Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Game of Thrones: Bush's Head Gets a Makeover

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the eastasia-has-always-been-the-enemy dept.

Entertainment 266

mahiskali writes "After apologizing for using a likeness of former President George W. Bush's head in the season finale of the first season of 'Game of Thrones,' HBO has digitally altered the offending scene. After releasing an formal apology, HBO proceeded to yank the episode off all digital platforms, as well as halt distribution of the Season 1 box sets. The episode is now back with an altered head; more hair, less chin. Show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss later clarified, 'We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We can't 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.'"

cancel ×

266 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you what? (5, Informative)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469535)

They Digitally Edited Out the likeness of Bush? An apology is one thing, but why the fuck does anyone need to remaster post-release films which contain accidental heads?

Re:you what? (5, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469609)

Because we're all sensitive douchenozzles.

How DARE someone offend my sacrosanct sensibilities! A pox on their houses! A boycott! A Congressional inquiry!!
I shall not rest until my right to not be offended is acknowledged!

Re:you what? (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469787)

For all his faults, I genuinely believe that George W Bush would laugh at this and not be offended. He is a goober, but a goober with a sense of humor.

Re:you what? (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470019)

Yeah, but he's too much a goober to know he should be deeply deeply offended by this, so the vocal minority has to be doubly offended on his behalf!

(On a serious note, I do agree with your point. This seems like the sort of thing that'd just roll off his back. And note we haven't heard HIS side of the story on this, not that it would have ever mattered...)

Re:you what? (4, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470249)

I still remember him laughing when that reporter tossed his shoes at him and he ducked. I laughed my ass off at the look on his face. It didn't really even faze him at all. Later he intervened on the guys behalf to keep him from being punished. I really wanted to like President Bush but his policies just made it too hard and I gave up trying.

Re:you what? (-1, Offtopic)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470323)

>>> I really wanted to like President Bush but his policies just made it too hard and I gave up trying.

President Obama has the same policies.

Re:you what? (3, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470567)

And yet, his comment said nothing about liking Obama; why bring it up?

the black man won... (2)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470615)

get over it and stop trying to infect everything with your hate.

Re:you what? (5, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469819)

If it had been a fake Obama head, there would have been a much bigger uproar. Personally, while I think it was intentional & tasteless, I don't think it deserved as much attention as it got. The directors probably could have gotten away with it if they didn't mention anything about it in the commentaries.

Re:you what? (5, Insightful)

Comen (321331) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469897)

I think if it had been very obvious that it was Bush or Obama's head, I would have thought it was in bad taste, but when you actually see the head, you would never have known that was a Bush head if they had not have said something.

Re:you what? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470175)

Lets not even get to if it was a depiction of that Muhammad guy. Oh, wait...

Re:you what? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470277)

Hard to do that one. No one knows what he looked like.

Re:you what? (3, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470587)

This was discovered because the directors mentioned it in the commentary?

my mind is boggling somewhat at the silliness of mentioning this AT ALL.

Re:you what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469619)

Because welcome to the US, this is what we turned into a number of years ago, and now technology is just making it easier.

Re:you what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469625)

In today's post 9/11, politically correct world, the greatest American president ever is not to be ridiculed.

Re:you what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469707)

Who's talking about Reagan?

Re:you what? (1)

derfy (172944) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470259)

Zing!

Re:you what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469631)

There mistake was using a likeness of his head. They should have cut-off Bush Jr's head and used the real thing. That worthless douchebag hasn't been heard from since leaving office unlike most former presidents.

Re:you what? (3, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469701)

That worthless douchebag hasn't been heard from since leaving office unlike most former presidents.

That's largely been by design.

Unlike some other former presidents who during from 1/01-01/09 spent a great deal of time relentlessly attacking the then President and attempting to undermine him... 43 seems to have opted to allow the current president to succeed or fail on his own.

How horrible is it that a previous President be respectful to their successor... you know... the complete opposite of what this President has done to his predecessor.

