A piece of art is a piece of art. This will definitely cause a lot of heat, but don't cancel it because it'll be too dangerous being blamed for inciting incidents. It's not the way to handle the problem. Cancelling art is the easy solution to a much bigger problem that isn't being addressed. Charlottsville and what's happening is the main issue, not stuff like this. Holding this stuff back contributes to the explosiveness. You can't sweep things under the rug because sooner or later, it'll get worse. It's where art can help.
In this particular case with this symbol of the Confederacy. This kind of divorcing the symbol from the ramifications of it is why we are we're we are.
Could you imagine a football team using the Nazi symbol as its team flag? Like Ole' Miss did. The Confederacy has been divorced from the symbol for a long time now. Justified as art or just for fun.
I don't see how a show like this would treat it as something fun or that this show won't tackle these hard things. Because they're hard and sensitive doesn't mean it's automatically wrong and that we shouldn't make it. This idea is perfect to confront these issues. I think that an idea like this can underline the ongoing problems of today and putting it in a dystopian world can help. Part of art is a confrontation of real world problems, not just escapism. Yeah, it's tough stuff. But that's where art can help us deal with it. We need this type of stuff, or else it's seen as negative when there's too little of it.
If it's executed right. And it can be. My problem is how we're condemning this before it's even been written. People are acting like it's already out. It's dangerous to do that. It's bible thumping tactics.
I don't see how a show like this would treat it as something fun or that this show won't tackle these hard things. Because they're hard and sensitive doesn't mean it's automatically wrong and that we shouldn't make it. This idea is perfect to confront these issues. I think that an idea like this can underline the ongoing problems of today and putting it in a dystopian world can help. Part of art is a confrontation of real world problems, not just escapism. Yeah, it's tough stuff. But that's where art can help us deal with it. We need this type of stuff, or else it's seen as negative when there's too little of it.
If it's executed right. And it can be. My problem is how we're condemning this before it's even been written. People are acting like it's already out. It's dangerous to do that. It's bible thumping tactics.
But the main part of this project being an alternate reality is a problem. It basically tells that this doesn't matter. The 150 years of real world events in between don't matter.
The same reason we watch "dark" versions of our favorite characters or series and never worry about what we see cause it doesn't matter to our character. For an ideology that is already removed from reality cause defenders act like it was about vague states rights and not slavery.
A series were a Neo-Confederacy forms on issues we are actually dealing with today like immigration would have been way better imo.
It's basically an Elseworlds or What If but.....with slavery. It's not some comic book fictional alt history, they're ****ing around with real world issues. I know Man in the High Castle did the same but slavery is an insanely hotter button topic nowadays than the Holocaust. It just is.
Except we are talking about the pair who gave us sexposition. I don't trust the pair to make a show that isn't just going to try to be as shocking as possible. Which is not needed.
It's basically an Elseworlds or What If but.....with slavery. It's not some comic book fictional alt history, they're ****ing around with real world issues. I know Man in the High Castle did the same but slavery is an insanely hotter button topic nowadays than the Holocaust. It just is.
But the main part of this project being an alternate reality is a problem. It basically tells that this doesn't matter. The 150 years of real world events in between don't matter.
The same reason we watch "dark" versions of our favorite characters or series and never worry about what we see cause it doesn't matter to our character. For an ideology that is already removed from reality cause defenders act like it was about vague states rights and not slavery.
A series were a Neo-Confederacy forms on issues we are actually dealing with today like immigration would have been way better imo.
But that's not the story the writers want to tell. Your post is essentially "they should have told a story about a second confederacy rising in response to illegal immigration." That is an entirely distinct story from "Civil War ends in stalemate, both Union and Confederacy continues to exist into modern times." I mean, is it really a fair criticism of an original show to say "well the writers should've made this entirely separate concept instead?" Its essentially criticizing a TV show by saying "I want to watch something else" with no regard for the actual merit of the show.
Also, you are being dramatic. How does an alternate history story make the events between the Civil War and present "not matter?"
