That would make sense, if we had any reason to believe it to be true.
I'm merely going off what Mel says to Stannis. The truth of things (in a fantasy world...) is secondary to her beliefs.
Mordion wrote:
We may be inadvertently talking past each other here. I'm not asserting that that Emilia Clarke is or isn't 'supermodel casting,' I'm not talking about a supermodel standard, and I'm not talking about Emilia Clarke specifically. You seemed to indicate that many of the nude scenes included actresses who were either not slender or not groomed to a 21st century standard. I was (and am) disagreeing with that position.
I wouldn't say any of them are out and out fat, but similarly I wouldn't say any of them are model thin either for their respective ages (as stated earlier). Still given ASOIAF is set in some medieval fantasy world I wouldn't expect the fat demographics to match those of today regardless. Also I don't recall any of the cast female characters to be considered fat in the books either. Maybe at the Frey Wedding we'll get a fat Walda to keep you happy?
As regards 21st century grooming standards. I think looking at too many dusty old Victorian pornographic daguerreotypes of untamed bush in the wild has warped your perceptions. Pubic grooming is not a new phenomena, but dates back throughout civilization: -
Well put about E & L. Excellent for book discussions, amazingly petty for show discussions. This episode was no different.
Seconded. As researchers/collators I think they've done an admirable job with Westeros as it's a great resource for all things book, but their thoughts on the show are pretty anal and largely unconstructive in terms of a dialogue down to a base level inability to accept that the show is an adaptation (a resultant of real world constraints of time, budget and actual feasibility) rather than a direct word for word translation of the books (also given some of her infamous tirades I'm not entirely sure Linda is particularly sane).
It's shorthand, it's easier to demand more manwoody, especially on these forums, than to request more balanced nudity. Also, plenty of people do want dick! Which is also easy to deliver through extras and never delivered.
I've yet to see the distinction in effect.
What is that even meant to mean? You haven't seen the disparity in nudity? Or you don't understand the distinction between dicks and butts? Or you can't figure out why someone would want to try to provide more even fanservice, if it's going to be there at all of course. And on another note, insulting Mordion when you he makes a good point in an effort to maintain some kind of imaginary intellectual high ground you believe yourself to possess is an odd choice for a man who claims to be as analytical and rational as yourself.
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
What is that even meant to mean? You haven't seen the disparity in nudity? Or you don't understand the distinction between dicks and butts?
I simply haven't witnessed people wanting more male nudity but seemingly no dick as you purport. One has to work with what exists, not with what does not. You can claim that's the case, but as there's no evidence to support it I can hardly accept it as fact can I?
Quote:
And on another note, insulting Mordion when you he makes a good point in an effort to maintain some kind of imaginary intellectual high ground you believe yourself to possess is an odd choice for a man who claims to be as analytical and rational as yourself.
The fact is that they haven't actually never done anything with differing grooming fashions in Essos, so from my point of view, _one_ thing -- like blue hair -- strikes me as fine. Or a forked beard. Or a mustachio. Introducing them all in one go in one character without that context would be rather much because of choices they themselves made.
Personally, though, they could skip all of that if they gave him the threadbare finery that he wears. As it is, the armor they have given him is sword-and-sorcery wear, and boring because of the fact that it's pretty much the expected thing. Having him dress as a dandy in lace and silk _and_ make him deadly and capable, and I don't think people would be bothered. The producers obviously felt otherwise.
The fact is that they haven't actually never done anything with differing grooming fashions in Essos, so from my point of view, _one_ thing -- like blue hair -- strikes me as fine. Or a forked beard. Or a mustachio. Introducing them all in one go in one character without that context would be rather much because of choices they themselves made.
Personally, though, they could skip all of that if they gave him the threadbare finery that he wears. As it is, the armor they have given him is sword-and-sorcery wear, and boring because of the fact that it's pretty much the expected thing. Having him dress as a dandy in lace and silk _and_ make him deadly and capable, and I don't think people would be bothered. The producers obviously felt otherwise.
Much might change when they are in the city. As it is right now they're on the road and silks and lace are a poor defense against sword & spear. I'd hold out for more flamboyance then Vs practicality now.
