Another Weekend, Another Tale of Woe for Tentpoles.....

[Landon D. Parks]

 

Seriously, what was the difference between, Blue is the Warmest Colour, and a porno flick?

 

R,

Story. One has one, the other doesnt. To me, that is how you seperate porn from movies: does the sex advance the plot.

 

The reality is, GoT has a lot of sex because the book has a lot of sex.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure why any historical period would be a "turn off" compared to any other...

[John E Clark]

 

Seriously, what was the difference between, Blue is the Warmest Colour, and a porno flick?

 

R,

 

It is not 'porn', except in narrow definition that you have presented which seems to be 'any sexual depiction is porn'.

 

The story is a 'romantic story', and as such, for modern representations, more explicit sexual depictions are part of the 'realism' of the modern world.

 

No more **(obscenity removed)** locomotives at full steam racing into tunnels (heck when was the last time one say a 'steam engine' running on any track in the 1st world)... no more **(obscenity removed)** fountains bursting into geysers... no more **(obscenity removed)** fire works... as was the usual way to depict a romantic couple's consummated union.

 

The problem about this sort of thing is that 'sex' has been banished from the public sphere for so long in the West, one can live one's entire life and be blythly unaware that there are now museum warehouses full of 'erotic art' from the pre Christian times, that were used everywhere, from brothels to first citizens houses.

 

Because the Wife and I are going to Burning Man this year and she got a Burning Man art grant to do a fresco workshop, we have been reviewing fresco works, from 3 periods, prechristian, Renaissance, and modern (specifically Klimt).

 

We have refreshed our recollection of prechristian roman frescos from Pompeii. In that case in particular, when Pompeii was first rediscovered, and some amount of artifacts and frescos were found, a large number were 'so erotic', that at some point the King of Naples had such material 'locked away'...

 

This charge of 'pornography' when nudity is depicted is not a novel innovation or a new commentary. It has been used in the West for as long as Christianity has existed as a power. Did Michaelangelo 'have' to paint nude figures... no... but he did, and was charged with making 'pornography' and putting it up in 'holy places'. He had the patronage of a pope and so some amount of the critics had to pretty much hold their tongues... until he was dead...

[Rakesh Malik]

My point is simply that Game of Thrones uses soft porn for commercial purposes. I don't think that's a difficult point to understand or accept.

 

R,

 

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

 

Some of the scenes that got the most commentary weren't even sexual, and WERE story motivated... like Daenerys' rebirth.

 

It's a very strange thing that bare breasts get so much commentary so many complaints when all of the often extreme violence gets so little since the violence is so much more prevalent throughout the series than the sex and nudity is.

[Guest]

The story is a 'romantic story', and as such, for modern representations, more explicit sexual depictions are part of the 'realism' of the modern world.

 

Oh is that it? Oh ok then.

 

R,

[Guest]

Because the Wife and I are going to Burning Man this year

 

Well....I think there is probably a whole pile of issues you and I would never see eye-to-eye on. :D

 

R,

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

It's a very strange thing that bare breasts get so much commentary so many complaints when all of the often extreme violence gets so little since the violence is so much more prevalent throughout the series than the sex and nudity is.

Agreed. That is why I have no interest in GoT. The violence is a serious turn off.

 

Anyone who denies that GoT is not appealing to the primitive part of a person is not being honest with themselves. It may be well directed with good production value but the core of the show is somewhat glorifying all that is wrong with the world.

[Landon D. Parks]

Agreed. That is why I have no interest in GoT. The violence is a serious turn off.

 

Anyone who denies that GoT is not appealing to the primitive part of a person is not being honest with themselves. It may be well directed with good production value but the core of the show is somewhat glorifying all that is wrong with the world.

 

Then we'd better stop watching about 95% of all movies ever made, because they all portray the 'bad' in the world.

[Guest]

 

Then we'd better stop watching about 95% of all movies ever made, because they all portray the 'bad' in the world.

 

Well.....there's a lot of quality entertainment out there in the PG category. How many R rated movies make it into the top 20 of all time highest grossing movies? I'll tell you how many, not even one:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

 

R,

[Peter Bitic]

So sex sells, but absence of sex sells even better.

[John E Clark]

 

Then we'd better stop watching about 95% of all movies ever made, because they all portray the 'bad' in the world.

 

And perhaps art in general as well.