Re:you what? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469919)

Respecting his successor by suggesting that the only reason Obama is targeting the "Bush tax cuts" is because it has "Bush" in the name? Or were you asleep when he started throwing his retard around again back in April?

Re:you what? (1, Troll)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469955)

Seeing as how Bush ran the U.S. in to a ditch and left Obama a thankless, nearly impossible job running a country in ruins, I think Obama has been pretty kind to him. You also glossed over the fact that Cheney did multuple hatchet jobs on Obama so Bush didn't really need to. Cheney has been anything but respectful to Obama.

I'm no fan of Obama but no matter how you look at it Bush-Cheney was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history and almost single handedly started the U.S. on the road to decline and collapse.

I've often wondered if the Bush administration intentionally let Lehman blow. They knew that Republicans were so unpopular at that point they would lose the White House, so maybe they decided to completely wreck the economy on their way out so they could blame the economy on Obama four years later and win it right back.

It will be mind boggling if the Republicans manage to put a vulture capitalist in the White House after Wall/Fleet Street's misdeeds of the last decade.

Re:you what? (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470093)

OK, here we go again...

Granted, I can't blame it all on Obama. Things went downhill before he ever took office.

So, who's to blame? Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush. In Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was at 4.6%, the deficit averaged about $400 billion and gas was under $2.20/gallon.
Then, in late Jan 2007, the Democrats took control of Congress. Again, this is after the last six years of Clinton and the first six years of Bush. This Republican controlled Congress led over two presidents of both parties, so you can't blame or credit either president. Just two years after the Democrats took control of Congress the deficit had gone up to over $1400 billion and the unemployment rate was about 7.6%. One year after Obama was elected, with both houses of Congress controlled by Obama's party, the unemployment rate was over 9.6% and the deficit was the second highest ever at $1200 billion, second only to Obama's first year in office.

So the credit/blame does not necessarily fall under Obama or Bush, but with Congress. Obama does deserve some credit, however, as he was able to get his agenda through the Democratic Congress, where Bush could not.

So your idea that Republicans are somehow to blame for this is not backed up by the FACTS. Sorry, bub! Numbers don't lie!

If you have a problem with any of the numbers I brought up, speak up. Calling names does not qualify as an argument.

Re:you what? (5, Informative)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470393)

So your idea that Republicans are somehow to blame for this is not backed up by the FACTS. Sorry, bub! Numbers don't lie!

If you have a problem with any of the numbers I brought up, speak up.

Quoting numbers without context is a good way to hide assumptions and misrepresent a complex situation. And economies are inherently complex. I think to be a Republican apologist for the 2008-2012 U.S. financial crisis, you have to mitigate a handful of factors:

  • A Republican congress repealed Glass-Stegal, paving the way for the bad banking practices evident in the subprime morgtage crisis.
  • A Republican administration led the charge to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which was very costly.
  • A Republican administration instituted large tax cuts during a war.

Of course, probably the easiest way to mitigate these is to point out the unclean hands here... Clinton approved Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Obama extended the Bush-era tax cuts, and the Democratic congress went along with the war effort.

I think the Daily Show called it right once: Republicans are the party of bad ideas; Democrats are the party of no ideas.

Re:you what? (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470597)

*the party of the same ideas.

There has been no significant policy difference between Obama and Bush. Also, the financial crisis has nothing to do with the parties that were in office at any given time. It was 100% caused by overspending by BOTH parties, and the Fed's eagerness to accommodate false growth by gaming interest rates. They have pushed this game to it's endpoint. The freefall we are in now will end with nothing short of a sickening crunch. Obamney won't be able to stop it, no mater what mystical powers anyone attributes to it.

Re:you what? (4, Informative)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470395)

There are so many things wrong in your post I'm not sure I can cover them all in limited time.

