Game Of Thrones: Final Season --SPOILERS!

[The Romulan Republic]

Its true that success can be a writer or director's worst enemy. They get it right once, become really big, and then they think they can do know wrong and lose their self-discipline, letting certain ideas run away with themselves until they become annoying while ignoring others,and they've gotten so big that nobody else can or will effectively reign them in. See Robert Jordan, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas as possible examples of this effect in action.

[ray245]

Its true that success can be a writer or director's worst enemy. They get it right once, become really big, and then they think they can do know wrong and lose their self-discipline, letting certain ideas run away with themselves until they become annoying while ignoring others,and they've gotten so big that nobody else can or will effectively reign them in. See Robert Jordan, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas as possible examples of this effect in action.

Or the idea of trying making a series that is appealing to the audience might not be what the directors and writers truly wanted in the first place. They needed to listen to the advise of others when they are starting out because they needed the financial revenue to support their work. Once the immediate stress and anxiety over financial security is gone, the director or writer can begin to produce or write things that they really want to do so, even if it alienates older fans.

They want to produce or write stuff that appeals to they themselves first and foremost. Like a kid crafting a story of their own with their toys, even if others around them might dislike the story.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its true that success can be a writer or director's worst enemy. They get it right once, become really big, and then they think they can do know wrong and lose their self-discipline, letting certain ideas run away with themselves until they become annoying while ignoring others,and they've gotten so big that nobody else can or will effectively reign them in. See Robert Jordan, Peter Jackson, and George Lucas as possible examples of this effect in action.

Or the idea of trying making a series that is appealing to the audience might not be what the directors and writers truly wanted in the first place. They needed to listen to the advise of others when they are starting out because they needed the financial revenue to support their work. Once the immediate stress and anxiety over financial security is gone, the director or writer can begin to produce or write things that they really want to do so, even if it alienates older fans.

They want to produce or write stuff that appeals to they themselves first and foremost. Like a kid crafting a story of their own with their toys, even if others around them might dislike the story.

I might buy that in GoT's case (although that being the ending they wanted all along wouldn't really earn them any points with me), except for the fact that so much of the final season seemed designed to pander to specific sets of the fandom. Cleganebowl is the most obvious example, but the sudden Arya/Gendry ship, the rushed and quickly-ended Jaime/Brienne couple, Arya killing the Night King (much as I like it), and even arguably Mad Queen Daenerys, all seem like they were done to pander to specific subsets of the fandom.

Honestly, I think there were three main problems with the final season:

1. The writers wanted to wrap things up quickly to get on to their Star Wars gig, and basically didn't care as much any more. This is pretty much unarguably, given that they reportedly turned down multiple offers from HBO for more money and episodes/seasons (how often does that happen? The only other example I can think of for a television showrunner demanding cancellation off-hand is "Gravity Falls", which actually did end on a good note). And I think that sense of not giving a shit probably filtered down to some extent to the rest of the crew, given the repeated gaffs like the notorious Starbucks cup in the shot, which isn't a big deal in and of itself but suggests a general slackness on set when it keeps happening in really obvious ways.

2. They wanted to try to please the fandom, I have to believe that, if only so that their work would be remembered positively, but by trying to pander to each wing of the fandom a little bit, and not taking the time/effort to make it all cohesive, they ended up pissing off nearly every group to some extent.

3. The underlying streak of misogyny in the series came to the fore, with things like Sansa saying that her rape made her who she is, and most infamously the Mad Queen Daenerys plot, which they justified both in-universe and out with blatantly sexist tropes that imply women are too emotional or unstable to hold power. And yeah, I do think they probably intended that all along, but that excuses it not at all, especially when they spent years benefiting from and encouraging Daenerys's large fandom, only to pull the rug out from under them at the end. So the end result is basically seven years of "Here's this horrible misogynist society, which we're happy to use for shock value/titillation. But wait! Here's this strong, powerful, sometimes misguided but fundamentally well-meaning woman, who we're implying might be the chosen one/future queen who can actually change things, and as a result develops a devoted fandom. And here we see her rejecting the pursuit of power at any price and going to help the good guys in the Long Night. Oh, wait, what's that? Oh she's going to go mad in the second to last episode and murder a city full of people because she's unstable and her boyfriend dumped her, end up as just another Mad Queen stereotype, and then get put down by said former boyfriend so a man can take his rightful place on the throne. Ha ha, fuck you women, I bet you didn't see that coming!"

Its an utterly cruel bait and switch. And if that was their plan all along, rather than a last-minute change, its all the worse.

[TheFeniX]

I think you're emphasizing the wrong area when attacking the show for sexism.

It isn't that Sansa says something like "My rape made me stronger." That's actually NOT a bad or unrealistic coping mechanism and since it was such a world shattering "moment" for her: it's much better to comes to terms with it rather than try and ignore the impact or say "It wrecked me as a person." The sexism is because her MAJOR PLOT ARC = Raped, constantly controlled by men before that with her vagina being held in peril for multiple seasons. She was wrecked as a character long before she said "all that made me stronger."

For the Arya stuff: I don't consider a booty call a "ship." She knows Gendry is a sure thing, women like sex. He's there. She's there. It's obvious she has issues with emotional attachment and men in general (they keep dying around her and all the others she deal with are shit), but Gendry is someone she likely remembers as being a good kid who got screwed and is happy he's alive in the first place. The problem here is that if it were a male character who took some girl's virginity and then said "I gotz explorin' to do!", he'd be characterized as an asshole.