 

One of my 'favorites' is Artemisia Gentileschi's rendering of "Judith Beheads Holofernes". The 'story' besides the obvious story of Judith, is that Gentileschi painted her self as Judith (wielding the sword...) and Holofernes has the face of her former mentor, and who was tried for raping her.

 

In this image both Gentileschi's version on the right, and Caravaggio's version on the left are shown.

 

In the case of Gentileschi, there is clearly more 'getting and get bloody' action... in Caravaggio... Judith looks to almost be questioning if that's really 'her' hand...

 

 

[Landon D. Parks]

 

Well.....there's a lot of quality entertainment out there in the PG category. How many R rated movies make it into the top 20 of all time highest grossing movies? I'll tell you how many, not even one:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

 

R,

 

Well, you have a point there... Though I'd say the PG-13 and under's being higher grossing just has to do with sheer numbers of people. Across all entertainment, 'family' entertainment tends to do better financially because the audience is so large and broad, and for little Jimmy and Susie to see the movie requires mom, dad, and probably others to buy a ticket as well. R-rated movies tend to be seen by adults in smaller groups or couple.

 

Working in theatre, I saw this all the time. Anyway we'd put on a show with kids in the cast, we'd sell out a 600 seat theatre for two weeks. Heck, even a show that was just family-friendly would sell out a 75% house each show. However, throw something like 'The Grapes of Wrath' or some other more adult-oriented show in there, and we'd sell maybe 20-30% of a house.

 

I'm not denying that family entertainment has great sales numbers, but that is less to do with the quality of the work, and more to do with sheer potential audience and the particular way in which humans consume entertainment.

 

Personally, I like family films much more than I do the more adult geared variety. Every one of my top movies falls in the PG-13 or under rating. One of the only real exceptions IS game of thrones, which I like because it has an interesting story and characters that I can bond with and care for. If I want porn, I'll hit up xhamster. I'm not going to sit through a 40 minute episode of GoT in hopes that I get 10-20 seconds of half-frontal nudity. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Then we'd better stop watching about 95% of all movies ever made, because they all portray the 'bad' in the world.

Come on man, let's be intellectually honest here. There is a huge difference between "portraying" bad in the world and "glorifying" it. People who watch GoT are watching so for the same reason that the Mob of Rome liked the Gladiator Arena.

 

Other movies may present the bad in the world but usually there is some other purpose than to appeal to the brute in us.

[Guest]

 

'family' entertainment tends to do better financially because the audience is so large and broad, and for little Jimmy and Susie to see the movie requires mom, dad, and probably others to buy a ticket as well.

 

Right, so why even bother making R rated content?

 

R,

[Landon D. Parks]

******Warning: this post contains spoilers for Game of Thrones********

 

And in all honesty, some of the sex scenes in GoT really do advance the story. For example, when Dani and Khal Drogo were getting it on during the, what was it, first season? - the scene itself was to portray that Dani was taking over power from Drogo. By being 'on top' and commanding him, we seen a way in which she was gaining power and influence over him - which advances the plot later on when Drogo goes all out for her, and ends up dying in the process.

 

Another scene which was often panned was the rape scene with Sansa. However, this was put there to show just how much of an animal Ramsey was. Not that we needed much more showing in that area, but it sort of gave us a setup for later down the road at the end of S6 *I won't mention for spoilers what happens*. But it shows us why Sanasa herself has such a dislike for Ramsey - he actually done something to her, not just to people she knows.

 

Then there is the scenes with Little Finger in his brothel... Those are harder to justify, except in that it paints him in a certain light, which helps his character develop.

 

The reality is, GoT really has not thrown many sex scenes in that don't somehow build up the plot of the story, or try to portray a character in a particular way. I don't think I have seen an episode where sex is in there just for it to be there, and as season went on, sex became a much less common thing - to now in Season 6 we had basically no sex scenes at all. Even in Season 5, the most 'horrible' sex scene was the rape with Sansa - but even that didn't show any skin.

 

Now as for violence, GoT does have that going for it. However, as before, the violence almost always tends to build a plot or a character. How do we create a character like Stannis? You want to like him in some ways, hate him in others... BUT, when he burns his daughter alive - it shows his real mindset, and also provides setups for later plot lines.

[Landon D. Parks]

 

Right, so why even bother making R rated content?

 

R,

 

Well, because it can also sell really well, just in it's own way. For example, to make a family flick a blockbuster requires a hundred million dollars plus probably another 60-70 mil in marketing. Yes, the movie can tread into the top 20 of all time, but it also costs a lot to get it there, and there is a lot of risk that it'll fail and lose big. Horror movies, for example, tend to have a built in audience. They can be made for $20-$40 million with a-list actors, need only niche marketing, etc. So while they might not pull in the same sheer number of people as a blockbuster family flick - they don't need to. When a horror movie fails, it tends to do so in less dramatic way.

