[TV/Books] Game of Thrones ***SPOILER Discussion***

[jackofwind]

this was the biggest problem with last seasons. D&D forgetting the very rules they have themselves set up in order to push through cool looking moments. kinda like Dany forgetting all about the fleet, even though they have literally been discussing its location before she heads out.

100%, they just tried to apply Rule of Cool without thinking about established rules and history, and certainly without thinking about the established storylines from the books.

They also absolutely butchered the military stuff. Heavy artillery sitting out in front of their massed army, sending their cavalry out on a front-on suicide charge with no recon or backup, and not even making use of the historically renowned fortifications of Winterfell.

[Adamas102]

Cubby, this might be circumstantial but after last leason it only took like barely couple of months and GoT posts basically disappeared, no memes, etc. It pretty much died, people forgot it (and a lot intentionally) due to the stupid shit that was the last season (S7 was also... problematic... but could be worked with). Some other obscure stuff still kees appearing, GoT? Basically gone. Those videos with actors doing interviews about the last season alone told everything anyone needed to know, you could see how people tried to answer in a polite way about a pile of crap.

The the only times I see "just like Game of Thrones" now it's almost exclusively about throwing obscene amounts of money into a show in order to match movie quality production values. It's kinda sad that that's GoT's legacy after starting out as a show that attracted so many people to a genre that was typically seen as more niche at the time (though HBO boobies and graphic violence played a big role in that as well). And of course those last couple seasons absolutely killed the slew of spinoffs that were originally planned.

[jackofwind]

The the only times I see "just like Game of Thrones" now it's almost exclusively about throwing obscene amounts of money into a show in order to match movie quality production values. It's kinda sad that that's GoT's legacy after starting out as a show that attracted so many people to a genre that was typically seen as more niche at the time (though HBO boobies and graphic violence played a big role in that as well). And of course those last couple seasons absolutely killed the slew of spinoffs that were originally planned.

I see it when D&D's gross things like demanding baby penis be visible come to light.

[cubby]

Yeah, they ran out of source material. It's a very generous belief that GRRM gave them every major detail from the end of the books through the end of the story. He gave them an outline apparently. What we DO know is that GRRM's role as a consultant on the show was greatly diminished around the time when they passed the book material, and given what D&D said about how they decided on Arya being the NK killer I have to assume they either weren't given many details at all or just completely ignored many of Martin's notes.

The other end of that conversation could be that GRRM told D&D that Arya will kill the NK but he hadn't worked out exactly how. I think the only real conclusion we can come to is that we don't know what GRRM told D&D about the plot details, and anything we consider is just guesswork. Both of us could be right.

It seems you also COMPLETELY misunderstood what I said about shock moments. It has nothing to do with whether they happen in the books, it's about how they fit into the narrative and style of the author. Like I said, all the book shocks were firmly grounded in the setting, they weren't literary tropes to fool the audience with "gotcha!" moments. Things like the Red Wedding were inspired by actual events, things that happen in a world of brutal politics. They were shocking to see on screen because audiences are generally not used to seeing characters they think are safe being killed off, much less with such underhanded tactics.

"You thought THIS character would do this, but we instead had THIS OTHER CHARACTER do it instead" is not the GRRM's style. That sort of audience manipulation is not how the books are written. One of the biggest shocks of my non-book reading friends was seeing Rob Stark killed because the show made him out to be a main character. However, in the books he's the only one of the Stark children to not be a POV character (not including Rickon because he's a toddler).

I did misunderstand, and thank you for explaining further. You're saying there is a difference between the shock value of events in the GoT world, and the shock value of who plays out those events (the Red Wedding vs Who Kills the NK, as an example of that difference). I see what you are saying (if I'm understanding it correctly) and honestly need to think that through some more. I hadn't considered that.

This is all projection based on expectations on what an assassin should be more so than how the character is written. Arya was shown to be a tomboy, not a killer in training. More importantly, Arya is NOT A HERO. Her trauma is almost constant from when she sees her father killed, to all the war crimes and atrocities she sees committed by the Mountain and his men, to her time with the Hound, and all the way to her time in Braavos where she is groomed to be an assassin. The show did handle her change from a rambunctious child to a callous sociopath who dreams of murder every night pretty well for the first several seasons, but that all changed once the show passed the book point. By the end of the show they've made her into a "cool" character with "cool" murder moments interspersed with her joking around with her siblings. They took what was a tragic character and turned her into "super cool ninja assassin".

