life, it’s not strange that they can’t separate fantasy from reality. But the whole world shouldn’t be a victim of this mob.

        Quote  Reply

    97. Ten Bears:

      Well, as for “rape” as a dramatic device, I suppose perceptions vary. I’m kind of fed up with “rape” as a go-to device for female empowerment or character development.

      Twitter people whine about this constantly but what are even examples of this in pop culture? Hardships are always used to push development of characters, deaths, torture, trauma and yeah, rape.

        Quote  Reply

    98. mau,

      Jaime straight up rapes Cersei in the books and the fandom’s obession with denying it is honestly disturbing.

      In regard to the scene you’re referring to, there is debate over it.

      I’ll include it here for others to review:

      “You shall,” Cersei promised. “There’s to be a trial. When you hear all he did, you’ll want him dead as much as I do.” She touched his face. “I was lost without you, Jaime. I was afraid the Starks would send me your head. I could not have borne that.” She kissed him. A light kiss, the merest brush of her lips on his, but he could feel her tremble as he slid his arms around her. “I am not whole without you.”

      There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. “No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons . . .”

      “The Others can take the septons.” He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother’s altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon’s blood was on her, but it made no difference.

      “Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.

      But no sooner were they done than the queen said, “Let me up. If we are discovered like this . . .”

      Reluctantly he rolled away and helped her off the altar. The pale marble was smeared with blood. Jaime wiped it clean with his sleeve, then bent to pick up the candles he had knocked over. Fortunately they had all gone out when they fell. If the sept had caught fire I might never have noticed.

      “This was folly.” Cersei pulled her gown straight. “With Father in the castle . . . Jaime, we must be careful.”

      However, while I can see controversy for this book scene, the way it’s presented in the show is different in my view and presents a different purpose. The purpose of this passage in the books shows Cersei’s fear of being discovered and her longing for Jaime while Jaime doesn’t care if they are discovered, wants to be together publicly, which Cersei finds insane. She fears the discovery of their relationship will cost them everything, including the throne. Jaime’s carelessness here prompts Cersei to realize that Jaime has changed from what he’s been through throughout ACOK and ASOS, presenting them at odds. In the show, it’s not presented as such and seems to leave out this context, which GRRM speaks out here:

      In the novels, Jaime is not present at Joffrey’s death, and indeed, Cersei has been fearful that he is dead himself, that she has lost both the son and the father/ lover/ brother. And then suddenly Jaime is there before her. Maimed and changed, but Jaime nonetheless. Though the time and place is wildly inappropriate and Cersei is fearful of discovery, she is as hungry for him as he is for her.

      The whole dynamic is different in the show, where Jaime has been back for weeks at the least, maybe longer, and he and Cersei have been in each other’s company on numerous occasions, often quarreling. The setting is the same, but neither character is in the same place as in the books, which may be why [producers] played the sept out differently. But that’s just my surmise; we never discussed this scene, to the best of my recollection.

      Also, I was writing the scene from Jaime’s POV, so the reader is inside his head, hearing his thoughts. On the TV show, the camera is necessarily external. You don’t know what anyone is thinking or feeling, just what they are saying and doing.

      If the show had retained some of Cersei’s dialogue from the books, it might have left a somewhat different impression — but that dialogue was very much shaped by the circumstances of the books, delivered by a woman who is seeing her lover again for the first time after a long while apart during which she feared he was dead. I am not sure it would have worked with the new timeline.

      That’s really all I can say on this issue. The scene was always intended to be disturbing… but I do regret if it has disturbed people for the wrong reasons.

      (via EW, April 21, 2014, ‘George R.R. Martin reacts to ‘Thrones’ adding rape scene’)

      It’s the purpose of the content which matters to me as I’ve said upthread. However, others may feel differently which is why I included the passage for people to come to their own conclusions.

        Quote  Reply

    99. mau: Same with Dany and Drogo. She’s THIRTEEN in the books, he’s a grown ass adult. That scene is rape by any sensible definition but George turns it into this creepy pseudo consent to distract the reader from how fucked up it is. D&D changed it to actually SHOW how fucked up their relationship is.

      I didn’t say anything about Dany and Drogo. There is a passage in the books (not the wedding night but another one) where I’d definitely say it’s rape. I didn’t include Dany and Drogo specifically because of this.

      Now, in regard to GRRM, I’ve also said:

      I’ve seen plenty of criticism for the sexual violence GRRM does include in his books in book-centered discussion areas, criticism which I share.

      Sometimes, I think GRRM himself goes overboard with this stuff (per my own preferences and feelings).

