Skip to comments.Fury as HBO's Game of Thrones shows President George W. Bush's decapitated head impaled on a STAKE
Posted on 06/13/2012 4:05:48 PM PDT by Third Person
Politicians are calling for a boycott of HBO's fantasy series Game of Thrones because of the creator's 'despicable' decision to include former President George W. Bush's severed head in several scenes. In the tenth episode of the first season, Mr Bush's decapitated head is barely recognizable impaled on a wooden spike, covered in filthy long hair and slathered in dirt. But show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who noted the appearance in the series' DVD commentary, insist it wasn't a political statement - just a prop. The finale of the first season of Game of Thrones, Fire and Blood, one of the series' beloved characters Ned Stark is beheaded by new king Jeoffrey for treason. In one brutal scene, King Jeoffrey brings his bride-to-be to gaze upon the severed head of her father.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
What should a tv prop department do with an old wax head? Bury it at sea? Give it a 21-gun salute? Blast it into space?
This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time.
“The last head on the left is George Bush,” says David Benioff, one of the show’s co-creators, in the DVD commentary.
“George Bush’s head appears in a couple beheading scenes,” adds co-creator D.B. Weiss.
“It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement,” explains Benioff. “It’s just, we had to use what heads we had around.”
In an interview with TheWrap earlier this year, Weiss and Benioff said they tried not to deliberately inject politics into their show, based on the novels of George R.R. Martin.
“We’re definitely not tempted to do anything consciously,” Weiss said. “Of course we’re voracious news readers and we live in the world and are very influenced by the world that we live in, so I think enough finds it’s way in that way probably more than enough finds it’s way in that way. To try to do it on purpose seems like it would be a mistake.”
When the show’s creators revisit the scene in the DVD commentary, they make sure viewers notice the former Head of State.
‘It's not a choice. It's not a political statement. It's just.. we had to use what heads we had lying around.’
Game of Thrones creators
‘People may not have noticed this but back up...the last head on the left is George Bush,’ one says.
Dear John...please read all posts before replying. Someone else may have posted the information already, making you look foolish. ...John
It means, that after two years, I still retain my sense of humor and perspective. Im not going to blow my top over silly things like this.
“It was clearly deliberate and calculated...It is disrespectful no matter what presidents head they use”
So they deliberately and with calculation disrespected a president. So what? Bush has only been disrespected by Hollwood about a billion times. Obama has been disrespected by Freepers for four or more years. From me this gets a big-ol’ who cares!
Wait. That's Ned Stark's head from Season 1?
Hell, like you, I am the opposite of outraged.
The rash, hotheaded creation of the lib army got out of their control and killed the most honorable man. If they wish to liken that honorable man to W, so be it.
“We revere our founding fathers”
Yes, but not all of them. For instance Madison, Jefferson, and Adams more than Hamilton. And even those I do revere more than others, not in every aspect. For instance not Adams for the alien and sedition acts, nor Jefferson for owning slaves and the non-intercourse act.
“We respect the office of the president.”
Not really, or what it has become. In broad strokes and as outlined in the Constitution, but not altogether since Lincoln at least.
“we take offense to assaulting a symbol of our great nation”
Firstly, Bush is not a symbot of the nation. He’s just a retired politician. More importantly, I might be offended by an assault on national symbols, but it depends on the situation. I am not all offended by Bush’s head appearing in Game of Thrones.
If you're into boycotting, that's your right. As long as it's a Big Picture thing, and not some silly, possibly imagined, slight.
“as a Brit at Dunkirk”
Not so much, as the Nazi war machine deliberately let them run away. I always wondered why they never got any credit for it. Probably because at that point it was already decided that Germany’d be firebombed to hell, and no soft feelings could get in the way.
If only. I'm afraid the SS has been corrupted and is now... well... the SS.
While we have that son-of-a-bitch in the White House, it's absolutely pointless. But you wear yourself out and have at it. Meanwhile, we'll probably luck out and trade one SOB for another this November.
Thanks for the advice.... I’ll try to temper my efforts, so as not to wear myself out.
I heard Ted interviewed about it and he said that they could not have been nicer... unofficially apologized for having to talk to him... told him the CBC should be investigated and not Ted on their behalf. Ted has worked with some of these agents and he says that they are good people. Those that are closest to the evil in the White House... those are the ones to watch... and the higher up political appointees. There be commies in them thar waters!