I would respectfully disagree. Arya transitions from a tom-boy to a revenge killer almost immediately. Her transition happened over time, and as you said was done well, but when we get into the last two seasons, she's clearly ready to roll. And the show couldn't just be about Arya becoming a full fledged assassin, we have to assume some other training took place. But here "cool kill moments" are justified, from the Fray slaughter to the NK kill. And her ending with the Hound was terrific, him keeping her from becoming him, "just a killer", because in the end she was so much more.

While it's obviously not the fault of the show, it also doesn't help that Maisie Williams quickly outgrew the role of Arya. By the time the book material ended, show Arya is a good 5 years older than book Arya. We also have to assume that they intentionally played into that, otherwise her sex scene with Gendry would be pretty awkward (since book Arya would probably be between the ages of 12-13 at that point). The idea that an 11 year old is so consumed with vengeance and killing (and is literally doing murder for hire) isn't meant to transition into her being the vanquisher of supernatural beings.

Yeah, that sex scene rattled a number of cages, including my own. But in the book, even in the last one, was she really only 12-13? It seemed in the shows at least more time passed, and her age in made sense, even while surprising in some actions.

There's also the discrepancy between her training and what she ends up being capable of. The Faceless Men are not super ninjas that hide in shadows and go stabby stabby. Jaqen has one kill in the show that he does differently in the books where he uses a poison dart, but for the most part the Faceless Men are meant to make their kills look like accidents. In the books, his second kill is instead having an otherwise loyal dog maul it's owner (and we're never told how he does so). Arya's kill as part of her training with the Faceless Men is simply planting a poisoned coin with a merchant because she had stalked him and knew he bit all his coins to make sure they were real gold. THAT'S what Faceless Men do. I guess D&D didn't feel like being that clever. Dropping a dagger and catching it is so fucking mundane it's almost insulting that people point to that and say "see? that's her super awesome assassin training".

Of course there is - there wouldn't be time to show all of her training and skills. As it was they devoted a LOT of show time to her character and experiences. The final kill move on the NK can be seen any number of ways - to me it was terrific, justified in a previous scene, and true to her character. Keep in mind that the NK represented Death, and Arya's words (if individual characters could have them the same as Houses do) are "what do we say to Death? not today" - perfectly poetic for the end of that chapter of the series. I get that some people might not like, but to claim it came out of nowhere, with no justification, is disingenuous.

Book Arya (and show Arya until about season 5) is a broken character who has witnessed countless awful events that have robbed her of her innocence. She uses her wits to survive, pretending to be a boy and latching onto stronger characters who will protect her. Murder has been normalized for her and it's all she thinks about (even when she's dreaming through the eyes of her dire wolf). She kills people she doesn't even know, and murders several people just out of spite. She cheats to pass parts of her training, and more than likely abandons it partway through like she does in the show. This is what Arya was like until D&D had full reign over her character development and decided "well, she's super popular with the fans so lets just make her into a cool ninja assassin". They truly ruined what was a good, interesting, tragic character.

Who will protect her and help her become a better killer. What you've said above doesn't seem to stray from what D&D did with her the last two seasons, at least as far as being true to her character (killing the entire Fray clan instead of just Walter Fray is an example of staying true to her character in the book who kills several people out of spite, right?). To me they made a good character great, and gave her a terrific ending, both in killing the NK and the final scene with the Hound.

- - - Updated - - -

on wights... there is no such prerequisite for night king to have killed the people in order to raise them as wights. he needs to kill people to make more night walkers. his officers so to speak. but cannon fodder army? they just need to be dead and in range. doesn't even matter how long they were dead. and people in the story KNEW that - the wight that was brought in to show to Cercei is almost entirely decomposed... and weights do NOT decompose any further once they are reanimated, this TOO is something we are shown

and STILL they hid in crypts. Jon was there, Jon knew all of the above, and yet... and predicably... all the dead in the crypts WERE ressurected by night king, so there goes THAT theory of night walkers having to be the ones to kill people in order to ressurect them....