That's the thing -- silk and lace may be a poor defense, but Daario doesn't wear armor in the novels despite this fact. A measure of his arrogance, his luck, his skill? All three, I'd suppose. It'd be quite the visual, I'd think, when you've got Jorah and the Unsullied in their armor, and there's Daario blithely in his stained silks and seeming sure he can kill each and every one of them if it pleased him.
Doubtless they'll give him a "non-armored" look at some point, but it will surely be his outfit when he's courting or at court, and not when he's set to fight. Maybe they'll give him a nicer fighting outfit as well, I suppose. But until that time, I really only have what's before me to be able to comment on anything.
That's the thing -- silk and lace may be a poor defense, but Daario doesn't wear armor in the novels despite this fact. A measure of his arrogance, his luck, his skill? All three, I'd suppose. It'd be quite the visual, I'd think, when you've got Jorah and the Unsullied in their armor, and there's Daario blithely in his stained silks and seeming sure he can kill each and every one of them if it pleased him.
What works on the page, doesn't necessarily work on the screen. Dressing Daario as a latter day dandy might fit with his portrayal in the books but I suspect that combined with bright blue hair many people unfamilar with the books might think of him as some kind of Joker knock off, and it's best to avoid that sort of cultural cross contamination with all the inherent associations that character brings. I don't disagree that his appearance isn't a little bland/generic (though we do get the daggers), but I'd imagine that from the show-runners perspective it's important that a characters appearance doesn't distract too much to the extent of taking the audience out of a scene. I'm sure we'll get to experience plenty of his cockiness as the show progresses.
That's the thing -- silk and lace may be a poor defense, but Daario doesn't wear armor in the novels despite this fact. A measure of his arrogance, his luck, his skill? All three, I'd suppose. It'd be quite the visual, I'd think, when you've got Jorah and the Unsullied in their armor, and there's Daario blithely in his stained silks and seeming sure he can kill each and every one of them if it pleased him.
For myself, I really just don't care about the changes in costuming all that much - especially for a third-tier character like Daario. I'm trying to see what they are showing me, instead of what I'm expecting.
Of greater importance to me is the fact that - far beyond my expectations - Daario's behavior is translating perfectly. I never once understood him in the books, or why Dany would be attracted to such a facile hero. But what I feared would be overblown and garish onscreen, the show has managed to make perfect sense. I get his appeal to Dany, I get Daario's motives (such as they are), and I'm really looking forward to seeing his integration into the triangle of Dany, Jorah, and Barristan. (Which shocks me, because I could so leave book-Daario in the dust and never look back.)
_________________ And then, as if written by the hand of a bad novelist, an incredible thing happened. -Jonathan Stroud, The Amulet of Samarkand
That's the thing -- silk and lace may be a poor defense, but Daario doesn't wear armor in the novels despite this fact. A measure of his arrogance, his luck, his skill? All three, I'd suppose. It'd be quite the visual, I'd think, when you've got Jorah and the Unsullied in their armor, and there's Daario blithely in his stained silks and seeming sure he can kill each and every one of them if it pleased him.
What works on the page, doesn't necessarily work on the screen. Dressing Daario as a latter day dandy might fit with his portrayal in the books but I suspect that combined with bright blue hair many people unfamilar with the books might think of him as some kind of Joker knock off, and it's best to avoid that sort of cultural cross contamination with all the inherent associations that character brings. I don't disagree that his appearance isn't a little bland/generic (though we do get the daggers), but I'd imagine that from the show-runners perspective it's important that a characters appearance doesn't distract too much to the extent of taking the audience out of a scene. I'm sure we'll get to experience plenty of his cockiness as the show progresses.
This is a very good point, I never thought of the joker thing and that would weaken it a great deal. Thanks for that! OTOH, in response to your claim that you have seen no one requesting nudity but no dick, did you listen to the most recent podcast? Ashley makes that point many many times pretty clearly.
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
I've seen quite a few women (and men) want equality in the level of nudity. Me, I want nudity when it strengthens or supports the story, not when it's shoehorned in for the sake of fulfilling some apparent quota or a belief that there is a "pervert side" of the audience that must be catered to. I find it hard to imagine that David Simon or David Milch ever thought along those lines, but maybe that's me.
