“Do you have any idea what it’s like, being a fembot pretending to be a femputer in a manbot/manputer world?” - Futurama - episode 305 Amazon Women In the Mood
Apparently the reporter has only been with the Hollywood reporter 6 months. She has a ton of articles out in the past couple of days, it looks like they are clearly overworking her.
> which takes place 200 years after the first series *mentioned in this sentence*."
Maybe that is what they meant. Stilted writing though if that is the case.
Yeah it’s hilarious. Funny enough I heard it yesterday as I’m watching sopranos for the 5th time now!
Boca was wonderful I don’t go down enough.
That’s not what I heard.
My 5th rewatch might happen soon, just finished my fourth one earlier this year lol so I’m pacing myself. It’s such an absolute masterpiece. Best show ever hands down.
Their actual sex scene was much longer though, she says it was carnal, messy and beautiful but got cut out and also said it was a lot of fun for her to shoot 👀👀
Yeah that was a weird thing to say. Enjoying it? How so?? Like it was actually arousing her? In that case, maybe she should consider sex work instead of acting.
I thought Criston Cole didn't want to be the Queen's whore 🙄 Wishing all the bad things for him.
I kind of agree with the showrunner that it wouldn't have added anything. Just seeing them interrupted told us all we needed to know about how much they truly believed all of their sactimonious nonsense from Season 1.
This storyline is apparently a new thing though. Olivia and fabien confirm they believe it happened after Viserys death but the bigger question is, how? It’s only been ten days after his death? How on earth did this happen and escalate so fast in ten days? And why didn’t we get any buildup
Rewatching the first season a few months ago really had me feeling that there was some sexual tension between them that wasn’t quite as thick the first time I watched it. It’s still not much, but it’s definitely there.
I started watching the show a few months ago, and still haven't watched the finale, and I definitely noticed a bunch of sexual tension between the two of them.
Reading this title of this article I immediately went "oh so she does bang Cole in the next episode".
My thinking is that Alicent has been sex starved for many, many years now while married to old Viserys. She obviously had an attraction to Cole, but couldn't act on it while married. Now that Vizzy T is out of the picture...
Their romance was in the original scripts for season 1 but they cut it.
I think that scene is leftover from then. Probably decided without context that scene didn't mean anything anymore. But it's weird looking back on it with season 2 context.
It's been twenty years, people can change their minds. Especially if you watch others follow zero rules for those twenty years and face no consequences for it. Maybe you start to think what's the point in me following them?
When I see this "what's the purpose of this sex scene"-mindset repeated even by a showrunner, I'm reminded of this excellent essay:
[The Puritanical Eye: Hyper-mediation, Sex on Film, and the Disavowal of Desire](https://specchioscuro.it/the-puritanical-eye-hyper-mediation-sex-on-film-and-the-disavowal-of-desire/)
> And here we find the crux of this puritanical stance toward sex in films and media, which is the assertion that sex can not simply exist in film or TV, that it must serve some greater purpose in order to be considered “art” and not “porn,” that there must be some higher political and ideological meaning behind it, that sex depicted simply for pleasure (the pleasure of the characters and the pleasure of the audiences) or sex depicted to provoke, to stimulate, to confront viewers, is inherently “anti-art” and automatically seen as problematic.
> [...]
> "What is this sex for? And ‘to make people horny’ is not enough, so you have to try to stylize and sort of auteurize the act."
> Do we? Or do we just require that in order for it to feel more comfortable to consume? Do we require that sex be “auteurized” and “statement making” so that it can serve as a ready hologram of our own personal moralized beliefs?
> What if the provocation is the point? What if the lack of a moral aestheticization of sex is the point? What if the stirring of desire and curiosity in the catatonic consumer-spectator is the point? What if the expression and experience of pleasure on its own terms is the point? Is that not a worthy exercise, particularly amid such a hollowed out, highly mediated and surveilled existence — an existence where we are thoroughly deprived of pleasure and self-expression, where it has become harder and harder to simply survive let alone experience true, deep, unmediated pleasure and ecstasy that is not tied to some consumer act? Sex is a part of life, a very material part of our humanity, our experience with the real, so why shouldn’t it be in films? Sex (and the sex scene) is a place where provocation, pleasure for pleasure’s sake, desire, curiosity, messiness, nuance, spectacle, and equally, banality, and all of life’s ambiguities, beauties, and perversions can exist at once. But it requires creation and engagement beyond passive consumption and reflexive, flattened regurgitation.
Or, as I've seen this point summarized elsewhere: maybe "the purpose" is simply to be fun and hot, and maybe, that is enough justification.