      I am no way exempting GRRM from criticism. Per the above, I think he goes too far sometimes too.

      As for D&D, I’ve made my issues clear about my problems with the changes made to Sansa’s storyline S5-onward. My problem is not that there was a rape but the purposes for this change to her storyline. As such, I would strongly dispute your assertion that “outrage over Sansa’s rape is just performative BS.” I think I’ve articulated my issues with her story well enough. You’re free to disagree but I don’t appreciate the dismissal and I don’t appreciate the lecture on rape. I know what rape is. I have first-hand experience with it.

      I’m sorry to get firm there and if I’m misreading you wrong at all, I’m sorry.

        Quote  Reply

    100. If anyone wants to take a breather from the reignited Sansa Rape Debate to acquaint yourself with our new Queen, here are two more Olivia Cooke interview clips:

      • Feb. 2, 2021 Olivia Cooke on GMA – talks prequel (HotD conversation at 2:20 – 3:40 of 4:05 long clip) She can’t reveal much.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAkkou2ufz4

      • “Ready Player One” – Steven Spielberg, Olivia Cooke interview from 2018 [5:01 long clip]*
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZhw7K3uHFo

      “Ready Player One” looks like a fun movie. From this interview and the trailer, it appears the characters

      spend most of their time as avatars in a virtual reality world.

      * Let me know if you have uploading problems. This video might not be available in some countries. I may have an alternate link.

        Quote  Reply

    101. Adrianacandle,

      Cersei: “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh.”

      Wait. This book scene is controversial as to whether if was rape or consensual? “Do it now, do me now…yes, like that, yes.”
      Where’s the ambiguity?

        Quote  Reply

    102. Ten Bears,

      You sure? I was going to comment with some quoted insight on this subject sourced from other discussions on this if you’re interested but it’s not something I intend to really debate or discuss much because I’d say there is a certain ambiguity to that passage.

        Quote  Reply

    103. Adrianacandle,

      I’d much rather dig up fun scenes of our future Queen. Here are two scenes from “Ready Player One.” In the first, she (and whoever the guy is) are their avatar selves in the trippy virtual world. The second clip might or might not be a major spoiler; I don’t know because I haven’t watched the movie.

      • Olivia Cooke as avatar character in “Ready Player One” [4:32 long clip]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCMBd_906Y

      ⚠️• Spoiler Alert?

      Characters meet for the first time “in real life” [2:59 long]

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0alWzKjMXE
      ———-

        Quote  Reply

    104. loco73,

      Four days ago you wrote;

      For me U2 has always been more than a band, they are an expression of Ireland and the Irish soul!👍👍🇮🇪”

      This one’s for you. Added bonus: Fergie in groovy throwback black hot pants and Mick Jagger still strutting forty years after “Gimme Shelter” was released.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2w2HiG4cE

      P.S. This was one of my S8e5 Mad Queen Dany musical dedications.

      🎶 ”Ooh, see the fire 🔥
      is sweeping

      Our very streets today
      
Burns like a red coal carpet

      Mad bull lost its way
      ”🎶

        Quote  Reply

    105. loco73,

      Yeah, like TB said, the quality on this video is amazing. It looks like now.

      I was familiarized with this song via the Glee cover — which was very different! 😉

        Quote  Reply

    106. Hello! So Whilst Im waiting for moderation from a comment I made a day ago….

      Let me congratulate Olivia Cooke on her great success this year! Not only she is gonna be in a mega hit of a show but she is also part of an Academy Award nominated movie! (The sounds of metal).

      Congratulations my queen!!

        Quote  Reply

    107. loco73:
      And..I love this song, from one of the greats…

      I’d never heard this Marvin Gaye song before. It was beautiful – like listening to an instrumental with his voice as one of the instruments.
      ⚠️ 🐇 🕳

      Caution: More Marvin Gaye music (”What’s Going On”) may lead to a Cyndi Lauper rabbit hole…)

        Quote  Reply

    108. Ten Bears,

      Well the second Rolling Stones single (in the UK anyway) was a song written by the Beatles – ‘I Wanna Be Your Man’ which charted in Oct 1963. The music starts at about 0.30 (and clock the Stones in suits!!!!!). https://youtu.be/8-UsThq55p8 The hair length of the Rolling Stones caused some controversy with the (then) older generation though they later grew it much longer. Oh, when one looks back at the music from when one was a teenager liking music which annoyed the boring old f*rts and realises one has evolved into one of the boring old f*rts.

        Quote  Reply

    109. Adrianacandle:
      loco73,

      Yeah, like TB said, the quality on this video is amazing. It looks like now.