The problem with Cersei being unfit for power actually had little to do (outside the setting, in universe: obv people talk shit about women) with her being a woman. Olenna exists. She's feared and respected. Other Queens exist, since "claim is claim unless there's a male heir." Where she falls apart is her entire arc becomes about protecting her ONE child left (the one in her belly). And ALSO that Tyrion and Jamie start getting weak kneed due to the potential of that child being Jamie's.

Danny gets the same treatment because the loss of her dragons is the same as losing a child. It does help explain her descent into madness, but it's once again just an analogy for what makes a woman a woman according to fiction writers.

I don't disagree the show had major issues with sexism, but I think you're focusing on details rather than the big picture. The fact is: GoT does little to break the idea that a woman's growth as a character has to involve her vagina (or womb) or penises going into said vagina. Arya is actually a stand-out here because her vagina is actually mentioned very rarely.

[Raw Shark]

For the Arya stuff: I don't consider a booty call a "ship." She knows Gendry is a sure thing, women like sex. He's there. She's there. It's obvious she has issues with emotional attachment and men in general (they keep dying around her and all the others she deal with are shit), but Gendry is someone she likely remembers as being a good kid who got screwed and is happy he's alive in the first place. The problem here is that if it were a male character who took some girl's virginity and then said "I gotz explorin' to do!", he'd be characterized as an asshole.

Also, like it or not, the Arya/Gendry situation is set up pretty early in the books - There's one line in ACOK where she mentally appreciates his looks in her own internal narrative, even if she was too young for him to think of in that way until later. Like it or not, it was always a thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

For the Arya stuff: I don't consider a booty call a "ship." She knows Gendry is a sure thing, women like sex. He's there. She's there. It's obvious she has issues with emotional attachment and men in general (they keep dying around her and all the others she deal with are shit), but Gendry is someone she likely remembers as being a good kid who got screwed and is happy he's alive in the first place. The problem here is that if it were a male character who took some girl's virginity and then said "I gotz explorin' to do!", he'd be characterized as an asshole.

Also, like it or not, the Arya/Gendry situation is set up pretty early in the books - There's one line in ACOK where she mentally appreciates his looks in her own internal narrative, even if she was too young for him to think of in that way until later. Like it or not, it was always a thing.

She finds him physically appealing, perhaps. I can buy that. I can even buy a grown Arya reconnecting with him and wanting to satisfy that old curiosity with a quick fling, even if I find it rather distasteful.

The problem is that for it to be reciprocal, for a mutual attraction to have been established or foreshadowed by their early-series interactions... well, the only time that they interacted prior to their sudden hook up in season eight, and the only time they've interacted at all thus far in the books, Arya was a prepubescent girl, and Gendry was considerably older.

So to be very blunt, I find the obsession in fandom with shipping them extremely creepy, even in a series overflowing with depraved and sadistic relationships, because for that ship to have any basis in canon prior to season eight, Gendry has to be a pedophile.

Honestly, if the hookup in season eight had just been "We'll both probably die tomorrow, we happen to know each other from way back, let's bang to blow off steam", and if it wasn't for the years of creepy fandom shipping which were now being validated, I could probably have accepted that. But because of the fandom shipping it seemed to be validating (I hate obsessive shippers even when both parties in the relationship are adults), and because they then had Gendry suddenly acting like he was in love with Arya, it came off as both pandering, and something pretty creepy, at least to me.

Best part was Arya dumping him in 8.4. Although now that I think about it, Gendry is arguably the victim in this relationship. While him having any preexisting attraction to Arya would be deeply creepy and pervy, at the time they did hook up, they were both adults- but Gendry was a bastard blacksmith, and Arya a Lord Paramount's daughter and sister to the King in the North. There was a hell of a power disparity in that relationship, and even factoring in Westrosi misogyny and patriarchy, Arya pretty clearly had the advantage of it.

[Raw Shark]

Best part was Arya dumping him in 8.4. Although now that I think about it, Gendry is arguably the victim in this relationship.

Agreed on that. Arya's at her best when she's being a cold-ass motherfucker.

While him having any preexisting attraction to Arya would be deeply creepy and pervy, at the time they did hook up, they were both adults- but Gendry was a bastard blacksmith, and Arya a Lord Paramount's daughter and sister to the King in the North. There was a hell of a power disparity in that relationship, and even factoring in Westrosi misogyny and patriarchy, Arya pretty clearly had the advantage of it.

I don't really see Gendry as the kind of guy who would be impressed or coerced by wealth and social status. Their scenes in Season 8 played out for me, from his point of view, as, "Whoa, this girl I knew has grown into an adult who is hot-looking, confident, worldly, and can dominate most people in a fight." That was definitely the angle she was playing - You could almost hear him popping a boner when she did her knife-throwing trick. The victimization part is that she cultivated a crush on her knowing full well that she wouldn't return it.

[TheFeniX]

The problem is that for it to be reciprocal, for a mutual attraction to have been established or foreshadowed by their early-series interactions... well, the only time that they interacted prior to their sudden hook up in season eight, and the only time they've interacted at all thus far in the books, Arya was a prepubescent girl, and Gendry was considerably older.