Citing the unemployment rate a year in to Obama's term and somehow blaming it on him is one of the more spectacular ones. The economy had just entered free fall when Obama took office. There was absolutely nothing anyone was going to do to stop it in a year, other than squander even larger amounts of borrowed money on stimulus than they did.

"was able to get his agenda through the Democratic Congress, where Bush could not"

Speaking of FACTS you just went off the rails dude. Bush had Republican control of the House for six years, and Senate control for four years. Democrats are pathetic and hopeless in the opposition obstructuing anything. The Republicans are extremely good at it.

Bush gutted every regulatory body in sight, especially the SEC, through executive orders and appointments which contributed more than anything to corporate running amuck. He rammed through huge tax cuts which started the downhill slide in to huge deficits, passed Medicare D which also added to the huge deficits, passed No Child Left Behind which did nothing but damage to the educational system, passed the Patriot act which eviscerated civil liberties, and ran two staggeringly expensive and largely pointless wars whose only lasting accomplishment will be a huge pile of debt and a bunch of traumatized vets.

The only two things Obama managed to pass were Obamacare which was a huge giveaway to the insurance and drug companies & will hopefully overturned tomorrow. And then there was the stimulus package, a mostly stupid squandering of money but considering the economy was in free fall it probably had to be done in some form . Other than the hasn't dont much of anything since he can't get anything past the Republicans in the House. So called "financial reform" and regulation didn't fix anything by the time Wall Street was done lobbying it in to the ground.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the collapse, Clinton, Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Greenspan, Frank and Dodd all deserve some. But you can't change the simple fact the economy spiralled out of control and blew up on Bush's watch, Paulson helped, and they deserve massive amounts of credit.

Re:you what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470433)

Numbers do lie. Everybody knows that. Whether your numbers lie or not, I don't know, but you have failed to establish anything other than correlation.

Correlation is not causation, especially when it comes to the multitude of events that shape the course of the nation. Did Lincoln's election cause the Civil War?

Only if you are very short-sighted, and don't remember the conflicts beforehand.

Similarly if you are just relying on your coincidence of events, you might not pay attention to everything that happened, so you'd quite easily be misled.

Next time, try specific allegations.

Re:you what? (4, Insightful)

kqs (1038910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470517)

Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush.

Absolutely true, as long as you ignore the deficit going from effectively zero at the end of Clinton to very rapid growth during Bush, and guaranteed to get worse as his phased tax cuts continued. And as long as you pretend that the mortgage problems magically started in 2007 and were not a simmering but ignored issue for a decade. And if you ignore that real income for the lower 2/3rds of people was flat or decreased during that time, And if you ignore lots of other warning signs that "things are breaking and will be easy to fix now, but really hard later." Now it's later.

Pretending that things were good for Bush's first six years is a wonderful way of blaming the other guys, but does require lots of selective editing. Not that the other guys did all that well, but lots of indicators went into the red during 2001-2006.

Re:you what? (4, Interesting)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470625)

The deficit going to zero was a result of increasing income tax gains from the internet bubble, something cause by the Fed. Clinton had nothing to do with it. He did manage to refrain from going into max spending mode like most municipalities did during the same time period, to his credit.

Re:you what? (0)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470651)

There was a cause to the recession, which is the passage of the 1999 Gramm Leach and Bliley Act signed by Bill Clinton. (Messrs Gramm Leach and Bliley are GOP, but it had bi-partisan support in the house. Almost the entire democrat Senate was opposed.) 1999 GLBA overturned the 1933 Glass-Steagall. It means that mainstreet banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, investment banks, and commercial banks were allowed to all become the same institution. There was no real check on the banking system, because the banks that were "too-large-to-fail" knew that there was no incentive for security, moral hazard. Instead, short-term profits were the only motivation.

These government created corporations acted without restraint in search of profit, because the environment they operated allowed this. It was only natural. The consequences were (and are) inevitable - collapse of large banks. (This has not been fixed yet. Another recession WILL be caused by this. It's only a matter of time. The foolish regulations imposed by the Obama administration have only proved effective at shutting down credit unions and small community banks by increasing the costs of banking, all without making us any safer.)

