Do you know how many TV shows about high schoolers have those high schoolers played by people in their 20s and even 30s? (Hint, it’s a lot.)
There’s a reason why actor CVs usually mention the age range they can play. Makeup also does wonders.
I was actually surprised to find out that the girl playing the younger daughter on Modern Family is actually more or less the same age as the character. The older one is really 25 or something, in contrast.
JonRowe
5303
I don’t think it is illegal if the actress is over age right? It is just creepy.
It depends on the country. In the US, it’s the following.
In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[52] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting”, that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is “obscene” or “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in…sexual intercourse…and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. And mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines.[53] There is also an affirmative defense made for possession of no more than two images with “reasonable steps to destroy” the images or reporting and turning over the images to law enforcement.[54]
While there seems to be leeway on the “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” generally, major media corporations don’t want to be the ones who test this in court.
Zuwadza
5305
Yes, but not all of them pull it off very well. Luke Perry wasn’t really fooling anyone. Margaery Tyrell does not at ALL look 32. She doesn’t necessarily look 16, but I was shocked to learn she’s 32.
Knowing the FCC and how almost every court case that has ever come up about “Obscene” acts in terms of Radio or Television. The FCC can’t win against the first amendment. The show is art, and the fact that those characters are underage add to the tension and drama of the show. Open and shut case. And it would be for almost any case going to the courts. That entire Protect Act is just political points on the board for everyone. I voted to stop simulated child sex! Ha! Even though the very act’s language undermines its use.
That being said, HBO aged up the characters because A. Child actors age too fast and B. They didn’t want to get bad press and PR for creeping people out.
The FCC laws are all FUBAR, because they all say If art does this, it is “Obscene” and then they all have to say… art is protected by free speech… They don’t hold up in court, but most people would rather not fight a lengthy court battle at their own expense only to have the case continually kicked up the courts only to be thrown out. The definition of art is extremely broad.
Kinda funny when you learn more about the FCC is that they generally target small groups and local outfits that they know won’t fight them in court, because they will lose. And they know the little guys won’t have the cash to lawyer up.
It’s not just about US laws, UK and EU laws had as large a role, because that’s where the series is filmed. And, basically, any country it gets broadcast in could be a problem, too.
They’ve been very careful about making sure we know that everyone who is having sex on screen if of-age. In the first or second episode, they go out of their way to have Dany’s brother say something like “tomorrow you’ll be 18 and I’ll trade you to the horsemen for an army” or something like that.
I think GRRM’s decisions on ages is more to keep with the times than to be “shocking” in the books. It wasn’t uncommon for a 13 or 14 year old to have a child in the middle ages. Heck, Romeo and Juliet were both 13 (I believe) in the original story; when people are dying in their 20’s and 30’s, you’re pretty well starting families as soon as nature lets you. At age 16, Alexander The Great was regent of Macedon and was leading troops in the field. The ages GRRM uses in the books just makes sense for a the time period represented (even though it’s a whole different world)
Yeah it’s sobering to note that basically the world was run by big teenage gangs for fair chunks of the past.
Teenager is a modern idea. They expect children to become adults, and to do so rather quickly.
This was a nice general advancement of things; shows how nutty Lysa remains (great to see the Eyrie again); explains Jon Arryn’s murder and the orchestrated plot by started by Littlefinger; Dany’s inability to keep the slaver towns governed; the Hound laughing about Syrio Forel (that was pretty funny admittedly); and finally Tywin explaining the Iron Bank of Braavos which I thought was a great scene. Damn this show will miss Charles Dance greatly.
— Alan
Nah, GRMM is just repeating the usual high-school textbook myths about the Middle Ages, like the “fact” that people who were over 40 were thought of as ancient and decrepit. They weren’t: this is just a result of textbook writers not knowing how demographic statistics work. While it’s true the average lifespan at birth might have been 40, that didn’t mean people hit 40 and then keeled over. Instead what was going on is that mortality was very, very high in the childhood years. You had a much better chance of living from age 41 to 51 if you made it that far than living from age 1 to age 11.
As for teens getting pregnant and/or married when they were 12 or 13, there’s a germ of truth in it, and under-16s getting married did sometimes happen amongst the aristocracy. The reason being that such noble marriages were essentially a business merger, and both “businesses” were eager to get the deal done and start producing “product” i.e. heirs as soon as possible. But given how many women died in childbirth, the more typical noble wedding involving a teenager would have been a bride in her teens and a groom in his 20s or 30s, working on wife #2. (GRRM is mainly concerned with the aristocracy, so I’ll give him a pass on this one. No way in hell a medieval king would be handed the reins of power at age 15 without question the way Rob Stark was though: that’s what regents are for.)
