I'm not an expert the fur trade, but I'm fairly sure they kill the animals before skinning them.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
I'm not an expert the fur trade, but I'm fairly sure they kill the animals before skinning them.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
Not sure if this has been pointed out to you or anything, but if that's the episode you've seen you jumped straight into the middle of season 3 (well, not sure about that, seeing as those scenes are from different episodes); meaning you don't get the context.omega 616 said:Like I said I don't know if he sold it, it burnt down, he still has it or what ... I have only watched half an episode, some child king telling nude women to hit each other and some woman set a dude on fire then give an inspiring speech to an army of ex-slaves (or something).
Not sure how people didn't see Robb dying in time. As I was reading the books, it was obvious that 1) Jon and Arya are higher up on the food chain than Robb and 2) Robb is an idiot-Tully (unlike Brynden, the rare Uber-Tully), so Robb lets emotions turn him into an utter fool (same as his mother) and make every possible bad decision he could make. His death was inevitable. I was hoping that Grey Wind would live though, like another poster.Abandon4093 said:I somehow doubt they use real fur.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:I wonder how many animals were skinned alive to provide for the fur used in that show. Entertainment > Life
OT. Were people really not expectingRobb and all of them to die?
cause I don't read the books. And I saw that coming a mile away.
It had been being foreshadowed for weeks now.
I am going to avoid everything about the how the book has nudity which means the tv series must, which I think is bull shit in of itself ... come on, in all but 1 iteration of Sherlock Holmes stories Watson is a man but in "Elementary" Watson is played by Lucy Liu. In Thor, Heimdall is played by a black guy. In the Fantastic four reboot the human torch could be played by a black guy but you're telling me "if the book has nudity the tv series has to as well"?Beliyal said:I understand if that's strange for you to watch and it puts you off, but there is literally no logical reason for it. You are missing out on an incredibly well made story, in both the TV show and the books themselves especially, because of an illogical and probably cultural disdain to look at naked people (and because you immediately link it to pornography. Which is not true; naked people don't immediately mean that the material is pornographic).
My mistake, I was listing all the parts I've seen ... I am well aware they are from entirely different episodes. I've seen half of the very first episode, then at a friends house seen those other 2 scenes.T0RD said:Not sure if this has been pointed out to you or anything, but if that's the episode you've seen you jumped straight into the middle of season 3 (well, not sure about that, seeing as those scenes are from different episodes); meaning you don't get the context.
However, if it's the nudity that offends you in the show then you probably won't like season 1 either; just saying that by the point in the story you saw you're supposed to be invested in the characters. For example: By that point the Child King is already established as an unstable and vicious character, the purpose of that scene is to show the true depths of his sadism. It could probably be acheived without the nudity, but it wouldn't be as hard-hitting.
Ah, true enough. And it's not like he's as terrible as Eddings <.<Stu35 said:Ah fair enough.
Always got the fact that he draws on medieval Europe for the general "feel" of the universe (right down to Westeros, in it's own way, being geographically representative of Great Britain, a feel helped by casting Northern actors (and actors willing to put on a Northern accent) to play Starks). Didn't realise there were people trying to claim it was realistic, or anything other than a fantasy land.
Gotta draw on something though - all fantasy draws on some kind of reality.
As a book purist I'm surprised you're championing Dinklage's Tyrion, whose aggressive white washing on the part of the show runners has almost entirely altered his character.Alarien said:My thoughts on how off the show is, for me, can be summed up by pointing out the thoughts of someone who watched the show and then the read the books. They indicated that they were put off by the books because, one of their favorite show characters, Catelyn, is an obnoxious ***** in the books. Yep, she is. That's the problem. You can't "make Cersei sympathetic" or completely change a character like Catelyn and still have people like me, who are in it for the characters as much as the story, and keep us as fans. It's just too much.
Tyrion in the show rocks though. Despite the fact that he's nowhere near as repulsive as he's supposed to be. Eh. I can pass on that, considering the actor's on-screen ability is just great. Most of the rest of the cast was pretty poorly cast though. :/
I've never really understood punishing or holding a low opinion of an artist because of their fan base. There are precious few qualifications to be a fan of a piece of media, you just have to pick it up and like it. "Fans" seldom share anything in common besides their enthusiasm for the subject matter, nor are they likely to share a great many characteristics with the artist.NortherWolf said:Ah, true enough. And it's not like he's as terrible as Eddings <.<
I just have a pet peeve against Martin and his more outspoken fans.