But that's not the story the writers want to tell. Your post is essentially "they should have told a story about a second confederacy rising in response to illegal immigration." That is an entirely distinct story from "Civil War ends in stalemate, both Union and Confederacy continues to exist into modern times." I mean, is it really a fair criticism of an original show to say "well the writers should've made this entirely separate concept instead?" Its essentially criticizing a TV show by saying "I want to watch something else" with no regard for the actual merit of the show.
I was just throwing out an idea of other ways to address the Confederacy. If you're going to mischaracterize my words, then read all my post and not just the last one you saw. I said I a support the idea, just not at this time.
And I laid out specifically in previous post why the way the Confederacy, in particular vs. Nazism, is already given an alternative history is why I'm afraid that further mischaracterizing it is working against them.
It's all fiction. The Crown isn't the word for word account of the Queen's trials and tribulations. It's asking us to accept this is a possibility of how things went down behind closed doors. The Confederacy can be handled in many ways. That's why artist don't just do the first idea that comes to mind. You try all kinds of ways.
Are you purposefully being obtuse on a sci-fi nerd board?
The whole point of alternate realities that changing an event, (Star Trek, Red Son, etc) is you change one event and the context of everything you know doesn't matter. Lois is your enemy. Kirk isn't the man who signs up for Star Fleet because of his father. Superman is a killer. The viewer is subject to whatever whim the creator decides events turn out. No matter if the creators actually understands all sides of the historical event and its ramifications or not.
MLK can now die in slavery or never be born to fight Jim Crow since the laws wouldn't be necessary since slavery never ended. Nothing we know of our real world history matters. WWII didn't happen the way we know. It's whatever they decide it is. Cold War, Reagan, Iran, Nazi defeat, Industrial Revolution in America is all different. All new events happened big and small. Nixon never went to China. China stays walled off. The Berlin Wall, Israel, UN, WWI, assassination of Ferdinand, atomic bomb, NASA, Neal Armstrong,......you pick.
It was the American Century. All 50 states together. Not 30 Union without 20 Confederate or however they decide the map falls now.
If you don't like the concept or have seen enough art about slavery, don't watch this show. It's really that simple. I think it's an interesting concept and I'm willing to give it a shot.
As for the concept being unrealistic.. it's a television show. It happened, slavery is still there, those are the rules the creators are putting down.
Except we are talking about the pair who gave us sexposition. I don't trust the pair to make a show that isn't just going to try to be as shocking as possible. Which is not needed.
Yes. Please elaborate. The most common critique I hear is that because Sansa got raped on Game of Thrones. I don't really see how that is a valid critique. Its an adapted story. In the source material, women are treated in a pretty ****** way. That is the setting of the world. But that is also one of the key components of Dany's story. Its not as if its glorified. Its treated as a horrible thing and one of the two main protagonist's goals is to change that world. Your complaint is like saying that the director of Roots is racist because he portrays a world where slavery is a thing.
Yes. Please elaborate. The most common critique I hear is that because Sansa got raped on Game of Thrones. I don't really see how that is a valid critique. Its an adapted story. In the source material, women are treated in a pretty ****** way. That is the setting of the world. But that is also one of the key components of Dany's story. Its not as if its glorified. Its treated as a horrible thing and one of the two main protagonist's goals is to change that world. Your complaint is like saying that the director of Roots is racist because he portrays a world where slavery is a thing.
I'll go with a point you might not have seen yet, other than the rape scenes that are just invented by them for certain characters (let's not talk Sansa, her story is so lacking in consequence or any reasoning, she doesn't even register as character to me) and when it comes to books the material is richer in every way than just mindless repetition of the same so they don't come off nearly as sickening and cheap (btw the ratio of female nudity to male nudity is straight up ridiculous and doesn't help anything either)
Explain to me
why Benjen, Hound, Beric etc. all got to come back but not Catelyn Stark? And if you can answer truthfully - had she been a young, sexy twenty-year-old would she still not come back?
and a minor thing that shows you clear as day how they are thinking - from episode 5 -
they have Gendry and Jon bond drawing parallel to Robert and Ned in 1x01, instead of having G. mention Arya - something natural and obvious. But not to these two.
