HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones - will this be just for nerds? (NO SPOILERS PLEASE)

lol

Compared to what other sex on TV?

the sex in game of thrones works really well because its totally sensationalistic and silly just like the rest of the show

i cant really comment on all the sex on hbo ever, would require some research, ill leave it to noted hbo sex experts remy bean and forksclovetofu

noted hobo sexperts

sometimes i feel bad for the street interviews of the ppl on Real Sex, i bet they didn't think that clip of them talking about going down on their wife in 1992 was gonna be replayed all the time for the next 20 years

someday legume will have grownup sex with a real lady and it'll all be clear to him

i eagerly await that day on which the full genius of yr incisive critique into the dragons and swords nerd tv show will be revealed

hey asshole i thought we weren't talking, fall back

people really exaggerate how much HBO is "sexing the show up" IMO, there's plenty of awkwardly written weird sex stuff in the books

the whole Theon molesting his sister thing was just as weird and jarring in the book

hey asshole i thought we weren't talking, fall back

― The world is your urinal. (forksclovetofu), Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:30 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cool terminology forks B-)

i mean my thought is that maybe .25% of the books is devoted to sexy times, whereas significantly more of the TV show is devoted to oddly graphic (but for the most part unhot) scenes of doin' it while delivering unrelated dialogue. It's not galling, just feels a little pandering. Necessarily there'll be more durrty business on TV b/c of the elision of heraldry and endless verses of The Bear and the Maiden Fair. I'm beefing with the way it's done, not with its inclusion.

the entire show is a little pandering!

as i imagine are the books

you have a really weird attitude to this show lag∞n. Like you're ashamed of watching it or something

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/103/e/AAAAAq2xrboAAAAAAQPmPA.jpg?v=1211229462000

^ little panda ring

you have a really weird attitude to this show lag∞n. Like you're ashamed of watching it or something

― Number None, Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:39 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

its ott and fun and silly, im not ashamed to enjoy that... R U !!!

The thing is, I'm ok with awkward weird sex scenes from the book being in the show, but I don't enjoy the addition of even more awkward expository dialogues given in the context of unsexy sex scenes that weren't in the original book. The gross stuff that happens in the book would totally be enough for this show.

tofu forks in ice cr∞m beef

Not at all bro, you just seem to be at pains to emphasise how "silly" it is. Also reading all those spoilers, that was weird too.

maybe you take this show... too srs ??

that's not it at all

dammit this show is kind of silly. now i feel really self-conscious about wearing cloth of gold pantaloons to the office.

thought this last episode was grrrreat (tony the tiger voice), best one yet possibly. was feeling really down on this season before, really hating all the non-book scenes and feeling like they were giving short shrift to important moments.

I don't enjoy the addition of even more awkward expository dialogues given in the context of unsexy sex scenes that weren't in the original book. The gross stuff that happens in the book would totally be enough for this show.

― Moodles, Thursday, May 3, 2012 12:41 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agreed, my past comment was just to reflect that some ppl i know irl seem to think the book was some kinda chaste, trad lord of the rings thing and that all the sex is "HBO being HBO"....martin's a perv

increasingly so! (although probably he just got edited down in ealrier books).

imho the silly fun lurid quality is a central and knowingly employed aspect of the show, which is why its so much better than like some po faced lord of the rings bullshit

basically otm. there is after all a dwarf who is actually just a little fella.

basically otm. there is after all a dwarf who is actually just a little fella.

― Roberto Spiralli, Thursday, May 3, 2012 12:54 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

huh?

some ppl i know irl seem to think the book was some kinda chaste, trad lord of the rings thing

This is odd, because when the books came out originally they were totally sold as an "adult" take on fantasy i.e. there was violence, swearing, nudity etc. And the books do have all those things but HBO have really been piling it on, seemingly for no good reason.

