1.07 Game of Thrones - You Win or You Die

[Gamblor]

I understand that the purpose of the scene was to reveal more of Littlefinger's character, but as I said I believe that that could have been handled differently. I was curious as to why Gamblor thought the writers/directors felt it necessary to make the audience uncomfortable.

Well you have answered your own question.

This scene reveals more of Littlefinger's character. It is not nice.

He says in this scene something along the lines of "They use their swords and their might. I cannot do this so I am going to **** them."

I think the subject matter and the scene (gratuitous) clearly set some dark overtones. This is later justified.

The more I think about it the more i think this scene is actually very, very good!

 

[Gamblor]

Svalbard, I think you raise a very interesting point about the sex scene showing us something about Littlefinger's character. That scene, while titillating, didn't seem to make much sense to me but I'm reconsidering now.

However, I'm still puzzled as to why Littlefinger would reveal so much to a woman he just met, but who he must know came from Winterfell. He gave her enough information to easily figure out that he was referring to Catelyn and Ned Stark. I suppose even Littlefinger feels the rare need to fully reveal who and what he is but it still felt odd that he did it with her.

I think the scene was necessary in order to justify to an audience who may not have read the books why Littlefinger does what he does at the end.

For me the 'I told you not to trust me' reference would not have been enough to justify the betrayal. The whole (sex) scene was perhaps therefore the writers/directors way 'ramming down the throat' of the audience that this man actually has some serious issues - and avoids potential audience misunderstandings as to his motives, therefore keeping them on board.

I hope this makes sense. If not tell me and I will write it when I get home from work!

 

[Daisy-Boo]

Thanks for the reply Gamblor.

I got that Littlefinger's speech was to give the audience insight that might otherwise only have been known by the readers. In that sense it was a good scene.

My puzzlement stemmed from Littlefinger giving this speech to Ros specifically. Now that I've given it some more thought, I think Littlefinger felt safe to talk because he is in a position of power over Ros (and her nameless companion). If any of what he said got out he'd know there were only two people who could've spilled the beans and it would be an easy task to eliminate both of them without any backlash. Also, his betrayal of Ned was imminent and there was very little chance that Ros could talk to Ned beforehand, even if she was so inclined, which I doubt she would've been.

 

[svalbard]

Another point to make on this is that the producers of the show are attempting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The Wire was mentioned above as an example of a brilliant series and a possible template for AGOT. Whilst brilliant The Wire was a slow burner. I could be wrong on this, but viewing figures were low for the first series of The Wire.

The production costs are massive(for TV) for AGOT. They needed to hit the ground running with the series. Unfortunatley sex sells as does violence. Not everyone will be entranced with Littlefinger and Varys crossing swords with their minds, as not everyone is in love with the sex scenes. When doing both the writers are capturing a wide spectrum of the public and hopefully guaranteeing long term success for the series.

 

[Daisy-Boo]

I agree with you Svalbard. Those kind of sex scenes do appeal to a certain segment of the audience. I think that for at least some of those people, they will be drawn in by the sex but will stay for the fascinating story and amazing acting.

On the whole I think that a good balance has been struck.

 

[Mouse]

This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm just curious... Say that scene had been exactly the same, but between two of Littlefinger's male whores instead of female ones... Would everybody be happy still? (Not that everybody's happy, but you know what I mean.)

 

[Daisy-Boo]

This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm just curious... Say that scene had been exactly the same, but between two of Littlefinger's male whores instead of female ones... Would everybody be happy still? (Not that everybody's happy, but you know what I mean.)

It wouldn't bother me Mouse. In fact, I'd probably be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think Svalbard's done a good job of explaining why the production team felt justified in using the sex in the scene as they did - the symbolism was all about using control to give men what they think they want - in effect, what Littlefinger has been doing from the start.

But I would have thought there would be more creative ways to do this. The bottom line is the sex is sensationalist, and I think it's entirely misguided to use sex as a senationalist marketing tool under any circumstances.

I don't think the biggest audience shows in the UK or US ever used explicit sex to build up audience numbers, but sadly I understand the argument that this is a big production with big costs that needs to bring in numbers now to keep going.

The fact that the issue means we keep talking about GoT would be seen as a justification for it.

This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm just curious... Say that scene had been exactly the same, but between two of Littlefinger's male whores instead of female ones... Would everybody be happy still? (Not that everybody's happy, but you know what I mean.)

It would probably be camp and silly. I don't think the producers wanted us to laugh at the scene.

 

[Red 13]

This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm just curious... Say that scene had been exactly the same, but between two of Littlefinger's male whores instead of female ones... Would everybody be happy still? (Not that everybody's happy, but you know what I mean.)

I don't think it would make a deifference to me, i still would of found it unnecassary.
The thing is, i thought that what littlefinger was saying was important and needed to be said but the sex was just over the top. I mean if they do these scenes just to get more audience it means that the extra audience they're getting clearly aren't that interested in the story and just want more sex.

 

[Ursa major]

Speaking as someone who hasn't seen any of these scenes....

I don't know (obviously) how Littlefinger broached the subject of Cat, etc., but is there a chance that he felt able to unburden himself to Ros becuase he knew who she was? I'm not necessarily saying that he's always employed her. He may believe she is one of Varys's little birds; he may be telling Ros what he wants Varys to hear, giving a good reason (true or otherwise) for why he'll act the way he will (and whose side he'll be on) when events come to a head.

