"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
+1
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I hate to say it, but odds are good that won't be the only hunting and murdering of a young woman on this show with Ramsay Snow around. Just be happy she wasn't also raped and flayed.
You'd think the best king would know the difference between taxes and tariffs
You are clearly underestimating King Stabs.
1. A Tariff is merely a specific sort of tax. So his statement is in every way correct. In fact it's the more economical form of expressing his statement (in terms of syllables) while remaining completely unambiguous.
2. Tax is also a more common word. While a person might have no idea what a tariff is, he certainly should know what a tax is.
3. You might have noticed that economic prosperity follows stabbings. The stabbings are clearly a central part of his, highly successful, economic development plan. He's merely making the government more lean and efficient by "trimming away the fat".
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+8
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
You'd think the best king would know the difference between taxes and tariffs
You are clearly underestimating King Stabs.
1. A Tariff is merely a specific sort of tax. So his statement is in every way correct. In fact it's the more economical form of expressing his statement (in terms of syllables) while remaining completely unambiguous.
2. Tax is also a more common word. While a person might have no idea what a tariff is, he certainly should know what a tax is.
3. You might have noticed that economic prosperity follows stabbings. The stabbings are clearly a central part of his, highly successful, economic development plan. He's merely making the government more lean and efficient by "trimming away the fat".
"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
Ehh, I don't really see those scenes doing the same thing. The first scene puts the viewer off balance, being unsure what's going on and only knowing that it's the crazy fuck and for some reason Theon is not only following after him and making no attempt to escape when his captor is obviously paying no attention to him, but is also standing idly by while this awful thing happens to a defenseless girl.
The shaving scene also emphasizes the whole "he's completely loyal to me" thing but realistically, if Theon did still have his faculties, there's no way he would have killed him in that moment anyway, unless he was prepared to die himself for it. That scene, to me, was more about Ramsay and his dad, while the opening scene was really about Theon.
I mean yeah, making it a pitiable young girl is kind of emotionally manipulative but speaking only for myself, that scene did a lot to show exactly where Theon was at mentally/emotionally in a way that the shaving scene really didn't, so I can't really agree that it was any more exploitative or pointless than any other part of the show.
+3
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
Ehh, I don't really see those scenes doing the same thing. The first scene puts the viewer off balance, being unsure what's going on and only knowing that it's the crazy fuck and for some reason Theon is not only following after him and making no attempt to escape when his captor is obviously paying no attention to him, but is also standing idly by while this awful thing happens to a defenseless girl.
The shaving scene also emphasizes the whole "he's completely loyal to me" thing but realistically, if Theon did still have his faculties, there's no way he would have killed him in that moment anyway, unless he was prepared to die himself for it. That scene, to me, was more about Ramsay and his dad, while the opening scene was really about Theon.
I mean yeah, making it a pitiable young girl is kind of emotionally manipulative but speaking only for myself, that scene did a lot to show exactly where Theon was at mentally/emotionally in a way that the shaving scene really didn't, so I can't really agree that it was any more exploitative or pointless than any other part of the show.
I'm not trying to convince you it was a garbage scene - if you didn't have a problem with it, that's cool.
I was merely explaining how it could be construed as exploitative (as some folks seemed to not understand how the scene could be taken that way), and expressing how that's a view I share. Much as I wouldn't be able to convince you the scene was bad, I can't really be convinced that the scene was necessary or had even the faintest modicum of value.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
It wasn't just a random girl though, both of the girls in that scene are the same ones from last season.
"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
Ehh, I don't really see those scenes doing the same thing. The first scene puts the viewer off balance, being unsure what's going on and only knowing that it's the crazy fuck and for some reason Theon is not only following after him and making no attempt to escape when his captor is obviously paying no attention to him, but is also standing idly by while this awful thing happens to a defenseless girl.
The shaving scene also emphasizes the whole "he's completely loyal to me" thing but realistically, if Theon did still have his faculties, there's no way he would have killed him in that moment anyway, unless he was prepared to die himself for it. That scene, to me, was more about Ramsay and his dad, while the opening scene was really about Theon.
