Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.

I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.

I apologize. I believe your position on the "naked woman with ukulele" scene is not only incorrect, but so completely backwards as to evoke a humor reaction due to its absurdity. I did not intend the comment to be insulting, but there was really no need for it.

I think our arguments and the scene itself make the point perfectly clearly without either me telling you that your position is humorous or you responding to wrong with wrong by swearing at me.

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.

Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.

This is changing the subject. We were talking about artistic merit and aesthetics before. Note that I am talking above about what we're better off seeing. Now you're talking about pragmatic concerns and ratings.

I don't think the syndication or MA ratings issues are a problem for HBO. If they thought they could make more money or a better product without the nudity, I expect they'd have less of it. They make a lot of money and they earn a lot of critical awards for their work.

In terms of limiting the actors and actresses available, sure. But personally, I often find that talented unknowns are better-suited to many roles than "name" actors or actresses, especially roles which come from a book. With a character from a book, having a famous actor portray them often causes a conflict with the image in your head. This happens to a lesser extent with an unknown actor, but they have greater freedom to embody the part without as many prior associations for the audience.

biccat wrote:

Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.

It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.

Most? Really? You don't find that most of our decency laws and television censorship at this point are widely seen as dated and somewhat archaic? My experience differs.

biccat wrote:If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).

Context matters. A naked person on the side of the road in a Northern clime would indeed be distracting and unusual.

biccat wrote:When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.

What? I agree with that last statement, but I can't grant your first or second premise at all. Neither that it always distracts (that depends on the viewer), nor that it's the intent of the director/author/artist to distract. Those are your personal internal feelings which do not (IMO) map to or match the outside world. I'm sure there are other people who agree with you, but I can assure you that nudity, in many artistic contexts (such as a show on HBO, or a classical Greek painting on a vase, or a Renaissance statue) is not inherently distracting, nor intended to be so by the artist.

biccat wrote:

Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.

Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.

It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).

If George Carlin is excepted, than you are conceding the point. It's not an inherent quality of nudity or profanity that they are offensive or distracting. It comes down to how they are used, and the overall quality of the artistic work.

I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?

Nudity is only distracting if your mind makes it so. Breasts are breasts and have been since we have been around. Not every culture is as juvenile about seeing them or thinks it is even worth note. Clothed or not, men will notice breasts, but whether one recoils in horror at the idea of seeing a nipple or not giving it much of a thought is up to the individual, not some hard wired human condition. I find it more ridiculous all the contortions that are gone through to pretend someone in a bath isn't nude just to avoid facing the fact that women have breasts. Nude doesn't mean porn and it doesn't mean that a piece of work is taking some kind of shortcut.

There may be some male nudity but not likely, as again that is a cultural thing. We are scared of penis's or something. For that you need to go to Spartacus: Blood and Sand which had copious nudity all around.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:Damn! no HBO :(
anyone know where i can see it (from the UK)

It's on Sky Atlantic HD tonight, showing each episode the next night after the US get it, never read the books but Aurelia and I are planning on giving it a watch.

Thank You, unfortunately i was out and missed it, DAMN!!
however, the internet is a powerful tool these days (5 points for the reference), and as such, im going to google it

I liked it.

Though I will say that both nude scenes seemed a bit forced as if someone had told the director "alright we have a great plot, great actors, a good script... now we just need some breats and we'll be all set."

in all fairness, a large proportion of the books have nudity in them, IMO its nice to see a director actually sticking to the plot when making a TV series of a book. Need to watch the episode first though

I also enjoyed the series premiere.
Neither my wife or i had a problem with the "Bewbs".

Guitardian wrote:I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?

While not as prevalent as female nudity, HBO does show
full frontal males in their shows.

malfred wrote:

Guitardian wrote:I think there's some naked guys in scenes in the books now and then. Maybe they'll show a penis. No? I wonder why not. Probably because it would be too distracting, even if it is perfectly within the context of the scene. I'm pretty sure the HBO audience is mature enough to handle seeing a midget's junk if they can see a hot girl's full frontal too, right?