As to a foppish dandy of a character, I always come back to Tim Roth's wonderful turn as Archie Cunningham in Rob Roy. You can be a dandy and inspire a belief in being truly dangerous. Or you can be a dandy ala Jack Sparrow and inspire rapt attention and enjoyment. It's all in the writing, really.
I've seen quite a few women (and men) want equality in the level of nudity. Me, I want nudity when it strengthens or supports the story, not when it's shoehorned in for the sake of fulfilling some apparent quota or a belief that there is a "pervert side" of the audience that must be catered to. I find it hard to imagine that David Simon or David Milch ever thought along those lines, but maybe that's me.
As to a foppish dandy of a character, I always come back to Tim Roth's wonderful turn as Archie Cunningham in Rob Roy. You can be a dandy and inspire a belief in being truly dangerous. Or you can be a dandy ala Jack Sparrow and inspire rapt attention and enjoyment. It's all in the writing, really.
Thank you Balerion! I agree completely.
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
I've seen quite a few women (and men) want equality in the level of nudity. Me, I want nudity when it strengthens or supports the story, not when it's shoehorned in for the sake of fulfilling some apparent quota or a belief that there is a "pervert side" of the audience that must be catered to. I find it hard to imagine that David Simon or David Milch ever thought along those lines, but maybe that's me.
As to a foppish dandy of a character, I always come back to Tim Roth's wonderful turn as Archie Cunningham in Rob Roy. You can be a dandy and inspire a belief in being truly dangerous. Or you can be a dandy ala Jack Sparrow and inspire rapt attention and enjoyment. It's all in the writing, really.
Curious who this producer is that made that statement.
Simon and Milch had their needless extravagances as well.
I agree about the nudity however. The Dany and Daario scene is a perfect example. Linda was right about the water level on Dany's nipples being unnecessary and extracurricular. While I think that Dany getting out of the tub in front of Daario was a show of dominance.
_________________ Oh, I think he'll fit. Unbuttered.
I've seen quite a few women (and men) want equality in the level of nudity. Me, I want nudity when it strengthens or supports the story, not when it's shoehorned in for the sake of fulfilling some apparent quota or a belief that there is a "pervert side" of the audience that must be catered to. I find it hard to imagine that David Simon or David Milch ever thought along those lines, but maybe that's me.
As to a foppish dandy of a character, I always come back to Tim Roth's wonderful turn as Archie Cunningham in Rob Roy. You can be a dandy and inspire a belief in being truly dangerous. Or you can be a dandy ala Jack Sparrow and inspire rapt attention and enjoyment. It's all in the writing, really.
Curious who this producer is that made that statement.
Simon and Milch had their needless extravagances as well.
I agree about the nudity however. The Dany and Daario scene is a perfect example. Linda was right about the water level on Dany's nipples being unnecessary and extracurricular. While I think that Dany getting out of the tub in front of Daario was a show of dominance.
Exactly! Her being naked out of the tub was perfect! I got to see naked Dany and it had some logic or story relevance, the waterlevel thing was just odd and it was distracting! It seemed tacked on as a means of providing more nudity and nothing more
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
Mon May 27, 2013 2:09 pm
Mordion
★wardens of the woody★
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:04 am Posts: 1395 Location: Grapevine, TX
OTOH, in response to your claim that you have seen no one requesting nudity but no dick, did you listen to the most recent podcast? Ashley makes that point many many times pretty clearly.
I'll take your word for it (I don't have the time to trawl through the whole thing again). I don't recall it from any forum posts however.
Balerion wrote:
I've seen quite a few women (and men) want equality in the level of nudity. Me, I want nudity when it strengthens or supports the story, not when it's shoehorned in for the sake of fulfilling some apparent quota or a belief that there is a "pervert side" of the audience that must be catered to. I find it hard to imagine that David Simon or David Milch ever thought along those lines, but maybe that's me.
Personally I don't really care all that much either way. It's an adult show made for adults with adult themes. Compared to Spartacus or Rome the nudity/sex scenes has been pretty tame, and Vs what's readily available on the internet, well it's hard to even conjour up a suitable comparison to highlight the differential as to how not hardcore they are in the modern collective. Could the show get by with less? Certainly, but there are a number of key relationships that do demand if not nudity, at least clear indications of physical intimacy for an audience who in large part are likely unfamiliar with the books (Cersei/Jamie, Dany/Drogo, Loras/Renly, Jon/Ygritte, Dany/Daario).
However at the same time, I don't think a bit of excess is necessarily a bad thing either simply to add a bit of colour, rawness and vulgarity to what is a fairly gritty world. It would be all to easy to sanitize the show down and potentially end up with something rather toothless ala The Vikings, a show with great potential but hamstrung by the History channels overly strict censorship rules and a leaning towards political correctness (plenty of pillaging..but no raping apparently).
Quote:
As to a foppish dandy of a character, I always come back to Tim Roth's wonderful turn as Archie Cunningham in Rob Roy. You can be a dandy and inspire a belief in being truly dangerous. Or you can be a dandy ala Jack Sparrow and inspire rapt attention and enjoyment. It's all in the writing, really.
A fun turn for sure, but a duelist rather than an out and out mercenary by trade.
Quote:
Simon and Milch had their needless extravagances as well.
I too would be fine with things being very over the top, there'd be nothing wrong with constant everywhere nudity. It's that the nudity they have feels very calculated, often unnatural, and unbalanced. Furthermore, if they went over the top a la Spartacus I'd demand everything got that ridiculous, we'd need blue hair and gold teeth and ridiculous armor and cheesy direwolves and dragons in every scene!
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 pm
Mordion
★wardens of the woody★
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:04 am Posts: 1395 Location: Grapevine, TX
Being manhandled by Stannis guards would of taken far longer, and been more deleterious to the blood.
Kadayi wrote:
I'm merely going off what Mel says to Stannis.
She never says anything like that. She says, metaphorically, that he should 'never see the blade.' Anything about how much different ways of restraint would taint the blood is purely speculation.
As far as grooming or thinness, do you believe HBO and the writers/producers are searching through historical works (or GRRM's work for that matter) and looking for realism, or are they primarily concerned with what will titillate a modern audience?
She never says anything like that. She says, metaphorically, that he should 'never see the blade.'
No, that's exactly what she says. Stannis is all for cutting to the chase and she cautions against it because it would impact the power of the kings blood. Feel free to continue to state otherwise though (I'm here all week).
Quote:
As far as grooming or thinness, do you believe HBO and the writers/producers are searching through historical works (or GRRM's work for that matter) and looking for realism, or are they primarily concerned with what will titillate a modern audience?
I'd imagine their primary concern is casting competent actors and actresses given the vast majority of the time they have their clothes on. Amusing as it is that you persist with this fantasy that GoT is somehow the TV equivalent of Bob Guccione's Caligula, and that the premise of the entire show is a thinly veiled excuse to show some tits and dick occasionally, I just don't think it holds up to reality when you get down to it, least of all when you get into the number of seconds of nudity Vs the number of hours of clothes on. However I have to wonder if the show cut back on the occasional moments of nakedness, what would be next up on the Mordion hit list of unacceptable? The swearing or the violence? What would be first on the removal list? 'Cersei say some naughty swears that upset me'? Or 'Ramsey do very bad things to poor poor Theon'? Because I get the impression that by the time you'd be satisfied with it, the show would be fit to be broadcast on the Disney channel
Mel says that they shouldn't frighten Gendry because it will have some negative effect on his blood. She them proceeded to scare the hell out of him by tying him to a bed and whipping out some leeches. There is no mention of the comparative effects on blood of different methods of restraint.
Like Linda, I wouldn't mind if the shot the whole show in the nude, or even included un-simulated sex between characters. I mind when they create plot holes or hurt character development to provide excuses for a few extra seconds of nudity.
Mel says that they shouldn't frighten Gendry because it will have some negative effect on his blood. She them proceeded to scare the hell out of him by tying him to a bed and whipping out some leeches. There is no mention of the comparative effects on blood of different methods of restraint.
This is wickedly confusing to me. If Melisandre had hidden the leeches and applied them when Gendry was distracted (not sure where exactly she would have hidden them, but whatever) or waited until Gendry had fallen asleep, then the internal logic of the scene would be preserved. As it was, Gendry was screaming in terror before the third leech was even applied, and there is no way in hell he's going to be a calm little lamb around Melisandre again. Unless she was lying to Stannis about keeping Gendry calm and hoped to get another shadowbaby out of him before leeching, Melisandre's actions do not match her expressed intentions.
_________________ And then, as if written by the hand of a bad novelist, an incredible thing happened. -Jonathan Stroud, The Amulet of Samarkand
Mel says that they shouldn't frighten Gendry because it will have some negative effect on his blood. She them proceeded to scare the hell out of him by tying him to a bed and whipping out some leeches. There is no mention of the comparative effects on blood of different methods of restraint.
This is wickedly confusing to me. If Melisandre had hidden the leeches and applied them when Gendry was distracted (not sure where exactly she would have hidden them, but whatever) or waited until Gendry had fallen asleep, then the internal logic of the scene would be preserved. As it was, Gendry was screaming in terror before the third leech was even applied, and there is no way in hell he's going to be a calm little lamb around Melisandre again. Unless she was lying to Stannis about keeping Gendry calm and hoped to get another shadowbaby out of him before leeching, Melisandre's actions do not match her expressed intentions.
Yeah it was very contradictory and confusing.
_________________ "The north remembers, and this mummer’s farce is almost done" - Wyman Manderly, WHITE HARBOR FREY PIES
Mel says that they shouldn't frighten Gendry because it will have some negative effect on his blood. She them proceeded to scare the hell out of him by tying him to a bed and whipping out some leeches. There is no mention of the comparative effects on blood of different methods of restraint.
Like Linda, I wouldn't mind if the shot the whole show in the nude, or even included un-simulated sex between characters. I mind when they create plot holes or hurt character development to provide excuses for a few extra seconds of nudity.
So many people seem butthurt over the nudity but compared to the other seasons there was virtually no nudity in this season (except for Mel, Talisa and the Ramsay girls and I'm not counting Ygritte, Brienne or dany because that's part of their story and it develops their characters and so it did not seem gratuitous). To me the sexploitation aspect sounds like the safe argument to criticise the show because when everything else fails people can always try to go "oh it's bad because it's exploitative because it's shoving sex down our throats and is therefore pandering to the perverts and that butt shot ruined the episode for me, etc." when actually they've managed to tone that aspect down quite a bit this year and I'm glad they reduced it. You look back at the whole show so far this year has been really tame. It's HBO, sex is a given in any show they do.
_________________ The night is dark and full of terrors.
Lets not forget the ridiculous "Pod, sex god" scene. I think it very much set critics -- who, you know, really have found other things to critique besides the nudity despite what you argue -- on the path of being much more skeptical about how they use it. It has not helped the cause of the show to have Marshall's anecdote, and to be able to look at even a recent HBO drama (like LUCK) to show that the story being manipulated to present nude scenes that in some cases actually break the logic the story presents is "a given".
As others say, the logic of the Melisandre-Gendry scene doesn't work at all. If she can't terrify him because it will spoil the value of his blood, then switching from seducing him to tying him up and putting leeches on him as he cries out and begs for help seems the very definition of spoiling it. A scene where Gendry is sent to a maester to be checked out and then the leeches are presented as having been done by the maester would have worked rather a lot better.
"Ah-ha," you might say, "but the show has established that the blood needs sex and passion to really work." Well, maybe, or maybe that's how Melisandre prefers to work... but WHY has the show established this, I wonder? Well, we know why: because the "pervert side" of the audience apparently needs to be catered to.
Mel says that they shouldn't frighten Gendry because it will have some negative effect on his blood. She them proceeded to scare the hell out of him by tying him to a bed and whipping out some leeches. There is no mention of the comparative effects on blood of different methods of restraint.
Mels original plan was to kill Gendry This she outlined to Stannis on her arrival. Stannis spoke to Davos about it and Davos cautioned against killing him, and Stannis taking his advice on board instructed Mel not get some blood, but not to kill the boy as he wanted to see a demonstration of kings blood in effect (off screen but mentioned my Mel later on in the scene). So Gendry was is already in the room and at ease. Her plan proceeds up to the point that she would of likely killed Gendry, but instead she constrains him and administers the leeches. Ergo: Her plan changed. I doubt the original involved constraints, Vs simply cutting his throat or some such when his blood was up.
Feel free to offer up some alternative explanation for events though.
Beric175 wrote:
So many people seem butthurt over the nudity but compared to the other seasons there was virtually no nudity in this season (except for Mel, Talisa and the Ramsay girls and I'm not counting Ygritte, Brienne or dany because that's part of their story and it develops their characters and so it did not seem gratuitous). To me the sexploitation aspect sounds like the safe argument to criticise the show because when everything else fails people can always try to go "oh it's bad because it's exploitative because it's shoving sex down our throats and is therefore pandering to the perverts and that butt shot ruined the episode for me, etc." when actually they've managed to tone that aspect down quite a bit this year and I'm glad they reduced it. You look back at the whole show so far this year has been really tame. It's HBO, sex is a given in any show they do.
^this x 1000.
Quote:
"Ah-ha," you might say, "but the show has established that the blood needs sex and passion to really work." Well, maybe, or maybe that's how Melisandre prefers to work... but WHY has the show established this, I wonder? Well, we know why: because the "pervert side" of the audience apparently needs to be catered to.
Pretty sure Stannis slept with Mel to produce the shadow baby in the books.
Her plan proceeds up to the point that she would of likely killed Gendry, but instead she constrains him and administers the leeches. Ergo: Her plan changed. I doubt the original involved constraints, Vs simply cutting his throat or some such when his blood was up.
Feel free to offer up some alternative explanation for events though.
My point is that there isn't a good explanation of events without fabricating additional information. In the explanation you presented above there's no longer any reason to proceed with the seduction once Stannis has downgraded the ritual from a murder to a leeching, which apparently the blood needn't be untainted for. Also, as others have mentioned, it blows her credibility if she does get to do the sacrifice in the future, Gendry probably won't easily be put at ease by Mel again.
Beric175 wrote:
the sexploitation aspect sounds like the safe argument to criticise the show because when everything else fails people can always try to go "oh it's bad because it's exploitative because it's shoving sex down our throats and is therefore pandering to the perverts
I don't recall seeing a lot of people recently complaining that the sex scenes are exploitative, I think people (myself included) are concerned that in pursuit of nudity plot lines and character personalities are being changed. If I thought they would have had the Pod and the whores storyline, or the seduction of Gendry even if they couldn't show sex and nudity on screen, then the nudity wouldn't be a concern.
My point is that there isn't a good explanation of events without fabricating additional information. In the explanation you presented above there's no longer any reason to proceed with the seduction once Stannis has downgraded the ritual from a murder to a leeching, which apparently the blood needn't be untainted for. Also, as others have mentioned, it blows her credibility if she does get to do the sacrifice in the future, Gendry probably won't easily be put at ease by Mel again.
That's a bold presumption on your part. Stannis is the lord of light, if he orders Mel to not kill the boy then she's not going to kill the boy, regardless of the potential impact on the potency of blood.
In truth I've explained events as they occurred. So far you're not really proffering any sound alternative.
Pretty sure Stannis slept with Mel to produce the shadow baby in the books.
Indeed, but that's for shadow babies, who apparently kind of need to get in there somehow...
But she didn't need to "seduce" Edric Storm for her sham leech ritual, why would she need to seduce Gendry? And in the process terrify him, making him less useful for the eventual sacrifice she actually intends?
The fact is that they could have gotten that blood from Gendry without scaring him and without seducing him, much as they got it from Edric. They would barely even need to show anything and could thus move more briskly. But they chose this particular method, which contradicts her claims about "unspoiled" sacrifices.
It doesn't fit. Either he needs to be the lamb to the slaughter who is not frightend, or he need not be. If he needs to be unfrightened, what she did has made a mess of that when they could very easily just tell him a maester needed to check him over, "draw" some blood with a couple of leeches ("Oh, a course of leeches is quite fashionable among the nobles these days.").
If it doesn't actually matter, then we'll have to construct some reason for her sexy bondage approach. Maybe she's actually just into bondage and S&M and she uses her magic as an excuse for sexy times...
Basically, they wanted a sex scene, they got it, and if it happens to contradict what she claimed a scene before, so be it.
Tue May 28, 2013 4:32 am
Mordion
★wardens of the woody★
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:04 am Posts: 1395 Location: Grapevine, TX
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