I mean yeah, making it a pitiable young girl is kind of emotionally manipulative but speaking only for myself, that scene did a lot to show exactly where Theon was at mentally/emotionally in a way that the shaving scene really didn't, so I can't really agree that it was any more exploitative or pointless than any other part of the show.
I'm not trying to convince you it was a garbage scene - if you didn't have a problem with it, that's cool.
I was merely explaining how it could be construed as exploitative (as some folks seemed to not understand how the scene could be taken that way), and expressing how that's a view I share. Much as I wouldn't be able to convince you the scene was bad, I can't really be convinced that the scene was necessary or had even the faintest modicum of value.
We already knew he was fucked up, but we didn't know he hunted girls with dogs. It's another notch on the ladder of depraved things Ramsay does, and at least in the books I remember thinking he's officially worse than Joffrey when I read that bit. Though I do think simply having Theon overhear two people talking about it would have been more effective, and that way they can let the audience know he rapes and flays them before killing them since obviously there's no way they can actually show that.
"Exploitative" in the sense of "This scene contributes absolutely nothing to the plot other than reminding you that Ramsay is kind of crazy, which we already got way too much of last season, so all that's left is an attractive woman running and screaming and being eaten by dogs for basically no discernible reason"
Is that what you got from it?
Cuz my takeaway was that it was showing just how thoroughly Theon had been beaten into submission. Here he is, out in the open, nobody's looking at him, he could try and make a run for it himself at any point. Instead, he's shown as an utterly broken, obedient dog. They just picked an incredibly brutal and disturbing way to get that across, which is pretty much par for the course.
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
It wasn't just a random girl though, both of the girls in that scene are the same ones from last season.
Where did I say random? I said nameless.
0
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
We already knew he was fucked up, but we didn't know he hunted girls with dogs. It's another notch on the ladder of depraved things Ramsay does, and at least in the books I remember thinking he's officially worse than Joffrey when I read that bit. Though I do think simply having Theon overhear two people talking about it would have been more effective, and that way they can let the audience know he rapes and flays them before killing them since obviously there's no way they can actually show that.
I mean, "show don't tell" is about the most fundamental writing "rule" there is. The viewer/reader is always going to have a stronger reaction when they are actually placed in the scene where those things happen.
I'm not gonna say it's the best scene of the season, but seeing how Theon reacted to witnessing that stuff seemed like a pretty good way to show how bad off he is.
i feel like she was in the books but i don't remember her name
Not a character from the books, but she had been on the show before, as one of the two girls Ramsay brought in to get all sexy and tease Theon as part of his torture.
We already knew he was fucked up, but we didn't know he hunted girls with dogs. It's another notch on the ladder of depraved things Ramsay does, and at least in the books I remember thinking he's officially worse than Joffrey when I read that bit. Though I do think simply having Theon overhear two people talking about it would have been more effective, and that way they can let the audience know he rapes and flays them before killing them since obviously there's no way they can actually show that.
I mean, "show don't tell" is about the most fundamental writing "rule" there is. The viewer/reader is always going to have a stronger reaction when they are actually placed in the scene where those things happen.
I'm not gonna say it's the best scene of the season, but seeing how Theon reacted to witnessing that stuff seemed like a pretty good way to show how bad off he is.
The scene also does two other things that are important in continuing to establish Ramsay's character that merely telling about it would not do: you see his power over people is not limited to those he physically tortures since brunette girl is also involved (yes, she's obviously a depraved person on some level, but he has wooed her into this position of accompanying him on a human-hunt and being excited about eliminating someone she's afraid is a rival), and the incredible contrast present when he arrives home and greets Roose's new wife with such grace and politeness. That contrast would never have been such a gut punch had the hunting scene merely been a story.
So I just marathon watched all of this from the beginning, having never seen any of it before and help what year is it
Why, it's the autumn of 300 AL.
