S05.E07: The Gift

[Notwisconsin]

 Really, show?  Were the gratuitous boob shots necessary? 

Yes they are. Gratuitous rape scenes are not, however. As to Merween, they seem to have run out of book.

[Ambrosefolly]

The only reason the old woman got pinched is because she's the only person who's had access to Sansa, but she didn't give up the innkeeper or anyone else in their circle.

So basically, she had more balls than Theon/Reek.

[Holmbo]

An ok episode.

Lots of individual scenes that I liked. My favorite one was Tommen and Cersei. "I am the king!" :D I really enjoyed all of Cersei's scenes overall.

The Sam and Gilly scene were interesting to me because I get the wibe that Gilly is not in love with Sam. I doubt that's the intention but that's my impression and it makes for an interesting dynamic for me.

Overall I've decided to roll with whatever the show throws at us. A lot of the plots doesn't really hold together IMO but if I don't think to much about it there are lots of individual scenes and interactions that I find enjoyable. The silly ones can be quiet fun to. Like the dungeon scene.

By the way I saw some non book reader complaining about the "fighting pits" being disappointing. I could see why one might get confused and think that was it but wait to ep 9.

Also, a lot of comments about Bronn surviving. You all know he's totally dead this season right? No use denying it. He's only possible relevance in future books was in his position as lord of Stokeworth. And they cut that in the show. He's dead for sure IMO.

[nksarmi]

So basically, she had more balls than Theon/Reek.

Lol almost all the characters do at this point, don't they?

 

I actually found myself pondering both what GRRM and the show did with the character of Theon/Reek in comparison to the rape of various women on the show.  The first thing that occurs to me is that the show and the book take zero issue with introducing and discussing male dismemberment (which has to be at least equivalent to female rape - no?) in droves.  I actually found myself wondering if the gratuitous boobs on the show aren't so much a requirement of being on HBO as a silent apology to the male viewers for constantly being reminded that in the world of GRRM, losing your cock is a fairly common occurrence.

 

But I'm not a man so maybe the thought and image of having your member removed isn't as offensive as rape seems to be?  That seems odd to me, but whatever.  The simple truth is that for every rape in the books or on the show, you have an ARMY of former slaves who were castrated now serving a WOMAN.  You have a man who was castrated as a child rise to the ranks of the king's small council who supports a WOMAN taking the Iron Throne.  So I'm not exactly seeing the misogyny that so many do - misanthropy perhaps, but not misogyny.  Heck, it's mildly fascinating that both GRRM and the show are hinting very strongly at the idea that a man's cock is good for nothing but getting him in trouble, but I digress.

 

Now let's get down to Theon/Reek.  Not only was he dismembered - he was tortured in a manner we can't even conceive of today.  Yes, he betrayed Robb (but he did so to honor his father), yes he killed two young boys to keep up a façade that wasn't real, and yes we are suppose to dislike him.  BUT he has received more punishment than can possibly fit that crime.  He has had his very psyche broken and been broken to the point where when he could have killed his torturer with a slit to an artery in the neck - he just shaved him instead.  Can this awful creature love life so much that he wouldn't just take his revenge and die or has he been so tormented that he doesn't believe Ramsey can die - is so damaged that he doesn't believe even death could free him?  To break someone that much is the ultimate rape of mind, body, and soul that you could do to a person.  Yet, did readers revolt at it in the books?  Did viewers want it removed from the show? 

 

I am not trying to say yea rape!  But for goodness sake - worse things happen on this show.  It's almost some kind of horrible that this is what gets people upset.  I mean hell, what about the non-canon persecution of Gay Loras? Are the show runners homophobic because they made that choice?  What about the non-canon consensual consummation of marriage between Tommen and Marg that would in our times be considered statutory rape?  Is that a misogynistic?  Or is it better that the show runners changed her story so that she doesn't have to prove her virginity to the FM?

 

I honestly believe when you look at the whole package GRRM has given us and even with the changes the show runners have adopted that no one is being any more cruel or unfair to women in this story as they are to men.

[pandora spocks]

Theon's selling out of Sansa made little sense since he wept during her rape. However Stockholm Syndrome is the likely explanation for his treachery.

[Black Knight]

The old woman didn't spend extensive time being brainwashed like Theon has. It is in no way fair to compare their situations. Someone who has been brainwashed as extensively as Theon is not going to suddenly reject it because Sansa makes one short speech to him. Yara was unable to get through to him as well. Theon needs extensive deprogramming.

 

As for the criticism some have made about Sansa not speaking carefully with the Boltons as she did in King's Landing: Ramsay (and Roose) is too smart to believe any pretty words from Sansa. If she were to try that, he would inherently not trust anything she says. He's experienced in this and knows he hasn't had nearly enough time with her to break her down to Theon's "my name is Reek" level. Her act in King's Landing didn't fool the Lannisters, remember, because they knew it made no sense. (One of my favorite parts in the books is when Stannis is laying siege to King's Landing, and Cersei and Sansa are together and Sansa says her typical nonsense about how she loves Joffrey with all her heart. Cersei sighs and says, "You had best learn some new lies, and quickly. Lord Stannis will not like that one, I promise you." [from memory, so the wording may be slightly off]) But if she's not telling him obvious lies, he's actually a little more likely to consider other things she says, such as her point about a bastard always being lower than a trueborn, as being truthful too (which opens the door for her to manipulate him), and he also might be less likely to worry about her getting up to a new scheme after he showed her how this one failed.

 

I'm so excited that Dany and Tyrion have met. We're firmly beyond the books now for that storyline. Also, in an interesting departure from the books, Dany seemed to indicate that her marriage to Hizdahr will not be consummated. I think that makes sense given that the Hizdahr storyline has been quite different from the book.

 

Poor Shireen. She is totally doomed. It seems only a question of who'll do the deed, and I'm really not going to feel any better one way or the other because she'll be dead regardless.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Black Knight

[Pogojoco]

Theon betraying Sansa is not so much a calculation of him punishing her for disobeying, but rather a programmed response to something against Ramsey. It's why Ramsey won't kill Theon- he wants to admire his work some more. I don't even consider it betrayal- he can't do anything else at this point and it's going to need a little more than Sansa calling him Theon. 

