House of the Dragon (Game of Thrones) Thread

[TCO]

But they should stop putting rapes in the show where it's consensual in the book. They've done it on multiple occasions and it's just lazy. Shock for the sake of shock on a show that has plenty of shock as it is.

Yeah Game of Thrones is the one show that doesn't need additional shock value,

[TKz]

What rape did they put in the show that wasn't there in the first place? The scene with Jamie and Cersei was always rape. Really just comes from the problem of adapting from a medium where people can have different interpretations of the source material. Jamie forced himself on her, does it really make it any better if she's into it in the end in the books? Especially when we didn't see the whole thing in the show?

EDIT: Just realized this might be in reference to the apparent Sansa rape scene. I agree it doesn't sound great, but are we really casting judgement when we know literally nothing about it so far?

[Benjamin]

Man, I really hope there's not going to be a rape scene. If there is (and I honestly hope there isn't), I hope it's some sick fantasy of Littlefinger's or something, because otherwise that would suck balls.

Game of Thrones shows a lot of awful, terrible things that people have done throughout their history. It is terribly shocking and uncomfortable, but in no way are they saying "This shit's good, you guys should try it sometime".

[Daniel Bryan]

But they should stop putting rapes in the show where it's consensual in the book. They've done it on multiple occasions and it's just lazy. Shock for the sake of shock on a show that has plenty of shock as it is.

I actually prefer it over the shitty "rape that turns consensual" scenes from the book. Writing that shit is seriously fucked up, and it has no place on primetime TV.

[Josh]

The main reason I don't like the rape scene between Jamie and Cersei is that Jamie continues to be portrayed as a sympathetic character - and not in a "complex" way either, he really seems to be someone we're supposed to be rooting for.

[TKz]

Yeah, that's what I mainly don't get. It's pretty clear the scene goes down differently in the books to keep with Jamie's turn to good (or, what classifies as good in asoiaf).

[Summers]

In the book, the scene is from Jamie's POV. So it's far less rapey, because he isn't considering it as rape.

[Mick]

In the book, the scene is from Jamie's POV. So it's far less rapey, because he isn't considering it as rape.

This comes to mind:

[JasonM]

I'm not even offended by the sex scenes. I manage to understand that it's fictional and react accordingly.

I really don't see the point of having sex scenes, full frontal nudity and whatnot. The gender-specific bits add little (if anything) to the actual story, and for me it's starting to feel grating and obnoxious that the show even adds such scenes, because for me it detracts from the story.

If they decided to ''censor'' nudity by using specific camera shots I wouldn't enjoy the series any less than before.

We live in an age where porn and smut is available at the click of a button, it might be a taboo in the USofA but I am calloused to the notion of nudity in entertainment. It doesn't add anything to the show for me, i'm calloused about it.

The only thing I don't like is the producers hiding behind the book and going ''We're just trying to be true to the books''. And whilst it may be true, that doesn't mean they need to shove the nudity into our faces. The producers seem like a bunch of 14 year olds who have discovered internet porn for the first time.

[Gazz]

America is still trying to come to terms with Janet Jackson's nipple.

[Your Mom]

I'm not even offended by the sex scenes. I manage to understand that it's fictional and react accordingly.

I really don't see the point of having sex scenes, full frontal nudity and whatnot. The gender-specific bits add little (if anything) to the actual story, and for me it's starting to feel grating and obnoxious that the show even adds such scenes, because for me it detracts from the story.

If they decided to ''censor'' nudity by using specific camera shots I wouldn't enjoy the series any less than before.

We live in an age where porn and smut is available at the click of a button, it might be a taboo in the USofA but I am calloused to the notion of nudity in entertainment. It doesn't add anything to the show for me, i'm calloused about it.

The only thing I don't like is the producers hiding behind the book and going ''We're just trying to be true to the books''. And whilst it may be true, that doesn't mean they need to shove the nudity into our faces. The producers seem like a bunch of 14 year olds who have discovered internet porn for the first time.

Why does it matter if it's fictional or not?

[TCO]

I'm not even offended by the sex scenes. I manage to understand that it's fictional and react accordingly.

I really don't see the point of having sex scenes, full frontal nudity and whatnot. The gender-specific bits add little (if anything) to the actual story, and for me it's starting to feel grating and obnoxious that the show even adds such scenes, because for me it detracts from the story.