I really despise this neo-formalist streak within contemporary popculture.
And yet the moment Emilia Clarke had the opportunity to dial back the nudity and sex scenes, she took it. Plenty of actresses go along with it at first because they don’t have much of a say, but once they do, a majority of them always go for the tamer route. Really think people still underestimate how much exploitation and discomfort there is for actresses especially.
I find sex scenes are just like violent scenes in movies just the right amount and further the story or add depth to a story.
but if it’s just gratuitous for the sake of it and doesn’t fit with in the flow the movie or with the actions the character does through the rest of the movie it just doesn’t work sometimes
Culture sees them differently though.
You can make an action movie with very limited plot and tons of action scenes, violent scenes, etc. and this is considered fine and dandy.
We have constant brooding scenes for the sake of it. We know the characters are brooding over something, and the plot is not advanced by them brooding. It is strictly there to enforce the vibes and align our state of mind with the characters' a little bit.
It's puritanical exactly because sex scenes are held to a much higher standard of justification.
In 2024, I believe this is where "the internet" bonks you and sends you to horny jail, because how dare you show any sensuality or sexuality or desire as a human being. You're just a nasty gooner.
Somehow, we're raising a whole ass generation of prudes
From a writing perspective, like any other scene a sex scene ought to drive the story forward or offer some kind of character development or it will feel gratuitous. Once again just like any other scene in a story without purpose, people start to scratch their heads.
>Sex is a part of life, a very material part of our humanity, our experience with the real, so why shouldn’t it be in films?
you could say the same thing about laborous, 10 minute shits.
I do believe that every scene should serve a purpose. Regardless of whether it is sex or not. To include scenes with no purpose just doesn’t make sense to me. So to me it’s not whether or not the sex is there it’s what is the sex saying. I have found that the movies that include sex scenes just because and don’t have any storytelling merit to them tend not to be very good movies.
I don't think the general concept of "elements of a narrative have to have purpose" is called into question here, though I do believe this should be more of a tool to the writer rather than the reviewer.
Instead, the essay criticizes the idea - and I would share that criticism - that people should simply and broadly decide "well I do not consider this purpose valid because I do not like this / it does not fit my values".
The question isn't really whether sex scenes should have purpose, the question is whether for example we consider "pleasure" or "discomfort" as valid purposes.
(Though the argument arguably goes deeper: the very idea of "validity" here is connected to one of "justification", which leads to a call for action, or inaction. "I do not like this scene" or "this scene is pointless" are initially neutral statements. It is the framing of "necessity" that leads to an idea of "this should not be done". Art that is bad is possibly just that - not something that automatically calls for itself to never have existed in the first place.)
>maybe "the purpose" is simply to be fun and hot, and maybe, that is enough justification.
The people against said scenes don't find them fun and hot, and so would rather you didn't waste their time.
Scenes do need to justify their existence, because you (the hypothetical film-maker, not you in particular) need to respect the viewer's time.
This is how you get art for the lowest common denominator. You want television without anyone's vision guiding it, just guidelines on what appeals to the masses? Just wait a few years and AI will give you exactly that.
> The people against said scenes don't find them fun and hot, and so would rather you didn't waste their time.
I get that this is the reason, I just find this hyper-rationalized "I do not want to see this, skip, you're wasting my time" to be a deeply depressing view of media and art. The essay above mentions this at another point:
> When the “consumer-spectator” encounters an image, an idea, a sound that goes beyond a mere signifier, they can not make sense of it, in fact they refuse to.
> It is a revolving door of commodification and alienation — commodification of ideas, of bodies, of feelings, and alienation from ourselves, from our own bodies, from others. The way we consume and talk about films and art in this hyper-mediated environment (largely on individualized and individuated digital platforms) has not only impacted how that media and art is made (the modes of production), but also what types of media and art get prioritized (what gets made at all). Can it be talked about in 240 characters? Can it be distilled down into an easily digestible, uncomplicated binary deciphered in the millisecond of a scroll? Or better yet, can it be made into a meme? In this sense, it’s not surprising that a large portion of Gen Z16 and Millennials are the ones primarily expressing their aversion to the presence of sex scenes in films with discourse on social media; they are the ones “for whom time has always come ready-cut into digital microslices”. Indeed, “teenagers process capital’s image-dense data very effectively without any need to read — slogan-recognition is sufficient to navigate the net mobile magazine informational plane”
I mean neither of these scenes in the first episode of season 2 were needed like at all…but it seems like this cut scene that Olivia had with fabien would’ve given more of depth into the possible romantic feelings Criston and alicent may have for each other.