I'll go with a point you might not have seen yet, other than the rape scenes that are just invented by them for certain characters (let's not talk Sansa, her story is so lacking in consequence or any reasoning, she doesn't even register as character to me) and when it comes to books the material is richer in every way than just mindless repetition of the same so they don't come off nearly as sickening and cheap (btw the ratio of female nudity to male nudity is straight up ridiculous and doesn't help anything either)
Rape scenes are used to show the brutality of the world to women. You see, because this medium (television) is different than literature different storytelling techniques must be used. The writers can't have Dany's internal monologue reflect upon how awful the world is for women. It has to be shown to the viewer. That is the way a visual medium works.
Explain to me
why Benjen, Hound, Beric etc. all got to come back but not Catelyn Stark? And if you can answer truthfully - had she been a young, sexy twenty-year-old would she still not come back?
- Benjen was used to give the audience a familiar analogue for Coldhands (a character in the book). Coldhands, by his very nature as a sentient White Walker raises a lot more questions than he gives answers. We know Martin has not told Benioff and Weiss everything. One thing he may not have shared is the nature of Coldhands. In fact, this seems likely being as we already know that the show writers were forced to create their own explanation for the Others as Martin did not share that detail with them. The same probably holds true for a sentient White Walker. It would be very difficult to introduce this character of fairly vital importance to Bran's story line, whose sheer existence changes the entire nature of the mythos (which Coldhands very much does) and then be unable to provide any satisfying answers. Therefore, instead the character was merged with one whom the audience would have a passing familiarity and to whom a quick, clean, and easy explanation can be given.
- Beric's resurrection is an aspect of the book. It is designed to show that resurrection does exist in this universe in very limited circumstances.
- The reason Catelyn wasn't resurrected is because resurrecting a major character 2 seasons before doing the same with Jon Snow would've been seen as cheap and repetitive (not to mention would've undercut the entire cliffhanger that was being built around Jon's death). Again, these are things that can be gotten away with in literature but not necessarily television. On a television show, you really get one shot at resurrection of a major character. If you do it twice, it just cheapens death and lowers the stakes of the show.
Further, because the story has to be condensed (as 10 hours of TV per season is far more finite than the limitless number of pages Martin can write), Catelyn makes sense for the cutting room floor. Lady Stoneheart isn't a character. She is a force of nature. She is vengeance personified. That is her role in the story. Sound familiar? It should, because thematically there is not much difference between Stoneheart and Arya. Therefore, her story was merged with Arya's. This saves time, keeps the shock value of Jon's resurrection in tact, and sacrifices very little in terms of storytelling.
You may have a point if Robb Stark were resurrected and Catelyn was not, but it wasn't. Her story was simply merged with a thematically similar character. And Catelyn is hardly the only case of that, tons of male characters have met the same fate, ask Vargo Hoat or Edric Storm. Was it discrimination against males when Edric's character was combined with Gendry? What about giving Dany all of the plot points related to Young Griff? Young Griff is, at best, the true heir to the Targaryen dynasty, and at worst is a Blackfyre pretender (which, if you know the mythos, makes him an extremely important part of the lore). Either way, Young Griff already has far more plot significance that Lady Stoneheart could (simply due to the nature of his existence). Is it sexist that his story was given to Dany in the name of streamlining?
and a minor thing that shows you clear as day how they are thinking - from episode 5 -
they have Gendry and Jon bond drawing parallel to Robert and Ned in 1x01, instead of having G. mention Arya - something natural and obvious. But not to these two.
Are you seriously complaining that Gendry didn't say, to someone whom he had just met, "hey bro, I tried to hit on your prepubescent sister a couple years back." I mean, this is basic etiquette. Its a great idea to try to share a common bond with someone you have just met (i.e. "our fathers were friends!"). Not such a great idea to say how you shared romantic tension with a person's sister who was 10 or 11 years old at the time. One of these two is "natural and obvious" and its not the one you are suggesting. You are really reaching here. Especially since Gendry and Arya very likely will be reunited assuming that Gendry survives this suicide mission.