I thought the dead broke into the crypt, not the dead already in the crypt rising. I also thought the decomposition wasn't decomposition, but wear and tear from being a living dead, if that makes sense.

this was the biggest problem with last seasons. D&D forgetting the very rules they have themselves set up in order to push through cool looking moments. kinda like Dany forgetting all about the fleet, even though they have literally been discussing its location before she heads out.

Remind of this scene you're describing. What fleet does Dany forget about?

its not even lack of book material issue. they have changed PLENTY from the books early on, in part to actualy make it filmable, cause they books have a lot more to keep track of. and it worked still, very well. it stopped working when they stopped caring about finishing the story properly and just wanted to get it over with so that they could go on to work on star wars.

It did have a feeling of being rushed, but at the same time, they didn't have the source material to play out the last two seasons.

[Isilrien]

Sure it does. Being true to the character is one of those right/wrong items. For instance, Jamie returning to Cersei at the end, even if was to knowingly die with her, was absolutely "right". As was his leaving her to fight in the north - because he kept his oath to Daenerys. Both of those actions were justified by the history of the character, their actions and words and deeds.

Opinions are legion in shows/books/movies/plays, but there are also right/wrong conclusions to be drawn, and discussions to be had about them.

Ok. I disagree.

[jackofwind]

Yeah, that sex scene rattled a number of cages, including my own. But in the book, even in the last one, was she really only 12-13? It seemed in the shows at least more time passed, and her age in made sense, even while surprising in some actions.

Not even, she's 11-12.

She was 9 at the start of the series and 10 when she sailed to Braavos.

So enjoy that kiddy porn, what a great addition to the show.

[cubby]

Not even, she's 11-12.

She was 9 at the start of the series and 10 when she sailed to Braavos.

So enjoy that kiddy porn, what a great addition to the show.

Maybe take a lap or something?

In the series several months pass even in the first season. I can't imagine the timeline gets that out of whack from the book even as the show is just getting started. Can anyone else confirm the book Arya age?

[jackofwind]

Maybe take a lap or something?

In the series several months pass even in the first season. I can't imagine the timeline gets that out of whack from the book even as the show is just getting started. Can anyone else confirm the book Arya age?

I literally just gave it to you. She's born in 289 AC, she's 9 when the King visits Winterfell, she's 10 when she sails to Braavos, and she's 11-12 in the current novel timeline.

In the show they made her allegedly 18 to justify the sex scene, but that's not the actual timeline of the novels. They made up some bullshit argument that each season is a year, but we know for a fact that is not the case. They don't even start her at the right age, she's 11 at the start of the show - not 9 as per the novels.

I don't need to take a lap at all, I'm just giving you facts. You need to accept them, or better yet - read the books so you know the actual story.

The timeline in the show is, to put it bluntly, grossly exaggerated and there's good reason to believe that it serves no purpose other than making it more palatable for audiences to see the younger characters in sex scenes.

[Witchblade77]

I thought the dead broke into the crypt, not the dead already in the crypt rising. I also thought the decomposition wasn't decomposition, but wear and tear from being a living dead, if that makes sense.


Remind of this scene you're describing. What fleet does Dany forget about?


It did have a feeling of being rushed, but at the same time, they didn't have the source material to play out the last two seasons.

nope, this was the dead IN the crypts. when night king raised dothraki dead, he also raised the dead in the crypts. the necromancy doesn't discriminate - if its in range, its in range. and Jon KNEW that this is what night king does, as NK did it litteraly right in front of his eyes before. and yet.. they still send dothraki outside the walls while the armi at full power. at night. in a climate/area dothraki are NOT used to natch.

and no, its not wear and tear of being undead. in a scene where Viserion gets converted, until Dany shows up to rescue them, they are besieged by the wights that king raises right there and then. some of those wights are barely skeletons.