While not as prevalent as female nudity, HBO does show
full frontal males in their shows.

Having seen various episodes of "Real Sex", i can confirm that.

I enjoyed the episode a lot: it looked just like I'd imagined it, from the books, and at least at this point is following the story pretty well!

dogma wrote:
More gnerally, I thought the casting, and acting, was fantastic. The guy they got to play Viserys especially so.

+1 to this--Viserys and Tyrion, I thought, work very well in particular.

I liked the use of regional dialects for the different Houses; I thought it helped bring a sense of size and distance to the Seven Kingdoms. I am a Brit, not sure how noticeable the different accents were to people who aren't?

Pyronick wrote:You have a good point that in comparisson to the other women of the time and the show, Cersei is very attractive. Well said. I'd agree that the bath scene was... here's some boobs. I'm always down for that however.

I thought the acting was very good as well and have high hopes for the series. I was actually shocked at the amount they went through on the first episode, but then when I was laying in bed thinking of just how much happens in these books, they havn't even scratched the surface. Is there any word of the how long they intend this to be? How many episodes / seasons etc?

I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.

ToBeWilly wrote:I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.

I assume we can expect Season 2 sometime around 2035?

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.

I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.

If you want responses based on neutral tone, then you shouldn't say "there was absolutely no reason for X" when a reason has been preferred. You might not consider said reason to be legitimate, but going so far as to ignore its existence makes you look like you're just trying to reinforce your own position through rhetoric.

biccat wrote:
Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.

Of the three, only 1 is relevant to artistic license, and even that one is only barely so. It isn't like there is a dearth of aspiring actors looking to break into the business.

biccat wrote:
It's also the personal taste of most of society.

That's an ad populum fallacy.

biccat wrote:
When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.

That's just incorrect. You're drawing a specific conclusion based on insufficient data. A director might put nudity on screen in order to distract, or he might do it in order to illustrate a point, convey an environmental characteristic, or any number of other things; remember, not everything is meant for your eyes, some people simply don't care about nudity. Moreover, a good plot might actually include instances in which the audience is distracted. For example, someone directing a mystery might use a seemingly jarring event in order to conceal a subtle event that might be more significant to the plot in order to avoid a deus ex machina later in the story.

biccat wrote:
This is also why there aren't a lot of explosions in Romantic Comedies.

This is also why films and shows that flaunt genre conventions tend to be highly regarded by professional critics and medium aficionados.

On the nudity debate: Whilst HBO may have a reputation for this, it makes sense in GRRM's books. One of the things which I like so much about his books is the swearing, the sex, and the death... it make the series come alive. These scenes are most often used to develop the characters, rather than just an excuse for erotica. I would have been quite offended actually if there wasn't some exposed boobies in the first episode. The scene with Daenerys especially I thought was one of the better scenes - it showed a) Targaryen incest, b) Viserys' cruelty, c) Targaryen Valyrian heritage (resistance to heat).

On the show itself:

Good
*Casting. Nearly all of the characters I felt acted well and portrayed their parts well. The only ones I was disappointed in slightly was Cersei, but mainly because I've pictured her as Cylon #6 since I started reading. And Catelyn seems too old to me. But Jaime looks really good, I was quite worried about him as (if we get to season 2/3) that's a pretty complicated role.
* Dothraki - with Ronan/(Jason Momoa) as Drogo, awesome.
* This good list is a short one, because it was all REALLY good, and I'm a nitpicker who's read the entire series multiple times, but it was REALLY good.