As said, Arya hasn't interacted with many men/boys at all over the past few years. And near all of these were murderers and rapists. Gendry has to be the one "solid" guy she has to remember.

So to be very blunt, I find the obsession in fandom with shipping them extremely creepy, even in a series overflowing with depraved and sadistic relationships, because for that ship to have any basis in canon prior to season eight, Gendry has to be a pedophile.

Fans are the absolute worst people, but that isn't a mark against the media they overly and creepily obsess about. While the book states her to be young, I believe Williams was 15 at the time while Dempsie was admittedly 25. I don't even recall many "sparks" flying during the time they were at risk of violent death constantly, just that Gendry was this attractive guy who seemed 100% on the level at a time when all the men who were like that in Arya's life were either dead because of it or too far away to help her. And then she watched him get dragged away by supposedly "honorable men," to likely be murdered. In fact, if not for Davos, he would have just been another decent guy (for the setting, mind you) Arya knew once who got murdered.

As for Gendry, AFAIK the first time he had sex, the woman used it for a ritual to summon a smoke demon and murder his uncle. A plan put into motion by his other uncle. I mean, the guy has to have his own issues and if he was going around having sex at all, has to have major hang-ups due to that and the notion that other people might come after him for his blood/lineage and even anyone he cares about. This is something, by the time of his hookup, he probably feels he doesn't have to worry about anymore. He's a Lord now and trusts Arya (maybe stupidly).

I think you're letting a fucked up fandom influence your perception of past seasons. The way Arya and Gendry was handled was probably one of the least annoying parts of the later seasons for me. But I also don't keep up with "fandom bullshit" because fans are stupid and I'm not a masochist. More likely, Gendry was just the only "compatible" character they had to try and ship Arya with and then turn on it's ear for her character development: "Turns down easy Lady life with 'GOOD GUY' to head west for ADVENTURE."

and because they then had Gendry suddenly acting like he was in love with Arya, it came off as both pandering, and something pretty creepy, at least to me.

I think maybe you're expecting characters in fiction to always act rationally. A bastard blacksmith was just given his father's name, title, and lands. For all we know, he may think he's making the most "political" move of his life AND getting to marry the "woman he loves" because people do stupid shit when they get that far out of their element...... or even when in their element.

tl;dr: I wouldn't read to much into the Gendry/Arya stuff and don't ever listen to self-proclaimed fans, especially on the Internet.

[The Romulan Republic]

As said, Arya hasn't interacted with many men/boys at all over the past few years. And near all of these were murderers and rapists. Gendry has to be the one "solid" guy she has to remember.

True enough. And hey, its better than what GRRM reportedly had in mind in his early drafts (namely Arya/Jon).

Fans are the absolute worst people, but that isn't a mark against the media they overly and creepily obsess about. While the book states her to be young, I believe Williams was 15 at the time while Dempsie was admittedly 25. I don't even recall many "sparks" flying during the time they were at risk of violent death constantly, just that Gendry was this attractive guy who seemed 100% on the level at a time when all the men who were like that in Arya's life were either dead because of it or too far away to help her. And then she watched him get dragged away by supposedly "honorable men," to likely be murdered. In fact, if not for Davos, he would have just been another decent guy (for the setting, mind you) Arya knew once who got murdered.

The age of the characters isn't the age of the actors, but if it was, 15 and 25 is putting us solidly in Roy Moore territory.

To be fair, there's not much to indicate that Gendry was into Arya back then. Its just that the frequent fandom obsession with shipping them is deeply creepy, and if there's no prior attraction on his part, his sudden love of her in the show seems out of left field to me (or fandom pandering).

As for Gendry, AFAIK the first time he had sex, the woman used it for a ritual to summon a smoke demon and murder his uncle. A plan put into motion by his other uncle. I mean, the guy has to have his own issues and if he was going around having sex at all, has to have major hang-ups due to that and the notion that other people might come after him for his blood/lineage and even anyone he cares about. This is something, by the time of his hookup, he probably feels he doesn't have to worry about anymore. He's a Lord now and trusts Arya (maybe stupidly).

Stupid, yeah. Arya at that point is every bit as cold-blooded as Melisandra.

Oh well, its not like any Baratheon has healthy relationships.

I think you're letting a fucked up fandom influence your perception of past seasons. The way Arya and Gendry was handled was probably one of the least annoying parts of the later seasons for me. But I also don't keep up with "fandom bullshit" because fans are stupid and I'm not a masochist. More likely, Gendry was just the only "compatible" character they had to try and ship Arya with and then turn on it's ear for her character development: "Turns down easy Lady life with 'GOOD GUY' to head west for ADVENTURE."

Well, that's another thing- Arya's "character development" doesn't really work as such, arguably. Her not wanting to marry and be a typical lady, sure- that's been a part of her character from the start, and I like that they she turned Gendry down. But sailing off into the middle of nowhere, when her whole thing over the last couple seasons was about her deciding to reconnect with her identity and family... yeah, that's weird. Its not as glaring a 180 to me as Daenerys or Jaime over the last two seasons, but its there.

Honestly, I'd rather they hadn't felt the need to ship Arya with anyone. Let her stay single, instead of doing an obligatory sex scene the moment the character hit 18.