 

And jeez, Jon Snow is pretty casual about leaving his wolf behind. 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Pogojoco

[benteen]

Why do you assume there wouldn't be funding available?  D&D might have left out Frey pie and the restless Northern lords for the same reason they left out Arianne, Quentyn, Wyllas, Garlan, Euron, Victarion, Aeron, and so many others... because they viewed them as unnecessary complications.  That doesn't mean (1) they were correct or (2) they couldn't have staged the trapped wedding party for a couple of episodes.  They manage to fund endless scenes of brothels that don't have any major story function and could have easily been replaced.

 

I think that's the frustrating part.  As stated, the Northern storyline was the most interesting one in ADWD and all D&D decided they want to do is the raped and abused girl portion of it, plugging Sansa into that role.  I understand limitations and the need to trim the fat but they have virtually ignored interesting storylines like the North and the Riverlands while keeping garbage like brothel scenes and Pod the Sex God.  Jaime had a far more interesting storyline in AFFC.  But he's been thrown down the rabbit hole of Dorne and D&D have made that storyline even WORSE than it was in the books.  They talked about how Dorne had all these admirable qualities but they managed to eliminate the female heir to Dorne and reduced the Sand Snakes to laughable T&A.  They chose what to adapt and what to ignore and it's an extremely mixed bag at best.

[Avaleigh]

Yes we are.  It is legally assault by our definitions of TODAY (meaning it's generally assault in 2015 when anyone touches or obstructs you without your permission, sexually or not).  So she WAS assaulted by OUR rules and by our rules and mores, I am judging the writers for including this ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHERS.  This wasn't a one-time mis-step. It's gratuitous and gross, imo, and I think it's important to call the show out on its perpetuation of rape culture by using assault as its go-to for drama.

I just can't bring myself to get upset about Gilly being nearly raped when we're talking about a situation where we have a woman who is currently living in a place with rapists and murderers and she's the only woman. It doesn't come anywhere close to being overkill for me for a few reasons. 1) She ultimately wasn't raped 2) It can't be accused of being titillating, it isn't as though there was any nudity or anything 3) Gilly fights back; it isn't simply about her being a damsel in distress so that Sam can rescue her because they fought them off together 4) Gilly is a survivor of rape and incest and was raised in an environment where she had no other comparisons so to me it wasn't exactly surprising to see her taking control and choosing to have sex with Sam after all of the bonding experiences that they've had. 

 

Yeah they should have just stayed faithful to the books right?

Um... yes?  Adding non-book sexual assault against female characters two weeks in a row is not ok. We don't need sexual assault to get the point that Westeros is bad.  What happened to Gilly and Sansa is not in the books, so this is on D&D. Jeyne and Sansa are not interchangeable.

 

I thought the point of the comment in bold was that if they'd stayed faithful to the books that the show would have had more rape and sexual horrors than it already has. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Avaleigh

[Pete Martell]

Now let's get down to Theon/Reek.  Not only was he dismembered - he was tortured in a manner we can't even conceive of today.  Yes, he betrayed Robb (but he did so to honor his father), yes he killed two young boys to keep up a façade that wasn't real, and yes we are suppose to dislike him.  BUT he has received more punishment than can possibly fit that crime.  He has had his very psyche broken and been broken to the point where when he could have killed his torturer with a slit to an artery in the neck - he just shaved him instead.  Can this awful creature love life so much that he wouldn't just take his revenge and die or has he been so tormented that he doesn't believe Ramsey can die - is so damaged that he doesn't believe even death could free him?  To break someone that much is the ultimate rape of mind, body, and soul that you could do to a person.  Yet, did readers revolt at it in the books?  Did viewers want it removed from the show? 

 

I am not trying to say yea rape!  But for goodness sake - worse things happen on this show.  It's almost some kind of horrible that this is what gets people upset.  I mean hell, what about the non-canon persecution of Gay Loras? Are the show runners homophobic because they made that choice?  What about the non-canon consensual consummation of marriage between Tommen and Marg that would in our times be considered statutory rape?  Is that a misogynistic?  Or is it better that the show runners changed her story so that she doesn't have to prove her virginity to the FM?

 

The main difference in book and show fans is the way the material was presented.

 

The show has invited people to see it as a big joke. They had Ramsay eat a sausage in front of Theon after castrating him because the idea of Theon being castrated was just that hilarious. They've continued to mostly treat what Theon went through as no biggie - Asha finding him disheveled and broken was turned into a silly action hero moment for Ramsay. Ramsay was given sexy love scenes and bonding moments with Dad so we wouldn't see him as being too evil. Theon's suffering was first presented as something he "deserved," and then presented as an afterthought. Even now, it's such a shrug for the show that

they have a teaser of Sansa saying she wishes she too could have tortured, raped, and castrated Theon - to the inevitable "go girl!!!" cheers everywhere.

 

Not to mention that many in society see castration as hilarious, or as a putdown. LOL HE HAS NO BALLS! LITERALLY! LOL!! or SHE HAS MORE BALLS! LOLLOLLOL!!! (even though the idea of a woman needing "balls" to be strong is very dismissive of women)

 

The show has done little to nothing to make anything Theon has gone through or anything Ramsay has done have weight to the audience. Even raping Sansa is something they undercut and try to present as a way to make a woman strong. They're so lost at sea in how to make Ramsay seem menacing that they had to introduce some nobody and put her in Septa Mordane's old plotline.

 

They want to shock people with this story, get them chatting and cackling, but they have little to no interest in writing anything with depth or consequences.

 

Given the absolutely horrific writing for Loras (not interested in being a knight but interested in planning weddings, ruining a family plot because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants, eyeing up other men even at his sister's wedding, in full view of everyone, the "lolgay" jokes from Olenna that were passed off as the height of wit, Renly being totally forgotten by Loras and only mentioned in context of Loras again when it was time to put him on trial for being gay, openly screwing around with a prostitute [one who had betrayed the family, no less] and not caring if anyone knew), I can't exactly say people who feel the show is homophobic are wrong. The writing has been so atrocious I have no idea if we're even supposed to disagree with the High Sparrow that homosexuality is wrong.

[FemmyV]

 

The first thing that occurs to me is that the show and the book take zero issue with introducing and discussing male dismemberment (which has to be at least equivalent to female rape - no?) in droves.  I actually found myself wondering if the gratuitous boobs on the show aren't so much a requirement of being on HBO as a silent apology to the male viewers for constantly being reminded that in the world of GRRM, losing your cock is a fairly common occurrence.