Well, if they are adapting the book and turning it into a TV show, wouldn't it make sense to use the same feel and overall experience like the one from the book? Censoring nudity or violence from a TV show adaption of the A Song of Ice and Fire books would be pretty much like removing elves and dwarves from Lord of the Rings for example. The overall story would still make sense and it could be adapted to work without them, but viewers would miss out on something.omega 616 said:I am going to avoid everything about the how the book has nudity which means the tv series must, which I think is bull shit in of itself ... come on, in all but 1 iteration of Sherlock Holmes stories Watson is a man but in "Elementary" Watson is played by Lucy Liu. In Thor, Heimdall is played by a black guy. In the Fantastic four reboot the human torch could be played by a black guy but you're telling me "if the book has nudity the tv series has to as well"?Beliyal said:I understand if that's strange for you to watch and it puts you off, but there is literally no logical reason for it. You are missing out on an incredibly well made story, in both the TV show and the books themselves especially, because of an illogical and probably cultural disdain to look at naked people (and because you immediately link it to pornography. Which is not true; naked people don't immediately mean that the material is pornographic).
Just to clarify, I have no problem with actresses or black actors AT ALL! I was just pointing out that stories can be changed, not that it's a good or bad thing that it has been!
The reason I am going to avoid it is 'cos I have previously (with the help of Legion) stated my why I am ... not so much against it, just not a fan of it.
Instead I want to clear up a few mistakes you have made about my character.
It's not strange for me, it just puts me off.
Opinions aren't always logical. It's a matter of taste, I think mushrooms are fucking vile but a lot enjoy them (see what I did thar?)
Then it shall be my loss to endure for the rest of my pitiful existence. It's a story, I'll get over it ... in fact, I was never upset about it.
Cultural disdain? That can't be it, I get through my share of porn ...
I don't link it to porn, despite my last sentence. I just like to watch a tv series for the story and I find tits, ass and cock to ruin it for me ... not 'cos I am asexual, prude or in anyway conservative but 'cos I do not enjoy it when mixed with a serious story.
When I say "serious story" I mean porn has a story but "my sink is leaking, better call the barely dressed plumber who I can't afford, so will repay with sexual favors" isn't serious.
Alarien said:The thing that kills me about the Red Wedding in the show is the whole Talissa (sp?) thing. What the hell was wrong with having Jeyne Westerling in the story? Even if you are going to kill her at the Red Weddingwhy not just leave her as Jeyne? Why create some random nobody character to stand in place of another, currently, mostly nobody characterwhich doesn't happen in the books, and she is kept around on the off chance she might be pregnant, and she could have some further importance later?who is both alive, and could impact later events
So much for being sorry about dragging me back into this conversation that has already been explained to you.Beliyal said:Well, if they are adapting the book and turning it into a TV show, wouldn't it make sense to use the same feel and overall experience like the one from the book? Censoring nudity or violence from a TV show adaption of the A Song of Ice and Fire books would be pretty much like removing elves and dwarves from Lord of the Rings for example. The overall story would still make sense and it could be adapted to work without them, but viewers would miss out on something.
But why on Earth would they remove any images of sex from it? I am telling you as a person who read the books; removing it would be a mistake. A lot of characterizations benefit from it, as well as a lot of plots. Martin created a world that feels like the real one exactly because it portrays things that have been ignored a lot by authors and TV show makers, even though those things are a vital part of everyday life to most people. Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly.
And what? Including sex means the story is not serious? What. That just makes no sense. Sex is a party of the story, just as much as it's a part of life; it's not something that happens randomly at one point just because the directors wanted to fulfill the "Sexy time!" 2 minutes per episode rule. I am saddened and slightly worried that you are unable to understand that when two people have sex, it might mean something other than directors trying to give you a boner, which you seem to imply. Maybe that scene tells us something about those people. It's not something invented yesterday; good storytelling uses a lot of means to tell us stuff about the characters; intimacy, relationships and sex included. Sure, you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure". I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree because this goes beyond the pure "opinions are not logical". Just you know, if you are aware that your opinions are not logical, why keep them ardently?