I think maybe you're expecting characters in fiction to always act rationally. A bastard blacksmith was just given his father's name, title, and lands. For all we know, he may think he's making the most "political" move of his life AND getting to marry the "woman he loves" because people do stupid shit when they get that far out of their element...... or even when in their element.

Oh, as I a stupid guy acting stupid it works, sure. Still seems weird for him to be so infatuated with her so suddenly, especially when she's clearly not (by his own admission) the first woman he's been with.

tl;dr: I wouldn't read to much into the Gendry/Arya stuff and don't ever listen to self-proclaimed fans, especially on the Internet.

Well, the thing is, fandom bullshit does have an effect on canon, unfortunately. Shows aren't made in a vacuum. Creators frequently interact with fans on social media (indeed to some extent are expected to do so) and can often bow to pressure from them, as Disney's increasing focus on pandering to the "Anything but the OT sucks" crowd of Star Wars fans (and worse, the "RUINED BY SJWs" crowd) for example shows.

This is especially true on long-running franchises where the people in charge are often people who started out as fans years ago.

And on another note, surprising no one, Emilia Clarke has revealed that she sometimes was pressured to appear nude more on Game of Thrones, so that she wouldn't "disappoint the fans":

https://theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/20 ... terrifying

Emilia Clarke has revealed she felt uncomfortable acting in some of her nude scenes in Game Of Thrones.

The British actress played queen Daenerys Targaryen in HBO’s sprawling epic, which became notorious for its explicit portrayal of sex and violence.

Clarke, who was 23 when she started filming Game Of Thrones, said she would be in tears before shooting certain “terrifying” nude scenes.

Speaking on actor Dax Shepard’s podcast Armchair Expert, she said: “I took the job and then they sent me the scripts and I was reading them, and I was like, ‘Oh, there’s the catch!’

“But I’d come fresh from drama school and I approached it as a job: if it’s in the script then it’s clearly needed. This is what this is and I’m going to make sense of it and that’s what I’m going to do and everything’s going to be cool.

“I’ve never been on a film set like this before. I’d been on a film set twice before then, and I’m now on a film set completely naked with all of these people, and I don’t know what I’m meant to do, and I don’t know what’s expected of me, and I don’t know what you want, and I don’t know what I want.

“Regardless of there being nudity or not, I would have spent that first season thinking I’m not worthy of requiring anything. I’m not worthy of needing anything at all.”

Clarke, now 33, said she had “imposter syndrome times a million”, but credited Game Of Thrones co-star Jason Momoa with protecting her.

On the podcast, Shepard brought up a season one scene in which Momoa’s character, Khal Drogo, “virtually rapes” Daenerys on their wedding night.

“He was crying more than I was,” Clarke replied.

“It’s only now that I realise how fortunate I was with that, because that could have gone many, many, many different ways,” she said. “Because Jason had experience – he was an experienced actor who had done a bunch of stuff before coming on to this – he was like, ‘Sweetie, this is how it’s meant to be, this is how it’s not meant to be, and I’m going to make sure that that’s the fucking gaze.’ He was always like, ‘Can we get her a fucking robe? She’s shivering!’ … He was so kind and considerate and cared about me as a human being.”

Since Game of Thrones, she said, she has become “a lot more savvy” with what she’s comfortable with, and with the level of nudity that’s needed for a scene. “I’ve had fights on set before where I’m like, ‘No, the sheet stays up,’ and they’re like, ‘You don’t wanna disappoint your Game of Thrones fans.’ And I’m like, ‘Fuck you.’ ”

Representatives for HBO and Game Of Thrones creators David Benioff and DB Weiss have been contacted for comment.

If anyone wants to claim that I'm reading too much into the misogyny of the series and especially the final season, I think this speaks volumes about how the people running the show viewed their female cast members and characters- namely, as titillation for male viewers.

[TheFeniX]

To be fair, there's not much to indicate that Gendry was into Arya back then. Its just that the frequent fandom obsession with shipping them is deeply creepy, and if there's no prior attraction on his part, his sudden love of her in the show seems out of left field to me (or fandom pandering).

People are dumb like that, so it doesn't bother me as much. If anything the lack of interaction with Arya for years could have bolstered his feelings. She was this cool girl, witty, fearless, she saved all their lives, freed them from essentially slavery. Then she does what little she can to keep him from getting dragged off by the Brotherhood, but fails. Still not afraid to call them out on it.

Then he meets her years later and she's a WOMAN.

Well, that's another thing- Arya's "character development" doesn't really work as such, arguably. Her not wanting to marry and be a typical lady, sure- that's been a part of her character from the start, and I like that they she turned Gendry down. But sailing off into the middle of nowhere, when her whole thing over the last couple seasons was about her deciding to reconnect with her identity and family... yeah, that's weird.

Remember, she has the benefit of knowing what the writers know, because that's the kind of show GoT became: everyone gets to live happily ever after. So, there's no worries about protecting her family anymore. Bronn just up and waltzed into Winterfell with a crossbow and no one gave him a second look, but Sansa won't ever have to worry about assassins and whatnot.

Just like we "know" the white walkers are truly dead and Jon/Wildlings can go North with 0 issue because...... um... well, we killed the head vampi... I mean White Walker. See, you, me, and the writers know they are all gone because that's the way fantasy works, but I don't really understand why the characters believe it 100%.