This is odd, because when the books came out originally they were totally sold as an "adult" take on fantasy

yeah but it's reaching ppl now who have basically one (or two give or take narnia) reference for "fantasy"

its really well crafted trashy entertainment, there are not a lot of other qualities operating particularly, nor by the light of griffinhall is there any need to be

what does well crafted trashy even mean? not challenging you, just not sure i get what you mean to mean.

just like lurid ott unpretentious fun etc

like law & order

fair enough. like makepeace thackery, but gone all fat and beardo.

the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: swords and dragons

m@tt - having a 'little person' in the main cast of characters instead of a beardy, axe wielding fantasy dwarf, is one of the ways grrm is having fun with the fantasy genre. see also the life and times of stubbornly honourable hero ned stark.

ah gotcha

I feel like Martin has a lot more to say about politics, gender, etc. than Tolkien did. It's pretty interesting even if the strokes are broad.

yeah these books are trashy and complex and stupid and sometimes smart and everything else! they are awesome

xp definitely - though not as if that would be hard, how many women are even in LoTR? Galadriel & Eowyn aside, it's alllllll about the boys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAnsW06v5t4

The sex is in there to replace that most gratuitous of GRRM's literary devices: the internal monologue. Or in certain cases, accompany it-- far better that there's humping going on while Littlefinger explains his fixation on Cat

interview with Bryan Cogman about sexposition/women/etc: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/04/20/468061/bryan-cogman/

- there's a clearly demonstrable double standard in Thrones in that we get nonstop T&A and straight fucking but fleeting ON CAMERA DONG and the gay sex is of the mass effect variety with cutaway edits
- i could personally give two shits about the addition or subtraction of any sort of nudity but the suggestion that our at least once-a-show breast and beaver break is "in the book, totally canon" is a little disingenuous
- saying naked women is part and parcel with the corny adventure format suggests your expectations/standards are unnecessarily low.
- the old saw that "not every fantasy show HAS to step outside the Frazetta jacket art mold, but can you name one that does" applies and it doesn't even makes sense from a marketing perspective that HBO _wouldn't_ tone down thrones to at least sub-Dexter levels of softcore as i imagine the core target audience is largely women. people bent sideways to accommodate the incongruities of plot and logic that battlestar introduced mostly because it DIDN'T toe that line... i daresay thrones would be far more interesting and balanced a show if it were a lot less torture/standard porny.
- HBO and Showtime pad the vast majority of their original programming with cheesecake as a ratings booster regardless of the source material; that's pandering more or less by definition
- as per a lot of television conversation on ilx, these are the concerns of someone who watches the show and finds it better than most of what's on television, which is to say better than shit. asking good to be better shouldn't be a cause for affront, trolling and flag waving; it's the suggestion that you can like something and still wish it were better/less problematic/less composed of material for 14 year olds to jerk off to
- ^these are all super obvious points btw

I don't really watch Showtime, so I can't speak to that (nudity in Homeland wasn't absurd iirc tho), but aside from True Blood, Rome, and GoT (to an extent), do any of their shows really trade in excessive nudity, as though they have a quota to fill? I'm also not at all convinced that there's some sort of corporate memo/note to the show creators saying "more tits plz". In any case, I'd rather they continue to shoot it as they do as opposed to going to some sort of hazy softcore filter.

Was told that the Quarth dresses were changed from the book so every female wasn't exposing a breast, but idk if that's true.

Totally agree with forks there that if a show is decent there's nothing wrong with wanting it to be even better by fixing these things.

Don't know why you think that the core audience of GoT is women though.

not sure if this was addressed earlier, but i was pretty annoyed that OF COURSE the first significant African-American role in the show is to play a "savage" from the summer isles. i mean, i know they are described as "dark-skinned" in the books, but gtfo.

- there's a clearly demonstrable double standard in Thrones in that we get nonstop T&A and straight fucking but fleeting ON CAMERA DONG and the gay sex is of the mass effect variety with cutaway edits

― (Name Withheld to Avoid Hassle) (forksclovetofu), Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:48 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this bothers me most.