Euron Greyjoy's fleet. the one with scorpions that kill Rhaegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahoHDU0T44I

and lets not blame it on lack of source material while in the same breath claiming that they were given the important story beats from yet unpublished source material. as i have said before. they have changed things from the books starting with season one. and if we say that those things worked out because Martin was still heavily involved? that we are basically admitting that D&D are NOT good writers and the seasons they were solely responsible are criticized so much for a REASON. and that reason is NOT that people didn't get what they wanted.

[jackofwind]

nope, this was the dead IN the crypts. when night king raised dothraki dead, he also raised the dead in the crypts. the necromancy doesn't discriminate

and no, its not wear and tear of being undead. in a scene where Viserion gets converted, until Dany shows up to rescue them, they are besieged by the wights that king raises right there and then. some of those wights are barely skeletons.

Euron Greyjoy's fleet. the one with scorpions that kill Rhaegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahoHDU0T44I

The Iron Fleet that can't hit an in-range dragon to save their lives but then suddenly can one-shot one from a billion miles away. Ugh.

Also, for those who don't know (not you @Witchblade77)- Victarion is the commander of the Iron Fleet, but D&D decided that it was unnecessary to keep the coolest, least shitty, and most principled Greyjoy in the story.

Instead we got a finger-in-the-bum joke.

[cubby]

I literally just gave it to you. She's born in 289 AC, she's 9 when the King visits Winterfell, she's 10 when she sails to Braavos, and she's 11-12 in the current novel timeline.

In the show they made her allegedly 18 to justify the sex scene, but that's not the actual timeline of the novels. They made up some bullshit argument that each season is a year, but we know for a fact that is not the case. They don't even start her at the right age, she's 11 at the start of the show - not 9 as per the novels.

I don't need to take a lap at all, I'm just giving you facts. You need to accept them, or better yet - read the books so you know the actual story.

The timeline in the show is, to put it bluntly, grossly exaggerated and there's good reason to believe that it serves no purpose other than making it more palatable for audiences to see the younger characters in sex scenes.

You have an unhealthy fixation of child sex scenes, and that kind of thing is not only not welcome here, but is against the forum rules. Please stop referring to it.

And point of fact, you literally did not just give it to me, you literally did so after I pointed out that you didn't. Please try to keep track of what you post vs what you think you've posted. However, thank you *now* for the link of the timeline from the books.

Most season's long shows have to do something with the story line to account for real life children actors aging - it's kind of a "no shit" obvious thing.

I'm looking at the wiki page you linked, and there is a fuck ton of information. Where are you seeing the time-line laid out on that site? I'm not saying it's not there, I just can't find/see it. I see the 289 AC reference to the year, but I can't find the subsequent references to later years.

- - - Updated - - -

nope, this was the dead IN the crypts. when night king raised dothraki dead, he also raised the dead in the crypts. the necromancy doesn't discriminate - if its in range, its in range. and Jon KNEW that this is what night king does, as NK did it litteraly right in front of his eyes before. and yet.. they still send dothraki outside the walls while the armi at full power. at night. in a climate/area dothraki are NOT used to natch.

Ok, tow things - first, thanks for the clarification about the crypt scene. But second, that's NOT what happens in front of Jon. Jon only sees the NK raise the dead they've killed. He's never seen the NK raise already dead people (i.e. from a grave).
(and holy shit, as an aside, wasn't that scene with Jon floating away on the boat and the NK raising those people just nuts?!)

and no, its not wear and tear of being undead. in a scene where Viserion gets converted, until Dany shows up to rescue them, they are besieged by the wights that king raises right there and then. some of those wights are barely skeletons.

That's not how I'm remembering, granted, I could be wrong, but in that scene the NK didn't raise anyone until he raised Viserion. Those wights that attack the small party arrive with the WW, they aren't raised in that scene.