Amongst the medieval common folk getting married so young was frowned upon. Resources were scarce and famines were common. Immense social pressure was brought to bear to prevent couples from getting married or having kids until the parents could provide for themselves - usually in their 20s. (In more resource-abundant times and places, like say colonial America, people could afford to have more relaxed morals. People tend to think of the New England Puritans as being anti-sex killjoys, but in fact they had very high rates of teen and illegitimate pregnancy - though the couples would usually marry once the pregnancy became known.)
I was not a fan. Way too much Cersei and precious little of much else that mattered.
The climax was a poorly shot scene and — FFS — spare me this “learned to fight like a Lord” crap. We’ve plowed this field before and where Jon Snow is concerned, we have already established early in the first season that he does NOT fight like an Honorable Lordling. I was NOT HAPPY with the battle climax between him and Karl. THAT was not a climax — that was pissing on the fans, The Old Fans and the New.
A Bastard Blade against a knife wielder? Karl is DEAD on the first thrust. He cannot even reach his target before the blade is in him. Come on; there is grim and gritty realism in this series and you are screwing it up for some Hollywood bullshit that doesn’t improve the tale. If it did, I’d shut up about it. But it simply didn’t work.
D&D can take liberties with a lot of characters — but they need to keep their “adaptation” paws off of Jon Snow unless they can improve it. And THAT did not improve a damned thing.
Here’s an idea: when it comes to Jon Snow, why don’t you let the hero be the GOD DAMNED HERO. How about THAT? Even GRRM, who is busy rewriting the rules all over ASoIaF when it comes to heroes lets Jon Snow be the one exception – HE is still the classic fantasy hero. GRRM sold a few books before HBO came along, you know. You might choose to let GRRM’s better judgment stand.
Oh well. The show doesn’t end because they have a weak episode.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it WAS weak.
Doesn’t really matter what kind of sword it is if you can effectively deflect where it’s going. Medieval swordsman and fencers at times carried two weapons, a longer blade and a shorter dirk or dagger, and could be effective in parrying with either one.
— Alan
I agree that the fight was BS. So much for Valyrian steel. Some common street daggers can apparently turn it aside just fine.
My problem is that Jon was swinging the sword as if he were fighting against another swordsman. And unless you’re able to consistently catch the heavier weapon with your guard, you really don’t want to be parrying a bastard sword with only daggers. You’re certainly not going to use the dagger’s blade to stop that heavier weapon.
John’s one piece of advice to Arya was that the pointy end goes in the other person. Seems like a good fight to use the pokey part of your sword and not the, uh, slicey part.
This is an important point about GRRM, some people think he’s all about just knee-jerk reversing tropes left right and centre, but he’s not, he’s still likes to have some outright heroes and some outright villains.
Nor is he a moral relativist - he’s quite clear on what’s good and bad.
What he’s really interested in is the complexity of the human heart, such that sometimes good people do bad things, and vice-versa (and enough movement either way can lead to redemption or fall); and in the law of unintended consequences - such that even good actions can sometimes have bad consequences, and vice-versa. Common aspects of standard literature, but fairly novel in the fantasy genre.
At least this episode cleared up why Bran was at Craster’s - instead of having more of them wandering the North, like in the books, they bundled together Bran warging Hodor as a fighter, emphasized how imporant his quest is (important enough that he chooses it over getting back with his brother, who’s right there) and neatly disposed of Locke (whose non-book presence at the Brothers’ had been disturbing me a bit), while subliminally reminding us of Bolton-ishness via Locke’s presence and intent to capture Bran.
I actually thought this episode was a good 'un, especially the Eyre stuff and the final clarification of Littlefinger’s manipulations and Lyssa’s part in them. None of it seems to be departing too far from the books, any more than any of the tv stuff we already know and love. And the final battle was great; two daggers against a bastard sword isn’t all that implausible, especially if the guy was supposed to be an assassin by trade. You see that sort of thing in the old post-mediaeval manuals - people were trained to fight with all sorts of combinations of weapons/weaponless. Western martial arts were at one time as fully sophisticated and complex as the Eastern, it’s just that the West turned to guns a long time ago, so lost all those skills, whereas in the East the change to guns was more recent, so we have a good deal of their hand-to-hand martial traditions preserved in aspic now.