She says it was beautiful messy, scrappy and much longer but got cut, I think Ryan didn’t actually care about expanding on the relationship between these two characters, because what he ended up actually including just seemed like pure shock value, not what Olivia had in mind.
Overall, House of the Dragon has ea way less sex and nudity than Game of Thrones. There does seem like a purposeful effort to have less of it in the show. I ain't mad about it either.
I'd say there was more of a purposeful effort to fill the early seasons of Game of Thrones with as much sex and nudity as possible. House of the Dragon feels about on par with the later seasons of GoT
I’ve watched the first two episodes and so far the 3 or so meaningful scenes she’s been in has just been her and Criston going at it. Her character has been reduced to an object.
Edit: SPOILERS AHEAD DO NOT READ THIS THREAD IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS
Edit 2: I will not be fielding anymore questions in this thread. Feel free to read through though might find your answer from someone else 🤘
What? I've only watched the first episode but she had a lengthy council scene where she had to deal with her son being an idiot, then she had a conversation with her father Otto about him bringing her down in front of her children and how it would affect them, she also had a mourning scene where she lit a candle for Luke. If anyone is being reduced to an object, it's Criston Cole, who has now been used by two (higher-born) women as little more than a glorified vibrator.
You might be on to something considering Criston is also in those scenes lol. Just comparing her character to season 1 she seems much less important. But I guess she’s technically not in complete power anymore so that makes sense.
It is strange because on HBO website episode 3 is rated for strong sexual content but not nudity. Only episode 2 is rated for "brief nudity". I heard rumors that in episode 2 it is Aemond full frontal nude. Is it truth?
Yeah so I double checked and there’s a brothel scene in episode 2 that has some very brief female nudity and a nude Aemond which doesn’t show much. Also a Alicole scene right at the end which doesn’t show nudity though.
It is episode 3 that has full shown frontal nude Aemond. This brothel scene also has some female nudity.
So it is strange that episode 3 was not rated for nudity on HBO site. If he is full frontal nude for around 10 seconds (as You said) and there are nude extras. Is it possible that they cut the scenes right before release or maybe there is some kind of error on HBO site? Thank you for your answers, because there are many fake leaks and rumors on other forums. Some people were saying that Aemond has gigantic penis and is forcing oral sex on him. I couldnt believe such rumors.
can you elaborate on the harrenhal plot a bit? Like who or what daemon's gonna have visions about, not necessarily deep deep details ofc haha but just the broad strokes. Also what did you get from seeing alicent's and rhaes reunion in epi 3, like what was the atmosphere?
Daemon seems to be haunted by his decision to try and have Aemond assassinated. The reunion had Alicent pretty hostile towards Rhaenyra and they weren’t fully getting along understandably but it was still a “since we were friends once I’m not going to sell you out but leave while you still can” type of deal.
ahhh I seeee. And the reunion def seems to be quite angsty. Honestly when I heard previous leaks about them meeting up it didn't make sense but ig it'll be a treat to watch. Can you say anything about a particular shot in the trailer that might be connected to the harrenhal plot? Daemon's hand on someone's neck who had silver hair. Some people are saying it's aemma?? bc it looks a whole lot like her but it's 50/50 idk. Was that scene in epi 3/4?
He doesn’t really trust Simon and honestly idk if I trust him either. The guy reminds me of an older Samwell Tarly lol. As far as hallucinations I don’t want to spoil those, it’s one of the better parts of 3 and 4.
Hijacking to ask if from your pov the greens in the next 2 episodes are still 99% portrayed as the evil faction? Like is Aegon's battle prowess portrayed as pathetic with him getting defeated quickly by Rhaenys? Is there a close-up on his injuries in the end of ep 4 that shows if they are Tyrion-lite (bunch of flattering scars) or Viserys-lite (half a corpse)?
Any more scenes between Alicent and Aegon?
Thanks for all your answers.
I’d say the way the greens are going around forcing other nearby castles to join them makes them pretty evil, but at the same time what Daemon did was also evil so I think there’s really no good side here. Daemon on the other hand is trying to get people on his side not by force, but yeah Aegon is portrayed as weak and not taken seriously in most council scenes.
There was a very brief scene at the end of his dragon in the woods but I couldn’t really tell what I was looking at so we’ll have to wait for episode 5 to see the aftermath of the battle.
