arche_757

There was a scene with crucified children that were slaves... gruesome, but the fact they were children wasn't absolutely clear to non-book readers. There was also the scene in season 2 (?) with the burned bodies of the two children - much made about because it was a key story plot point. Game of Thrones appears to have crossed that threshold where nothing is really off limits. The fact this is a fantasy makes it more disturbing. It isn't as if we're watching a series about Tamerlane and his conquests, of the genocide of the Native Americans by the Spanish, or the Holocaust. If we were watching those, then historical relevance and accurate dipiction of attrocities might in fact be needed more so to show just how bad things could be - than for any plot point.

Well, there are what ~90,000 employees and more visitors/patients so that in fact could be the densest place in Texas from 8-5pm on week days.

Apparently he told the producers the ending if he does not live to see the last book(s) written. It is frustrating, because I like to read ahead on the wikia pages and see which characters will meet an untimely demise (knew about Oberyn's death - but not quite the level of gore that would be presented).

Like I said - I've only started the first book - I'm just not a big fiction reader. So that part is lost for me, unfortunately, as I do like to read a good book and then catch the film/tv show and compare the two. I realize GoT is well done, its an exceptionally well done series, though at times there are scenes that just miss the point are I feel are added only for the point of being very disturbing. Take Reek for instance. He isn't covered in the books very much, yet his torture scenes are rather brutal and not really needed. I just think that this show crosses the line of decency at times. And to those who don't personally know me I am very far removed from being a prude. My point in posting this was to get others opinions about one particular show and the general escalation of violence in tv and film to the point it has gotten to today. People bemoan video games, yet we seldom see the same complaints in regards to movies or even tv. Video games offer a level of control that movies/tv simply do not have. Books also have a level of control - your imagination is only as graphic as you make it. I'm not saying I won't watch Game of Thrones any more - just wanted to open a dialog with others who watch and see what they think. Indeed it does get people very attached to certain characters and their demise is often much harder because of that.

GoT is a fantasy based off of Medieval concepts. The Middle Ages/Dark Ages did have men with swords and axes and town sackings and rape and pillaging, but it wasn't as bleak as many think. Brutal treatment of people has persisted throughout history - an iron sword through the gut was still just as bad in 200 BCE as it was in 1600 CE. The thing I find exceptionally disturbing about GoT is the idea that a woman with child needs (for example) to be shown being stabbed 20 times to get the point across that things were rough. I agree violence does not need to be glorified, but it also doesn't necessarily need to be depicted in such realism that it is mentally scaring. I reiterate that film/tv (when produced at the highest level) is more an art form than less of one. Raw scenes - hard scenes - can be accomplished with some artistic embellishment that doesn't detract from the acting/set design/quality of production that is otherwise present. I'm not saying all elements of GoT are bad, just that some of the scenes needn't be quite as graphic. I know that the producers and George RR Martin are wanting people to squirm, so its to be expected... I'm just asking/talking about whether it is really needed?

That is a good point. The rape scene was...well, something that wasn't really needed. See - it was an exceptional overly graphic abhorrent act that didn't need to be depicted - at least not the way it was. As for premium cable -- If this was a movie it would have been rated NC-17 for those really violent episodes. Is that ok? Apparently its ok to have it on tv, but for a movie that is the kiss of death.