Euron Greyjoy's fleet. the one with scorpions that kill Rhaegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahoHDU0T44I

I'm not seeing how Dany "forgot" about the fleet - didn't she send her dragons out to kill that fleet? This is me not remembering the precise details, just to be clear. I know there is a secondary scene, later, where Dany is riding a dragon who destroys Euron's fleet. But I thought the first major boat scene was Dany trying to sink that fleet, it was just the Scorpions came as a deadly surprise.

and lets not blame it on lack of source material while in the same breath claiming that they were given the important story beats from yet unpublished source material. as i have said before. they have changed things from the books starting with season one. and if we say that those things worked out because Martin was still heavily involved? that we are basically admitting that D&D are NOT good writers and the seasons they were solely responsible are criticized so much for a REASON. and that reason is NOT that people didn't get what they wanted.

I see what you mean here, and I wasn't trying to draw a double standard - you make a good point. What I mean is that the "lack of source material" meant D&D only had a rough outline/plot of how the ending plays out, and not the rich source of already published books that they initially drew on. If that makes sense.

[jackofwind]

You have an unhealthy fixation of child sex scenes, and that kind of thing is not only not welcome here, but is against the forum rules. Please stop referring to it.

And point of fact, you literally did not just give it to me, you literally did so after I pointed out that you didn't. Please try to keep track of what you post vs what you think you've posted. However, thank you *now* for the link of the timeline from the books.

Most season's long shows have to do something with the story line to account for real life children actors aging - it's kind of a "no shit" obvious thing.

I'm looking at the wiki page you linked, and there is a fuck ton of information. Where are you seeing the time-line laid out on that site? I'm not saying it's not there, I just can't find/see it. I see the 289 AC reference to the year, but I can't find the subsequent references to later years.

Lol what? I'm telling you they literally changed the show to make it more palatable because of the public outcry that happened after Dany's sex scene with Drogo came out. I'm not inventing this, they changed the ages from what they are in the book, and a lot of that is because super underage people have sex scenes. Sansa? Yeah in the books she would get raped by Ramsay Bolton at age 13/14. That's not really acceptable to show in a TV show, no matter the age of the actors involved.

I don't know why they felt the need to show all those scenes, and with such gratuity, but they wanted to and it was easier to just age the characters up to avoid the awkward conversations than it was to allude to events without showing them. It's fucked up, just like it's fucked up that D&D made a baby cry by sitting it on a block of ice to get a shot, and it's fucked up that they spent 10 hours filming a torture scene for 10 seconds of footage without thinking/caring about the actress involved.

The link I gave you has ages listed by their birth dates and if you click those links there are calculations for every character.

- - - Updated - - -

What I mean is that the "lack of source material" meant D&D only had a rough outline/plot of how the ending plays out, and not the rich source of already published books that they initially drew on. If that makes sense.

So they had to write it themselves, and they did a shit job of filling in the blanks because they forgot about a million details that GRRM had worked into his story, which leads us back to the debate about whether the writing was any good in Season 7/8 (which it absolutely was not).

[cubby]

Lol what? I'm telling you they literally changed the show to make it more palatable because of the public outcry that happened after Dany's sex scene with Drogo. I'm not inventing this, they changed the ages from what they are in the book, and a lot of that is because super underage people have sex scenes. Sansa? Yeah in the books she would get raped by Ramsay Bolton at age 13/14.

I don't know why they felt the need to show all those scenes, and with such gratuity, but they wanted to and it was easier to just age the characters up to avoid the awkward conversations. It's fucked up, just like it's fucked up that D&D made a baby cry by sitting it on a block of ice to get a shot, and it's fucked up that they spent 10 hours filming a torture scene for 5 seconds of footage without thinking/caring about the actress.

I told you, I didn't realize you needed someone to actually post you links to sources - sorry for not assuming that you'd think I was lying through my teeth.

The link I gave you has ages listed by their birth dates and if you click those links there are calculations for every character.

It has ages listed by character, but not an associated timeline to show their age progressions. You're saying that Arya was 10 when she went to Braavos, but I'm not seeing a date associated with that period of travel. That's what I can't find, and that's on me, not you - just to be clear. So could you please just link it?

It's fucked up that they aged the characters so they wouldn't be showing child pornography? I'm not sure you understand your own conclusion. Of course they would age the characters to avoid that - they fucking kinda of have to. And if it means anything, the kids aging made the timeline seem longer, but it didn't disrupt the story for me. Although...thinking about it...if Arya was 11 in the show at the start, and 18+ by season 8, that means this war was 7+ years long.... That doesn't seem right now that I think about it.