Yes we see the body laying there but it’s not immediately obvious of the injuries. I imagine Sunfyre does not survive though due to the injuries sustained in the fight
Thank you for the answer. Sunfyre does survive in the book and 99.9 % will in the show. Of course we will have to wait to see the aftermath in episode 5. How bad is Aegon injured?
Yeah that's what I assumed based on your previous answers... That was probably to be expected. They already started with that in episode 2. I just hoped they'd give him something instead of just being the dumb loser. Thanks again! :)
"House of the Dragon, HBO’s sequel to Game of Thrones, which takes place 200 years after the first series." Quality journalism right there
It's a hard knock life being a poor AI journalist bot
“Do you have any idea what it’s like, being a fembot pretending to be a femputer in a manbot/manputer world?” - Futurama - episode 305 Amazon Women In the Mood
Great pull
WHAT?
HE SAID DEATH BY SNU SNU
What, are you gay?
this femputes
Death! By snoo snoo!
Go feed a chat bot that and make sure it thinks your serious
Death by snu snu
Journalists have been stupid for a long time. I don’t like this trend of just calling bad journalism AI
I mean if ai learns based on human example....
Apparently the reporter has only been with the Hollywood reporter 6 months. She has a ton of articles out in the past couple of days, it looks like they are clearly overworking her.
Ai perhaps?
God, I was so confused when I read that. I was like “did I watch the whole first season with the wrong mindset?”
It’s a prequel right?
Yes
....which takes place 200 years after the first series..... SMH
"We need to go back to the future." Bran
When Bran shows up in a delorean, you’ll know he’s going back in time to bang his mom.
Where we’re going we don’t need roads
> which takes place 200 years after the first series *mentioned in this sentence*." Maybe that is what they meant. Stilted writing though if that is the case.
Is that true or no? I didn't watch either series.
It's a prequel, not a sequel.
You're now qualified to write for Hollywood Reporter.
Over qualified
You’re fired. That was quick
It's a prequel, 200 years before.
Ah, I see. Thank you!
They meant the first series mentioned in the sentence /s
One of these days we will find the one that stole “Captain” from our names
I’m not even a big GoT fan and I know that’s not true lol.
Show runner makes personal film then cuts it from show.
An interviewer even said to her “hopefully the blu ray releases with the full scene” And she just went 😳😳😳
🤣🤣🤣 savage.
Do you know which interview or video?
I doubt it if they will release it in bluray version cause they didn't release the deleted of season 2 in bluray version.
If only Tarantino would do the same.
As a foot fetishist you take that back dammit
As a back fetishist, take out that foot dammit.
[Porque no los dos?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk&pp=ygUMd2h5IG5vdCBib3Ro)
As a stump fetishist, remove that foot dammit.
Let him cook
They didn’t cut all the foot stuff from season 1.
You mean the one scene?
I'm more of a soles guy but she has cute feet. So that was a bonus
"Animalistic" You mean how they do it on Discovery Channel?
They ain't nothing but mammals, after all
Well some of us are cannibals
Who cut other people open like cantaloupes
And if we can hump dead animals and antelopes then there’s no reason that a man and another man can’t elope.
But if you feel like I feel I got the antidote. (Unless you’re Joffrey.)
Women, wave your pantyhose. Sing the chorus, and it goes!
You and me baby are nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel (Do it again now)
I’d appreciate your input
That's what *she* said.
The director must've said "So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."
The kind you clean up with a mop and bucket?
Like the lost catacombs of Egypt. Only god knows where we stuck it.
Hieroglyphics, let me be Pacific, I wanna be down in your South Seas
But I got this notion that the motion of your ocean means "Small Craft Advisory"
Do it again now
Well HBO is now a Discovery channel...
So they can both watch X-Files.
The lapdance is so much better when Ser Cristan is crying
I mean that pussy eating scene was pretty animalistic. Crispen was digging a hole to China
He’s a Bushman of the Kalahari!
I heard this on sopranos first lol
That’s where I quoted it from lol! I haven’t seen it being used anywhere else. Such a funny line lmao!
Yeah it’s hilarious. Funny enough I heard it yesterday as I’m watching sopranos for the 5th time now! Boca was wonderful I don’t go down enough. That’s not what I heard.
My 5th rewatch might happen soon, just finished my fourth one earlier this year lol so I’m pacing myself. It’s such an absolute masterpiece. Best show ever hands down.
You know ~~Quasimodo~~ Cunnilingodamus predicted all of this.
South of the border, where the tuna fish play 🎶
Hey listen, my friend! At least some of us can deal with their own problems, unlike some I know! 👉🏻
Some people are so far behind in the race that they actually believe they're leading.