 

Do you mean, public discussion in their PR materials? Let's face it, that's a conversation men don't really want to have and, seeing as though eunuchs fell out of fashion for good, say, 100 years ago, who is there to call them on it?

 

In show? Castration, for societal reasons, was a factor as much as arranged marriages in the barbaric times similar to JRRM's settings. Why wouldn't there be discussion?

Edited May 25, 2015 by FemmyV

[BlackberryJam]

Mentioned in the Show v. Book thread, but I was totally under the impression that Theon had done something to get a message out or in some other way help Sansa. His confession to Sansa and selling out the old woman seemed to me to be obvious misdirection. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it was pinging all my years of TV watching "we are faking you out" bells.

 

Also mentioned elsewhere, statistically, the books have 400% more rapes than the show. And only one of those rape victims is a POV character (Dany),( and Cersei only in memories of Robert). So, the show is giving us POV of the rape victims and yet doing a disservice to women? Whereas the rape infested books give us rape as background noise and that's okay? No. Seriously. No. (Anyone can message me for a link to the data and quotes. Not my work.)

 

The show clearly shows rape as more horrific than the books do. In the books it's all, hey another rape, let me turn the page quick so I can pretend it didn't happen. And the show gave a "happy" ending to at least one book gang-rape victim, Lollys Stokeworth. Instead of having her brutally gang-raped and married off to a man who wants to murder her sister, she's left decently sweet, and arranged to marry a different man. Go Lollys!

 

I have no problem with Gilly choosing to have sex with Sam. Gilly has known nothing but abuse in her life, she suffered multiple rapes by her own father. She made a choice to have sex with Sam, a man who has valued her skills (You can make a fire..), a man who has promised to care for her child and her and a man who has asked for nothing in return. And yeah, it would have been shocking had some of the NW not made a move on Gilly once Jon was gone. This is not a group of honorable choir boys.

 

Add me to those thrilled that Dany and Tyrion have met and we still have three episodes to go! Story progress, whooHoooo.

 

 

 

[SeanC]

Also mentioned elsewhere, statistically, the books have 400% more rapes than the show. And only one of those rape victims is a POV character (Dany),( and Cersei only in memories of Robert). So, the show is giving us POV of the rape victims and yet doing a disservice to women? Whereas the rape infested books give us rape as background noise and that's okay? No. Seriously. No. (Anyone can message me for a link to the data and quotes. Not my work.)

GRRM typically describes that rapes are occurring in war zones.  Which they are.  And the show is really not giving us the POV of rape victims; that's one of the problems.

 

The show clearly shows rape as more horrific than the books do. In the books it's all, hey another rape, let me turn the page quick so I can pretend it didn't happen. And the show gave a "happy" ending to at least one book gang-rape victim, Lollys Stokeworth. Instead of having her brutally gang-raped and married off to a man who wants to murder her sister, she's left decently sweet, and arranged to marry a different man. Go Lollys!

 

I don't believe for a second the show is depicting rape as more horrific than the books.  Look no further than how they handle sex slavery and the sex trade, generally for fanservice purposes.  The writers also had Jaime rape Cersie (and they claim that they intended that) and never brought it up again, with Jaime going right back to his hero arc as if nothing had happened.

Edited May 25, 2015 by SeanC

[J----av]

I just can't bring myself to get upset about Gilly being nearly raped when we're talking about a situation where we have a woman who is currently living in a place with rapists and murderers and she's the only woman. It doesn't come anywhere close to being overkill for me for a few reasons. 1) She ultimately wasn't raped 2) It can't be accused of being titillating, it isn't as though there was any nudity or anything 3) Gilly fights back; it isn't simply about her being a damsel in distress so that Sam can rescue her because they fought them off together 4) Gilly is survivor of rape and incest and was raised in an environment where she had no other comparisons so to me it wasn't exactly surprising to see her taking control and choosing to have sex with Sam after all of the bonding experiences that they've had. 

 

I thought the point of the comment in bold was that if they'd stayed faithful to the books that the show would have had more rape and sexual horrors than it already has. 

 

 That's what i was getting at lol. I guess some people want them to stay faithful to the books, but cut out all female sexual assault while leaving the murder, incest, torture, cannibalism etc.....

 

[J----av]

The main difference in book and show fans is the way the material was presented.

 

The show has invited people to see it as a big joke. They had Ramsay eat a sausage in front of Theon after castrating him because the idea of Theon being castrated was just that hilarious. They've continued to mostly treat what Theon went through as no biggie - Asha finding him disheveled and broken was turned into a silly action hero moment for Ramsay. Ramsay was given sexy love scenes and bonding moments with Dad so we wouldn't see him as being too evil. Theon's suffering was first presented as something he "deserved," and then presented as an afterthought. Even now, it's such a shrug for the show that

they have a teaser of Sansa saying she wishes she too could have tortured, raped, and castrated Theon - to the inevitable "go girl!!!" cheers everywhere.

 

Not to mention that many in society see castration as hilarious, or as a putdown. LOL HE HAS NO BALLS! LITERALLY! LOL!! or SHE HAS MORE BALLS! LOLLOLLOL!!! (even though the idea of a woman needing "balls" to be strong is very dismissive of women)

 

The show has done little to nothing to make anything Theon has gone through or anything Ramsay has done have weight to the audience. Even raping Sansa is something they undercut and try to present as a way to make a woman strong. They're so lost at sea in how to make Ramsay seem menacing that they had to introduce some nobody and put her in Septa Mordane's old plotline.

 

They want to shock people with this story, get them chatting and cackling, but they have little to no interest in writing anything with depth or consequences.

 

Given the absolutely horrific writing for Loras (not interested in being a knight but interested in planning weddings, ruining a family plot because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants, eyeing up other men even at his sister's wedding, in full view of everyone, the "lolgay" jokes from Olenna that were passed off as the height of wit, Renly being totally forgotten by Loras and only mentioned in context of Loras again when it was time to put him on trial for being gay, openly screwing around with a prostitute [one who had betrayed the family, no less] and not caring if anyone knew), I can't exactly say people who feel the show is homophobic are wrong. The writing has been so atrocious I have no idea if we're even supposed to disagree with the High Sparrow that homosexuality is wrong.