National Geographic Presents... LOL!
'It's not a choice. It's not a political statement,' one says. 'It's just.. we had to use what heads we had lying around.'
And all you saps giving them a pass, just ask yourself what the reaction would be if this was Obama or Clinton. They would NEVER get away with it or even attempt it in the first place.
The people who created the show admitted they used a prop of Bush’s head, that point isn’t even in dispute.
I guess you guys missed the part where the show’s creators admit that they put a facsimile of his head in there as a prop.
(No actual mayors were harmed in the making of this post.)
in before Zot!!!! /s
In the early Pacific evening, the following statement went out from Benioff and Weiss:
We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We cant afford to have these all made from scratch, especially in scenes where we need a lot of them, so we rent them in bulk. After the scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W. Bush.
In the DVD commentary, we mentioned this, though we should not have. We meant no disrespect to the former President and apologize if anything we said or did suggested otherwise.
And from HBO, in the same release:
We were deeply dismayed to see this and find it unacceptable, disrespectful and in very bad taste. We made this clear to the executive producers of the series who apologized immediately for this inadvertent careless mistake. We are sorry this happened and will have it removed from any future DVD production.
The DVD also mentioned that the author of the books withdrew his own request to have his cameo as one of the heads on the wall after he found out how much it would cost.
The reason that the Germans failed to stop the British leaving Dunkirk (from a land perspective) is that the British has just counterattacked and badly mauled Rommel’s 7th Panzer Division at Arras. Add to this fierce British resistance at several other ports and towns.
The Nazis did not want to have to enter Dunkirk and take the town street by street, house by house. As we would have inflicted serious losses on them.
It is a myth that the British ‘fled’ like Usain Bolt on a good day to Dunkirk. The British put up legendary stands at Boulogne, Arras, St Valery, Calais. Inflicting heavy casualties and allowing many British and Allied soldiers to escape.
I am wrong on this point. Apparently there was a head of Bush in the prop room that was used. Big deal. It begs the question, though, “Who were the OTHER heads used?’ Could there have possibly been an Al Gore in there, or a Barney Frank?
Who knows where this may lead.
“just ask yourself what the reaction would be if this was Obama or Clinton. They would NEVER get away with it or even attempt it in the first place”
So we should whine over trivialities and waste everyone’s time just because they would?
You’re wrong. The British did not brilliantly escape through a series of dazzling rearguard actions. The panzers would’ve crushed them had not the Nazis deliberately let them go. They did this because the British were not their primary enemies. Rectifying the embarassing end to the previous war was the goal, and back then as in 1939-45 they simply couldn’t cross the channel. They remembered the starvation caused by the blockade 20 years earlier, and also wanted to keep the Americans from again bailing out their Anglo-Saxon brethren.
I offer as further evidence the fact that the Nazis didn’t start the famed Battle of Britain until after Churchill bombed them.
“It is a myth that the British fled like Usain Bolt on a good day to Dunkirk”
Three good days, actually, during which Hitler sat idly by. How do you explain that, other than that they let them go? Oh, I see, they feared heavy casualties. This from the army that had conquered in a month and a half what two previous wars couldn’t accomplish. I’ve also heard that they stopped the tanks because Goering wanted a chance to prove himself. But Nazi reliance on the luftwaffe has been vastly overrated, I assume to make the Battle of Britain more romantic and to excuse Britain and America’s barbaric air campaigns.
I see no reason to believe their “it was a prop lying around” story. In what previous HBO production was such a prop created and used for?
More likely, they either created it especially for this “easter egg”, or if it was lying around, it was probably as a macabre decoration in the collection of some lefty associated with the show.
U r correct...the Germans let them escape with minor strafing hoping for sued peace
Plenty of Wermacht documentation on this....Germans being so anal on detail and records
Where is the old poster Goetz von Berlichingen when u need him?
Firstly, YOU are wrong to completely disregard the British (and French) counterattacks and rearguard actions as not influencing the German halt at Dunkirk.
For a start, the order to halt was given by Von Rundstedt, not Hitler. HE ordered the halt on the 24th at the Aa River. Which allowed the British and French/Belgians to greatly strengthen the defences around Dunkirk.
When the British counterattacked at Arras on the 21st, the attack was so strong and vicious that Rommel radioed Army Command that he was being ‘attacked by FIVE British divisions’. In fact he was being attacked by elements of TWO divisions, ONE tank brigade and 60 supporting French tanks. The Germans lost over 700 men dead and wounded.