      I was familiarized with this song via the Glee cover — which was very different! 😉

      (Part 1 of 2)

      • Yes. The video and audio quality of these Rolling Stones live recordings posted by loco73 is extraordinary. As you said: “It looks like now.” I did a little sleuthing on YouTube. Those videos (of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “Sympathy for the Devil”) were recorded in London for BBC-TV back in 1968. Yet, the quality surpasses many recent live performance videos I’ve watched.

      I am curious how they were able to accomplish that fifty years ago, but can’t seem to duplicate it today?

      Most videos of live TV performances I see are washed out, blurry, and full of static. (Maybe they were recorded from TV on VHS tape? I don’t know.) The singers’ voices sound as if they’re on an intercom at a fast food drive through. Some concerts filmed for movie documentaries sound okay.

      Many iconic performances that could’ve been preserved for posterity are essentially lost forever.

      I confess I’ve never been a big Rolling Stones fan. I remember scoring some tickets for a 1989(?) show at the Orange Bowl in Miami, and giving them away to a friend from school who was a diehard Stones fan. It think that must have been around the time they’d released cringeworthy (for me) songs like “Angie,” “Miss You,” and “Start Me Up.” I’d forgotten that they had some pretty good songs before that.

      • What I can’t figure out after watching that posted video of “Sympathy for the Devil” from 1968, especially after Mick Jagger strips off his shirt at 6:04…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwtyn-L-2gQ
      … and comparing it to the U2 + Jagger “Gimme Shelter” video from 2009, is how can he stay rail thin like that?

      I order in Italian food on Friday, and by Monday I look like Lord Manderly aka Lord too-fat-to-sit-a-horse.

        Quote  Reply

    110. Dame of Mercia,

      Right. It’s unfortunate that so many live recordings are only available in audio, either because nobody thought to capture them on video, or the videos look like amateur home movies shot by a distracted 12 year-old with a camcorder.
      ⚠️Personal whinging:

      Peter Gabriel left Genesis shortly after they released the now-classic concept album “The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.” (Great title track + “Carpet Crawlers.”)
      Anyway, the only existing live concert performance of “The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway” in its entirety is an audio recording. Sounds phenomenal …but back then Peter Gabriel was a master showman, with outlandish costumes and makeup, and all kinds of crazy visual effects. Phil Collins sang the lead on some of the songs in concert after Peter Gabriel’s departure…but those renditions blow.

      – End Whinge –

        Quote  Reply

    111. loco73,

      Part 2 of 2 (cont. from 2:00 pm)

      Since you unwittingly led me down into a Rolling Stones rabbit hole, I thought you might enjoy this “now and then” comparison:

      • 1968: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” – The Rolling Stones live in London
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9QnZVpVd8

      …. 52 years later …..

      April 18, 2020: “You Cant Always Get What You Want” – The Rolling Stones, live at home
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7pZgQepXfA
      👄

        Quote  Reply

    112. Out of curiosity, did anyone ask or mention whether or not there will be egregious violence towards men in HOTD? Or do we not care about that?

        Quote  Reply

    113. Ten Bears,

      Yes. The video and audio quality of these Rolling Stones live recordings posted by loco73 is extraordinary. As you said: “It looks like now.” I did a little sleuthing on YouTube. Those videos (of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” and “Sympathy for the Devil”) were recorded in London for BBC-TV back in 1968. Yet, the quality surpasses many recent live performance videos I’ve watched

      Yes, it does — that’s what makes it surprising because it doesn’t feel like 1968 at all, it feels far too recent with how high quality the picture is. It’s unsettling in a time-trippy way 🙂

      I am curious how they were able to accomplish that fifty years ago, but can’t seem to duplicate it today?

      I’m wondering if it’s the method of recording they used. There is still a raging debate over whether digital has reached the quality of 35 mm film and I’m wondering if this performance was filmed on 35 mm.

      When I was watching a documentary on the restoration process of Gone With the Wind, they were able to significantly improve the quality of the picture by realigning the RGB emulsion layers (they were a bit off originally but realignment provided a far sharper image) and play with the hue/saturation.

      I think it was akin to working with a Camera RAW image rather than a JPEG or a copy. A JPEG doesn’t start out with the quality of RAW and loses quality each time you save it but working straight from the source, digital RAW or the tactile original film, you can retain the quality or (in this case) improve the quality by working directly with the material the content was filmed on.