 

 I saw that more as Ramsay taunting Theon and mentally torturing him. A guy who just cut off your junk laughing about it would mentally mess you up 

[nksarmi]

Pete Martell - I added that bit about gay/homophobic not as a slam to those who think the show is, but because I haven't read that criticism per say.  While I never paid much attention to Loras in the books, I think the show's change in involving him in the FM plot is much merkier waters than any perceived slam against women the show does because of rapes.  Now we have the FM which is largely going after sexual deviation (prostitution, incest, adultery) also going after the main gay character left on the show (with the other main gay and bi characters having been killed).  So yea, I think debates about the show being anti-gay would be far more reasonable than all the bitching about how the writers hate women because they include less rape than the author gave them to work with.

 

And just a general note - if the show is having to remove rape stories to make male characters MORE likable, then I think that shows what they think of rape and the implication of the people who commit it.  Of course, they did choose to age up Tommen so they could have him and her consummate their marriage despite the fact that it would be statutory rape in our culture and I haven't seen too many people bitch about that!  Is anyone calling Tommen a victim or Marg a rapist?  I'm just fascinated by the partial application of modern morals to this material.

Do you mean, public discussion in their PR materials? Let's face it, that's a conversation men don't really want to have and, seeing as though eunuchs fell out of fashion for good, say, 100 years ago, who is there to call them on it?

 

In show? Castration, for societal reasons, was a factor as much as arranged marriages in the barbaric times similar to JRRM's settings. Why wouldn't there be discussion?

No what I meant is that castration and male mutilation is a HUGE part of the show to include what happened to Theon (which is way worse than just castration).   I don't see anyone saying that the author or show runners must hate men because of it.  And come on, is not male dismemberment just as bad and female rape if not worse?  I'm not sure any show with this many missing cocks can be misogynistic.

[Pete Martell]

That's how I wanted to see it, but the years of "dick in a box" jokes in fandom and the show's apathy about making Ramsay too dark of a character have made me unsure. The writing has been so determined (to me anyway) this season to underplay just what Ramsay has done to Theon and to not bother to explain why Theon can't just save the day. As a result many fans seem far more focused on what Theon has done than on anything Ramsay has done. And I have to wonder if that is deliberate on the show's part, given their ambivalence about Ramsay.

[Pete Martell]

And just a general note - if the show is having to remove rape stories to make male characters MORE likable, then I think that shows what they think of rape and the implication of the people who commit it.  Of course, they did choose to age up Tommen so they could have him and her consummate their marriage despite the fact that it would be statutory rape in our culture and I haven't seen too many people bitch about that!  Is anyone calling Tommen a victim or Marg a rapist?  I'm just fascinated by the partial application of modern morals to this material.

No what I meant is that castration and male mutilation is a HUGE part of the show to include what happened to Theon (which is way worse than just castration).   I don't see anyone saying that the author or show runners must hate men because of it.  And come on, is not male dismemberment just as bad and female rape if not worse?  I'm not sure any show with this many missing cocks can be misogynistic.

 

I haven't seen all that much fan interest in Margaery this season, as she's been oddly irrelevant (as she was most of last season too), but I did see some fans saying she came across as predatory. Natalie Dormer herself asked for writing changes last season because of this fear. That's why I can't help wondering if one of the reasons they showed her with Tommen in bed was to make her less sympathetic to viewers. It's why I wonder about so many writing choices at King's Landing this season. I said it in another thread, but I can't help feeling that D&D were so concerned with the High Sparrows being taken as conservative fundamentalists and getting attacked by some in the press or cable as being "too liberal" or having a "Big Hollywood agenda," that they made sure Loras, Margaery, and Cersei all came across unsympathetically so that viewers would not be upset if they were put on trial or possibly killed. 

 

As for why people say the show doesn't hate men - men are the prominent characters on the show and tend to get the lion's share of the complex writing. They would likely write an entire episode about Tyrion taking a dump if they could. Women come under more scrutiny in the writing because the writing for women is often less complex and women are more often treated as objects. 

 

They have also tried to be sympathetic to Grey Worm about his castration, and somewhat with Varys. Theon, not so much, but then this season has made me realize they probably never cared about Theon at all.

 

The question to me isn't so much that the show removes rapes to make characters more likeable as it is they seem to use rape in misguided attempts at making characters more interesting, or they use rape without even knowing whether or not it's rape. 

 

For instance, the Jaime/Cersei fiasco last season. That bogged the characters down in eternal questions of whether it was or was not rape, with conflicting stories from TPTB that only made the scenes worse. Ultimately that had no impact on story, as Cersei never mentioned it again, nor did Jaime, and they revived their relationship at the end of last season before she sent him away to Dorne. So what was the point of the scene? If it was to show grand passion, or Jaime's raw lust for her clouding him from somehow being a "good" man like he is with Brienne (or in Dorne), then why was it presented the way it was presented? Was it intended to be that way? Or did they just want a shocking scene to get people talking?

 

Now we have Sansa and Ramsay. If I'm supposed to see this as a sign of her growth, and the choices she has to make, as Cogman suggested, then it's a total failure for me, as if anything I feel like Sansa blatantly regressed to late season 1 and is acting in ways that I struggle to believe would not end in her death. If I'm supposed to go, "Sansa is strong!" I don't know why, because I already knew she was strong, and nothing about her behavior in this story suggests strength to me. Strength is not saying "you're a bastard" in between assaults. If I'm supposed to go, "Poor Sansa," I've been doing that for years, and at least most of those stories felt character-based and not just about her being victimized. The only result of this story is that I've lost a great deal of my interest and understanding in Sansa's journey, and as a bonus, I get to see fans pit abuse victims against each other.

 

Rape doesn't have to be excluded, but when it's included in ways that make zero narrative sense and actively damages all characters involved, then I do understand why fans call it out.

[BlackberryJam]

 

 

I don't believe for a second the show is depicting rape as more horrific than the books.  Look no further than how they handle sex slavery and the sex trade, generally for fanservice purposes.  The writers also had Jaime rape Cersie (and they claim that they intended that) and never brought it up again, with Jaime going right back to his hero arc as if nothing had happened.