Also, and *screw you* (saying that in a nice way, if that makes sense - I'll erase/edit if you ask me to) for making me think about the ages of kids in a show vs their real life ages in regards to sex scenes. The lawyer in me is now trying to figure out if it ok to depict child sex in a show, so long as the actual age of the child portraying the child in the show is 18+.

[jackofwind]

It has ages listed by character, but not an associated timeline to show their age progressions. You're saying that Arya was 10 when she went to Braavos, but I'm not seeing a date associated with that period of travel. That's what I can't find, and that's on me, not you - just to be clear. So could you please just link it?

It's fucked up that they aged the characters so they wouldn't be showing child pornography? I'm not sure you understand your own conclusion. Of course they would age the characters to avoid that - they fucking kinda of have to. And if it means anything, the kids aging made the timeline seem longer, but it didn't disrupt the story for me. Although...thinking about it...if Arya was 11 in the show at the start, and 18+ by season 8, that means this war was 7+ years long.... That doesn't seem right now that I think about it.

Also, and *screw you* (saying that in a nice way, if that makes sense - I'll erase/edit if you ask me to) for making me think about the ages of kids in a show vs their real life ages in regards to sex scenes. The lawyer in me is now trying to figure out if it ok to depict child sex in a show, so long as the actual age of the child portraying the child in the show is 18+.

It's fucked up that they a) felt the need to show the underage sex scenes to begin with (instead of just alluding to them happening, if they're key plot points, or just not having them at all if they're gratuitous) or b) that they went "hey, this isn't really okay to show - but let's just pretend they're older and show them doing it anyways". Don't change the characters because something is unpalatable, because people know how old the characters are supposed to be in the books (ie: the whole reason for the outrage over the Dany sex scene).

It's lazy and doesn't work to just say "Oh she's 18 now, because we say so." No one is fooled by that, and it doesn't even make sense from the medieval perspective of the world of Westeros where honestly people were probably being married off at 12 or 13.

Re: the war lasting 7 years - you're right to think that is a long ass time. Now consider how the seasons work in Westeros, how long the winters are typically (typical "long" winters are only a couple of years), etc. Just how long "Winter Was Coming" for. None of the world-building lines up if the war is as depicted in the show and lasted 7 years.

Lastly, re: Arya's age
- quoted from the Wiki (click the age link under the birth date of the character):

"Arya is 9 years old when the royal court is visiting Winterfell in 298 AC.[88] Arya tells Roose Bolton she is 10 years old when he takes Harrenhal in 299 AC.[89] Arya is still 10 after Joffrey Baratheon's wedding, in 300 AC, when she's on the ship to Braavos.[90] With Arya being 10 in both 299 AC and 300 AC, Arya was 9 turning 10 in 299 AC and 10 turning 11 in 300 AC. This also means that Arya was 8 turning 9 in 298 AC. Arya was thus born in 289 AC."

[cubby]

It's fucked up that they a) felt the need to show the underage sex scenes to begin with (instead of just alluding to them happening, if they're key plot points, or just not having them at all if they're gratuitous) or b) that they went "hey, this isn't really okay to show - but let's just pretend they're older and show them doing it anyways". Don't change the characters because something is unpalatable, because people know how old the characters are supposed to be in the books (ie: the whole reason for the outrage over the Dany sex scene).

The sex scenes we pivotal to the characters development. Dany went from "wife-getting-raped" to lover and created the true connection with Kahl. That connection then built up the idea that he would get her the Iron Throne. So the sex scenes were important and couldn't just be eluded to.

It's lazy and doesn't work to just say "Oh she's 18 now, because we say so." No one is fooled by that, and it doesn't even make sense from the medieval perspective of the world of Westeros where honestly people were probably being married off at 12 or 13.

Did they ever give ages in the show after the first season or so?

Also - seriously - where is that part of the site that shows the ages as the story progresses. I'm still not seeing it.

