OT- Game of Thrones S6 E2: Home
What was weird to me about the outrage over Sansa getting raped was that, of all the horrible things they've shown Ramsey do, I'm not even sure that one cracks the top 5... (which is obviously a comment on the badness of his other sins and not a diminishment of what happened to Sansa)
and suggest that flaying someone alive, cutting their dick off, and sending it to their family is somewhat worse than rape.
You really want to piss someone off? Suggest that within the context of the story, Sansa wasn't raped at all. She is Ramsey's property, and therefore cannot be raped by him.
/again, haven't read the books, so I'm assuming that there was more going on than just non-consensual sex.
Sansa isn't with Ramsey in the books. She's still in the Vale. There was a Stark imposter whom Ramsey (or maybe Roose, I don't recall) married thinking it was Arya, but in the show they made it Sansa to simplify things.
Beat me to it. The girl is Jeyne Poole, who Roose forcibly marries to Ramsey, but the Boltons say that she is Arya. She is also raped by Ramsey, rather more graphically than the show depicts Sansa.
I'm not sure whether this is a spoiler or not, since the show seems to have bypassed this storyline, but in the books Jeyne and Theon are rescued by a disguised Mance Rayder, who isn't actually dead (a random wildling was burned at the stake but Mellisandre used a charm spell to make him appear to be Mance (damn the books are convoluted sometimes)).
There's a level of awfulness that can be referenced, rather than explicitly shown. My objection is that sometimes I think the showrunners think we're either:
A) idiots who need to explicitly be shown what happens to Wylla and the baby rather than be able to infer nothing good will happen once he kills his father and so we can move on to other things other than proving how cartoonishly evil Ramsay Bolton is.
or B) Masochists who get some weird level of enjoyment ofrcatharsis out of it.
Either way the fact that they always err on the side of wallowing in the depravity is wearisome and the story is good enough to not need to go to that well, every. single. fucking. time.
I'd prefer it if B&W had faith in the quality of what they're making and used shock when they need to, but right now this feels like overkill.
Well, to be fair it wasn't explicitly shown. In fact, it was inferred. I didn't love it, but I'm not whining about something that didn't happen (them showing the deaths). In fact, it was similar to how they depicted the death of Robert's newborn bastards - a cut/pan away so the actual action takes place off screen
If he just told someon "Feed them to the dogs," you wouldn't have felt the tension and nerve-wrecking awfulness of it, but that also would have bee quite the cop out - to have a character do something of such extreme without at all giving it any play time.
Further, to be fair, I think there was some subtle acting going on that people are looking over. Ramsay didn't necessarily hesitate, but there was some doubt, I think, in what he was doing. Couple that with Roose's line about mad dogs and I think there's possibly more to his character after this point.
What doubt? As soon as the announcement came that it was a boy, the wheels churned in Ramsay's head and came up death. There might have been some hesitation in killing his father, as in "I really didn't want to kill you, father, but you went and had another natural born son, so *STAB!*"
If anyone was responsible for Ramsay being what he is, it was his father -- who did nothing to make him pay for his depravity, and instead elevated him, just because he needed a "mad dog," as in:
"If you acquire a reputation as a mad dog you’ll be treated as a mad dog - taken back to be slaughtered for pig feed." [Roose Bolton, moments before said mad dog killed him.]
Too little, too late.
The whole reason they kept the second scene was for the "I am Lord Bolton" line -- it's all just a set up for that, and that's why it didn't work for most people -- the line would have been just as chilling without the build up. I think they kept it because they wanted to remind the audience of the abused dogs which are central to his character -- a good bet Ramsay gets ripped apart by dogs in the end, or perhaps a direwolf.
The thing is, even before this and even before the Sansa rape, they had well-established Ramsay as the most hated character on TV. I guess the baby directly serves the plot line. Not sure the Sansa rape did though. So it's just starting to feel like overkill. We all want him dead in the worst way. Anymore dispicable stuff isn't going to change that.
Fine, so they have some sort of standard, great, here's a cookie for them.