 

Then perhaps you need a re-read of the books. Every time we see a rape on the show it is graphic and horrifying and we want it not to be happening. The rapes in the books are background noise, told mostly from the POV of the rapist or as stories men tell each other. Like Tyrion's rape of the slave girl is his POV and then it becomes debatable about whether or not it's rape. 

 

Also, you have extrapolated a comment from David Benioff at the Oxford forum where, when asked a question by a woman who says she interpreted the scene as rape, and he does not deny it  as D&D saying then intended the scene to be rape. They said they intended it to be awful and disturbing, it was rough period sex in a church in front of their dead son's corpse, and it was disturbing in the books, very much so. But they never said "Hey we wrote a rape" so please stop making that assertion, unless you have a link to an actual quote and not your extrapolation of comments. You can keep repeating, "The writers said they wrote rape" but that doesn't make it true and really only weakens your already shaky argument. 

 

[elzin]

 That's what i was getting at lol. I guess some people want them to stay faithful to the books, but cut out all female sexual assault while leaving the murder, incest, torture, cannibalism etc.....

 

Oh, I misunderstood what you said. 

 

Here's the thing: up until the Meera near-rape and the Jaime/Cersei thing, there wasn't AS MUCH outcry about the rapes on screen because iirc, none were ADDED. What they showed was horrific, but it was book-canon, so outrage is more at GRRM than them. Plus their portrayal of women, while a little sexpositiony, was still diverse and true to the themes of the book (not a 1:1 adapation, but good enough).

 

So the Sansa/Gilly ANGER this season is the result of each season getting worse and worse with how it handles women.  THEY get blame because this stuff is wholly written by them (Jeyne and Sansa are not interchangeable). 

 

No one is saying the murders and the torture are good. There is a lot of horrific stuff.  Racism and homophobia are also huge issues getting worse every season. But for me, the horrible portrayal (or lack of portrayal, as Arianne shows us) of women infuriates me. If someone were to be as critical to the show in terms of the murder or other violence or racist issues, I'd like to hear their perspective too.

 

And to me it doesn't matter if there are more rapes in the books.  Those rapes are textually balanced out by the aftereffects on the victims, sometimes justice served to the rapists.  The rape also is often not on page but told in flashbacks or mentioned. Being different media can change the impact when you SEE it vs imagining it. Plus I trust GRRM is not exploiting women to express some weird sexual fetishes.  While I don't think his rapes are good or anything, they don't get me foaming at the mouth because I feel his voice is "Would you look at this shit? This shit is wrong."  And I feel D&D are more like "Would you look at this shit? I kinda got a semi."  Yes, I'd be much happier if GRRM never wrote another rape but I'd trade that for never having another one on screen in GOT.

[BlackberryJam]

 

And to me it doesn't matter if there are more rapes in the books.  Those rapes are textually balanced out by the aftereffects on the victims, sometimes justice served to the rapists.  The rape also is often not on page but told in flashbacks or mentioned. Being different media can change the impact when you SEE it vs imagining it. Plus I trust GRRM is not exploiting women to express some weird sexual fetishes.  While I don't think his rapes are good or anything, they don't get me foaming at the mouth because I feel his voice is "Would you look at this shit? This shit is wrong."  And I feel D&D are more like "Would you look at this shit? I kinda got a semi."  Yes, I'd be much happier if GRRM never wrote another rape but I'd trade that for never having another one on screen in GOT.

 

I'm sorry but, no. GRRM wrote the casual rape of Craster's wives without repercussion. It was D&D who added in justice for those women. It's GRRM who says there is no such thing as marital rape in his universe and therefore justifies Robert's behavior with Cersei and Drogo's behavior with Dany. It's the show that makes us look at that and go, "you know what, that's pretty rapey and disturbing." It's GRRM who brushes it off as no big deal. I don't know how you get GRRM writing literally hundreds of rapes and then imagining he's outraged when 1/4 of them make it into the show. I'm not going to speculate on who is and who isn't getting a half chub based on the books and the show, but the rapes in the show make my skin crawl. The ones in the books, honestly, I barely noticed because it is everywhere and I could skip it.  

[Avaleigh]

Then perhaps you need a re-read of the books. Every time we see a rape on the show it is graphic and horrifying and we want it not to be happening. The rapes in the books are background noise, told mostly from the POV of the rapist or as stories men tell each other. Like Tyrion's rape of the slave girl is his POV and then it becomes debatable about whether or not it's rape. 

 

Also, you have extrapolated a comment from David Benioff at the Oxford forum where, when asked a question by a woman who says she interpreted the scene as rape, and he does not deny it  as D&D saying then intended the scene to be rape. They said they intended it to be awful and disturbing, it was rough period sex in a church in front of their dead son's corpse, and it was disturbing in the books, very much so. But they never said "Hey we wrote a rape" so please stop making that assertion, unless you have a link to an actual quote and not your extrapolation of comments. You can keep repeating, "The writers said they wrote rape" but that doesn't make it true and really only weakens your already shaky argument. 

Furthermore that actors and director have gone on record claiming that they were filming a scene that became consensual. I feel like it doesn't make sense to ignore what they say they were going for because to me this best explains why the rape was never again addressed. They didn't have to have Jaime and Cersei resume their relationship in the finale but presumably they did so because they felt that was the journey for the relationship between the two characters for the season. In the beginning she's flat out refusing, in the middle she's reluctantly giving in (ew), and at the end she's declaring to the only person who has real power over her that she's going to be with Jaime and she doesn't care what people think. It doesn't really make sense for Cersei to make this choice if a rape occurred. That being said, I will reiterate that the scene came across as rape to me just in case anyone thinks that I'm trying to claim that it wasn't. I'm just accepting the official word and the word from the people involved seems to be that it wasn't rape. I freely admit that one of the reasons I'm willing to just pretend that Septgate never happened is because I hate the idea of show Jaime being turned into a rapist. 

[nksarmi]

And frankly, I think its rather safe at this point to say that GRRM has a pretty sick imagination all the way around.  I don't get any immature sense from the show runners or the actors though I'm sure they see this material very differently than we do.  They see it as amazing material to act - we see a lot of this stuff as really f-d up and are trying to figure out who in this messed up world is good enough to like.