      I’m not sure if that’s a helpful answer XD

        Quote  Reply

    114. Ten Bears: What I can’t figure out after watching that posted video of “Sympathy for the Devil” from 1968, especially after Mick Jagger strips off his shirt at 6:04…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwtyn-L-2gQ
      … and comparing it to the U2 + Jagger “Gimme Shelter” video from 2009, is how can he stay rail thin like that?

      I order in Italian food on Friday, and by Monday I look like Lord Manderly aka Lord too-fat-to-sit-a-horse.

      A very amped-up metabolism 🙂 Some people are lucky enough to have them! (Well, unless it’s related to hyperthyroidism or another medical condition and then they’re not so lucky.)

        Quote  Reply

    115. I think that those Rolling Stones performances were upscaled by the person who posted them from their original quality to 4K. I think they went frame by frame through the original footage, digitized each one and converted them to HD/4K quality. I’m sure it is a very simplistic explanation of that process. There is I’m sure a much more detailed and technical explanation.

      It is what Peter Jackson did with his 2018 WWI documentary “They Shall Not Grow Old” (oddly enough he used some of that same technology for the 4K release of the LOTR trilogy…). See the trailer below to better illustrate what I’m talking about.

        Quote  Reply

    116. Mr Derp:
      Out of curiosity, did anyone ask or mention whether or not there will be egregious violence towards men in HOTD?Or do we not care about that?

      Castration? Penile amputation? Unsullied Genital mutilation? Cutting off “the pillar and the stones”? Lopping off hands and fingers? Enucleation? Disembowelments? Decapitations?Debridement without anesthesia? Impaled heads?Ripping out tongues and spines?Rat bucket torture?

      No, I guess we do not care about egregious violence towards men. Worse, it’s often treated as a big joke…
      ⚠️ Warning: Ramsay wiggling sausage gif
      https://images.app.goo.gl/Wfm4Hu7vLfQes3BJ8
      …even when the “joke” falls flat, like the endless “c*ckless,” “no c*ck,” “without a c*ck” quips by Tyrion and Bronn. 🤬

        Quote  Reply

    117. loco73,

      ”I think that those Rolling Stones performances were upscaled by the person who posted them from their original quality to 4K. I think they went frame by frame through the original footage, digitized each one and converted them to HD/4K quality. I’m sure it is a very simplistic explanation of that process. There is I’m sure a much more detailed and technical explanation.”

      Wow! In that case every old video should be upscaled, digitized and converted to HD/4K quality. I suppose there’s a corresponding process to upscale the audio.

        Quote  Reply

    118. loco73,

      And I thought Peter Jackson had combed through hundreds of hours of archived film to find a few hours of pristine, original footage…

      A while back I watched an old movie on TCM (Turner Classic Movie channel?). Except it wasn’t that old. It was a movie made in the 70’s starring Audrey Hepburn and Sean Connery, and co-starting a lineup of heavyweight English actors.*
      But the color was so mottled and washed out, and the soundtrack was so sketchy, that the movie was practically unwatchable. It’s a damn shame because Audrey Hepburn delivered a speech at the end that brought me to tears.
      If Audrey Hepburn and Sean Connery could be restored like Mick Jagger…

      * Edit: Here it is: “Robin and Marian” (1976)
      https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075147/fullcredits

        Quote  Reply

    119. Att’n: Team Black
      A little sampling of your Princess Rhaenys

      Two clips of Emma D’Arcy with Rob Lowe in “Wild Bill” TV series (2019). I don’t know what this show was about. (It’s difficult to find videos of Emma D’Arcy. Needless to say, that’s about to change.)

      (1:29):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCnIqCeGhkg

      ( 1:26):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QALWvvSDSCw

      * Six Degrees of Game of Thrones: Rachael Stirling, Diana Rigg’s daughter, co-stars in “Wild Bill.”

        Quote  Reply

    120. Ten Bears:
      No, I guess we do not care about egregious violence towards men. Worse, it’s often treated as a big joke… ⚠️ Warning: Ramsay wiggling sausage gif
      https://images.app.goo.gl/Wfm4Hu7vLfQes3BJ8 …even when the “joke” falls flat, like the endless “c*ckless,” “no c*ck,” “without a c*ck” quips by Tyrion and Bronn. 🤬

      Yes. Egregious violence is egregious violence regardless of the gender it’s happening to. I truly find it bizarre that so many people are so hypersensitive about what happens to female fictional characters, but no one gives a damn about any other gender. It’s all very political and makes me want to vomit.

        Quote  Reply

    121. Ten Bears:
      Ten Bears,

      Correction: Emma D’Arcy as Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen. NOT “Rhaenys.”

      Stupid Auto Correct.