Bad
* Winter is Coming. From the outset of the books, I felt that 'Winter is Coming' (and the related Valar Morghulis) were very powerful. Not just 'winter is 2 months away', but really 'bad times are coming. if times are bad already, they're gonna get worse'. I didn't feel this came across strongly.
* The end scene could have been more suspenseful before the 'The things I do for love'. I also didn't really get the feel of 'two beautiful golden bodies intertwined' that Bran described from the doggie-style twincest.
* I thought it was Others, not Wights, which killed the Night's Watch at the start. They seemed too dark to me.
* The Direwolf scene was weak. None of Jon's sacrifice (giving up a wolf of his own), or his defiance (when he did find Ghost), and very little of the symbolism made it in.
* Names of characters I thought took a long time to get into, and even then I'm not sure that all that many were mentioned directly. I'm not sure I heard Cersei, it was always 'the Queen'. Likewise, Theon. I would have liked if it was made a little more obvious who was who.
* I hope they play Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon straight.

biccat wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.

I assume we can expect Season 2 sometime around 2035?

I can't help but notice due to my frequent browsing of threads in the OT forum, but, are you ever happy about anything Biccat? or do you exist simply to counter-argue people's opinions?

Back on topic, I can't wait to watch this, it's great to see novels that I loved as a teenager finally being given life on the screen, and Sean Bean as Lord Stark! Excellent!

Brother Heinrich wrote:

biccat wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:I believe they're 10 episodes in the first season, which is supposed to be the whole of 'A Game Of Thrones'. They have a lot to cover.

I assume we can expect Season 2 sometime around 2035?

I can't help but notice due to my frequent browsing of threads in the OT forum, but, are you ever happy about anything Biccat? or do you exist simply to counter-argue people's opinions?

Umm...it was a joke. About George R.R. Martin's release schedule.

And yes, I'm a very happy person, thank you for your concern.

I thought it was funny.

dogma wrote:

Pyronick wrote:
I didn't find the nudity overly done or distasteful, it certainly helps the male crowd as if it needed any more help on a fantasy series but still.

The only scene that I could see reasonable criticism of was Daenerys' bath scene, though even that has legitimate, if subtle, theatrical merit.

Pyronick wrote:
I'm still coping with people not looking like they did in my head but I didn't find anybody overly not fitting of their character. I wish Cersei was a bit ummm "Hotter?". Crapy word but in my head she was a complete bombshell thats why she could manipulate so well. The woman in the show is pretty, and does her cold bitchy like attitude very well, but didnt feel like she quite cuts it on looks.

I think that, relative to the other women in the series (ignoring Daenerys), Cersei stands out as being more classically attractive while still maintaining the "realistic fantasy" feel of the books.

More gnerally, I thought the casting, and acting, was fantastic. The guy they got to play Viserys especially so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyronick wrote:Ya I was laughing when I told my wife that the all nude Daenerys there was supposed to be 16ish at most. Fun times! Her brother didn't seem to mind however....

I thought she was 13, but either way I'll bet that causes some stirs (though not big ones, as her age isn't really discussed in the show).

It has been years since I have read the books, but IIRC, the bath scene is somewhat of a foreshadowing of the fact that Daenerys has "dragon blood" (not to be confused with tiger blood ). And so, in the context of the whole show to that point it does seem a little out of place; particularly when viewed from a modern sperspective. You have to consider it as the aforementioned foreshadowing, as well as an attempt to actually show an objectification of this particular woman. Women in male-dominated feudal dynasities were objectified. This is further emphasized by the cavalier attitude portrayed by her brother in his comments to her pre and post wedding. In a macabre sort of way, objectification actually lends a sense of heightened realism to the show.

As for Cersei...you people are nuts (and maybe this is just my age speaking here). Wasn't Lena Heady the actress who played the queen in 300?

Lena Heady, yes she was, and shes hot as hell!

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You are so wrong it's actually funny.

I can't imagine what your purpose is in posting this comment. I can't disagree with you without being "so wrong it's actually funny"? Seriously, grow the feth up.

Mannahnin wrote:Here's the thing. Your concept is predicated on the assumption that we're better of without seeing nudity unless it's actually necessary to the story/actively advances the plot.

Actually there are a lot of other reasons to avoid nudity unless it's necessary. First, you can't syndicate your program on network TV with lots of nudity. Second, when you release it on DVD, you get the ominous "MA" rating, which is going to limit sales. Third, you have a limited number of actors and actresses who can fill a role, since not everyone wants to do nude scenes.