[FemmyV]

No what I meant is that castration and male mutilation is a HUGE part of the show to include what happened to Theon (which is way worse than just castration).   I don't see anyone saying that the author or show runners must hate men because of it.  And come on, is not male dismemberment just as bad and female rape if not worse?  I'm not sure any show with this many missing cocks can be misogynistic.

 

I agree, the materials go and have gone there a lot, compared to any other show ever before, and you're right about no one saying the author hates males because of the fact. Is it worse? I don't know. Have the show's writers given us instances where men who stayed intact, in the book, were cut for the show? As many instances where book characters had consensual sex, but the show depicted rape? Two, that I'm aware of, and both happened with the two most arguably powerful female characters in the story.

[Skeeter22]

I suspect D&D threw the actors/director under the bus with the Jaime/Cersei rape. I think they intended it to be consensual "no means yes" bs and then after the backlash claimed it was rape all along. Actors generally don't bite the hand that feeds, they are going to parrot whatever the producers want. I doubt it was a miscommunication.

GRRM is not infallible. There are lots of problems with the books, but that doesn't excuse the show. D&D have no problem making changes and we have every right to make our own judgments about what they choose to keep and what they alter.

[BlackberryJam]

GRRM is not infallible. There are lots of problems with the books, but that doesn't excuse the show. D&D have no problem making changes and we have every right to make our own judgments about what they choose to keep and what they alter.

 

Of course everyone has the right to make their own judgments. Of course they do. But it's statements like, "D&D get off on the rapes in the show," "D&D have a rape fetish," "D&D aren't loyal to the precious source material because there is too much rape in the show," that are complete and utter crap. It's personal attacks and assumptions about the writers, the actors, the directors and the show runners which have absolutely no place in a critical discussion.

 

I judge the casting director for making a shitty choice with all three of the Sand Snakes. I say, "The casting director totally dropped the ball when casting the Sand Snakes. They have no presence, no muscle tone, no intensity and little acting skills. I think they are a big mistake." However, I don't say, "The casting director made her(I think?) decision based solely on the fact that she likes boobs when she cast the Sand Snakes."  See the difference?

[dr pepper]

I'm more that okay with that fake-out, I'm wildly relieved.  Nobody is safe on this show so when he got cut by a Sand Snake, given their love for poison, I thought another shocking death of a beloved character was headed our way.  Glad that wasn't the case.  Could have done without all the tit-gazing however.

 

The full frontal ratio has dropped considerably,

[Saje]

Hate to interrupt all the rape uproar (I do love a good uproar) but damn this episode was shot beautifully. For the amount of high-speed plot point they plowed through, they took their time with the cinematography, AND the choreography (Jorah's fighting scene in the pit was exceptionally played out - even brilliantly performed compared to that sad Sand Snakes™ flounder we saw last week). Margaery looked positively skeevy and appropriately horrible, and Cersei's scene with Tommen was gorgeous with all the light play. 

 

THIS however, was my favorite piece of beauty:

 

[ToniG]

Thank you for the screen cap! This scene was so beautifully shot, and you're right-the Cersei/Tommen scene was beautifully done, too.

[BlackberryJam]

Hate to interrupt all the rape uproar (I do love a good uproar) but damn this episode was shot beautifully. For the amount of high-speed plot point they plowed through, they took their time with the cinematography, AND the choreography (Jorah's fighting scene in the pit was exceptionally played out - even brilliantly performed compared to that sad Sand Snakes™ flounder we saw last week). Margaery looked positively skeevy and appropriately horrible, and Cersei's scene with Tommen was gorgeous with all the light play. 

 

 

Following the change of subject, Jorah's fight scene was a thing of choreographed beauty, especially in comparison to the Sand Snakes last week (someone set that to the Benny Hill theme on youtube and it totally works.)

 

And not just the choreography and cinematography, but the sound, the music. It was freaking brilliant.

 

Jaime and Myrcella in the light was stunning.

 

And the shot of Brienne in the snow, while different from the original trailer, was a gorgeous gorgeous shot. Not sure why she made the episode summary for a single shot though....

[Bats27]

-That Tyene scene might have been the most pointless bit of nudity that we've gotten so far (and on this show, that's saying something).

 

-Sam/Gilly-I like how it ended, didn't like how we got there.  Seriously D&D, lay off the rapey stuff for at least a couple of episodes, jeez.  Also, there were much better ways to get those two to where they were by the end.

 

-Cersei's finally getting some comeuppance, yeah.  The High Sparrow/Faith Militant thing still makes little sense though.

 

-So how's that whole "revenge plot" going for you Sansa?  Show, you have three episodes left to sell me on this, and you're not off to a good start.

[benteen]

Speaking of Jorah, he's been much more likeable than his book counterpart and I'm glad about hat.  But his plan to defeat (and not kill) his opponents as a way to impress Dany only to have it hilariously blow up in his face is definitely Book Jorah.

[screamin]

Ya i think casting those characters or even half of them would be MUCH more expensive than run of the mill brothel scenes decorated with extras.  

 

Why, exactly, would it be so much more expensive to have filmed intrigues in the Vale? Cast a few good actors in speaking parts - they don't have to be big, expensive names, Britain's full of good actors - put them in costume, and give them a good script. The BBC has done that on a shoestring budget for decades - and made good shows.  (BTW, I saw Ex Machina, and with one fancy CGI costume and three people basically talking at each other for two hours in a mansion, you would not BELIEVE the tension that can be built up just through words). Granted, to build up tension simply through a few actors tensely exchanging verbal plots and counterplots takes skill and subtlety. I think the showrunners ran out of subtlety about three seasons ago, alas.

 

This is speculation that I've seen a lot and I honestly think a lot of people are going to be disappointed.   If LF get's what's coming to him I don't think it'll be at the hands of Sansa or something Sansa sets in motion necessarily. 

 

 

Maybe - but look at the big picture. GRRM has drawn the Vale as the only big food source in a war-torn nation where winter is starting and most people face famine because they were at war instead of harvesting. Tell me, which seems the more likely role for LF as we know him - to sit comfortably in the Vale, dealing in grain that will soon be more valuable than gold, using it to buy influence and armies for his purposes from desperate lords from all over Westeros? Or to post off himself at the head of an army (a place he's always canonically avoided) by the authority of a Lannister king who may be about to topple (rendering his promises meaningless) so that he can go into battle in the North just as winter is falling? I know which makes more sense to me.