      Auto Correct is being presumptuous just because
      at some point I may have quoted dialogue from GoT S2e7:

      TYWIN: Harrenhal was built to withstand an attack from the land. A million men could have marched on these walls, and a million men would have been repelled. But an attack from the air with dragon fire, Mmm-mmm. Harren and all his sons roasted alive within these walls. Aegon Targaryen changed the rules. That’s why every child alive still knows his name
      ARYA: Aegon and his sisters.
      TYWIN: Mmm?
      ARYA: It wasn’t just Aegon riding his dragon. It was Rhaenys and Visenya, too.
      TYWIN: Correct. A student of history, are you?
      ARYA: Rhaenys rode Meraxes. Visenya rode Vhagar.
      TYWIN: I’m sure I knew that when I was a boy.
      ARYA: Visenya Targaryen was a great warrior. She had a Valyrian steel sword she called Dark Sister.
      TYWIN: Hmm. She’s a heroine of yours, I take it?
      (Arya smiles 😌)
      TYWIN: Aren’t most girls more interested in the pretty maidens from the songs? Jonquil with the flowers in her hair?
      ARYA: Most girls are idiots.

      Is Auto Correct programmed with the ARLTA Algorithm?

      ”All Roads Lead to Arya “

        Quote  Reply

    122. loco73:
      On this whole debate/discussion. Think about a movie like “Schindler’s List”. It contains some really harrowing, disturbing and hard to watch scenes, some brief and some painfully long.

      Would you want that movie sanitized or edited to the point so as not to offend someone or other? Or is it important to show the whole, unvarnished story in order to preserve the full extent of the horrors that happened (as much as a movie can do so) and give people a better understanding of what the Holocaust entailed?

      When the movie first aired on broadcast TV, specifically on NBC, back in 1996, the network wanted initially to show a heavily edited version with commercials. Spielberg’s response was to come out immediately against that and pull the movie from NBC’s programming lineup demanding that the movie be shown uncut and commercial free, which at the time was quite something…I mean you couldn’t even show people smoking (and still can’t) on broadcast networks…

      Spielberg prevailed and NBC aired the uncut, commercial free version of the movie. Before the movie aired Spielberg did an intro, explaining the decision to show the movie as is rather than some censored version…

      Just something to think about…and for us to decide, for ourselves not for others, whether we want to watch or not. Or are we no longer capable of make any such decisions?

      Hear! Hear!

        Quote  Reply

    123. Ten Bears: I kind of liked the grand entrance of equal opportunity libertines Oberyn and Ellaria. Beautiful people running around naked and having fun. How progressive!

      I have nothing against naked people on screen, if it serves something (character, context, plot etc.,). And why not, even for aesthetic reasons, with moderation. But I thought Oberyn having every fecking meeting in a brothel was ridiculous. Even Tywin went to meet him there. It looked like Oberyn was living in that damn brothel. Big eyeroll and just silly.

        Quote  Reply

    124. Okay so for some reason my comments were being eternally moderated and now they are deleted (?).

      Anyway, how’s everyone? I hope everyone is doing alright!

      As I said in my deleted commented, Olivia has a point that GoT took the violence against women way too for, HOWEVER, there is a key moment in the Dance of the dragons that involves a brutal amount of violence towards a female character, and they’ll need to use it I guess.

      Also, congratulations to Olivia for taking part in the Academy nominated movie “Sound of metal” and in one of the (hopefully) biggest shows in the world.

        Quote  Reply

    125. Adaneth: I have nothing against naked people on screen, if it serves something (character, context, plot etc.,). And why not, even for aesthetic reasons, with moderation. But I thought Oberyn having every fecking meeting in a brothel was ridiculous. Even Tywin went to meet him there. It looked like Oberyn was living in that damn brothel. Big eyeroll and just silly.

      Watching a show about tits and dragons and then complaining about seeing tits is a bit disingenuous.

        Quote  Reply

    126. This is silly. Character protectionism of certain genders or races is unnecessary and condescending as hell–women don’t need their head patted. To pretend like there was no violence or objectification of women in the era the show is based on is to just completely white-wash history and turn this into a Disney production. You can’t avoid including this in the show, the way you counteract it is by having a lot of female characters with significant roles just like the first series did. Olivia Cooke is lame as hell, hopefully they off her character quickly (maybe she’ll get tickled to death with a pillow feather so as not to offend the audience). Honestly, if this show is afraid of offending people, then I’ll be out quickly (and so will many others). Why do people keep bowing down to such a small minority of people?

        Quote  Reply

    Jump to the Top

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *