"That's not entertainment"

Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
So I have been in a discussion on Facebook about Line of Duty (quite why there isn't a ship discussion about this already I don't know). In particular, this week
the description of sex trafficked girls as "Livestock", and the challenge by Corbett who saw them as women, people

Not LoD is considered Drama, and so under the entertainment category. So is this suitable for entertainment? Isn't this too true-to-life to really count as entertainment?

More to the point (maybe) - is it appropriate in an entertainment show to have this sort of abusive and vile comment?

For my side, yes, I think this is absolutely appropriate, because it is how these women are actually treated. It is shocking, but so is the truth. And in a high profile show like this it is good to understand the reality.
«134

Comments

  • I don't really understand the view that such comments should be left out of drama. You might as well say that there should be no killing.
  • I wouldn't say all examples of drama are entertainment. Some examples of drama are intended to provoke thought, outrage, and even social reform.

    I haven't seen Line of Duty and never will as I dislike almost all crime dramas, but it may be that the producers misread what its audience wants.
  • The WombatThe Wombat Shipmate
    Just don't watch TV drama any more - and haven't for 25 (?) years. If I want to be entertained I watch films like Paddington 2. Actually I thought that (P2) was quite good at raising questions and thoughts about people sent to prison. I went on a course once that showed me how Films and TV were manipulating my feelings and emotions. I was quite horrified in what they did to my general well-being. (and that's not just the placement of goods' so people buy them afterwards.)
  • The Wombat wrote: »
    Just don't watch TV drama any more - and haven't for 25 (?) years. If I want to be entertained I watch films like Paddington 2. Actually I thought that (P2) was quite good at raising questions and thoughts about people sent to prison. I went on a course once that showed me how Films and TV were manipulating my feelings and emotions. I was quite horrified in what they did to my general well-being. (and that's not just the placement of goods' so people buy them afterwards.)

    So... you're not a Game of Thrones fan?

    I think most people watch TV drama, see films, go to the theatre, or read novels precisely because they want their feelings and emotions manipulated but they select what they want to consume based on assumptions about the content of the material.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    I tend to avoid 'gritty' dramatic portrayals of life's horrors. I might watch a documentary on a real-life case. Or a dramatised real-life case - there was one recently starring Martin Clunes, which was interesting.

    But there is a part of me that just doesn't connect with wanting to see contrived 'real-life-style' horror, when real-life already provides more than enough for my palate. As part of a wider story, perhaps, with a broader emotional spectrum, I can maybe sustain a bit of grim realism. But it's the same reason I usually avoid bloody soap operas. They can be funny and do good things with important issues; but for the most part they're just a tedious, depressing cycle of stupid, bad people making stupid, bad decisions. Repeatedly.

    But each to his or her own!
  • There is nothing new in all this: look at Shakespeare for violence, torture, abduction, murder, etc. I don't see plays at Stratford or The Globe carrying warnings about content.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I take it this is a TV drama series? In my limited experience, TV dramas do deal with all sorts of gritty, difficult issues. More so than comedies - that is largely how understand the difference between them. The drama series House was often funny, but the grittiness and difficult issues it explored (despite often not being terribly realistic in other ways), with no easy answers, was what I thought made it a drama. Or maybe those are just the sorts of dramas I have watched. I also prefer novels and films that explore difficult issues.
  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
    I think the problem is that not only is this a gritty representation of reality, it is usingthe language of that reality (to an extent). And calling women "meat" or "livestock" or "bitches" seems to be even more of a problem than just gently hinting at stuff.

    I am also watching another Jed Mercurio series "Bodies" - even more unpleasant (although it is a comedic darkness) about a gyne ward. And yes, they show womens genitalia - because that is what the place is about.

    But it is shocking. Because mostly, these things are just hinted at in drama.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    I don't see plays at Stratford or The Globe carrying warnings about content.
    The only plays I've seen at Stratford or The Globe have been comedies, but I have seen warnings at other theatres doing Shakespeare's more violent plays. Sometimes there's a sign indicating violence, gunshots, strobe lights, whatever. Other times, when selling tickets, they will indicate that the play is for mature audiences, or give a suggested minimum age.

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited April 24
    I think the problem is that not only is this a gritty representation of reality, it is usingthe language of that reality (to an extent). And calling women "meat" or "livestock" or "bitches" seems to be even more of a problem than just gently hinting at stuff.

    That, to me, is quite intense. But then I recall a thread not so long ago where I defended the use of the c-word as it is used in Australia; I should've considered the international makeup here.

    I suppose the questions I have are is that an accurate reflection of how some men talk (I'd say yes...), and was it put there to shock (and get ratings) or to show a side of life many of us may not see? -- perhaps both.

    A deeper question may be what should be the role of entertainment? I'd be suspicious of saying it must be morally uplifting, but is there a line somewhere? Again, not sure where the line is. I'm not saying sado-masochism should be shown in prime time, and I strongly believe in appropriate ratings and advice for parents and for persons who do not want triggers to past experiences, but I struggle with the idea that certain representations are off-limits. But I am a gross hypocrite as I would be appalled if gratuitous sexual violence was shown -- I'd turn off. So I want some limits... probably at the point I'm not offended! :help:

    I rarely watch TV or series...it has to be something that really grabs me or looks unusual. But with streaming services opening up the world, so I can more easily access, for example, Scandinavian noir or German dramas or Chinese movies, I find myself watching more... Why? As said above, manipulation of emotions, as with a good book, is one aspect. I realise there are stereotypes and such, but often you get a bit of insight into the culture as well. I wouldn't say it is a complete representation -- God forbid anyone think Home & Away is a true telling of life in Australia! -- but you get insights and learn.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    You mean characters use offensive language, and it is challenged? Is that unusual? It happened in House, I'm sure.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Was that directed at my post?

    If yes...sorry for any confusion. No. I don't think I ever recall that happening, even if the most offensive terms may have been used. I don't watch "House", so I can't comment, but I'm not sure the use of potentially offensive language needs to be called out all the time in scripted drama (I'd say in an interview or panel programme there is definitely a place for it). If it plays a part in the narrative, e.g. you have someone who has no social control or empathy, and they blurt out offensive words and some kind helper is trying to 'educate' them, I can see a place. But if everytime someone threw out a 'faggot' or 'cocksucker' (as distasteful and unnecessary as I may view these words; I don't use them) at a man we had some self-appointed moral guardian taking them to task, I'm afraid I'd find that quite wearisome in a programme.

    But if some maniacal tyrant spews forth obscenities (that are justified in the context*), go for it in my view.

    * I feel at times obscenities can be justified -- I realise that is not a popular opinion at times, but some people, groups of people, do have their own language use which may shock others -- to take a prosaic example, when I moved to Dublin in 2001 I was absolutely taken aback that "fuck" (an exceptionally strong word to me; only the c word would rank higher back then...fuck has now dropped somewhat in my list) was treated as though no sentence was complete without at least one thrown in! (slight exaggeration...) -- I could've "tut-tutted" or, as I did, just accepted it and moved on.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nothing new in such shows, save that they're on TV this last 75 years. Think of a good Jacobean tragedy with a pile of bodies stage centre as the curtain falls.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Hangings and beheadings used to be popular forms of entertainment. The online definition I found referred back to "Entertain" (the verb) which is to provide [someone] with amusement or enjoyment. I have to assume people enjoy watching dramas, since it's voluntary and they still do it. So it seems that dramas, however educational, are also entertainment.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I think the basic question here is what consitutes entertainment? Specifically, can something that deals in unpleasant subject matter be regarded as entertainment?

    The "too true to life" exemption disqualification
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I don't see plays at Stratford or The Globe carrying warnings about content.
    The only plays I've seen at Stratford or The Globe have been comedies, but I have seen warnings at other theatres doing Shakespeare's more violent plays. Sometimes there's a sign indicating violence, gunshots, strobe lights, whatever. Other times, when selling tickets, they will indicate that the play is for mature audiences, or give a suggested minimum age.

    I've mentioned this before, but one of my favorite teachers in high-school was an old priest who taught English, and casually and somewhat jocularly informed at the start of the year that the Polanski film of Macbeth that'd we be watching was particularly violent. It didn't seem like a warning, just something he thought he'd point it. Presumably, if he thought that particular film of the play was off-base for kids, he could've picked another one.

    He also made a point of setting aside the assigned text of Macbeth when we got to the racy parts, and pulling out a copy that had the expurgated material intact, to read from that.

    I wonder if they still bother bowdlerizing that kind of stuff from high-school Shakespeare texts? It would seem kind of comical to do that, in an era when most kids that age can see the most lurid gore and p0rn with one click on their cell-phone, but I guess the school could still have p.r.(not to mention legal) problems if some parents do take offense to their kids hearing that having his choice of bedmates will be ones of the perks of kingship for Macbeth.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    How about the idea that all television is entertainment, the news and documentaries included?
  • Here’s my problem with gratuitous violence as entertainment: said gratuitous violence is almost invariably directed at women, usually attractive, photogenic ones.

    This talks about a film, not TV, but Victoria Cohen’s review of Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece IMO. Rape? Check. Murder? Check. But don’t worry, it’s all very artistically done. Feel free to be disgusted by dancing fat women though.

    The artistically draped body of a naked murdered woman is a set piece of TV. It normalises the idea of women as victims of violence in a way that makes me very uncomfortable, especially when you get into the increasingly popular genre of real crime, for instance the recent series on Ted Bundy. The good-looking, seductive murderer, not his female victims, is definitely the focus of attention here.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yes defining entertainment is difficult. I don’t think we can talk about it without going back to oral history and traditional story telling. Oral history used entertainment to keep the culture alive. It wasn’t just plain repeating facts they used performance to bring it life. The same with Story telling. Anansie the spider doesn’t work so well without Jamaican style and accent. Over here Enid Blyton wrote a version of Brair Rabbit that was quite anglicised. When I first herd them in a southern states style they came alive.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »

    I wonder if they still bother bowdlerizing that kind of stuff from high-school Shakespeare texts? It would seem kind of comical to do that, in an era when most kids that age can see the most lurid gore and p0rn with one click on their cell-phone

    There's a cottage industry of companies doing this for books and films -- who seem to largely exist to serve the home school market.

    On the GoT thing above - the very gratuitous nature of a lot of it seems justify the description of much of it as torture porn.

  • On the GoT thing above - the very gratuitous nature of a lot of it seems justify the description of much of it as torture porn.

    It's hard to criticise something unless you have seen it. Not saying you haven't seen it, mind, just making the observation.

    The violence in the TV series seems to be accurate to the books (which I haven't read) but I understand from those who have read and watched both that there's a lot more sex in the TV series.

    The violence and torture doesn't seem to be any more excessive or horrible than real events in medieval Europe, albeit there are condensed for the benefit of the drama.

    I might add that "torture porn" in the guise of a dying man nailed to a wooden cross has been a major part of church iconography for centuries.

  • On the GoT thing above - the very gratuitous nature of a lot of it seems justify the description of much of it as torture porn.

    It's hard to criticise something unless you have seen it. Not saying you haven't seen it, mind, just making the observation.

    I've read the first two books and skim read the second half of the third and the fourth. I lost interest in the series as I increasingly ceased to care about any of the characters, and felt that Martin was going the way of Robert Jordan where storylines multiplied without control and the pace became slower and slower as he had to move them all forward simultaneously.

    I've watched bits of the series. I decided I didn't want to be the person I would be if I watched all of it.
    The violence in the TV series seems to be accurate to the books (which I haven't read) but I understand from those who have read and watched both that there's a lot more sex in the TV series.

    There's a certain amount of excess violence and sex over and above the novel itself -- but the dramatizing them in a way that highlights them front and centre would in itself be a fairly big change in register from the novel.
    The violence and torture doesn't seem to be any more excessive or horrible than real events in medieval Europe, albeit there are condensed for the benefit of the drama.

    Possibly in parts (minus the child sacrifice). Though I view the fact that we no longer live in a world where those things are acceptable as a sign of progress.
    I might add that "torture porn" in the guise of a dying man nailed to a wooden cross has been a major part of church iconography for centuries.

    Yes, and I'd also criticize that tendency. I'd tend to agree with Southpark's characterization of 'The Passion' as a 'snuff film' (on a literary but not literal level).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    The most challenging Bard plays for violence, including sexual violence are Coriolanus and Titus Andronicus. One of the more challenging plays for anti-semitism is The Merchant of Venice. I've seen productions of all three and they were brilliant. I think Titus Andronicus is far and away the most horrific show I can think of. Don't go if you have triggers around sexual violence and/or cannibalism.

    Having an issue with dehumanizing language while watching a cop show? I blink at you.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate

    On the GoT thing above - the very gratuitous nature of a lot of it seems justify the description of much of it as torture porn.

    It's hard to criticise something unless you have seen it. Not saying you haven't seen it, mind, just making the observation.