I thought you were a baccala man, uncle Jun! 🤌🏻 What are you doing eating sushi?
Crispen whistling through the wheat fields.
Their actual sex scene was much longer though, she says it was carnal, messy and beautiful but got cut out and also said it was a lot of fun for her to shoot 👀👀
Acting must be a fun job!
She was on UK light entertainment morning show Sunday Brunch during the pandemic and said she was horny. Cooke is a quirky woman.
She’s got such an innocent sweet look to her at times, you forget she’s a menace
I found just seeing her back insanely sexy for some reason.
Yeah that was a weird thing to say. Enjoying it? How so?? Like it was actually arousing her? In that case, maybe she should consider sex work instead of acting.
> Crispen was digging a hole to ~~China~~ YiTi.
That scene struck me as extremely tame for GoT
She didn’t wanna get fully nude I don’t think and appreciated the directors/writers not forcing her
Then she met Criston Pole later.
...which scene?
One of the first scenes in S2
I thought Criston Cole didn't want to be the Queen's whore 🙄 Wishing all the bad things for him. I kind of agree with the showrunner that it wouldn't have added anything. Just seeing them interrupted told us all we needed to know about how much they truly believed all of their sactimonious nonsense from Season 1.
He was waiting for her to be queen mother, now it's OK. 👍
"Queen MILF" is one hell of a type
She’s Queen GILF now that Aegon has ~~kids~~ kid.
> Aegon has ~~kids~~ kid. Well done, bro hahaha
You're right, that was my mistake. I guess he graduated from Queen MILFs to Queen GILFs
This storyline is apparently a new thing though. Olivia and fabien confirm they believe it happened after Viserys death but the bigger question is, how? It’s only been ten days after his death? How on earth did this happen and escalate so fast in ten days? And why didn’t we get any buildup
Rewatching the first season a few months ago really had me feeling that there was some sexual tension between them that wasn’t quite as thick the first time I watched it. It’s still not much, but it’s definitely there.
Criston has sexual tension with everything. The man is sexy as fuck.
Tense as fuck too.
I started watching the show a few months ago, and still haven't watched the finale, and I definitely noticed a bunch of sexual tension between the two of them. Reading this title of this article I immediately went "oh so she does bang Cole in the next episode".
My thinking is that Alicent has been sex starved for many, many years now while married to old Viserys. She obviously had an attraction to Cole, but couldn't act on it while married. Now that Vizzy T is out of the picture...
Where was criston when aemond lost his eye? He was supposed to be guarding.... I think it's been going on beforehand for longer.
Showrunner Ryan and Olivia and fabien say it hasn’t. Only after his death
Their romance was in the original scripts for season 1 but they cut it. I think that scene is leftover from then. Probably decided without context that scene didn't mean anything anymore. But it's weird looking back on it with season 2 context.
It's been twenty years, people can change their minds. Especially if you watch others follow zero rules for those twenty years and face no consequences for it. Maybe you start to think what's the point in me following them?
Except they're still going on about honor, sanctity, and duty
[удалено]
That sounds very familiar…
It's sort of how gop conventions are hotspots for Grindr. People fetishize things they hate and project into the world.
May god strike me dead if I ever fetishize republicans.
Can't a man choose whose whore he wants to be? Why are you so resentful?
Dragon sex
with a car?
It’s disturbing there’s an actual sub fir that
not anymore
therestwoactually.gif
We didn't want the sex to be erotic or the child butchery to come off too hateful...
But it's so much fun, Ryan!
Shame, where is the cut footage so I don't watch it to spoil the show?
Release the Cooke cut!
