In post 2710, Tierce wrote:when we are discussing the disparity of female and male nudity on a show with lots of male and female characters, and that it is bothersome to see that--not necessarily because of the lack of eye candy for certain groups, but that the show deems it acceptable to have one and not the other.
That's a really silly argument. I like seeing naked women more than naked men. Honestly in Game of Thrones I find all of the nudity to be more of a detractor than anything, but that's another argument, male nudity is still a stronger detractor. I assume that there is a non-discrete spectrum of such preferences. I also assume, however, that they are largely grouped towards heavily preferring one over the other. It makes perfect sense then, that some shows would cater to specific demographics of those spectrums. You can argue against the current distribution at a macroscopic level, its likely skewed but not something I look for in TV. But to argue that every show must have a completely even display from both is ridiculous.
I'm sure there's a disparity, but how exactly do you go about addressing this problem?
Like if I'm writing a script that has a seduction scene where the woman strips down in it, are we saying that in the interest of social justice I now should go out of my way to throw in a scene where a male is doing essentially the same thing? If I folded to societal pressure there, I would end up feeling like I just threw the second scene in just because of the first.
I mean I don't see a way to approach the problem in a way that doesn't effect entertainment in a negative way. Aside from having more diversity in writing so that there's a better chance you get people who are interested in actually writing about the things that you feel are underrepresented anyway.
Walking home today, saw the Game of Throne tour buses heading towards the set. Looking to be an extra on the show next season, but the conditions of the contract are funny. Got to not shave for 30 days before filming to have a thick beard.
One time, back in 'nam, Sudo was set upon by an entire squadron of charlies. He challenged them all to a game of Pictionary, which he won resoundingly. The charlies were forced to not only surrender the skirmish, but also their world-famous chili recipe, which Sudo sold to Texas for a hefty profit. Sudo is a master of diplomacy.
In post 2721, Korts wrote:To be fair to Rhinox, portraying male nudity in a "tasteful" manner presents more challenges in terms of pure anatomy. The penis is as explicit as it gets, especially since most if not all nudity on film is in a sexual context - so it would make sense that it would have to be an erect penis as well. And there are no other real frontiers in terms of male nudity - the penis is the only thing left to show.
Comparing that level of explicit sexual imagery to breasts and butts is just as disingenuous. The most female actors have to do is undress in front of a camera, but male actors would have to be genuinely aroused. Not to mention the personal anxiety of penis length and shape, which I'm not sure compares to the body image issues of women - the right kind of exercise and diet can make most people look the way naked people are supposed to look on cable television, but an ugly cock is an ugly cock forever.
so admittedly I haven't read as far in the books as the show has gotten, but I've poked around the awoiaf site, and uh.... did this Bran storyline happen in the books?
In post 2745, Untrod Tripod wrote:so admittedly I haven't read as far in the books as the show has gotten, but I've poked around the awoiaf site, and uh.... did this Bran storyline happen in the books?
No; it is pure filler IMO. Not a fan of the change. Would rather just not see some characters than have them run around with no real personal development or point.
I actually really liked this episode; I just hope that the creative staff does not get cocky and go too far off-script.
Loved the entire Meereen sequence, and the Jaime/Cersei and Jaime/Brienne sequences. Also enjoyed the
Margaery/Tommen
sequence, although it was kind of disturbing to consider it playing out in the book given their ages.
The ending segment was WTF (not in a bad way at all). The books strongly suggested something along the lines of the show, so I do not even feel like it was that big of a spoiler.
In post 2745, Untrod Tripod wrote:so admittedly I haven't read as far in the books as the show has gotten, but I've poked around the awoiaf site, and uh.... did this Bran storyline happen in the books?
I think the entire Bran situation right now, and the Night Watche's quest to Crasters Keep, is completely unique to the show and didn't happen in the books.
I swear I'm trying my best
--Expect me to be V/LA from 10am-7pm PST every Mon, Wed, Thurs, Sat, Sun due to work--
Yeah, the Bran stuff is all new... everything for, like, the last 20-30 minutes was off the rails from book territory.
So... regarding The Winds of Winter...
The White Walkers aren't mindless, they're intelligent, and they have a power structure/hierarchy. The Night's King is real and he's turning Craster's babies into White Walkers (
not wights
, which is the biggest point). This shoots down the sacrificial babies theory and the babyfood theory. It also means that White Walkers are actually just converted humans? So... are The White Walkers just The First Men?