    The violence in the TV series seems to be accurate to the books (which I haven't read) but I understand from those who have read and watched both that there's a lot more sex in the TV series.

    The violence and torture doesn't seem to be any more excessive or horrible than real events in medieval Europe, albeit there are condensed for the benefit of the drama.

    I might add that "torture porn" in the guise of a dying man nailed to a wooden cross has been a major part of church iconography for centuries.
    Not only Christians but art historians also disagree with you. Depictions of the crucifixion are not torture porn but a representation of a moment in history. Also versions of the crucifixion vary in their intensity. You appear to be trying to be incite full passing your opinion off as fact. This is Purgatory unless you can support your opinion with facts it remains your opinion. So what is your evidence?
  • I've read the first two books and skim read the second half of the third and the fourth. I lost interest in the series as I increasingly ceased to care about any of the characters, and felt that Martin was going the way of Robert Jordan where storylines multiplied without control and the pace became slower and slower as he had to move them all forward simultaneously.

    Agreed, re too many characters, though they have thinned out a lot! My interest now is really how they pull it all together and in looking at the mechanics of the storytelling. I'm not emotionally invested.
    I've watched bits of the series. I decided I didn't want to be the person I would be if I watched all of it.

    I don't think what I watch changes me, other than to feed into my own work.
    There's a certain amount of excess violence and sex over and above the novel itself -- but the dramatizing them in a way that highlights them front and centre would in itself be a fairly big change in register from the novel.
    Agreed, but that's inevitable in any dramatisation.
    Though I view the fact that we no longer live in a world where those things are acceptable as a sign of progress.
    Of course.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Calling The Passion of St Tibulus torture porn has been a thing for a long time. People also call it anti-semitic. People get huffy every time the passion of our lord is portrayed in art.

    It is a very short and my guess is jocular jibe of the Gamma variety to extend the criticism to Christian iconography more generally. Anyway, I thought Crucifixes were Papist tat. What's the Pope drink? Creme de Menthe. We'll have two pints of that then!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 25
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »

    I wonder if they still bother bowdlerizing that kind of stuff from high-school Shakespeare texts? It would seem kind of comical to do that, in an era when most kids that age can see the most lurid gore and p0rn with one click on their cell-phone

    There's a cottage industry of companies doing this for books and films -- who seem to largely exist to serve the home school market.

    The bowdlerized textbook in my anecdote was being taught in a state-run Catholic school, which might fit the idea of such expurgations being made for the religious market. Though as I recall, the publisher was Macmillan Canada, which I'd imagine had a customer base that went well beyond sectarian schools(and at that time, Ontario didn't fund Catholic high-schools, so the Canadian market wouldn't have been as big as it later was.)

    And I always find it ironic that the people who prefer these types of amputated textbooks are usually the same ones who yell the loudest about "back to basics" in education and the need for students to have a "solid grounding in western culture".

    EDIT: Formatting era in that pair of quotes. The paragraph beginning with "I wonder if..." is by me, not Pigwidgeon.

  • Hugal wrote: »

    I might add that "torture porn" in the guise of a dying man nailed to a wooden cross has been a major part of church iconography for centuries.
    Not only Christians but art historians also disagree with you. Depictions of the crucifixion are not torture porn but a representation of a moment in history. Also versions of the crucifixion vary in their intensity. You appear to be trying to be incite full passing your opinion off as fact. This is Purgatory unless you can support your opinion with facts it remains your opinion. So what is your evidence?

    TBH, I don't believe there is such a thing as torture-porn and everything I say is my opinion.

    A crucifix, imo, represents a moment in a story that may be based on an historical event but even then I have to ask why represent that event and not another.
  • There's a certain amount of excess violence and sex over and above the novel itself -- but the dramatizing them in a way that highlights them front and centre would in itself be a fairly big change in register from the novel.
    Agreed, but that's inevitable in any dramatisation.

    Subject to what they choose to dramatize (it's not for nothing that someone made a YouTube video titled '"It's not porn, it's HBO")
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    With regard to the 'torture porn' argument. While I'm quite sure Hugal is largely correct, nevertheless, there is something in the argument of how the crucified Christ has been portrayed with a view to, debatably, manipulating or inciting guilt-driven devotion. If there'd been photographs of the actual event, no doubt nothing could have been more horrific. But undoubtedly many artistic renditions of the crucifixion were intended to shock, and inspire viewers to reflect with shame that they had put this innocent man through it all, covered in blood, and pathetically breathing his last, nails ripping through flesh etc. Dave Allen covers it very well with
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk !! (Any excuse for a Dave Allen video!)
  • There's a certain amount of excess violence and sex over and above the novel itself -- but the dramatizing them in a way that highlights them front and centre would in itself be a fairly big change in register from the novel.
    Agreed, but that's inevitable in any dramatisation.