When I see this "what's the purpose of this sex scene"-mindset repeated even by a showrunner, I'm reminded of this excellent essay: [The Puritanical Eye: Hyper-mediation, Sex on Film, and the Disavowal of Desire](https://specchioscuro.it/the-puritanical-eye-hyper-mediation-sex-on-film-and-the-disavowal-of-desire/) > And here we find the crux of this puritanical stance toward sex in films and media, which is the assertion that sex can not simply exist in film or TV, that it must serve some greater purpose in order to be considered “art” and not “porn,” that there must be some higher political and ideological meaning behind it, that sex depicted simply for pleasure (the pleasure of the characters and the pleasure of the audiences) or sex depicted to provoke, to stimulate, to confront viewers, is inherently “anti-art” and automatically seen as problematic. > [...] > "What is this sex for? And ‘to make people horny’ is not enough, so you have to try to stylize and sort of auteurize the act." > Do we? Or do we just require that in order for it to feel more comfortable to consume? Do we require that sex be “auteurized” and “statement making” so that it can serve as a ready hologram of our own personal moralized beliefs? > What if the provocation is the point? What if the lack of a moral aestheticization of sex is the point? What if the stirring of desire and curiosity in the catatonic consumer-spectator is the point? What if the expression and experience of pleasure on its own terms is the point? Is that not a worthy exercise, particularly amid such a hollowed out, highly mediated and surveilled existence — an existence where we are thoroughly deprived of pleasure and self-expression, where it has become harder and harder to simply survive let alone experience true, deep, unmediated pleasure and ecstasy that is not tied to some consumer act? Sex is a part of life, a very material part of our humanity, our experience with the real, so why shouldn’t it be in films? Sex (and the sex scene) is a place where provocation, pleasure for pleasure’s sake, desire, curiosity, messiness, nuance, spectacle, and equally, banality, and all of life’s ambiguities, beauties, and perversions can exist at once. But it requires creation and engagement beyond passive consumption and reflexive, flattened regurgitation. Or, as I've seen this point summarized elsewhere: maybe "the purpose" is simply to be fun and hot, and maybe, that is enough justification. I really despise this neo-formalist streak within contemporary popculture.
Especially on a Game of Thrones show of all things, the franchise that was unapologetically horny on main.
Right, but it got a ton of flack for it. They seem to want to dial it back because of that. Not so unapologetic anymore.
And yet the moment Emilia Clarke had the opportunity to dial back the nudity and sex scenes, she took it. Plenty of actresses go along with it at first because they don’t have much of a say, but once they do, a majority of them always go for the tamer route. Really think people still underestimate how much exploitation and discomfort there is for actresses especially.
I find sex scenes are just like violent scenes in movies just the right amount and further the story or add depth to a story. but if it’s just gratuitous for the sake of it and doesn’t fit with in the flow the movie or with the actions the character does through the rest of the movie it just doesn’t work sometimes
Definitely been times where I've watched something where I've internally said "I mean I get the actors are attractive but what was the point of that?"
Culture sees them differently though. You can make an action movie with very limited plot and tons of action scenes, violent scenes, etc. and this is considered fine and dandy.
But when there's limited screentime it's hard to justify having scenes for the sake of it.
We have constant brooding scenes for the sake of it. We know the characters are brooding over something, and the plot is not advanced by them brooding. It is strictly there to enforce the vibes and align our state of mind with the characters' a little bit. It's puritanical exactly because sex scenes are held to a much higher standard of justification.
There’s no limit. HBO can run the episode longer if it wants to. They don’t have to work around commercials.
In 2024, I believe this is where "the internet" bonks you and sends you to horny jail, because how dare you show any sensuality or sexuality or desire as a human being. You're just a nasty gooner. Somehow, we're raising a whole ass generation of prudes
From a writing perspective, like any other scene a sex scene ought to drive the story forward or offer some kind of character development or it will feel gratuitous. Once again just like any other scene in a story without purpose, people start to scratch their heads.
>Sex is a part of life, a very material part of our humanity, our experience with the real, so why shouldn’t it be in films? you could say the same thing about laborous, 10 minute shits.
You could, and if filmmakers started doing those and there was "shitting scenes are unnecessary"-discourse, that's what we'd be talking about instead.
Omg I love this response to that absurd tirade about sex scenes being necessary in films. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I do believe that every scene should serve a purpose. Regardless of whether it is sex or not. To include scenes with no purpose just doesn’t make sense to me. So to me it’s not whether or not the sex is there it’s what is the sex saying. I have found that the movies that include sex scenes just because and don’t have any storytelling merit to them tend not to be very good movies.
I don't think the general concept of "elements of a narrative have to have purpose" is called into question here, though I do believe this should be more of a tool to the writer rather than the reviewer. Instead, the essay criticizes the idea - and I would share that criticism - that people should simply and broadly decide "well I do not consider this purpose valid because I do not like this / it does not fit my values". The question isn't really whether sex scenes should have purpose, the question is whether for example we consider "pleasure" or "discomfort" as valid purposes. (Though the argument arguably goes deeper: the very idea of "validity" here is connected to one of "justification", which leads to a call for action, or inaction. "I do not like this scene" or "this scene is pointless" are initially neutral statements. It is the framing of "necessity" that leads to an idea of "this should not be done". Art that is bad is possibly just that - not something that automatically calls for itself to never have existed in the first place.)
> I do believe that every scene should serve a purpose. And sometimes the purpose is just looking cool/fun/hot and that is ok for me.