 

[Boaz]

I like True Blood and Spartacus, and if I hadn't read the books I might not be such a purist with Game of Thrones.

And this is the crux... for me at least. I've enjoyed True Blood and Spartacus quite a bit and the sex just comes with the story, albeit some of it is gratuitious... But I don't mind it since I was not previously emotionally invested nor intellectually tied to the written story.

I've confessed in another thread that I do not consider myself a prude, but I certainly must be compared to all my fellow posters here.

Spartacus is pure fantasy. Violence, sex, lies, blood, schemes, death, despair, vengeance... It's all done in a highly stylized period piece. It presented itself as soft porn so that is the term under which I came to know it.

True Blood is a bit more interesting. Is the show gratuitous for gratuity's sake? Or is the show meant to be gratuitous as a reflection of contemporary society? The themes of the show, I believe, are there to parallel societal issues of acceptance/bias, male/female roles, power, religion, and how we deal with the marginalized people in our midst. Sometimes I think the sex in True Blood mirrors this... Do we revel in hedonism as the Maenad? Should we emulate Lafayette, Bill, Sam, Eric or Hoyt? Any of them? Jason's unbridled nature has gotten into no end of trouble...

Since I am fine with these shows, I figure that most people who've not read AGOT are fine with the presentation of sex in the show. They're not tied to a previous version.

The purpose of the scene was to reveal more of Littlefinger's character. From what he does in the later the books, I thought it showed rather well the sewer that his mind is. As stated elsewhere I feel there is far too much hoopla about the so called 'porn' in the show. It is fairly mild to be honest.

Yes, the scene was to show Middlefinger's motivation... power. They could have showed only Baelish, with the women off screen, teaching them what he wanted. It would have been a chance to see another facial expression from him. His first and only expression has been aloofness until his smile from betraying Eddard. I wonder if the director has ordered Aiden Gillen to do this or if he has any acting chops at all. Middlefinger is a wonderful character and they've done nothing with him... That scene and his confession to Roz was a lost chance to really get glimpse past the exterior.

Ursa, mayhaps Baelish said this to Roz to see her reaction. Does he think she knew Catelyn? Or does he think Theon and company have told her juicy rumors?

As for the Roz character... I think her inclusion in the story is to provide a peek at the life of the commoners of Westeros.

Mouse, I think the implication from two males would have been that Baelish enjoys a gay lifestyle. Presenting him in this light would be a serious departure from GRRM's story. But that's not what you're getting at, is it? Let me say that I left the room to refresh my drink during Renly's shave...

 

[Mesanna]

This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm just curious... Say that scene had been exactly the same, but between two of Littlefinger's male whores instead of female ones... Would everybody be happy still? (Not that everybody's happy, but you know what I mean.)

Well, I've already admitted that I quite enjoyed the Renly/Loras scene but the difference there was that the sexy parts were off screen. We all knew what was going on, but it wasn't so 'in your face'. Well, maybe it was in Loras's face, but, ahem, moving on ...

As a fan of the books, I felt the sex in the Littlefinger scene was completely gratuitous and over-done. It was there solely for titillation and to get people talking about it (hey, it worked!) and I believe I'd feel the same if it were two men.

I agree with the point Boaz and Slyde make however, that we are all emotionally invested in the books, and I rather think that's the root of my problem with the sex scenes. I'm inclined to think that if I hadn't read and loved the story so much, I wouldn't have thought all that much about them. But because I know the books deserve better than to be reduced to a tawdry shag-fest, this type of scene does bother me.

 

[Mouse]

Brian, I hope that smiley face means you're joking!

Boaz, I'm not 'getting at' anything. I was just wondering, so I asked a question. I've already said myself that, to me, the sex of a person is irrelevant. What I genuinely don't understand is how people can even compare the Loras/Renly scene to the Roz/Theon or Roz/other woman scenes as they were explicit and the majority of the Lorly one was just chat.

Clearly, people here aren't homophobic, I've not seen any homophobic comments. I can see, however, that people seem to be more uncomfortable with male/male than male/female or female/female which is what I don't get. Hope that kinda made that clearer!

As for the skinning scene... I actually thought it was a lion. Oops.

 

[Perpetual Man]

As for the skinning scene... I actually thought it was a lion. Oops.

Well it was just lyin' there.

I'll get my coat

 

[Mouse]

Perp!

Seriously though, was it definitely a stag?! Why did I think it was a lion?

 

[Perpetual Man]

Well in some ways a Lion might have made sense, but it was definitely a stag. It was a large one though, and the colour was almost a dark gold like a lion.

If you blinked right at the start of the scene, you would have missed the head shot...

 

[Mouse]

Oh no I definitely didn't see its head, just its belly. Maybe if it was a stag then it really was a dead stag and not a model. Like road kill or something from the zoo.

 

[Perpetual Man]

I did wonder about that. Either way Charles Dance was very convincing in what he was doing...

 

[Mouse]

Definitely! Must've had lessons.

 

[Ursa major]

Perhaps those editing the controversial scenes should go for lessons on how to cut....