Her tits are on my hard drive because the entire show is on my hard drive. My point was that I’m not dying to see her naked because we already have. It’s the incongruity that’s distracting.
Also, I disliked the gratuitous nudity of season 2. All of the Littlefinger brothel sexposition is really bad, more distracting than any non-nudity.
I enjoy nudity as much as anyone, and I would love a world in which every beautiful woman let me see her naked, but I doubt very many people notice the use of camera angles to hide the absence of “real” nudity.
And I think it’s a massive overstatement to claim that it actually takes you out of the story.
In the big picture no one is going to be talking about the legacy of this series and saying it was ruined by a change in the depiction of nudity of one character.
And also, this is just a show.
No matter what one might think about the impact or importance of “sex work,” when it comes right down to it, the nudity integrity of the show is nowhere near as important as an actor’s feelings about her body.
No contract should lock an actor into such a position.
Thank you; I was going to point this out. And even if they weren’t trying to be respectful of his body he probably still would’ve been stripped time permitting given the relative value of cloth in a preindustrial society.
There’s no way Tommen is supposed to be over 18; more like 14 or 15. Dean-Charles Chapman didn’t even turn 18 until last September which of course means he was underage when they filmed post-coital scene with Margaery (which is why it was so demure, at least by the show’s standards). It’s ludicrous to think the producers would have any issue implying underage sex between Tommen & Margaery when they’ve implied much, much worse with underage girls & older men before.
Upvote.
I have to say that this Daenerys nudity discussion makes me really uncomfortable. “The scene would have been better from a dramatic standpoint if we’d seen her nude” is fine. “What a jerk move on the part of the actress not to want to do any more nude scenes” is not. The issue of sex and nudity for women is fraught, and most of us just try to move through the world as best we can. To have it attract so much attention is dehumanizing.
It upsets me to even be a bystander-- I know I’m not an actress, but do people make these sorts of judgments about me and my body but don’t say them to my face? If I wanted to do public intellectual work, is this the sort of thing I’d have to deal with? It drives one to despair.
That’s your problem, not anyone else’s.
Bullshit. It’s only attracting attention because the actress made a deliberate choice to get a job under false pretenses and then pull a bait and switch maneuver. If she hadn’t done that, there would be no issue. She brought it on herself through her own actions (and before someone says this sounds like some kind of “victim-blaming”, keep in mind she isn’t a victim of anything. She’s a fucking multi-millionaire as a direct result of what she did)
Well, that’s part of the whole societal problem, isn’t it? Women are constantly judged on their appearance and categorized as desirable, undesirable, or invisible. And the system is set up so that you always lose. You’re shunned if you’re not desirable, but you are also punished if you are.
I see absolutely no problem with any employee who once had to accept a deal from a reduced bargaining position renegotiating that deal when in a stronger position. You can bet that the people they are negotiating with exploit every advantage they possess, so why not the other way around?
Very much so, it’s like a parody.
Those aren’t separate positions. She signed onto the job knowing nudity was a significant part of the role. She went along with that until she had enough clout to be irreplacable, at which point she told them she would no longer do what she agreed to do. That behavior on her part lessons the quality of the series because of your first quote.
You and the other people on your side are making this into some sort of issue on misogyny. It’s not. It’s only because of the tendency to find misogyny in everything, and puriticanal weirdness that we have around sex that this is even an argument, that there’s anyone willing to fight on the other side of it.
I’ve already used the example that I’d be just as critical - moreso, really - if a male actor refused to do fight scenes. (And no one would ever say “it’s his body, he can do what he wants with it”, right? That’s part of the puritanical weirdness I’m talking about. Asserting bodily autonomy is somehow only an issue when it comes to protecting a woman’s delicate sexuality from phantom exploitation.)
But how about another example? The series has always been willing to do unpleasant and gorey things. Not shying away from such things is a defining feature of what it is.But what if a director, who previously worked on the series, and was contractually awarded to do another episode, decided to film a big battle episode without any gore or blood? Suddenly his beliefs dictate that there be no blood or gore. So he films the battle in the same way old cheap cheesy westerns would be, with people falling over melodramatically with no blood or visible gore. It would be really distracting, because we’ve established the grittiness that the series has allowed in the past, and a sudden change to a goreless world would be incongruent. No one would be defending the director saying it’s his body and he shouldn’t be forced to shoot scenes in a way he doesn’t want to, and if you say otherwise you’re a misogynist who just wants to see his tits.
This is a complete non-sequitor. What does this have to do with anything? I don’t even know how to address this.
It’s easy to make unsubstantiated snipes from the sideline. You’re seeing what you want to see, and have nothing to contribute. No one in this thread is saying MAN I GOTTA SEE MORE TITS or whatever it is you’re trying to imply.