 

And I do enjoy the occasional horror and thriller as well.

 

PS) Horror movies and other r-rated stuff tend to appeal to young adult - which is a segment that does not do well with the more family oriented films... So by making content for the young and old in one category, and the young adults in another - you are cornering both markets.

 

Same reason in theatre we'd still do the adult-type shows.... Because the old people liked them and showed up. The older crowd, while not as large an audience, were more apt to donate money or subscribe than the younger crowds.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

Come on man, let's be intellectually honest here. There is a huge difference between "portraying" bad in the world and "glorifying" it. People who watch GoT are watching so for the same reason that the Mob of Rome liked the Gladiator Arena.

 

Other movies may present the bad in the world but usually there is some other purpose than to appeal to the brute in us.

 

But where do we do draw the line? What is simply showing, and what is gratifying it? Game of Thrones really doesn't gratify sex or violence. Pretty much every time it presents either one, it's in a bad light - and it rarely leads to any good for the person doing the sex or violence... So is GoT really promoting violence? I'd argue no.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Satsuki Murashige]

I think this is an issue of nationality.

 

The US seems to be extremely puritanical about sex, foul language and drugs, but extremely permissive about violence, in a way that can surprise the rest of the world.

 

P

Richard is one of yours though ;)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Seriously, what was the difference between, Blue is the Warmest Colour, and a porno flick?

R,

The difference is that the audience is emotionally invested in the characters and the narrative in the former. While the latter exists solely as a pretext for um, other purposes.

[Guest]

The difference is that the audience is emotionally invested in the characters and the narrative in the former. While the latter exists solely as a pretext for um, other purposes.

 

I see, so if the porn producers would simply develop their characters better, create compelling story arcs, and write a solid narrative.....they too can be the toast of Cannes and win the Palm d'Or!!!!

 

R,

[Satsuki Murashige]

My point is simply that Game of Thrones uses soft porn for commercial purposes. I don't think that's a difficult point to understand or accept.

 

Yes, but that is hardly the primary reason for its success. They way you have seemingly reduced the merits of the entire show down to 'soft-core porn' just strikes a lot of people as both prude and highly inaccurate.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I see, so if the porn producers would simply develop their characters better, create compelling story arcs, and write a solid narrative.....they too can be the toast of Cannes and win the Palm d'Or!!!!

 

Well, if Jack Horner could write a good script, then why not? We want our stories to be full of human truth and the richness of human experience. Sex, love, and desire are part of that. There's nothing inherently wrong with showing that.

[David Mullen ASC]

The real question is why we seem to find a natural (indeed essential) human activity like sex to be so shameful and embarrassing, with so many social taboos surrounding it.

 

As for not wanting to watch morally questionable people do terrible things to each other, that leaves out a lot of things, from "Macbeth" to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

As for not wanting to watch morally questionable people do terrible things to each other, that leaves out a lot of things, from "Macbeth" to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"...

David, I addressed this from Landon's similar statement. Maybe it is just the people I know who are fans of GoT but they act more like people watching a UFC event than watching a play from antiquity.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I used the phrase 'narratively gratuitous' before to describe some sex scenes from 'Game of Thrones.' What I mean is that they don't serve a story purpose.

 

One example would be in Season 2 when Ros 'auditions' for Littlefinger in his brothel. This scene struck me as incredibly clunky screenwriting. The purpose was to exposit Littlefinger's backstory with Catelyn, to show that he is cruel and turned on by power and not sex, and to show that Ros is a quick study and could be useful to him. That's it. None of that required anyone getting naked or simulating sex, and it certainly didn't require the character to self-exposit like a Bond villain. I wasn't offended by the sight of boobs, I was offended by the awful writing.

 

That's certainly not the case in many other scenes, though I do feel that the writers too often rely on genre or cinematic tropes as a shorthand instead of coming up with a more elegant solution. Hence, the term 'sexposition.'

 

Keep in mind that in the novels, the author writes each chapter entirely from a single character's perspective. It's an odd choice, but very effective in terms of both exposition and in creating unreliable narrators (basically everyone). Which is how real life works - we never truly know who other people are, how they really feel about us, and sometimes how we truly feel ourselves. This makes for fascinating characters.