Obviously not a Houston, or architecture related topic... Given how popular this tv show is, plus the quality/deepth of the story I wanted to bring this up as a topic (hopefully it will fare better than my previous attempt at a topic - BBQ)! ***Spoilers may be posted on here? So read with that knowledge in mind.*** Do any of you watch, or read the books? I've watched every episode and read about 1/10th of the first book (admittedly I read very little non-fiction). Several observations particularly after the last episode "The Mountain and The Viper" that aired on Sunday the 1st of June: 1) This series - while well done and very good in parts - crosses the line of decency with the level of gore in certain areas. TV, and other media, can remain "shocking" and elicit a mental/psychological response without being gross. And by gross, I do not mean "yucky" or "nasty," I mean abhorrent and visually displeasing/disturbing to the point of being extreme. The last episode had 2 scenes that fit that catagory, there were several other scenes in earlier seasons that also fit that catagory - namely the death of a very pregnant woman by being stabbed many times in the belly; the crussed skull and over the top gore of scattered brains, eyes, face; and the flayed man with organs showing and eyeball missing... etc. There is violence that is relevant to the story - a battle scene for instance - but then there is violence that takes one out of the idea of imaginary and shows us too much. I think GoT sometimes crosses that line. The death of the pregnant woman was loudest and ugliest (to me) - as it was a depiction of murder - wanton and gory in unncessary detail on a helpless woman with child. Probably the first (and hopefully last) time I've seen anything showing a pregnant woman dying in a horid manner on film, but I doubt it will be. Where is the boundry between story telling and graphic depiction? The crushed skull was another example. One needn't watch the entire ordeal unfold to understand what was happening - a cut with a sound would suffice (which they did), but then they panned away from the tattered remains of a skull - and it was sickening. 2) There are moments in the series that are brilliant, and even some of the violence done in levels of gore are ok to make the point. War movies (for one example) can show a person being blown up or losing a limb and even people (fictitious though they might be - ones who represent a real event or real platoon or real action) can be constructed in a way that is not disturbing. Even movies or tv series that have graphic violence can achieve levels of gore without crossing a line. I feel as though we - society - has grown to expect this sort of thing from acclaimed/noteworthy stories. Unforgiven (1992) by Clint Eastwood is a fantastic film in many ways. It is very violent. Very disturbing. But not to the point of being unsightly. Eastwood's character, is itself a formerly "evil" man (though somewhat reformed through most of the movie). This evil man (who's done horrible things over his life) does bad things in the film, but they are done with a cinematic precision and depiction without being over the top graphic - and the scenes make sense. The scene(s) near the end when William Muney aims the rifle slowly (at point blank range) over Big Bill's face - is very powerful, you know what will happen without having to witness it - is an example of a graphic scene made more powerful by the idea and less the image. Many a show and movie could learn how to handle tough/gritty/raw scenes with a more dignified way - though few these days seem to try. I had more quite a bit more - decided to leave it at this... I am not saying we shouldn't have R-rated films, or TV-MA television, just that perhaps producers and directors could be a bit more artistic when recreating scenes from books/comics/what-have-you. Though I do question where does a "snuff film" start and a tv-series or violent film end? That line seems to be blurred today. Thoughts?

Personally I like the towers and would take those... anywhere in town. They're not avant garde, but they are sleek and nice looking. The retail lowrise(stripcenter) could be something greater, but its a start. I still think this project is a multi-phased and the developer will expand - like what happened at City Center up the road. The stripcenter retail/commerical will eventually be replaced. At least this is my opinion.

I agree that this project could have done more, however we don't know if this is a phased project and the intent is to eventually upgrade by expanding outward and then replacing the low-rise structures with bigger buildings at some point. It seems this company wants to create a "district" all of its own with an Asian centric demographic at its core. Could work and it could eventually be a fairly interesting - though entirely modern area. Or, it could be a failure? CRED is a Chinese company right? *Entirely moden "China Town" or whatever you want to call this part of Houston? Since many cities have "China Towns" but they are usually an older area with buildings from the early wave of settlement from Asia.

Surrounded by parking? Really? While it does have parking around it, I wouldn't say quite as dramatically as you. Perhaps a better critique would be "this is in a bad location." I do agree that the retail component is a bit of a stretch, but at least this developer is trying something a little different. I like the towers - fairly bold design for such a suburban area, particularly for this city.

What is the highrise over by Post Midtown Square? Its 13-14 floors has a yellow-orange colored metal "awning" architectural detail at the upper floor... used to be a Post building (I thought?) I'm fine with 5-8 floor buildings and maybe the occasional 15 floor building. Again, I'm talking about the 3 or so blocks either side of Main.

An interesting plan, but highly conceptual. If this comes to fruition this part of Uptown will be really quite dense in a few years when Uptown Park is built out. Dense with a lot of wealth residing there too!

Really? I've always thought Midtown should be a bit more vertical particularly near Downtown. No 50 floor buildings - unless something grand is proposed - but perhaps eventually we can have 8-15 floor towers throughout. I mean, those tin-can townhomes will eventually be nasty looking and it has always looked weird to have such a low density/low height area right outside Downtown between 2 other districts that have highrises (Museum and TMC). At the end of the day I'd like most of Midtown to look like the density/height levels of Post Midtown Square. This goes that direction, but its not a great architectural work - at all. I want a near continous cluster of density from DT to Hermann Park. It doesn't have to take the entire width of Midtown, but the 2-3 blocks nearest Main Street should have a denser/taller aspect to them.

I thought they merged with someone... turns out they "bought/aquired" existing Christus hosiptals. Merger is so commonly overused, and improperly used it makes some news articles confusing when they needn't be. Apologies.

If it has seats for 3,000 - whether its an open plaza, or some sort of structure - its gonna be really big. Any one know who the neighbors of this site are? Hotel Galvez (Mitchell) and The Pleasure Pier (Fertitta) - both have a lot of power in town and both may not want something so big stickout over the water, which is what I gather will happen. From what I've heard the city is asking for plans to see what exactly these guys are planning. Apparently parking will be an issue. At least 600 spaces will be needed, and that will require a parking structure. Working in Galveston I can tell you - pulling this off as announced will be very hard. Galvestonians fight things like this, and frankly, is this needed? I'm not sure? Obscuring the Gulf and building over water is tricky enough. Fertitta did it with existing structures already over the water (presumably) because when gambling passes in town he'll have 2 major venues to build a casino(s): the convention center and the pleasure pier. Wouldn't be too hard to dismantle those rides and build a casino. Perhaps that is the ultimate goal of this developer as well? Not sure? When I hear more I'll pass along what I can.