 

And I think it doesn't make a whole lot of narrative sense to have Sansa stand at his elbow watching and learn nothing and do nothing useful during that time. Her siblings are learning things that will presumably prove useful. It stands to reason that Sansa will USE what she has learned as well. When the Surviving Pack gets together, why should she be the only dead-weight? So...

 

Since D&D are the ones that KNOW the ending and they saw fit to cut it, I'm assuming it's not pivotal.

 

 

 

I think that's a BIG assumption to be making. I don't think the showrunners' changes are all necessarily aimed at streamlining unnecessary plot into a lean, mean tale. Granted that GRRM does often digress unnecessarily - but  I think that the showrunners are perfectly capable of running the show into pointless detours of their own as long as they find them interesting.

 

Proof? Cast your mind back to the story of Roz, for example. All it amounted to in retrospect was to give a pretty actress a speaking part, show us her tits, and then torture-porn her to death. Looking back on it, IIRC, her story did absolutely nothing to advance the plot a single inch. It was a pointless detour by the showrunners (as well as a tasteless and exploitative one, IMO). So I don't think "cutting the plot to its absolute essentials" is the only possible motivation of the showrunners to take Sansa from the Vale and put her in Winterfell to marry Ramsey. To me (keeping Roz in mind) it's equally possible the showrunners said: "Sansa learning politics from LF in the Vale? BO-ring. WE can do better than that."

Edited May 26, 2015 by screamin

[Bats27]

Why, exactly, would it be so much more expensive to have filmed intrigues in the Vale? Cast a few good actors in speaking parts - they don't have to be big, expensive names, Britain's full of good actors - put them in costume, and give them a good script. The BBC has done that on a shoestring budget for decades - and made good shows.  (BTW, I saw Ex Machina, and with one fancy CGI costume and three people basically talking at each other for two hours in a mansion, you would not BELIEVE the tension that can be built up just through words). Granted, to build up tension simply through a few actors tensely exchanging verbal plots and counterplots takes skill and subtlety. I think the showrunners ran out of subtlety about three seasons ago, alas.

 

 

Maybe - but look at the big picture. GRRM has drawn the Vale as the only big food source in a war-torn nation where winter is starting and most people face famine because they were at war instead of harvesting. Tell me, which seems the more likely role for LF as we know him - to sit comfortably in the Vale, dealing in grain that will soon be more valuable than gold, using it to buy influence and armies for his purposes from desperate lords from all over Westeros? Or to post off himself at the head of an army (a place he's always canonically avoided) by the authority of a Lannister king who may be about to topple (rendering his promises meaningless) so that he can go into battle in the North just as winter is falling? I know which makes more sense to me.

 

And I think it doesn't make a whole lot of narrative sense to have Sansa stand at his elbow watching and learn nothing and do nothing useful during that time. Her siblings are learning things that will presumably prove useful. It stands to reason that Sansa will USE what she has learned as well. When the Surviving Pack gets together, why should she be the only dead-weight? So...

 

 

I think that's a BIG assumption to be making. I don't think the showrunners' changes are all necessarily aimed at streamlining unnecessary plot into a lean, mean tale. Granted that GRRM does often digress unnecessarily - but  I think that the showrunners are perfectly capable of running the show into pointless detours of their own as long as they find them interesting.

 

Proof? Cast your mind back to the story of Roz, for example. All it amounted to in retrospect was to give a pretty actress a speaking part, show us her tits, and then torture-porn her to death. Looking back on it, IIRC, her story did absolutely nothing to advance the plot a single inch. It was a pointless detour (as well as a tasteless and exploitative one, IMO). So I don't think "cutting the plot to its absolute essentials" is the only possible motivation of the showrunners to take Sansa from the Vale and put her in Winterfell to marry Ramsey. To me (keeping Roz in mind) it's equally possible the showrunners said: "Sansa learning politics from LF in the Vale? BO-ring. WE can do better than that."

If that's the case then they're failing, BADLY!

[dr pepper]

Nothing says consensual like arm bruises. And who didn't see her rape being used as a way to motivate Theon. Terrible writing in Winterfell. Speaking of rape again why the hell did they feel the need to create Gilly's almost rape? And then to transition that into her sex scene with Sam. Who doesn't like a little sexual assault to get them in the mood. 

 

That was appalling,

[loki567]

 

I'm sorry but, no. GRRM wrote the casual rape of Craster's wives without repercussion. It was D&D who added in justice for those women.

 

Do you really believe the Craster stuff was in any way about justice for rape victims or because they felt like they need some action scenes during a slow part of the season? 

 

 

Of course everyone has the right to make their own judgments. Of course they do. But it's statements like, "D&D get off on the rapes in the show," "D&D have a rape fetish," "D&D aren't loyal to the precious source material because there is too much rape in the show," that are complete and utter crap. It's personal attacks and assumptions about the writers, the actors, the directors and the show runners which have absolutely no place in a critical discussion.

 

I don't know if I'd say they have a rape fetish, but I think there's a massive amount of immaturity in D&D's writing and that permeates the entire series. And it's that immaturity that led them to using such a heavy and divisive subject like rape for no real purpose other than the fact that they wanted a shocking cliffhanger.

 

I don't think they were trying to make a greater point about the world of Westeros. I don't think this will be a big step in Sansa's character development. I imagine this whole issue will be brushed aside and not really be mentioned going forward. And I can say that with some confidence because that's how every other rape in the five year history of the show has been treated. 

[benteen]

Immaturity is definitely a word I would use.  I often think back to the interview with Neil Marshall when he directed Blackwater.  He was told by one of the executive producers (he didn't name who) to shoot nudity for one scene.  The producer told him that he represented "the pervert side of the audience" and wanted that stuff filmed.

[DigitalCount]

Speaking of things that didn't happen in this episode, Shireen and the burning. And Stannis' face when he told Mel to get bent. That love, that fatherly love. Maybe this will lead to Mel heading back to the wall for knife wound healing? Maybe?

[loki567]

Immaturity is definitely a word I would use.  I often think back to the interview with Neil Marshall when he directed Blackwater.  He was told by one of the executive producers (he didn't name who) to shoot nudity for one scene.  The producer told him that he represented "the pervert side of the audience" and wanted that stuff filmed.