[GuppyShark]

TRR, thanks for that story re: Jason Momoa. When GoT exploded in popularity they toned it down, but early GoT was 'An HBO show' when HBO was synonymous for nudity, and GoT in particular was singled out for its 'sexposition scenes'. It's been eight years so that is easily forgotten.

[TheFeniX]

TRR, thanks for that story re: Jason Momoa. When GoT exploded in popularity they toned it down, but early GoT was 'An HBO show' when HBO was synonymous for nudity, and GoT in particular was singled out for its 'sexposition scenes'. It's been eight years so that is easily forgotten.

what
I mean, maybe if you consider HBO's only shows being True Blood and GoT, you'd have a point. But if you wanted just pure sexploitation.... well, there was a reason we called a certain other premium channel "Skinemax" when I was a kid. Even Showtime was "better" here because they had tons of soft-core porn like Red Shoe Diaries and just.... a ton of hour long "movies" that were an excuse to show off the female form.

This doesn't excuse GoT "jazzing" up exposition dumps by creating characters like Ros just to have some tits on screen because they (rightfully or wrongly) had so little respect for the audience, they figured the viewer wouldn't pay attention otherwise. I'm just saying, equating HBO with "nudity" is pretty weird. They gave us The Pentagon Wars, so: solid win right there.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, thanks for that story re: Jason Momoa. When GoT exploded in popularity they toned it down, but early GoT was 'An HBO show' when HBO was synonymous for nudity, and GoT in particular was singled out for its 'sexposition scenes'. It's been eight years so that is easily forgotten.

Yeah, I remember the show's rep, and I don't think it ever fully shed it.

I wonder how many other women on the show who aren't as big a name or as outspoken as Emilia Clarke had similar experiences, and how many of them didn't have as supportive a colleague as Jason Momoa. I can't say, but my gut says "quite a few".

I do recall reading IIRC that Natalie Dormer had some issues with being asked to do a love scene with Tommen, who's actor was underage at the time.

[Elfdart]

Esme Bianco (Ros) said she had a similar experience with shooting the scene where she's a corpse with crossbow bolts lodged in her. They wanted her to do it completely naked and she haggled them into having her wear some kind of scarf or whatever.

LINK

In the producers' defense, Bianco said she doesn't regret doing the scenes and would gladly do it again.

Apparently, producers of TV series (not just the ones on GoT*) want to get the actress to agree to do a nude scene the first time, then invite her back for more episodes, assuming that if she's willing to appear naked in the first few episodes, she's willing to do it in later ones, too. The Screen Actors' Guild has always had strict rules about last-minute script changes where nudity is involved, but I don't know how much that applies to a TV series shot on another continent. Still, it's kinda fishy that they'd try to add it in at the last moment, since this puts pressure on the actress because if she says no or even dithers on the subject, she's the bad guy (or gal) holding up the show. More importantly, she knows full well she can get a reputation for being "difficult" -the last thing anyone wants on their resume in that line of work. Whether it's an underhanded way to pressure an actress to show her boobs or just ineptitude from producers/writers/directors not having their act together, that kind of nonsense needs to be stopped. One way would be for the Guild to slap a fine on a production that tries to pull this stunt.

* Evangeline Lilly said in an interview that the producers of Lost pressured her into appearing naked on the show. She refused.

TRR, thanks for that story re: Jason Momoa. When GoT exploded in popularity they toned it down, but early GoT was 'An HBO show' when HBO was synonymous for nudity, and GoT in particular was singled out for its 'sexposition scenes'. It's been eight years so that is easily forgotten.

what
I mean, maybe if you consider HBO's only shows being True Blood and GoT, you'd have a point. But if you wanted just pure sexploitation.... well, there was a reason we called a certain other premium channel "Skinemax" when I was a kid. Even Showtime was "better" here because they had tons of soft-core porn like Red Shoe Diaries and just.... a ton of hour long "movies" that were an excuse to show off the female form.

This doesn't excuse GoT "jazzing" up exposition dumps by creating characters like Ros just to have some tits on screen because they (rightfully or wrongly) had so little respect for the audience, they figured the viewer wouldn't pay attention otherwise. I'm just saying, equating HBO with "nudity" is pretty weird. They gave us The Pentagon Wars, so: solid win right there.

Let's be clear: The reason people get cable/satellite TV is because channels like HBO can show things network TV can't:

• gruesome violence, like in war movies or slasher flicks

• foul language, like George Carlin and his Seven Words You Can't Say On Radio Or TV

• nudity

• watching a movie or TV show without stopping every few minutes for a commercial

• all of the above

So HBO doesn't need to apologize for the boobage, nor do they or anyone else need to explain why they do it. It could be for artistic purposes or just to lure adolescent boys*. Or both, or neither. And if it is purely for titillation, there's nothing wrong with that. As the unjustly ignored filmmaker Andy Sidaris said many years ago:

"With all due respect to George Lucas and his technical skills, no amount of special effects wizardry can match the visual impact of a beautiful girl with a great pair of tits!"

Artists don't depict the human body all the time just because sunsets are too easy.

*There's a reason the 12-year-old Elfdart and his knucklehead friends watched Tanya Roberts in The Beastmaster every time they could (or two reasons). There was joke at the time that HBO stood for "Hey Beastmaster's On!".

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding the "shot on another continent" thing, Emilia Clarke's comments coincided with the release of new guidelines by major industry organizations in the UK.