[jackofwind]

The sex scenes we pivotal to the characters development. Dany went from "wife-getting-raped" to lover and created the true connection with Kahl. That connection then built up the idea that he would get her the Iron Throne. So the sex scenes were important and couldn't just be eluded to.


Did they ever give ages in the show after the first season or so?

Also - seriously - where is that part of the site that shows the ages as the story progresses. I'm still not seeing it.

I direct quoted it in the response above and gave a link to Arya's calculation page. Evidently it's Chapter 6 of Feast of Crows where she again says she's 10 years old while on the ship to Braavos.

[cubby]

NVM - found it. My bad. Didn't click on the most obvious link.

[jackofwind]

The sex scenes we pivotal to the characters development. Dany went from "wife-getting-raped" to lover and created the true connection with Kahl. That connection then built up the idea that he would get her the Iron Throne. So the sex scenes were important and couldn't just be eluded to.


Did they ever give ages in the show after the first season or so?

Also - seriously - where is that part of the site that shows the ages as the story progresses. I'm still not seeing it.

Dany's scene was important, I don't disagree. Still distasteful to show and probably didn't need to be as explicit as it was.

What you think what was important about Arya's sex scene? For the life of me I don't even know why it was added, it honestly barely makes any sense. The cynic in me thinks D&D added it because she was a fan favorite so they wanted to give people some fanservice.

Why did we need to see Sansa's rape rather than see gross and imposing Ramsay knowingly look aside while closing their marital door? IMO only because D&D relished showing that stuff in the show - we all knew what he was going to do and that it would be awful, we really didn't need to see it play out.

[cubby]

I direct quoted it in the response above and gave a link to Arya's calculation page. Evidently it's Chapter 6 of Feast of Crows where she again says she's 10 years old while on the ship to Braavos.

I found it - thanks for being patient with me on that. And it says that in the same year that Arya turns 11 King Joffrey is married. Interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

Dany's scene was important, I don't disagree. Still distasteful to show and probably didn't need to be as explicit as it was.

What you think what was important about Arya's sex scene? For the life of me I don't even know why it was added, it honestly barely makes any sense.

Why did we need to see Sansa's rape rather than see gross and imposing Ramsay knowingly look aside while closing their marital door? IMO only because D&D relished showing that stuff in the show - we all knew what he was going to do and that it would be awful, we really didn't need to see it play out.

Perhaps because she was about to die when the dead attacked, and hadn't yet. That alone can be a good enough reason. Certainly works in the real world. And they didn't "show" it like they did with other, more pivotal sex scenes.

Re Sansa - it was again pivotal to her character development. IIRC it wasn't nearly as graphic as Dany's sex scene. No nudity at least, while still portraying the horrific events.

I mean at some level, why show any of the graphic scenes, sex or otherwise. Directors do it because it conveys meaning in the plot. Otherwise we could just read the books.

[jackofwind]

And it says that in the same year that Arya turns 11 King Joffrey is married.

Joffrey is married in 300 AC and Arya is 10 after his wedding, so she must have a late birthday (ie: 10 turning 11). It might be splitting hairs at that point, who knows how accurate GRRM even was in terms of keeping his dates straight.

I don't care enough to go all the way back to check that chapter of the book, but regardless I think it's pretty clear that the age calculations demonstrate how different the passage of time is in the show vs the novels.

- - - Updated - - -

I found it - thanks for being patient with me on that. And it says that in the same year that Arya turns 11 King Joffrey is married. Interesting.

- - - Updated - - -



Perhaps because she was about to die when the dead attacked, and hadn't yet. That alone can be a good enough reason. Certainly works in the real world. And they didn't "show" it like they did with other, more pivotal sex scenes.

Re Sansa - it was again pivotal to her character development. IIRC it wasn't nearly as graphic as Dany's sex scene. No nudity at least, while still portraying the horrific events.

I mean at some level, why show any of the graphic scenes, sex or otherwise. Directors do it because it conveys meaning in the plot. Otherwise we could just read the books.

Well it's not like GRRM hasn't been criticized for relishing in his writing of the underage shit too.

I just think it's a little more obvious in the show that Arya got a sex scene specifically so that they could give Maisie Williams one.