    Subject to what they choose to dramatize (it's not for nothing that someone made a YouTube video titled '"It's not porn, it's HBO")

    Hmm. Well, I have seen every episode of Game of Thrones and I have an extensive porn collection. so...

    GoT: occasional nudity, mild sex, swords, dragons, and winter is coming.
    Porn: lots of nudity, hard-core sex, no swords and dragons, and Summer is cumming.

    See? Completely different.
  • The WombatThe Wombat Shipmate
    The Wombat wrote: »
    Just don't watch TV drama any more - and haven't for 25 (?) years. If I want to be entertained I watch films like Paddington 2. Actually I thought that (P2) was quite good at raising questions and thoughts about people sent to prison. I went on a course once that showed me how Films and TV were manipulating my feelings and emotions. I was quite horrified in what they did to my general well-being. (and that's not just the placement of goods' so people buy them afterwards.)

    So... you're not a Game of Thrones fan?

    I think most people watch TV drama, see films, go to the theatre, or read novels precisely because they want their feelings and emotions manipulated but they select what they want to consume based on assumptions about the content of the material.

    What's 'Game of Thrones' then ? Seriously I have never seen even a trailer. TV and Films really seriously muck with your emotions. If you want to try it - watch some Films featuring Aircraft Crashes just before you fly next time.
  • The Wombat wrote: »
    What's 'Game of Thrones' then ? Seriously I have never seen even a trailer. TV and Films really seriously muck with your emotions. If you want to try it - watch some Films featuring Aircraft Crashes just before you fly next time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlR4PJn8b8I

    But I want my emotions mucked around with!

    Haven't flown for 35 years and I doubt it would effect me anyway as I know the difference between fiction and reality.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The Wombat wrote: »
    The Wombat wrote: »
    Just don't watch TV drama any more - and haven't for 25 (?) years. If I want to be entertained I watch films like Paddington 2. Actually I thought that (P2) was quite good at raising questions and thoughts about people sent to prison. I went on a course once that showed me how Films and TV were manipulating my feelings and emotions. I was quite horrified in what they did to my general well-being. (and that's not just the placement of goods' so people buy them afterwards.)

    So... you're not a Game of Thrones fan?

    I think most people watch TV drama, see films, go to the theatre, or read novels precisely because they want their feelings and emotions manipulated but they select what they want to consume based on assumptions about the content of the material.

    What's 'Game of Thrones' then ? Seriously I have never seen even a trailer. TV and Films really seriously muck with your emotions. If you want to try it - watch some Films featuring Aircraft Crashes just before you fly next time.

    It's a bit like someone took Lord of the Rings and cut out the bits with Elves and inserted bits from scud flicks to fill the gaps.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Its the 100 years war with dragons and zombies.
  • See? Completely different.

    It was a point around what a particular dramatization (and in this particular case a particular brand) choose to emphasize.

    In a similar way Peter Jackson decided the Hobbit was really two and a half films of fighting.

    But whatever.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Here’s my problem with gratuitous violence as entertainment: said gratuitous violence is almost invariably directed at women, usually attractive, photogenic ones.

    ...

    The artistically draped body of a naked murdered woman is a set piece of TV. It normalises the idea of women as victims of violence in a way that makes me very uncomfortable ...
    That is a very good point..and one in my oafish manhood I hadn't stopped to consider. Thank you.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    You knows those shots of cities, let’s say London, that are all loving shot to make the city look wonderful. In our house we would call that London Porn as the shots seem to have a fetish quality.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate
    ...This talks about a film, not TV, but Victoria Cohen’s review of Nocturnal Animals is a masterpiece IMO. Rape? Check. Murder? Check. But don’t worry, it’s all very artistically done. Feel free to be disgusted by dancing fat women though. ...
    Thank you. That is brilliant.
    ...Haven't flown for 35 years and I doubt it would effect [sic] me anyway as I know the difference between fiction and reality.
    And yet you own a lot of porn...