And if you're wondering, AL stands for Aegon's Landing, the year when Aegon the Conqeror and his sisters landed in Westeros.
He landed where King's Landing is now btw, which is named after this event. The small wooden fort he built to support his landing was the beginnings of the now formidable Red Keep.
All hogwash of course. King's landing is situated where the Blackwater (a major river that runs up to the God's Eye, a lake important enough to justify the building of the enormous Harrenhal fortress) runs out into Blackwater bay. A sheltered bay surrounded by lush fields fertile for tilling. That there wouldn't be a city or at least a large village before King's landing was established is ludicrous, even if the economic map of Westeros has been redrawn since his conquest (drawing the wealth of Casterly Rock, Storm's End and the Riverlands into King's Landing).
Of course who is around to protest against the Targaryen version of Westeros history? The ironmen had ravaged that part of the land for decades when Aegon the Conqueror arrived, and House Hoare (the then ruling house of the Iron islands) died in the conquest.
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
So I just marathon watched all of this from the beginning, having never seen any of it before and help what year is it
Why, it's the autumn of 300 AL.
And if you're wondering, AL stands for Aegon's Landing, the year when Aegon the Conqeror and his sisters landed in Westeros.
He landed where King's Landing is now btw, which is named after this event. The small wooden fort he built to support his landing was the beginnings of the now formidable Red Keep.
All hogwash of course. King's landing is situated where the Blackwater (a major river that runs up to the God's Eye, a lake important enough to justify the building of the enormous Harrenhal fortress) runs out into Blackwater bay. A sheltered bay surrounded by lush fields fertile for tilling. That there wouldn't be a city or at least a large village before King's landing was established is ludicrous, even if the economic map of Westeros has been redrawn since his conquest (drawing the wealth of Casterly Rock, Storm's End and the Riverlands into King's Landing).
Of course who is around to protest against the Targaryen version of Westeros history? The ironmen had ravaged that part of the land for decades when Aegon the Conqueror arrived, and House Hoare (the then ruling house of the Iron islands) died in the conquest.
That might be because the answer to the question "When is the train supposed to arrive?" is always "hodor".
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Of course who is around to protest against the Targaryen version of Westeros history? The ironmen had ravaged that part of the land for decades when Aegon the Conqueror arrived, and House Hoare (the then ruling house of the Iron islands) died in the conquest.
But the Iron Islands are on the opposite coast!
How would the Ironborn even get there?
Unless they carried their boats across land and sailed down the Trident. Which seems like a very questionable piece of geography.
0
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
During the period of the Seven Kingdoms, before Aegon, The Riverlands and the Iron Islands counted as one kingdom, because the Ironborn had completely conquered the Riverlands years ago. It was their king, Harren the Black, that built Harrenhal.
During the period of the Seven Kingdoms, before Aegon, The Riverlands and the Iron Islands counted as one kingdom, because the Ironborn had completely conquered the Riverlands years ago. It was their king, Harren the Black, that built Harrenhal.
Posts
You mean the exact same thing they conveyed in the much tenser, better, shaving scene? Without having a (nameless, by the way, making it extra pointless) attractive woman chased, shot, and eaten by dogs?
You are clearly underestimating King Stabs.
1. A Tariff is merely a specific sort of tax. So his statement is in every way correct. In fact it's the more economical form of expressing his statement (in terms of syllables) while remaining completely unambiguous.
2. Tax is also a more common word. While a person might have no idea what a tariff is, he certainly should know what a tax is.
3. You might have noticed that economic prosperity follows stabbings. The stabbings are clearly a central part of his, highly successful, economic development plan. He's merely making the government more lean and efficient by "trimming away the fat".
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
also
STABSTABSTAB
Ehh, I don't really see those scenes doing the same thing. The first scene puts the viewer off balance, being unsure what's going on and only knowing that it's the crazy fuck and for some reason Theon is not only following after him and making no attempt to escape when his captor is obviously paying no attention to him, but is also standing idly by while this awful thing happens to a defenseless girl.