My point is I don't need the tension and nerve wracking awfulness of it and I don't think the show does either, we've gotten the awfulness from Ramsay's character and storyline several times before, in fact I've gotten them enough to know EXACTLY how he was going to respond to Wylla having a boy. Once he said, "Send them to me." her fate was sealed and now we can spend precious camera and storytime on something far more interesting than how psychotic Ramsay is.
The brutality in King's Landing was a great way of showing the stakes of the Lannisters taking over the Throne and also why getting Gendry out of the city was a big deal, so I didn't enjoy the infanticide, but I got why it needed to be shown. Feeding a mother and her newborn infant to the dogs when we already knew they were going to die feels like overkill.
The copout point I also object to as this is a show that has established it won't flinch when necessary, they've earned the ability to be shocking and have people do horrible things. I just think in the Ramsay Bolton storyline they're starting to abuse it.
You might want to consider that these pros know more about the story and about storytelling than you do, and that your outrage is misplaced.
Just consider that possibility, and you will realize that your critiques soud like mere whining.
is a poor argument. There a lot of "pros" in TV/movies who write absolute garbage that appeals to some group and generates money, so they may be pros in the sense that they know how to stay employed, but that doesn't make their product beyond artistic reproach.
"Artistic reproach" is a poor argument. Any art is subject to reproach.
If the viewer likes the show, the viewer can continue to watch. If the viewer doesn't like the show, the viewer can turn i8t off. If the viewer likes some parts but notothers, the first response of the viewer should not be, unless morbidly self-righteous, that the portions that the viewer doesn't like are the result of the professionals creating the show thinking that all viewers are either idiots or masochists.
The failure to consider that the viewer may be wrong is what I object to. That the viewer doesn't like the more visceral parts of the show is understandable - but that's on the viewer, not the writers and producers of the show.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
What is the Viewer's name? If the viewer tells me his name, he will get a roof over his head for the night.
No, they are just storytellers telling a story, and including even bits that you personally don't like.
If it makes you feel any better, the show didn't explicity show what happened to Wylla and the baby. You could have kept your eyes open and still not seen what you are claiming the showrunners showed.
Sorry the story offends you but, you know, the solution to that problem is in your hands. You acknowledge that you have seen the show "wallow in the depravity" [I didn't know anyone still talked that way] every. single. time., and yet you return every. single. time.
So, are you an idiot, or a masochist?
wallowing in depravity.
The Story doesn't offend me
I will keep watching and I even like that the show will do some awful/shocking things. I just want there to be something behind it driving the story forward. I'm not feeling that from the great hound feeding of '16.
I get they're telling a story, I just think they're making un-necessary decisions that don't necessarily add anything to the story. I first read the books back in '97, so it's not like I'm going anywhere, I just don't think the choice is particularly creative, as I don't think it takes much creativity to go shocking, but they needed to fill scfreentime and wanted to take on the technical challenge of figuring out how Ramsey would dispose of his brother and then show it on screen. There's a lot of, "Can we do this?" over "Should we do this?" In this case the plot didn't really move forward, we all get Ramsay is a psycho and so the scene felt un-necessary. The show's still great, but this aspect of it is a weakness. So maybe let's give the whole, "If you keep watching the show, you can't criticize it." thing a rest.
That you can't see their point in showing ramsey brutally killing Walda and the baby isn't an argument that there is no such reason. It is a statement about your ability to infer things from evidence.
Walda and the baby weren't some random people being offed by ramsey to show that he is a bad guy: she is the granddaughte, and the baby the great-grandson, of Walder Frey. Up to this point, House Frey was allied to House Bolton. After this bit of gratuitous insult to the Frey name, that alliance will be no more. Ramsey is adding to his enemies list for no reason other than that he cannot resist being cruel.
Your argument that you know the writers only did the hounds scene because they "needed to fill screen time and wanted to take on the challenge' sounds entirely fabricated. I'd bet, in fact, that they had far more arguments about how to fit what they had into their limited screen time than they had arguments about how to "fill screen time."