Might be worth a read for anyone who's interested in the behind-the-scenes side of media:

https://radiotimes.com/news/2019-11-21/ ... on-camera/

Directors UK, the professional association for film and TV directors, has launched a set of guidelines for directing scenes with nudity and simulated sex – the first of its kind in the UK.

The announcement arrived just a day after actor Emilia Clarke gave a damning interview about filming nude scenes on the set of Game of Thrones, calling them “terrifying” and revealing that she used to cry before shooting them.

Clarke also said that she has had fights while filming subsequent projects – and was pressured by directors to do more naked scenes, being told: “You don’t wanna disappoint your Game of Thrones fans.”

The timing is something of a coincidence – Directors UK produced the guidelines after a long consultation period with member directors, industry bodies and cross-discipline professionals, trying to ensure that no-one feels “unsafe, exploited or mismanaged when dealing with scenes of nudity or simulated sex.”

The full-length guide is 20 pages long, and has already received the support and approval of Equity, the Casting Directors’ Guild and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain, and has the full support of BAFTA, the BFI, TIME’S UP UK and ERA 50:50.

The guide states that its aims are to:

• Provide directors with enhanced craft skills in directing nudity and simulated sex.

• Provide performers with a safe environment that values and respects dignity, especially when a narrative requires nudity or simulated sex acts.

• Give performers genuine agency in what actions their characters take.

• Support producers in their work to create a safe production environment.

• Give agents and casting directors confidence in the safety of the
working environment.

• Show directors how to reassure performers that they should never feel expected
to offer nudity or simulated sex in order to get work.

BAFTA Award-winning Susanna White, Vice-Chair of Directors UK, said: “The director, as the creative lead on a production, should set the tone for a professional and respectful on-set environment.

“Throughout my career, I have seen how vitally important it is to know how to approach sensitive content with professionalism. The guidelines created by Directors UK set the standard for directing intimate scenes, and will help to foster a safe working environment for everyone on a film or television set.”

The full set of guidelines can be read here

Notably, though, these are apparently the first such guidelines issued in the UK. In 2019.

Yeah.

[Elheru Aran]

Regarding the "shot on another continent" thing, Emilia Clarke's comments coincided with the release of new guidelines by major industry organizations in the UK.

Might be worth a read for anyone who's interested in the behind-the-scenes side of media:

https://radiotimes.com/news/2019-11-21/ ... on-camera/

• Give performers genuine agency in what actions their characters take.

Notably, though, these are apparently the first such guidelines issued in the UK. In 2019.

Yeah.

The only thing I have a quibble with is this bit. If it's based upon an existing work-- in other words, based upon a book, play, magazine article, newspaper serial, or even a remake of a television series or movie-- how much leeway is there to have 'genuine agency' with what happens with the character? How much does the performer get to dictate the character?

I'm certainly not saying this to give an opinion that actors should be forced into doing things they don't want to do. It's more like.. let's see if I can come up with a decent example... say they're making a King Arthur movie, and in the middle of Lancelot and Guinevere, Lancelot's actor suddenly decides that Lancelot's had a change of heart and won't actually do anything with Guinevere during their "love scenes". So she's naked and coming on to him, and he's fully clothed but acting all uninterested and stuff. Which doesn't really jive with the story (depends on which version we're talking about of course). Maybe it's not the best example, but hopefully that conveys the meaning?

I do know there's at least two counter-arguments: in most cases (unless something is *specifically* stated to happen and is considered essential to the plot) there's enough leeway to play intimate scenes any number of ways (clothed, partially clothed, unclothed, etc), and, informing the actors in full of what they are expected to do in these scenes before being cast gives them a heads-up of what's going to happen and what they should be willing to do if they're taking the role.

[TheFeniX]

Let's be clear: The reason people get cable/satellite TV is because channels like HBO can show things network TV can't:

I don't have an issue with your argument. I have an issue with "HBO" = "nudity." Yes, there have been multiple interviews with TV directors and writers going to HBO and having near total freedom comparatively. When asked "why does Tony Soprano hang out in a strip club all day?" the director said something to the effect of with "because he's the kind of guy that would and HBO is the channel that can show that."But no one is like "Aw man, Remember how GREAT the Sopranos was? You know, because of those background strippers and <random nudity> and nothing else... I mean, there was something about The Mob as well, but I can't remember."?

Like with Rome, sure there was (for the time) a lot of sexploitation, but it wasn't winning awards because of that and no one said the last episodes felt rushed because "not enough boobs." Beastmaster doesn't really apply here because they didn't make it, they just showed it. It was their shtick: it was the way to catch a movie outside theaters, but usually before it was released on VHS (and you didn't want to deal with rentals).

12-year-old you (and me, I was there once) was willing to sit through a 90 minute movie for 30 seconds of boobs (I actually liked Beastmaster), but my point was: if you also had Cinemax and even Showtime, you could watch tons of Original Programming, "after dark," soft-core porn that was 30-60 minutes of boobs and actors awkwardly grinding on each other. They all had their titilating content, but when it comes to original programming, unless I'm just way off, HBO easily lost the "boobs war."

The only thing I have a quibble with is this bit. If it's based upon an existing work-- in other words, based upon a book, play, magazine article, newspaper serial, or even a remake of a television series or movie-- how much leeway is there to have 'genuine agency' with what happens with the character? How much does the performer get to dictate the character?