THE BATTLE AT ARRAS ALONE DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE GERMAN DECISION TO HALT THE PANZERS.
BUT as I mentioned, there were also brave and brutal rearguard actions by British troops at Boulogne and Calais, in both cases the British held on for so long under superior numbers and firepower that at both locations, German units had to use direct artillery firing over sights, flamethrowers and grenades at point blank range in order to drive the British from their bunkers.
AND the successful evacuation of the BEF would probably not have been possible without the stiff FRENCH resistance around Lille, which blocked SEVEN German divisions. From 28th May to 1st June, about 40,000 French troops led by general Molinié held off about 800 German tanks and 110,000 soldiers from THREE panzer and FOUR infantry divisions.
AND the French also counterattacked the Aa Canal itself. Not once, but TWICE. 25th and 26th May, forcing a German retreat. The Germans didnt take the Aa Canal until the 28th. By which time the Dunkirk evacuation had already started.
EVEN AFTER Dunkirk, the legendary 51st Highland Division fought one of the most famous and brave British battles of ww2 at St Valery, against Rommel and his 7th Pz Div. Who were recovering from the mauling at Arras.
The battle became so fierce that the 51st famously, having run out of ammunition, attacked the 7th Pz with hand to hand fighting and even their razors (at the time in Scotland, cities like Glasgow were famous for their deadly ‘razor gangs’, who would use them in the way Chicago gangs used Thompson sub-machine guns). Rommel was so impressed by the bravery of the Scots that he personally congratulated the 51st’s commander.
To suggest that the Arras attack (21st) and the halt order (24th) are purely coincidental is nonsense.
And to suggest, given the evidence above, AND that the Allied troops at Dunkirk had STRENGTHENED their defences, and had pulled in more men within the perimeter from 21st-24th and then the ‘halt days’, that the Germans could have easily crushed the BEF at Dunkirk is nonsense.
The Germans got a severe bloody nose at Arras. And had to fight brutal point blank battles at Lille, Calais, the Aa Canal, and Boulogne, all in order to overrun British and French forces MUCH SMALLER than the men and material available at Dunkirk. Even Lille had just 40000 to the over quarter of a million men within the Dunkirk perimeter. The British troops at Boulogne and Calais were even smaller again (a few thousand men in total).
And what was in Dunkirk?. Over 400000 men in total had been in the perimeter, 338000 of whom got away. And the British left behind 2472 guns, 63,879 vehicles, 20548 motorcycles and 500,000 tons of stores and ammunition....and the Germans would have taken the town easily, you say?.
Yes, everyone knows that Hitler admired Britain and wanted us to leave Europe to him. But to diregard the British and French counterattacks from 21-30th May 1940 as not influencing the decision to halt the Panzers is a nonsense.
It is clear by German records and by studying the German decisions made at the time, that the British-French counterattack at Arras and the fierce, brutal rearguard actions at Lille, Bolougne and Calais, all of which inflicted heavy or heavier German casualties than expected, directly influenced Von Rundstedt’s 24 May order AND the unwillingness to attack Dunkirk head on. Even after the order was given to start moving again.
After all, the Germans only took Dunkirk after almost all the men were evacuated and only a handful of men were left. And even they fought a rear action to delay. Right until the 2nd June.
Secondly, the first British bombings of German happened whilst the German attack on France, Belgium and Holland had barely started. 15th May 1940. A month before the French surrender and long before the start of the BoB.
If you consider having Bush’s head on stake to be trivial, then your position is clear. By all means, please renew your subscription so more shows like this and Maher can continue to espouse such trivial items.
“to diregard the British and French counterattacks from 21-30th May 1940 as not influencing the decision to halt the Panzers is a nonsense”
Okay, now we’re nitpicking degrees of influence. Obviously I can’t say what happened tactically had zero impact on what followed. But I can say with absolute assurance that it was deliberate grand strategy on the part of the higher-ups to let the British escape in the interests of a seperate peace. Certainly had they so decided they could have done a lot, lot more than they did to prevent the escape.
I can also say that had the German intent been to invade Britain rather than sitting pretty as king of continental Europe they would have suffered necessary casualties. Just as they did invading Russia and defending North Africa, Italy, France, and so on.