 

I think it was worse than that, whoever the producer was told him, "Don't be afraid to zoom in, really go full frontal," with the extra. 

[Paws]

And it's that immaturity that led them to using such a heavy and divisive subject like rape for no real purpose other than the fact that they wanted a shocking cliffhanger.

Or maybe they use rape so much because the whole show is premised upon the rebellion caused by the alleged rape of Lyanna Stark.

[BlackberryJam]

Or maybe they use rape so much because the whole show is premised upon the rebellion caused by the alleged rape of Lyanna Stark.

 

Excellent point and you know, I don't care if it was just to add a little more action having the NW who raped Craster's wives punished. That's still so much more than GRRM did. Look at the source material. It does not deal with rape in any mature, adult way and it certainly doesn't provide or reflect social conscience. D&D are adapting a fantasy novel series and one that has a lot of issues and problems. And yet D&D are the ones with immature writing. Right. (note the sarcasm)

 

And again, from above, it's a weak and meaningless argument to present your assumption of the writer's motivations as fact to support your premise.

 

As far as the desire for more full frontal from the HBO execs, yeah, agreed, gross. HBO has a tradition of that, which is not to say it's okay. But vent your spleen on the right people. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by BlackberryJam

[dr pepper]

They don't want to have her do that here, because then they would be more honest about the situation she's in (a woman who has no allies, no path forward, whose only value is as a brood mare to true evil),

 

 

Like many princesses in our own history.

[Bats27]

Furthermore that actors and director have gone on record claiming that they were filming a scene that became consensual. I feel like it doesn't make sense to ignore what they say they were going for because to me this best explains why the rape was never again addressed. They didn't have to have Jaime and Cersei resume their relationship in the finale but presumably they did so because they felt that was the journey for the relationship between the two characters for the season. In the beginning she's flat out refusing, in the middle she's reluctantly giving in (ew), and at the end she's declaring to the only person who has real power over her that she's going to be with Jaime and she doesn't care what people think. It doesn't really make sense for Cersei to make this choice if a rape occurred. That being said, I will reiterate that the scene came across as rape to me just in case anyone thinks that I'm trying to claim that it wasn't. I'm just accepting the official word and the word from the people involved seems to be that it wasn't rape. I freely admit that one of the reasons I'm willing to just pretend that Septgate never happened is because I hate the idea of show Jaime being turned into a rapist. 

They can say whatever they want after the fact, and they might be telling the truth.  However, it's still their responsibility to convincing ONSCREEN (which is what's most important for a TV show).  And judging by the reaction to that episode, both then and now, they simply failed to do that for many people.  So we can just chalk that one up to writing/directorial incompetence I guess.

[dr pepper]

Stannis is going to burn his own daughter to death, isn't he? Any half-way decent father wouldn't even be conflicted about this.  

 

 

I don't think so.  I think he sends her way with Davos.  And Davos and Shireen end up where Rickon is because they need to get to a large castle quickly and safely.  Some place where Shireen can be hidden if her father loses.  I think burning his daughter is a bridge too far for Stannis.  I really do. 

 

And this can turn out to be the reason that Stannis's army gets the Napoleon in Russia treatment-- without a royal sacrifice, the Red God will not exert himself to push back the winter.

[Bats27]

Excellent point and you know, I don't care if it was just to add a little more action having the NW who raped Craster's wives punished. That's still so much more than GRRM did. Look at the source material. It does not deal with rape in any mature, adult way and it certainly doesn't provide or reflect social conscience. D&D are adapting a fantasy novel series and one that has a lot of issues and problems. And yet D&D are the ones with immature writing. Right. (note the sarcasm)

 

And again, from above, it's a weak and meaningless argument to present your assumption of the writer's motivations as fact to support your premise.

 

As far as the desire for more full frontal from the HBO execs, yeah, agreed, gross. HBO has a tradition of that, which is not to say it's okay. But vent your spleen on the right people. 

Yeah actually they are.  The source material isn't perfect true enough.  But given that they've shown little hesitation in making changes to said source material, they then don't get a free pass for their own mistakes because of "the source material is so and so."  If it's bad writing on the show, then it's bad writing on the show, simple as that. 

[benteen]

Exactly.  They may very well have shot the scene as consensual but the last thing we hear is Cersei saying "No no no."  Most of that scene looked like an out and out rape.

[Paws]

And this can turn out to be the reason that Stannis's army gets the Napoleon in Russia treatment-- without a royal sacrifice, the Red God will not exert himself to push back the winter.

Hmm, I always thought of it as the WWII battle of Stalingrad, but I suppose Napoleon makes more sense what with the horses and such.

[BlackberryJam]

Yeah actually they are.  ...material, they then don't get a free pass for their own mistakes because of "the source material is so and so."  If it's bad writing on the show, then it's bad writing on the show, simple as that. 

 

No one is giving them a "free pass" but it's wrong, wrong, wrong, to make disgusting comments about the writers getting boners from horrific on-screen rape depictions. It's not one or the other. I can thoroughly dislike everything about the Sand Snakes without saying D&D are tittylovers. There is a difference between rational, reasoned criticism and personal bashing. 

 

The source material is a mess. Do I like every change? No. Do I understand every change? No. Do I know endgame and the fates of every major character? No. Can I say then that all of D&D's changes are meaningless and lazy writing then? No.

[dr pepper]

b.  Tyrion meeting Dany.  My jaw literally dropped when I realized they were letting it happen so early this season-I thought for sure we couldn't expect it until episode 9, and this is something we've all been waiting for since Season 1...or really Book One.

 

I really liked it when the huge man with the drothraki blade came up. I could see what he was thinking: "little man can't wait to go out and fight, sounds good for a laugh, i'll help him!"

[WatchrTina]

 

And the shot of Brienne in the snow, while different from the original trailer, was a gorgeous gorgeous shot. Not sure why she made the episode summary for a single shot though....

One could argue that we spent the entire episode hoping that Brianne would ride in to rescue Sansa.  That one shot at the end was the slap-in-the-face disappointing conclusion to our expectation ("Nope, she's not coming.")  Maybe that's why TPTB put that comment about Brianne in the episode summary. ( I'm assuming those summaries come from the PR dept for the show and not from someone here at PreviouslyTV.  Is that right?)

Edited May 26, 2015 by WatchrTina