This is seemingly more about writers ambushing actors with nude scenes and then making them out to be the bad guy/gal if they fight it. I would ASSUME in a movie with a concrete script (or ever story), the actress would know going in about the scenes and would hopefully (with these guidelines) be able to fight against any unwarranted changes or just not take the job.

The biggest impact, I would think, would be in television/streaming/whatever where you've got a new script every week/month. However, in these positions someone like Clarke does have more power, since they can pressure her into doing scenes, but she's the one with name power, a contract, etc. Shows have replaced actors midstream many times, but "fired because I wouldn't do a nude scene" is really not something that's playing well in 2019 and on. This is why they acted the way they did around Clarke, they know they can't fire her, so they just get real date-rapey about it. Because it's not really* rape if you just pressure them into doing it, right? *It's totally rape. So it's just like "cmon, I spent all this money taking you ou..... I mean, THE FANS! Don't disappoint THE FANS!"

This just isn't an easy issue because if you're willing to do nude scenes, people will take advantage of that. And sometimes that will get you roles ahead of other actresses that won't.

[Elfdart]

I think you're emphasizing the wrong area when attacking the show for sexism.

It isn't that Sansa says something like "My rape made me stronger." That's actually NOT a bad or unrealistic coping mechanism and since it was such a world shattering "moment" for her: it's much better to comes to terms with it rather than try and ignore the impact or say "It wrecked me as a person." The sexism is because her MAJOR PLOT ARC = Raped, constantly controlled by men before that with her vagina being held in peril for multiple seasons. She was wrecked as a character long before she said "all that made me stronger."

Her character wasn't "wrecked" any more than Elizabeth's was "wrecked" in The Lion's Cub, where she is molested by her stepfather and spends the next decade being threatened with beheading. In both Sansa's and Elizabeth's cases, the abuse and terror has a major (if not THE major) influence on how that character behaves into adulthood: both learn to lie convincingly (their lives depend on it), both go to great lengths to appear meek and harmless, both distrust men (especially the overly honorable stupid ones) and of course both learn when to stick it to their enemies.*

Depicting the terrible treatment teenage girls receive in Westeros or 16th century England is not the same as endorsing it. To claim otherwise is as fucking retarded as claiming 12 Years A Slave is racist and endorses beating black people with whips.

*Anyone still brooding over Dragon Queen's demise on the grounds that her flameout was an attack on Girl Power (I still laugh at all the dipshits who named their daughters Khaleesi or Danerys) should keep in mind that she got kneecapped by Sansa, who had no wizardry, no dragons, no ninja assassin skeleton powers -just a girl who knows an idiot when she sees one and acts accordingly. She took down the Queen of Dragons by sending a letter to her halfwit half-brother/cousin.

[Elfdart]

The only thing I have a quibble with is this bit. If it's based upon an existing work-- in other words, based upon a book, play, magazine article, newspaper serial, or even a remake of a television series or movie-- how much leeway is there to have 'genuine agency' with what happens with the character? How much does the performer get to dictate the character?

I'm certainly not saying this to give an opinion that actors should be forced into doing things they don't want to do. It's more like.. let's see if I can come up with a decent example... say they're making a King Arthur movie, and in the middle of Lancelot and Guinevere, Lancelot's actor suddenly decides that Lancelot's had a change of heart and won't actually do anything with Guinevere during their "love scenes". So she's naked and coming on to him, and he's fully clothed but acting all uninterested and stuff. Which doesn't really jive with the story (depends on which version we're talking about of course). Maybe it's not the best example, but hopefully that conveys the meaning?

I do know there's at least two counter-arguments: in most cases (unless something is *specifically* stated to happen and is considered essential to the plot) there's enough leeway to play intimate scenes any number of ways (clothed, partially clothed, unclothed, etc), and, informing the actors in full of what they are expected to do in these scenes before being cast gives them a heads-up of what's going to happen and what they should be willing to do if they're taking the role.

Very few actors have that much say -unless the producer or director has no spine. Amy Heckerling was a relative novice director when she made Fast Times At Ridgemont High, but when Phoebe Cates balked at doing a topless scene she had already agreed to do, Heckerling put her foot down [3:41]:



As long as it's made clear what a performer is expected to do when they agree to take the part, I have no sympathy for someone who gets cold feet at the last minute (which as far as I'm concerned, is the flip side of telling an actor at the last minute "Oh by the way, we've decided you should do the scene naked...") or worse still, starts badmouthing the crew after the movie or TV show is released like Sharon Stone did with Basic Instinct when years later she made the preposterous claim that she was tricked into having her pubes photographed.

Just imagine if an actor decided at the last moment that they don't want to get on a horse. The crew would have every right to be annoyed as hell and wonder why the actor took the part, even if they weren't shooting a cowboy movie. If they don't want to do the part, they shouldn't have signed up for the part. The whole idea of a filmmaker having to justify their creative decisions to the cast is the tail wagging the dog.

[Elfdart]

I don't have an issue with your argument. I have an issue with "HBO" = "nudity." Yes, there have been multiple interviews with TV directors and writers going to HBO and having near total freedom comparatively. When asked "why does Tony Soprano hang out in a strip club all day?" the director said something to the effect of with "because he's the kind of guy that would and HBO is the channel that can show that."But no one is like "Aw man, Remember how GREAT the Sopranos was? You know, because of those background strippers and <random nudity> and nothing else... I mean, there was something about The Mob as well, but I can't remember."?