Rape scenes are used to show the brutality of the world to women. You see, because this medium (television) is different than literature different storytelling techniques must be used. The writers can't have Dany's internal monologue reflect upon how awful the world is for women. It has to be shown to the viewer. That is the way a visual medium works.
- Hound wasn't dead.
- Benjen was used to give the audience a familiar analogue for Coldhands (a character in the book). Coldhands, by his very nature as a sentient White Walker raises a lot more questions than he gives answers. We know Martin has not told Benioff and Weiss everything. One thing he may not have shared is the nature of Coldhands. In fact, this seems likely being as we already know that the show writers were forced to create their own explanation for the Others as Martin did not share that detail with them. The same probably holds true for a sentient White Walker. It would be very difficult to introduce this character of fairly vital importance to Bran's story line, whose sheer existence changes the entire nature of the mythos (which Coldhands very much does) and then be unable to provide any satisfying answers. Therefore, instead the character was merged with one whom the audience would have a passing familiarity and to whom a quick, clean, and easy explanation can be given.
- Beric's resurrection is an aspect of the book. It is designed to show that resurrection does exist in this universe in very limited circumstances.
- The reason Catelyn wasn't resurrected is because resurrecting a major character 2 seasons before doing the same with Jon Snow would've been seen as cheap and repetitive (not to mention would've undercut the entire cliffhanger that was being built around Jon's death). Again, these are things that can be gotten away with in literature but not necessarily television. On a television show, you really get one shot at resurrection of a major character. If you do it twice, it just cheapens death and lowers the stakes of the show.
Further, because the story has to be condensed (as 10 hours of TV per season is far more finite than the limitless number of pages Martin can write), Catelyn makes sense for the cutting room floor. Lady Stoneheart isn't a character. She is a force of nature. She is vengeance personified. That is her role in the story. Sound familiar? It should, because thematically there is not much difference between Stoneheart and Arya. Therefore, her story was merged with Arya's. This saves time, keeps the shock value of Jon's resurrection in tact, and sacrifices very little in terms of storytelling.
You may have a point if Robb Stark were resurrected and Catelyn was not, but it wasn't. Her story was simply merged with a thematically similar character. And Catelyn is hardly the only case of that, tons of male characters have met the same fate, ask Vargo Hoat or Edric Storm. Was it discrimination against males when Edric's character was combined with Gendry? What about giving Dany all of the plot points related to Young Griff? Young Griff is, at best, the true heir to the Targaryen dynasty, and at worst is a Blackfyre pretender (which, if you know the mythos, makes him an extremely important part of the lore). Either way, Young Griff already has far more plot significance that Lady Stoneheart could (simply due to the nature of his existence). Is it sexist that his story was given to Dany in the name of streamlining?
Are you seriously complaining that Gendry didn't say, to someone whom he had just met, "hey bro, I tried to hit on your prepubescent sister a couple years back." I mean, this is basic etiquette. Its a great idea to try to share a common bond with someone you have just met (i.e. "our fathers were friends!"). Not such a great idea to say how you shared romantic tension with a person's sister who was 10 or 11 years old at the time. One of these two is "natural and obvious" and its not the one you are suggesting. You are really reaching here. Especially since Gendry and Arya very likely will be reunited assuming that Gendry survives this suicide mission.
But why not have simply one of the NW wander off there and help Bran? And why have Beric back at all in last season? No one is saying they should have waited 2 seasons. And Jon's resurrection was laughably handled in the show, he is the same as he was. Nothing is cheapened with her - her coming back is a worse tragedy than her staying dead which makes RW even more of a tragedy. It's the show yet again taking silly shorcuts and cheapening and cheapening the material to the point all that is left is mistreatment of women, c word being thrown around as a joke and bros being "awesome'. This is why you have so many people protesting Weiss and Benioff handling something which requires sensitivity. They see what you keep excusing.