Again, I wasn't judging. I don't move over when all the other lanes are clear and there is some fool who drives right up behind me and expects me to "yield" even though both the fast and slow lanes are open. Usually this only happens when there is 2 miles of clear road either side of said driver, yet they still decide to test the one other person in their area of road and then at the last second will change lanes usually crossing into my safety zone, where if I braked suddenly I would get clipped. I HATE DRIVERS like that! If I'm in the fast lane and people want to go around I move out of the way as soon as safely possible. I don't "just drive right down the middle." I do drive on the right lane a lot if I know there's not much to worry about in terms of merging traffic. Most of my freeway driving isn't in the area of town most of you travel in. When I am up in town I city drive and use whichever lanes are open/available safely.

Are we not holding people without due process? We were recording/collecting messages/emails/phone conversations etc and storing those without legal consent. While not nearly as harsh as the USSR or Syria or other extreme regimes, the fact remains our government crossed a line - and remains across that line probably never to again backup. A shame. All in the name of keeping us "safe."

So you actually "road raged" against someone else? Not judging you, just saying that technically what you did could probably be construed as a form of road rage - however insignificant it could be.

Therein lies the problem. IF Snowden released information to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and then the Guardian (UK Newspaper) - and his motives were not influenced by any promise of money - then I think he is ok? Could be an Ellsberg sort of case, but I don't think Daniel Ellsberg fled the country? Of course at the time we also weren't (to our knowledge) holding people without due process/right to attorney/trial by peers etc. We are now.

Who are you asking? If me, then no! Snowden - presumably at this time - is not doing anything for financial gain. J A Walker did. The USA and USSR were in a semi-state of war for 40something years. To assume otherwise is ridiculous. Again, Walker SOLD information, Snowden exposed a domestic surveillance program that collected Unknown quantities of data about ALL OF US without reason or consent of the courts. That is exactly WHAT the government JA Walker sold his information to did against their own citizens!!!!!!!

Its a 17-18 floor hospital that will be surrounded by a bunch of buildings and it won't be nearly as bad looking given some time. Like I said to Luminare - there are only 2-3 really note worthy architectural works in the TMC: School of Nursing, Fayez S. Sarofim Research Building and Rice's Collaborative building (forgot about that one). Everything else is forgettable. Also, everyone is forgetting that since the time of the original rendering Methodist has merged and has new hire-ups and different ideas of architectural identity than before. We should all be thankful that at least this new board of directors is more architecturally sophisticated than whatever MemorialHerman's board is - all those tacky inverted cone/box things all over town - just awful!

I agree I think his motives were purely based on wanting to expose what he viewed as a wrong. I also agree the international spying issues that came up because of this are messy, but it gives the State Department something to work towards. Which goes without saying - our foreign affairs/relations the past ~decade-and-a-half have been attrocious. As for Snowden, he would have been prosecuted and spent the rest of his life at Levenworth as a traitor - just look and read some of the things our wonderful elected officials have said about him. Of course he would run from that. It will take a while before he would get any sort of fair trail from the government. Which begs another question -- what exactly do we owe the government? What is the modern definition of a traitor? When not in a state of war how does one betray his country? How can you betray your country when your motives are purely driven towards what you percieve as helping your country, through your own sacrifice?

I don't quite understand the hostility towards this, and the open praise for the silly looking 6 Houston Center? Neither are great architectural works, yet both are better than other buildings that have been built in this town over the years. Also, why would any religious imagery in a Methodist afliated institution cause an uproar?

Decades? Doubtful. I shudder at the thought of what would have happened if he hadn't come forward? What then? At what level do we need to have the government trample over our rights before it becomes too much? Exposing the "surveillance" on German Chancellor Angela Merkel (among others) wasn't necessary, but that information would have come out any way. A simple response from our administration that "We've been spying on all German heads of state since the 1950s," would have been sufficient. Still wouldn't label him a traitor. Not an outright traitor.

^The Government is not "Mom and Dad." We - voting age citizens are not "children." We don't need to know everything, but this conversation - and any you've had with significant others via email/telephone etc. do not need to be stored and possibly referenced by the NSA/CIA others simply because it is possible. Snowden didn't betray anything - he is a whistle blower - at least in my view. And I did not watch the interview last night, sad to say.