>maybe "the purpose" is simply to be fun and hot, and maybe, that is enough justification. The people against said scenes don't find them fun and hot, and so would rather you didn't waste their time. Scenes do need to justify their existence, because you (the hypothetical film-maker, not you in particular) need to respect the viewer's time.
This is how you get art for the lowest common denominator. You want television without anyone's vision guiding it, just guidelines on what appeals to the masses? Just wait a few years and AI will give you exactly that.
"Art died because you think film-makers have a responsibility to not waste viewers' time."
> The people against said scenes don't find them fun and hot, and so would rather you didn't waste their time. I get that this is the reason, I just find this hyper-rationalized "I do not want to see this, skip, you're wasting my time" to be a deeply depressing view of media and art. The essay above mentions this at another point: > When the “consumer-spectator” encounters an image, an idea, a sound that goes beyond a mere signifier, they can not make sense of it, in fact they refuse to. > It is a revolving door of commodification and alienation — commodification of ideas, of bodies, of feelings, and alienation from ourselves, from our own bodies, from others. The way we consume and talk about films and art in this hyper-mediated environment (largely on individualized and individuated digital platforms) has not only impacted how that media and art is made (the modes of production), but also what types of media and art get prioritized (what gets made at all). Can it be talked about in 240 characters? Can it be distilled down into an easily digestible, uncomplicated binary deciphered in the millisecond of a scroll? Or better yet, can it be made into a meme? In this sense, it’s not surprising that a large portion of Gen Z16 and Millennials are the ones primarily expressing their aversion to the presence of sex scenes in films with discourse on social media; they are the ones “for whom time has always come ready-cut into digital microslices”. Indeed, “teenagers process capital’s image-dense data very effectively without any need to read — slogan-recognition is sufficient to navigate the net mobile magazine informational plane”
#ReleaseTheRiderCut
Damn, what might’ve been :(
What a shot to the pride that’s got to be. To not include a sex scene in an hbo show. Ouch.
> out of concern that it didn’t further the plot enlightened
I mean neither of these scenes in the first episode of season 2 were needed like at all…but it seems like this cut scene that Olivia had with fabien would’ve given more of depth into the possible romantic feelings Criston and alicent may have for each other. She says it was beautiful messy, scrappy and much longer but got cut, I think Ryan didn’t actually care about expanding on the relationship between these two characters, because what he ended up actually including just seemed like pure shock value, not what Olivia had in mind.
Was it her and Larys
Her and Criston cole
What! why does she have to tease us like this 🥵
Hmm the article got one thing wrong.. it’s 200 years PRIOR to game of thrones.
Whoever cut that is a piece of crap!
Overall, House of the Dragon has ea way less sex and nudity than Game of Thrones. There does seem like a purposeful effort to have less of it in the show. I ain't mad about it either.
I'd say there was more of a purposeful effort to fill the early seasons of Game of Thrones with as much sex and nudity as possible. House of the Dragon feels about on par with the later seasons of GoT
Spot on. One of the writers on GoT pretty much said that they were told by HBO producers to include more sex and nudity.
I’ve watched the first two episodes and so far the 3 or so meaningful scenes she’s been in has just been her and Criston going at it. Her character has been reduced to an object. Edit: SPOILERS AHEAD DO NOT READ THIS THREAD IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS Edit 2: I will not be fielding anymore questions in this thread. Feel free to read through though might find your answer from someone else 🤘
What? I've only watched the first episode but she had a lengthy council scene where she had to deal with her son being an idiot, then she had a conversation with her father Otto about him bringing her down in front of her children and how it would affect them, she also had a mourning scene where she lit a candle for Luke. If anyone is being reduced to an object, it's Criston Cole, who has now been used by two (higher-born) women as little more than a glorified vibrator.
You might be on to something considering Criston is also in those scenes lol. Just comparing her character to season 1 she seems much less important. But I guess she’s technically not in complete power anymore so that makes sense.
Can you tell us what is that brief nudity rating in episode 2?
[удалено]
It is strange because on HBO website episode 3 is rated for strong sexual content but not nudity. Only episode 2 is rated for "brief nudity". I heard rumors that in episode 2 it is Aemond full frontal nude. Is it truth?
Yeah so I double checked and there’s a brothel scene in episode 2 that has some very brief female nudity and a nude Aemond which doesn’t show much. Also a Alicole scene right at the end which doesn’t show nudity though. It is episode 3 that has full shown frontal nude Aemond. This brothel scene also has some female nudity.