Not many highborn ladies count "ninja style knife throwing" amongst their many talents, especially not when they have a crossbow bolt through their shoulder and are in the middle of a grief fueled mental breakdown.ViciousTide said:Why didn't lady Grey throw the knife at the king and kill the king in the last ten seconds out of a complete rage type take down? I would have pretended to be all frozen for 2 seconds, then bam thrown it unexpectedly even if arrows are on their way to fill my body.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing the casting of a (as my wife puts it) almost attractive here as opposed to a much more appropriate actor for the part of Tyrion. I just like this guy too much as he plays the part. Yes, he's WAY off of what Tyrion really is, but I do get Tyrion's cynical humor, wit, and intelligence from the part, so I'm ok with it.BloatedGuppy said:As a book purist I'm surprised you're championing Dinklage's Tyrion, whose aggressive white washing on the part of the show runners has almost entirely altered his character.
I've spent long, long posts before absolutely castigating the show for some of its bizarre story and character departures and loss of depth, but I do think you're overstating the problem somewhat here. The casting has been fairly strong, the performances have been good, and much of the essence of the novels has been carried forward. I really enjoy re-experiencing books and films and games I love vicariously through unspoiled people, and thus I've spent MANY hours reading through forums where "Unsullied" comment on the show, make predictions, and discuss the characters. And I can usually peg pretty easily who the show has communicated well from the books, and who it hasn't. And it's communicated the VAST majority of the characters VERY well, despite my misgivings.
Except for Tyrion.
I am just trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from mine. From what you are saying, I am kinda struggling to do so.omega 616 said:So much for being sorry about dragging me back into this conversation that has already been explained to you.
And I thought Watson was a dude, not to mention things like all movies based on games never follow the games. Just going round in circles here ...
Yeah, they would miss out on naked people.
Now who is equating nudity and sex? "Ignoring the fact that sex exists would seem incredibly silly." I don't have a problem with sex, just about every adult tv programme (I don't mean XXX channels, I mean soaps and dramas) has sex in ... they just don't need to show it.
Way to miss my point entirely. I was saying GOT has a serious story, character arcs, twists, reveals, mystery etc but porn isn't a serious story.
Did you really just argue both sides at the same time? "you can create a meaningful story without sex, as many excellent cartoons have shown, but sometimes certain worlds and settings simply cannot function without including all the details, both good and bad, "dirty" and "pure" ... I might as well not bother if you're going to argue for me, just to be clear my argument is "you can create a meaningful story without sex"
The reason I don't like this is the same as the reason you don't like Justin Bieber/dying featus/*insert something you don't like here* ... there is no accounting for taste.
Now, will you please just accept that some people don't like things you do? Sure we can discuss likes and dislikes but I made my point before you ever quoted me. Save yourself the effort and read a previous post or what Legion said about my cynicism.
EDIT: I'm not saying that last bit to be a dick ... just think it's better for the both of us.
Abandon4093 said:Sex is often strewn throughout 'serious' literature.omega 616 said:snip
And the point isn't that it couldn't have been taken away for the TV show. But what taking it away would have added?
I can't think of anything.
Most adults can accept sex and especially nudity, in serous dramas or fantasies. There is nothing shameful about nudity or sex, and if you accept that as you claim. I don't see how you could then, in the same breath, say that you can't take a TV show seriously if it has nudity.
The examples of the changes you brought up can easily be explained by their agenda.
Elementary wanted to distinguish itself from Sherlock, and having a female Watson was just a very easy way to do that.
Heimdal was black because Idris fucking rocked the role and Johnny is probably going to be black because they want to coast on the controversy that the Heimdal fiasco inadvertently created to generate free publicity.
Now what would be the purpose of removing sex from the plot that is soaked in it? Because I can only think of 'appeasing the prudes' as a viable reason.
It certainly wouldn't add anything to the story or the way it's told.