Mannhnin wrote:This is your personal taste. You find nudity at least distracting, if not actively offensive.

It's also the personal taste of most of society. That's why we have decency laws, censorship on television programs, and the like. People find nudity distracting.

If I was driving down the road and I saw a hot blonde standing naked by the side of the road, yes, I would be distracted. You probably would too. Because it's nice to look at naked women (and for some, naked men, but see Elaine).

When nudity appears on screen, it distracts, which is the intent of the director/author/whoever put it in there. It takes away from a good plot when the audience is distracted.

This is also why there aren't a lot of explosions in Romantic Comedies.

Mannhnin wrote:My personal taste (and I think most of humanity's, but of course I can't speak for most of humanity) is that an attractive human body is itself appealing, and has aesthetic value and merit. So if it doesn't actively detract from the scene, it's not a bad thing.

Except when it's gratuitous, it does distract. If you're watching a scene and you see a naked woman, it's going to distract. Unless it's advancing the scene, it shouldn't be there.

It's like profanity in comedy, it makes a point and adds shock value (well, used to add shock value), but it usually doesn't make a joke funnier than it would have been originally (George Carlin excepted).

I cant read all of these gripes about sex and nudity without feeling a little bit sorry for Bics wife.

"People using each others bodies for pleasure!? DISGUSTING!"

mattyrm wrote:I cant read all of these gripes about sex and nudity without feeling a little bit sorry for Bics wife.

"People using each others bodies for pleasure!? DISGUSTING!"

I don't recall saying it was disgusting, merely distracting.

My wife understands this and uses boobs as a weapon. I am helpless to resist :(

According to 'A Game Of Thrones' Facebook page, a second season has just been approved.

edit: took out url, wasn't working right.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I cant read all of these gripes about sex and nudity without feeling a little bit sorry for Bics wife.

"People using each others bodies for pleasure!? DISGUSTING!"

I don't recall saying it was disgusting, merely distracting.

My wife understands this and uses boobs as a weapon. I am helpless to resist :(

You didnt mate, i was merely pretending.

Smart woman.

mattyrm wrote:Smart woman.

She only thinks she's being clever.

Her: "Sweet, I won the argument just by flashing him!"
Me: "Sweet, boobies! I win!"

The former is usually internal dialogue, the latter, not so much.

There's a scene from Rome where one lady sends another lady a servant with a huge penis. The penis is shown. It is even decorated with some kind of thing made of golden rings and chains. Now we can all come up with reasons why such a thing would be shown: it exemplifies the Roman attitude toward the sexuality of social subordinates, etc. But there is a difference between "there is a reason for nudity" and "nudity is required to drive the meaning of a scene." In the first case, any ex post facto rationalization is enough to justify the nudity. In the second, there's no other way to communicate something important without the nudity. In the case of the well-endowed servant, the attitudes of Roman nobility regarding social inferiors could have been communicated effectively without the penis shot. But HBO doesn't use a "only if there is no other way" standard. HBO's audience has come to expect that the shows it produces will have a fair few nude scenes, regardless of genre, story, plot, etc. HBO could do a show about Sunni women going out in public in Saudi and there'd still be nudity somehow.

Yeah...and that's why we love HBO...

The only problem I have so far, is that the Wolves were a big part of the first book...

I think the only name revealed was Summer, wasn't it?

I love the casting a lot, even though I pictures some of the characters a little differently myself.

I pictured Eddard to look more like the character who played Benjen and I pictured Robert Baratheon to be much taller.

But, I like how they are. Especially Tyrion and Jaime, those are spot on.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I liked it.

Though I will say that both nude scenes seemed a bit forced as if someone had told the director "alright we have a great plot, great actors, a good script... now we just need some breats and we'll be all set."

Agreed. The show was pretty good (and its got Sean Bean, SEAN BEAN!) but some of the nude scenes were a bit....odd in there.

Episode two was VERY good! I honestly can't imagine Tyrion being played out any better. Good ending on the episode too, just a taste of what's to come.