Your argument that the plot didn't move forward is mere assertion, and unwarranted assertion at that. I think it moved the stry forward to show Ramsey being brutal towards a granddaughter of Walder Frey.
Just because you don't understand the show runners' reasoning doesn't mean you can make it up. Criticism should be based on what is shown, not on what you think the reasons were for them showing it. if you find it too brutal, that's understandablle. If you find it to be brutal because you think that ytou know that the showrunners think viewers are idiots or masochists, you are crazy.
Let's give the whole "I didn't like it so the showrunners are pandering to idiots and masochists" thing a rest.
It's not only that I didn't like it, I just didn't see the point. Everything you are mentioning as a reason for the scene is a political consequence of an action we all knew Ramsay was going to take from the second he found out, "It's a boy." So if one is paying attention and gets the show, these are all things you can infer is going to happen without having to see the cruelty spelled out, it's getting boring. You see the point and trust the showrunners, I happen to think this is an area that they're indulging in a bit of overkill.
All I'm saying is that not all creative decisions are good ones, I don't necessarily think it's out of bounds to point out where there may be a problem.
I said this above, but I think they carried it through because they wanted to reinforce the point about Ramsay's relationship with his dogs -- they are central to his character, and most of his cruelty involves them -- and of course to train them to do that he has to abuse them.
I'd look for him to be ripped apart by righteous dogs, preferably his own, but I would settle for pissed-off direwolves.
That was cool. I knew he'd pull that as soon as she asked where he is.
Easy now. Do not judge lest ye be judged.
Or flayed. Or fed to the dogs. Or both.
I don't know, man. I won't be convinced Ramsay is that bad of an individual until we see him actually consume another human being. Oh wait...didn't he already do that with (at least part of) Theon?
Fastest hour of the week. Would love more show.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I hope they include lines like "our knees do not bend easily".
I'm hoping that they also show Whent and Hightower, but I'm guessing at the east we get young Ned, Arthur Dayne and Howland Reed.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
that the length of time the person is dead factors into it somehow. The longer you're dead, the more fucked up / damaged you are when you come back.
I haven't read the books though, so I could be wrong.
I kinda think not. It doesn't strike me that he was dead that long (also it's cold up there). Catelyn Stark had her throat cut, then got dumped in the river. She was dead three days when she got brought back, not fully healed. Considering her eldest son Robb was slaughtered before her eyes when he was a guest, supposedly protected by custom, and the Lannisters had her husband executed, is it a surprise she became known as Lady Stoneheart?
But if Jon Snow comes back as less Mr. Nice Guy, more seeking vengeance, maybe that'd be a good thing.
Beric Dondarrion was revived in the same way multiple times, and noted a loss of memory and personality with each resurrection. So, we should expect Jon to have some minor changes, but beric wasn't a zombie after many resurrections, so that doesn't seem in the cards.
I'm not going to be happy when Ramsey gets his "gift" next week. The Umbers are going to betray the Starks.
Also, I can't see how the Manderlys join Ramsey. They should be pissed at the Boltons. They lost their heir at the Red Wedding. We even saw him go down.
how or why the Umbers would betray the Starks. They always seemed the most loyal house to me, once you got their respect. Boltons? Sure. They were always questionable. Karstarks? Sure, after Robb took their Lord's head. But Boltons? THat makes no sense to me.
I think other than the Boltons the Manderly's might be the most powerful house at this point.
How powerful are the wildlings all together? Can they match the combat power of a great house like the Boltons?
In the books, both the Manderlys and (some of) the Umbers are ostensibly cooperating with the Boltons, because Jon Umber and Wylis Manderly were taken prisoner at the Red Wedding. As for whether this is on the level, stay tuned.
... I also know that the Umbers are split, and that there are some serious questions as to whether they're part of the Great Northern conspiracy. I mean, ostensibly the Manderly's are part of the Bolton's too but there is a near zero chance they give Rickon to the boltons.