The shaving scene also emphasizes the whole "he's completely loyal to me" thing but realistically, if Theon did still have his faculties, there's no way he would have killed him in that moment anyway, unless he was prepared to die himself for it. That scene, to me, was more about Ramsay and his dad, while the opening scene was really about Theon.
I mean yeah, making it a pitiable young girl is kind of emotionally manipulative but speaking only for myself, that scene did a lot to show exactly where Theon was at mentally/emotionally in a way that the shaving scene really didn't, so I can't really agree that it was any more exploitative or pointless than any other part of the show.
You can have your queen, I pray to a much higher power.
I'm not trying to convince you it was a garbage scene - if you didn't have a problem with it, that's cool.
I was merely explaining how it could be construed as exploitative (as some folks seemed to not understand how the scene could be taken that way), and expressing how that's a view I share. Much as I wouldn't be able to convince you the scene was bad, I can't really be convinced that the scene was necessary or had even the faintest modicum of value.
Speaking of the God of tits and wine (although shouldn't it be a goddess of tits and wine?), a tribute to our favorite bastard joffrey
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It wasn't just a random girl though, both of the girls in that scene are the same ones from last season.
We already knew he was fucked up, but we didn't know he hunted girls with dogs. It's another notch on the ladder of depraved things Ramsay does, and at least in the books I remember thinking he's officially worse than Joffrey when I read that bit. Though I do think simply having Theon overhear two people talking about it would have been more effective, and that way they can let the audience know he rapes and flays them before killing them since obviously there's no way they can actually show that.
Where did I say random? I said nameless.
They've already started the setup; Manderley's son can be spotted at the Red Wedding last season, wearing a merling-shaped brooch.
The Pod Who Was Promised.
I mean, "show don't tell" is about the most fundamental writing "rule" there is. The viewer/reader is always going to have a stronger reaction when they are actually placed in the scene where those things happen.
I'm not gonna say it's the best scene of the season, but seeing how Theon reacted to witnessing that stuff seemed like a pretty good way to show how bad off he is.
1. Sick burns
2. Disdainful looks
3. Chair dragging
ohhhhhh
Katniss Everdeen!
The scene also does two other things that are important in continuing to establish Ramsay's character that merely telling about it would not do: you see his power over people is not limited to those he physically tortures since brunette girl is also involved (yes, she's obviously a depraved person on some level, but he has wooed her into this position of accompanying him on a human-hunt and being excited about eliminating someone she's afraid is a rival), and the incredible contrast present when he arrives home and greets Roose's new wife with such grace and politeness. That contrast would never have been such a gut punch had the hunting scene merely been a story.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Why, it's the autumn of 300 AL.
And if you're wondering, AL stands for Aegon's Landing, the year when Aegon the Conqeror and his sisters landed in Westeros.
He landed where King's Landing is now btw, which is named after this event. The small wooden fort he built to support his landing was the beginnings of the now formidable Red Keep.
All hogwash of course. King's landing is situated where the Blackwater (a major river that runs up to the God's Eye, a lake important enough to justify the building of the enormous Harrenhal fortress) runs out into Blackwater bay. A sheltered bay surrounded by lush fields fertile for tilling. That there wouldn't be a city or at least a large village before King's landing was established is ludicrous, even if the economic map of Westeros has been redrawn since his conquest (drawing the wealth of Casterly Rock, Storm's End and the Riverlands into King's Landing).
Of course who is around to protest against the Targaryen version of Westeros history? The ironmen had ravaged that part of the land for decades when Aegon the Conqueror arrived, and House Hoare (the then ruling house of the Iron islands) died in the conquest.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Hodor?
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
How would the Ironborn even get there?
Unless they carried their boats across land and sailed down the Trident. Which seems like a very questionable piece of geography.
Then by now you should know better than to love anyone in these books...
It turns out someone speaks a language nobody knew they spoke
And what follows is maybe the raddest thing yet on this whole show