Like with Rome, sure there was (for the time) a lot of sexploitation, but it wasn't winning awards because of that and no one said the last episodes felt rushed because "not enough boobs." Beastmaster doesn't really apply here because they didn't make it, they just showed it. It was their shtick: it was the way to catch a movie outside theaters, but usually before it was released on VHS (and you didn't want to deal with rentals).

A lot of older people use HBO to mean all cable channels the same way they use Xerox to mean any kind of copier.

12-year-old you (and me, I was there once) was willing to sit through a 90 minute movie for 30 seconds of boobs (I actually liked Beastmaster), but my point was: if you also had Cinemax and even Showtime, you could watch tons of Original Programming, "after dark," soft-core porn that was 30-60 minutes of boobs and actors awkwardly grinding on each other. They all had their titilating content, but when it comes to original programming, unless I'm just way off, HBO easily lost the "boobs war."

It is, as they say in Kentucky, all relative. Funny thing is, Mr Skin just recently did a survey of the ten shows with the most nude scenes. Showtime had the #1 show (Shameless), but both Showtime and HBO had three series each. I can't vouch for the scientific rigor of the survey (Californication didn't make the top 10?), but even though Showtime might have a higher number of scenes, it's not exactly a blow-out. If HBO lost the Boobs War, it wasn't by much.

[GuppyShark]

I'd like to damp the flames on the HBO = nudity thing a little.

I made the original claim. I don't think it's an age issue (I'm an xennial). What's relevant is I am a foreigner. We simply do not have HBO here, so the reputation I am referring to is what I gleaned from comments I got from this website in particular, as I had no other source of reference. I didn't realise that would be a controversial take.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Dumbass and Dipshit appear to have gone and spoiled GRRM's ending- yes, really.

Spoiler warning...































https://digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a3005449 ... dan-weiss/

It's safe to say that Game of Thrones fans had a lot of opinions about its final season.

Many weren't happy about Daenerys Targaryen's descent into madness, while even more were baffled by the show's decision to have Bran Stark become the King of Westeros.

But as it turns out, author George R.R Martin intended to have the same character sit on the Iron Throne – metaphorically, at that point – by the end of the books, too.

According to Entertainment Weekly, showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss confirm that Martin "planned" to have Bran made ruler of the Seven Kingdoms during the audio commentary of Duty is the Death of Love, a behind-the-scenes look at filming the finale.

"Bran is the only probably pure person in there," Peter Dinklage (who plays Tyrion Lannister) adds. "And the fact he cannot father children is key because they've repeated the cycle in this Westerosi history of heirs being really bad."

Elsewhere in the documentary, Kit Harington explains that it wasn't always his character Jon Snow's intention to kill aunt-turned-lover Daenerys (Emilia Clarke). Instead, he made his mind up about what to do when he realised she'd stop at nothing to gain power.

"He doesn’t know he’s going to betray her until right at the end," he explains. "He doesn't factor in anyone else's decisions and it also means [Dany] is going to kill my sisters, so it becomes [my] family vs. her."

So, tired cast apologetics for this cluster fuck aside, they claim that King Bran came from GRRM (which seems all but confirmation that Danny and Jon will not survive the books).

[FaxModem1]

Probably for the best, as GRRM won't have finished the series until at least the 2030s, if then. The man prefers to play in the distant past or with side stories that don't matter. That's why the Dorne plotline ended with Bashir getting shanked for no reason, as shit as they are, the showrunners realized that it was a plotline stacked on for no other reason than to pad the books even more rather than continue developing the main story.

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably for the best, as GRRM won't have finished the series until at least the 2030s, if then. The man prefers to play in the distant past or with side stories that don't matter. That's why the Dorne plotline ended with Bashir getting shanked for no reason, as shit as they are, the showrunners realized that it was a plotline stacked on for no other reason than to pad the books even more rather than continue developing the main story.

Interesting (or disgracefully), I've also seen people saying that the same interview confirmed Danny being killed by Jon was not from GRRM, but an invention of the showrunners, though I can't find a source to confirm that directly.

What I haven't heard an answer to is the question everyone really wants answered: is Mad Queen Daenerys going to be in the books or not?

Edit: I'm not kidding, people are probably more invested in the answer to that right now than in who's arse decorates the Iron Throne at the end, so if they're going to keep quiet about anything, I suppose it would be that. That said, if you want to read something into the comments so far...

Bran ending up on the throne could be confirmation of Daenerys's madness/villainy, but it could just mean her dying, or even something else. But I feel like if D&D really know this much about GRRM's endgame, and if they're okay with leaking who ends up on the throne, then they probably would have leaked Danny going mad too in an effort to vindicate themselves (See, its from the source material! She was always going to go mad and burn King's Landing!), if that were the case.

My money is Danny dies, either against the White Walkers or from an assassin post-Long Night. Or possibly Danny and the Starks end up at odds, but there is no clear bad guy- just misunderstandings and conflicting interests.

[Darth Yan]

You're overemphasizing how good Dany really was in the show. I compared her to Aung Syun Syuu Kai for a reason