  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Its the 100 years war with dragons and zombies.

    Yep. Plus The Wars of the Roses, some Scottish clan warfare, Hadrian's Wall, and lots more. Overall, it's neither as good or as bad as many claim.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Haven't flown for 35 years and I doubt it would effect [sic] me anyway as I know the difference between fiction and reality.
    And yet you own a lot of porn...

    Err. And your point?
  • Hugal wrote: »
    You knows those shots of cities, let’s say London, that are all loving shot to make the city look wonderful. In our house we would call that London Porn as the shots seem to have a fetish quality.

    That accusation could be made against any still-life painting and all advertising.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Haven't flown for 35 years and I doubt it would effect [sic] me anyway as I know the difference between fiction and reality.
    And yet you own a lot of porn...

    I'm not sure if being a consumer of porn indicates a detachment from reality, any more than being a consumer of any other narratively implausible genre, eg. crime thrillers where hit-men are portrayed as suave, business-savvy entrepreneurs planning their hits with scientific precision.

    In fact, in my experience, among people familiar with porn, the outlandishness of the scenarios tend to be a standing joke.

    Mind you, given that the whole point of porn is to show the viewer scenarios that, on some level, he wants to have happen in real life, I suppose there could be people who get carried away with wishful thinking.




  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    @stetson - I'm not sure "It's just as fake as this other fake thing" is a good defense.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Hadrians Wall as the wall in the north? Really? I've only read the books, but I didn't see that comparison. There's debate I think as to whether Hadrian's wall was a barrier or a customs point. Bit of both I expect. But the wall in the north, that's a separation between civilisation and the great beyond. I don't reckon Hadrian's Wall was ever that, except perhaps in the minds of fevered romantics in Georgian days.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    @stetson - I'm not sure "It's just as fake as this other fake thing" is a good defense.

    Well, the context was Rossweisse questioning Colin's grip on reality, based on his apparent taste for porn. I'm saying that if that's your criterion for saying that someone is out of touch with reality, it can probably be applied to a pretty huge majority of the population, because almost everyone has a prefered genre that's absolutely wacked-out in the way it presents life. (One of mine is romantic comedies, among a few others.)

    Granted, I suppose one could think that everyone who likes unrealistic narratives is delusional, though that's not generally regarded as a big contributor to the world's problems.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Resist making a joke Simon. For God's sake man, RESIST!
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Hadrians Wall as the wall in the north? Really? I've only read the books, but I didn't see that comparison. There's debate I think as to whether Hadrian's wall was a barrier or a customs point. Bit of both I expect. But the wall in the north, that's a separation between civilisation and the great beyond. I don't reckon Hadrian's Wall was ever that, except perhaps in the minds of fevered romantics in Georgian days.

    Yes. Martin was inspired by a visit to Hadrian's Wall. His interpretation of it is bonkers, but that was the inspiration. https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/hadrians-wall-inspired-game-thrones-season-eight-george-martin-real-history/
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    hmm. Does season 8 cover material in the books? I don't watch it but want to, for reasons explained elsewhere.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Haven't flown for 35 years and I doubt it would effect [sic] me anyway as I know the difference between fiction and reality.
    And yet you own a lot of porn...

    I'm not sure if being a consumer of porn indicates a detachment from reality, any more than being a consumer of any other narratively implausible genre, eg. crime thrillers where hit-men are portrayed as suave, business-savvy entrepreneurs planning their hits with scientific precision.

    In fact, in my experience, among people familiar with porn, the outlandishness of the scenarios tend to be a standing joke.

    Mind you, given that the whole point of porn is to show the viewer scenarios that, on some level, he wants to have happen in real life, I suppose there could be people who get carried away with wishful thinking.

    I have always enjoyed literature and film that has a streak of fantasy and adventure so there is a connection to porn which is equally fantastical. But to argue a liking for such things indicates a loose grip on reality is silly.

    I shall reserve making any comment on Christians and the outlandishness of God.

    Oops :wink:
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    hmm. Does season 8 cover material in the books? I don't watch it but want to, for reasons explained elsewhere.

    No. Haven't read the books but I am aware that the TV series outstripped the books around season 4 or 5. The TV series also began following a slightly different storyline even earlier than that. Martin has some sort of guiding hand on the storyline but I suppose one can only regard the storyline of the series to be an approximate guide to how the books will pan out.
Sign In or Register to comment.