I'm reaching? You're using the time argument in the show that has devoted entire subplot for Grey Worm and Missandai's ****.
""hey bro, I tried to hit on your prepubescent sister a couple years back"
Not him saying that he knew his sister and she helped him? Or asking him how she was? You go straight to sex for some reason.
Because it was an Easter Egg for fans of the book who know Coldhands. How dare those sexist bastards throw in a total of 10 minutes worth screen time as a nod to one of the coolest character in the books!
Because the Brotherhood Without Banners are deeply steeped in the mythology of Azor Ahai/The Prince That Was Promised, which is a pretty big part of the end game that is being built to.
No one is saying they should have waited 2 seasons. And Jon's resurrection was laughably handled in the show, he is the same as he was. Nothing is cheapened with her - her coming back is a worse tragedy than her staying dead which makes RW even more of a tragedy.
These are creative decisions. I'm sorry the show was not written by you. It doesn't it make it sexist because the creators opted not to resurrect two of the main characters and risk cheapening death. It doesn't make a show sexist because you think Jon's resurrection was "laughably handled."
It's the show yet again taking silly shorcuts and cheapening and cheapening the material to the point all that is left is mistreatment of women, c word being thrown around as a joke and bros being "awesome'.
**** is viewed differently in America than it is in Europe (specifically the UK). In the UK "****" is not viewed as a misogynistic term but rather is used in the same way "*******" is in the US. If you watch a UK television show like Extras or The Office, you will pick up on this. It is casually dropped with no regard because it doesn't have the same social stigma there that it does here. This matters because the directors, writers, actors, and crew of this show are primarily English. You are projecting one culture's social norms/lexicon onto another. Your criticism over the use of **** is the functional equivalent to me calling a British television series homophobic because a character refers to a cigarette as a "***." Words have different meanings and connotations in different countries and culture. In the culture in which this show's primary creative team is from, "****" is exactly as you describe it, a playful joke. It has never held the sexist connotations that it has here.
This is why you have so many people protesting Weiss and Benioff handling something which requires sensitivity. They see what you keep excusing.
It seems to me, with your example regarding the Grey Worm/Missandai scene that you seem to have some phobia of sex. That was hardly the devotion of a subplot to her ****. It was a romantic and intimate scene between two broken characters of tragic backgrounds who found comfort in one another. Just because you are a prude doesn't make something sexist.
Also, not every piece of dialogue can be conveyed on screen. We don't know that Gendry didn't bring up Arya to Jon. There was a lot of travel time we didn't see. What we did see was focused on because of the symmetrical nature of it (Ned Stark's bastard meeting Robert Baratheon's bastard in a draw back to season 1). That's called good writing. Gendry and Arya's relationship will become important when the characters reunite. There is no reason to show him telling Jon Snow about her because it just isn't important, where as the thematic symmetry of their connections to Ned and Robert is.
But why not have simply one of the NW wander off there and help Bran? And why have Beric back at all in last season? No one is saying they should have waited 2 seasons. And Jon's resurrection was laughably handled in the show, he is the same as he was. Nothing is cheapened with her - her coming back is a worse tragedy than her staying dead which makes RW even more of a tragedy. It's the show yet again taking silly shorcuts and cheapening and cheapening the material to the point all that is left is mistreatment of women, c word being thrown around as a joke and bros being "awesome'. This is why you have so many people protesting Weiss and Benioff handling something which requires sensitivity. They see what you keep excusing.
Because Benjen being Coldhands is an all time popular fan theory. It also an easy connection to make. He is a Stark, who had very little screen time, and like Jon gave his life to the Night's Watch.
Jon is special. He came back more or less the same because he's special. Just like Bran and Dany. They are mystical beings.
Why would anyone care if the Red Wedding is more of a tragedy? That only cements it's place in television history.
I like how you skip over all nuance of this story, because we get to see breast. I mean it isn't like Grey Worm brings any sort of complexity to the situation.
I'm not going to continue a discussion with people who have to resort to personal attack and make some sort of assumptions about another member of this board.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