I also hate fantasy, by the way. It’s easily the worst fictional genre that there is. So if you’re basing your conclusion that I’m a stereotypical fantasy fan, you’re already demonstrably wrong.
I’m interested in this series because the fantastical elements at first were very very mild. It was mostly about the characters, the politics, the acting, the scenery, the dialogue - all stuff that was very much grounded in real world history. Yes, the looming threat of the white walkers were present, but that could be a stand-in for any sort of growing everpresent threat outside of your borders, like a looming barbarian invasion.
My interest in the series is down sharply since the last episode of season 4 when skeletons popped out of the ground and some magical pixies threw fireballs at them. I pretty much instantly disengaged with the series at that point. Following that up with the poorest season by far after that didn’t do anything to re-engage me.
I can’t tell if this season so far is good or bad. I know I’m not getting much enjoyment out of watching it, but I’m not sure if that’s because of the disconnect I just mentioned, or that the quality of the writing is low. Lots of stuff is happening, but it doesn’t seem to have the well-crafted feeling that previous ones did. It’s alternately stuck (Sam and Silly scenes, Tyrion monologuing for 5 minutes about how bored he is of Grey Worm and Missandei) and then flying by (Arya’s blindness might as well have been a 90 second Rocky montage). It’s very uneven.
I’m going by what the Wiki says about this. (I think it was mentioned in the DVD commentary as well.) Even in the TV show, Tommen was stated to be 8 only years old in the first season, which would make him about 12 now. Obviously when they recast the role they retconned his age and went for an older actor. Regardless of what they might have implied about sex with young girls before, they are not going to show Margaery having sex with someone who is supposed to be 12. Let’s say he’s supposed to be at least around 17-18 now. He’s definitely not supposed to be 14 or 15. If he were, he would need a regent, and he’s ruling in his own name.
Again, this assumes ill intent without any evidence. It’s entirely conceivable that she thought she was OK with the level of nudity and sex involved, but found out she wasn’t. So, that there is any duplicity is solely your projection.
She’s being victimized by the internet slander directed at her, which you say she ‘brought on herself’. So yes, this is blaming the victim.
Yeah and now you mention it, I think that’s why the brothel scenes seem gratuitous.
Not because we’re seeing tits, but because every adult* prostitute is beautiful, young and horny.
Every time they do those whore selection scenes they may as well directly address the viewer each time they say “Well, how about this one…?”
Most of the brothel scenes were so blatantly gratuitous that it was just insulting. “Hey, a character is gonna fill you in on some backstory, but we know you’re too dumb to pay attention to that, so look, tits” - they were really out of place with the rest of the series. I’m glad they seemed to be confined to a few episodes in season 2. I don’t know if there was enough of a backlash or what, but fortunately they put a stop to the really egregious stuff.
That’s precisely what I was thinking about. Anybody can kill anybody in the most gory ways conceivable, but there’s no way you’re going to see a dog doing as much as biting someone undeservedly.
I’m guessing it’s pretty hard to train dogs to bite people in convincing, gorey ways without actually training them to be violent killing machines. I guess you can use CGI, but… why is this a problem?
Nope, we didn’t see that. In the case of Lady, we only saw Ned during the scene, and in the case of Grey Wind, we again only saw the crossbowmen. No dog was ever wounded or killed on screen during the whole series. Compare with humans : we have a throat slited every other minute of the show. And I’m pretty certain it’s not random because film makers in general shy away from showing a dog being harmed. Viewers notoriously hate this.
No, we didn’t see Ramsay’s dogs killing the girl : off screen. Nor eating a baby : off screen again. All harm done by dogs or to dogs is off screen.
Human actors are a lot easier to train to deal with prosthetics and makeup and blood packs and plausibly dying than dogs are.
And training dogs to plausibly kill actors using those devices is pretty much training them to be killers.
In the case of the sex scene with Daario, it definitely was noticeable for me, because it looked exactly like an after sex scene of some random american series. I felt I was watching “Law and order” or something similar. Definitely took me out of the show. It felt deliberatly puritanical.
People keep writing “feelings about her body”, but that’s newspeak and it grates on my nerves. If it was “about her body” it would apply equally to everything else actors do. People, presumably including yourself, would have an issue if actors were allowed to ruin scenes at their whims because “it’s their body” (so, say, I won’t fight the white walkers, that’s condoning violence, I won’t walk in the snow because it’s cold, whatever). It’s not “about her body”, it’s “about nudity and sex”.
I’m not sure this is the strongest example. How about Arya’s contact lenses? By all accounts from her and every other actor who’s ever had to wear them (eg: Jim Carrey in The Grinch), the pain is excruciating. So what if Maise Williams refused, and instead of the cloudy-eye blindness her eyes just looked normal the whole time. (I’m not saying this is definitely a better illustration; just tossing it out there.)
Ah, nevermind. This is a much better example.