The houses will be interesting in what they can bring to the table. The Umbers in the book are down to old men and kids.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Mate, I am so with you on your comment about Cersei. For once in the entire time this show has been on, I'm actually rooting for Cersei. I'm so sick of those "confess to your sins" mother fuckers. I hope Jaime finally shows us that he can fight with his left hand by killing a bunch of those pricks. Regarding Tyrion's scene with the dragons, I had chills. Not because I was nervous they were going to kill him (because he is Tyrion, after all), but just because those dragons are bad ass. I cannot wait for all three to just fuck shit up during a battle.
I think the idea is that they can now go find themselves something to eat...
Perhaps roasted Dothraki horsemeat will be on the menu...
I have read all the books, so nothing has really been a surprise or new to me in this series. But now that the series has passed the books, I get to be surprised with the rest of you.
Personally, I think this will be the best season for me. Greyjoys, Martells, Umbers, Karstarks, Bran, more dragons..... I'm going to be very happy.
bacon, you're clearly well-versed on the series, and now that Ramsay's plot to unite some of the Northern Houses behind himslef is coming out - can you or anyone else who knows refresh me on who some of these other Houses are, and what role they've played in past seasons?
Umbers, Manderleys, others... I don't really know who they all are (I of course recall the Carstarks role and the execution) i'm not clear who they others are and how they've factored in before?
sidenote: the actor playing the Lannister kid who Lord Carstark kills is now playing Tommen. People way into the show probably already know that?
There's the Mormonts (Jeor and Jorah won't be involved, but Jeor's sister, Lady Maege resides over the house right now), Glovers (They're from Deepwood Motte, which was conquered by Iron Born IIRC), the Reeds (Jojen and Meera's father is still there, didn't come out to support Robb as far as I know. Howland was present at The Tower of Joy and knows what promise Lyanna made Ned commit to), Umbers (in the books Greatjon is a hostage of the Freys after the Red Wedding. In the show, I'm not sure what their allegience will be), Karstarks (we know they don't like the Starks because Robb cut off Rickard's head and they seem to be teaming up with Ramsay), and finally the Manderlys (wealthiest of the houses of the North. I believe the heir was killed at the Red Wedding, so I doubt they'll be friendly to the Bolton and Karstark cause).
Those are the major houses of the North and the only ones I really see potentially playing a role in the show. I like the storyline with the Manderlys and Umbers in the book, but it's not set up like that in the show so I'm curious what will happen.
I think the Umbers have Rickon in their possession. What they'll do with him........
The background of the Reeds is one of the more interesting in the books. It is heavily implied that anyone that has ever attacked the Reeds lands has failed, not even being able to find Greywater Watch (the castle) because it floats and moves on the bog. They are basically both excellent fighters, guerrilla warfare experts, survivalists, and very very private. They are direct decendants of the first men, were very close with the children of the forest, and swore fealty to House Stark thousands of years ago.
Directly related to upcoming plot from the trailers: they have a long and ongoing fued with the Freys. So much so that the Freys basically refuse to go North because they never leave the bog.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'm definitely pulling for Sansa! The Stark reunion, if it happens , would be epic. These 10 weeks are gonna fly by. I hope Jon cuts Ramsay in half with his Valerian steel.
Yes, the ten weeks per year this show is on do fly by so fast, but that is just ten more Saturdays less we have to wait for college football.
The dragons are my friends ... Do they know that?
Classic! Great episode... I want to see Dany's reaction when she sees her babies coming to the rescue.
As for Jon Snow, I know nothing - but I was a little disappointed he came back. Mel wasn't on top of her game, and it seems you'd have to be to bring someone back from a day of deadness. Meh... She should have been all over that the moment she heard he was dead.
Ramsey... Wifey had to cover her eyes, and the volume was all but muted (mostly to keep our own dogs from barking at the kennel and waking the kid!). I knew what he was going to do the moment he stuck daddy. And he didn't disappoint in the brutality dept. But jeez! I think something quick and clean would have been better for them...