If they decided to ''censor'' nudity by using specific camera shots I wouldn't enjoy the series any less than before.

We live in an age where porn and smut is available at the click of a button, it might be a taboo in the USofA but I am calloused to the notion of nudity in entertainment. It doesn't add anything to the show for me, i'm calloused about it.

The only thing I don't like is the producers hiding behind the book and going ''We're just trying to be true to the books''. And whilst it may be true, that doesn't mean they need to shove the nudity into our faces. The producers seem like a bunch of 14 year olds who have discovered internet porn for the first time.

Why does it matter if it's fictional or not?

Because it's not real, there is nobody actually suffering? It's not actually rape, they're actors, acting. Rape is terrible, but so is beheading, castration, torture etc. All of which are things that happen in real life too.

I refuse to acknowledge that this one rape scene crossed some sort of line in a fictional medieval universe that is built on all these horrible things. The scene was uncomfortable but it furthered the messed up dynamic between the Lannister twins and blurred the lines of Jaime's character.

[Pizza]

How did it further their dynamic?

[TCO]

How did it further their dynamic?

It added to the twisted/lustful nature of their relationship, something which needed to be established because they were apart for so long. The fact that their dead incestuous son/king was there just added to how completely fucked up the Lannisters are too.

There are a bereft of things to be offended by in Game of Thrones, I fully understand that. I just don't see the relevance of a moaney article saying they crossed a line for this one particular scene.

[livid]

I'm not even offended by the sex scenes. I manage to understand that it's fictional and react accordingly.

I really don't see the point of having sex scenes, full frontal nudity and whatnot. The gender-specific bits add little (if anything) to the actual story, and for me it's starting to feel grating and obnoxious that the show even adds such scenes, because for me it detracts from the story.

If they decided to ''censor'' nudity by using specific camera shots I wouldn't enjoy the series any less than before.

We live in an age where porn and smut is available at the click of a button, it might be a taboo in the USofA but I am calloused to the notion of nudity in entertainment. It doesn't add anything to the show for me, i'm calloused about it.

The only thing I don't like is the producers hiding behind the book and going ''We're just trying to be true to the books''. And whilst it may be true, that doesn't mean they need to shove the nudity into our faces. The producers seem like a bunch of 14 year olds who have discovered internet porn for the first time.

Why does it matter if it's fictional or not?

Context. Westeros is a brutal place where brutal things happen on an almost daily basis. Shying away from things because they're uncomfortable in our real world is disingenuous to the world that Martin created. I understand if that's not something you're terribly into but that just means the show isn't for you.

[Pizza]

How did it further their dynamic?

It added to the twisted/lustful nature of their relationship, something which needed to be established because they were apart for so long. The fact that their dead incestuous son/king was there just added to how completely fucked up the Lannisters are too.

There are a bereft of things to be offended by in Game of Thrones, I fully understand that. I just don't see the relevance of a moaney article saying they crossed a line for this one particular scene.

The scene wasnt a rape in the book. It's completely cut off the legs of Jamie's redemption story. Which would be fine if the intention was to make Cersei a more sympathetic character and make Jamie a shittier person than he was at this time in the books. But subsequent episodes have shown that wasn't the intent. Cerseis still a bitch that we're supposed to hate, and Jamie's still the guy who's trying to make up for past wrongs that we're supposed to sympathize with.

Nobody has said get rid of sex and violence. Terrible things happen to women sometimes. But in Game of Thrones its gratuitous. It doesn't add to the world or the story. A lot of the comparisons the article TCO certainly did not read made to the Sopranos certainly show the difference between sex and violence towards women used to develop characters and advance story, and sex and violence used to give 14 year old boys boners.

[Your Mom]

I'm not even offended by the sex scenes. I manage to understand that it's fictional and react accordingly.

I really don't see the point of having sex scenes, full frontal nudity and whatnot. The gender-specific bits add little (if anything) to the actual story, and for me it's starting to feel grating and obnoxious that the show even adds such scenes, because for me it detracts from the story.

If they decided to ''censor'' nudity by using specific camera shots I wouldn't enjoy the series any less than before.

We live in an age where porn and smut is available at the click of a button, it might be a taboo in the USofA but I am calloused to the notion of nudity in entertainment. It doesn't add anything to the show for me, i'm calloused about it.