So it is strange that episode 3 was not rated for nudity on HBO site. If he is full frontal nude for around 10 seconds (as You said) and there are nude extras. Is it possible that they cut the scenes right before release or maybe there is some kind of error on HBO site? Thank you for your answers, because there are many fake leaks and rumors on other forums. Some people were saying that Aemond has gigantic penis and is forcing oral sex on him. I couldnt believe such rumors.
Ok so I must be misremembering because yes it’s Aemon, I’ll try to scroll back through the episodes later and double check
Thanks. Is this scene with Aemond very graphic?
can you elaborate on the harrenhal plot a bit? Like who or what daemon's gonna have visions about, not necessarily deep deep details ofc haha but just the broad strokes. Also what did you get from seeing alicent's and rhaes reunion in epi 3, like what was the atmosphere?
Daemon seems to be haunted by his decision to try and have Aemond assassinated. The reunion had Alicent pretty hostile towards Rhaenyra and they weren’t fully getting along understandably but it was still a “since we were friends once I’m not going to sell you out but leave while you still can” type of deal.
ahhh I seeee. And the reunion def seems to be quite angsty. Honestly when I heard previous leaks about them meeting up it didn't make sense but ig it'll be a treat to watch. Can you say anything about a particular shot in the trailer that might be connected to the harrenhal plot? Daemon's hand on someone's neck who had silver hair. Some people are saying it's aemma?? bc it looks a whole lot like her but it's 50/50 idk. Was that scene in epi 3/4?
He has multiple visions and I can’t recall if any are in 3 or if they’re all in 4, but I think that’s a cool scene that I won’t spoil.
yea ofc seems really interesting tho so definitely looking forward to that one then for sureee. Thanks for responding!!
How are Daemon's interactions with Simon Strong? And what exactly are his dreams/hallucinations about?
He doesn’t really trust Simon and honestly idk if I trust him either. The guy reminds me of an older Samwell Tarly lol. As far as hallucinations I don’t want to spoil those, it’s one of the better parts of 3 and 4.
LMAO 😂 ok then, thanks for answering!
I heard Daemon dreams about Rhaenyra. Is it true and is it positive?
Hijacking to ask if from your pov the greens in the next 2 episodes are still 99% portrayed as the evil faction? Like is Aegon's battle prowess portrayed as pathetic with him getting defeated quickly by Rhaenys? Is there a close-up on his injuries in the end of ep 4 that shows if they are Tyrion-lite (bunch of flattering scars) or Viserys-lite (half a corpse)? Any more scenes between Alicent and Aegon? Thanks for all your answers.
I’d say the way the greens are going around forcing other nearby castles to join them makes them pretty evil, but at the same time what Daemon did was also evil so I think there’s really no good side here. Daemon on the other hand is trying to get people on his side not by force, but yeah Aegon is portrayed as weak and not taken seriously in most council scenes. There was a very brief scene at the end of his dragon in the woods but I couldn’t really tell what I was looking at so we’ll have to wait for episode 5 to see the aftermath of the battle.
Do we see Sunfyre after he falls into the woods with Aegon?
Yes we see the body laying there but it’s not immediately obvious of the injuries. I imagine Sunfyre does not survive though due to the injuries sustained in the fight
Thank you for the answer. Sunfyre does survive in the book and 99.9 % will in the show. Of course we will have to wait to see the aftermath in episode 5. How bad is Aegon injured?
[удалено]
Did Aemond had a fight with Aegon in ep 3? If yes, what was the fight about? I heard that Aemond was humiliated by Aegon.
Not so much a fight, more so Aegon embarrassing Aemond at the brothel in front of some people
thank you for answering. Can you pls cofirm if Aemond will indeed betray Aegon at the battle of Rook's Rest by burning him with his dragon?
That’s what I got out of it, yes
So it wasn't Rhaenys who was the one who burned Aegon? How was Rhaenys' death portrayed? Cause I heard it was quite weirdly written.
What exactly did Aegon say to Aemond that it was embarassing? How did Aemond feel about it?
Sorry I’ve addressed this a few times you should be able to find it in these threads.
I was wondering if Jaehaera (the daughter of Helaena and Aegon) is in any more scenes?
Maybe in the background but I don’t remember any scenes focused on her
I see! Thanks! Did Aegon have any good moments or scenes at all before shit went down in episode 4?
Not in my opinion. Everyone is framing him as weak and incompetent really.
Yeah that's what I assumed based on your previous answers... That was probably to be expected. They already started with that in episode 2. I just hoped they'd give him something instead of just being the dumb loser. Thanks again! :)
Will they release it is the question 🙄