The only thing I don't like is the producers hiding behind the book and going ''We're just trying to be true to the books''. And whilst it may be true, that doesn't mean they need to shove the nudity into our faces. The producers seem like a bunch of 14 year olds who have discovered internet porn for the first time.

Why does it matter if it's fictional or not?

Context. Westeros is a brutal place where brutal things happen on an almost daily basis. Shying away from things because they're uncomfortable in our real world is disingenuous to the world that Martin created. I understand if that's not something you're terribly into but that just means the show isn't for you.

Saying the show isn't for me isn't exactly fair. I liked the show. And I mean don't we get that the world is brutal by now? Does there need to be so much rape and brutal sex to get that across? I don't see how the show wouldn't be just as good without a lot of it.

How did it further their dynamic?

It added to the twisted/lustful nature of their relationship, something which needed to be established because they were apart for so long. The fact that their dead incestuous son/king was there just added to how completely fucked up the Lannisters are too.

There are a bereft of things to be offended by in Game of Thrones, I fully understand that. I just don't see the relevance of a moaney article saying they crossed a line for this one particular scene.

The scene wasnt a rape in the book. It's completely cut off the legs of Jamie's redemption story. Which would be fine if the intention was to make Cersei a more sympathetic character and make Jamie a shittier person than he was at this time in the books. But subsequent episodes have shown that wasn't the intent. Cerseis still a bitch that we're supposed to hate, and Jamie's still the guy who's trying to make up for past wrongs that we're supposed to sympathize with.

Nobody has said get rid of sex and violence. Terrible things happen to women sometimes. But in Game of Thrones its gratuitous. It doesn't add to the world or the story. A lot of the comparisons the article TCO certainly did not read made to the Sopranos certainly show the difference between sex and violence towards women used to develop characters and advance story, and sex and violence used to give 14 year old boys boners.

This! So much this! I would like this post 50 times if I could

[JasonM]

You can have a good series without showing ass, tits, dong and whatnot in copious amounts.

I personally am completely calloused by it, and it feels more like an annoyance than something I'd feel ashamed or shocked by. I rather see them get on with the story instead of them going ''Look, it's tits!'' at every turn.

Sure, tits are great if you ask me. But they add little (nothing) to the story itself.

I grew up in The Netherlands, and over here we're liberal with the showing of people's bits and we don't really care about it anymore. I understand that for Americans the thought of women having tits and men having a dong might be a shocking revelation.

I enjoy the series with or without nudity, if they removed it completely I wouldn't think of the series any less, I might even enjoy it a bit more because they can focus more on the actual fucking story instead of them being so inccesant on adding nudity to scenes.

I'm not afraid of naughty bits, I don't feel ashamed when it's on TV. Heck, I watch GoT with my mum and neither of us even gives a hoot about it.

[TCO]

How did it further their dynamic?

It added to the twisted/lustful nature of their relationship, something which needed to be established because they were apart for so long. The fact that their dead incestuous son/king was there just added to how completely fucked up the Lannisters are too.

There are a bereft of things to be offended by in Game of Thrones, I fully understand that. I just don't see the relevance of a moaney article saying they crossed a line for this one particular scene.

The scene wasnt a rape in the book. It's completely cut off the legs of Jamie's redemption story. Which would be fine if the intention was to make Cersei a more sympathetic character and make Jamie a shittier person than he was at this time in the books. But subsequent episodes have shown that wasn't the intent. Cerseis still a bitch that we're supposed to hate, and Jamie's still the guy who's trying to make up for past wrongs that we're supposed to sympathize with.

Nobody has said get rid of sex and violence. Terrible things happen to women sometimes. But in Game of Thrones its gratuitous. It doesn't add to the world or the story. A lot of the comparisons the article TCO certainly did not read made to the Sopranos certainly show the difference between sex and violence towards women used to develop characters and advance story, and sex and violence used to give 14 year old boys boners.

Do you want me to record myself reading the article aloud or something?

I've read it, I disagree with the points it made. I find nothing wrong with this scene or anything HBO has done with Game of Thrones thus far.

[Meacon Keaton]

I grew up in The Netherlands, and over here we're liberal with the showing of people's bits and we don't really care about it anymore. I understand that for Americans the thought of women having tits and men having a dong might be a shocking revelation.

I don't think that's what is even being said. It's like some of you guys are having a conversation with yourselves.