But the recession became a depression because of the cost of student loans. The average student loan debt for graduating seniors is about $23000. When two of these student loans gets married, they have a household debt of about $46000 then. AKA - a mortgage. The average college student is graduating college with a small mortgage.

It gets worse. The people who should be doing the real production for the economy are those graduating with Masters and PhDs. Their student loan debt is higher, as they have to pay for undergraduate school, and then graduate school. Yes, graduate school is typically not as expensive as undergraduate school. But the typical graduate school student still needs loans. And they still have undergraduate school interest accumulating.

So basically, the top ten percent of the generation who should be driving most of the economic growth cannot afford to do so, because they already have a not-so-small mortgage.

Now we are in a depression. It's no longer a recession, because other economic environment conditions have stalled the necessary recovery. We can get out of it, but the nation needs to stop spending money foolishly. The Federal and State governments need to stop with the atrocious regulations like the last round of ADA. Instead, we should focus on improving the real infrastructure of the nation, namely its citizens - creating needless regulation to force companies to spend does not stimulate the economy, it is a broken window fallacy.

(1) Start with free community and state colleges - eliminate the need for student loans for an undergraduate degree. (2) A WPA style program should be created to let college students work off their existing debt, one that is not so onerous as requiring a sacrifice of income potential (or life) from working in inner-city schools or the military. (3) Much like alcohol was legalized during the Great Depression, so should marijuana be legalized now - leave its legal status up to the several states. (4) Fix immigration and bring in productive student immigrants - stop kicking out PhDs and masters.

Re:you what? (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470235)

Seeing as how [Clinton] ran the U.S. in to a ditch and left [Bush] a thankless, nearly impossible job running a country in ruins, thanks to the Dot-com stock market crash and blowback from Clinton's attacks on Iraq and Bin Laden, (et cetera). Funny how Democrats forget how bad things were in 2000 & 2001.

orly? (1, Insightful)

pkbarbiedoll (851110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470309)

You LIE!

It's perfectly OK to be disrespectful to a sitting Democratic president, but god save your soul if you dare to suggest anything negative about a past Republican president.

Republican butt-hurt is a prime motivator. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469637)

It's like the Elvis principle, you know? All otherwise inexplicable happenings are in response to a Republican crybaby who believes that sharia law is right around the corner, waging war on Christmas.

Re:you what? (5, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469779)

They Digitally Edited Out the likeness of Bush?

Surprised that they chose to digitally edit his nose and chin. Since this is Game of Thrones I just assumed that they were going to add a pair of tits.

Re:you what? (1, Funny)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470467)

>>> Game of Thrones I just assumed that they were going to add a pair of tits.

This is the second day in a row I read Thrones and tits in the same sentence. Yesterday someone said it's LOTR with tits. I may have to take a second look at this program because the only ones I recall are the blonde princess near the beginning, and the dwarf with his prostitutes. Oh and also the baby breastfeeding scene..... no wait that was Rome. (Another show I need to rewatch.)

Re:you what? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469861)

does anyone need to remaster post-release films which contain accidental heads?

If it was an accident, then why make mention of it in the commentary? I know they said it wasn't a political statement, but they could have just glanced over it and probably nobody would have noticed.

Re:you what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470071)

If it was an accident, then why make mention of it in the commentary? I know they said it wasn't a political statement, but they could have just glanced over it and probably nobody would have noticed.

To fill time in the commentary. Not every utterance is important, and given that there was some discussion of using a GRRM head, perhaps they felt saying whose they did use was interesting.

As political statement go, it could hardly have that much of a negative meaning. When are we shown these heads? When the sadistic king who is the product of incest, wants to intimidate the girl he's betrothed too, and whose father was one of the heads.

Really, all if the heads are of good guys, not bad.

Re:you what? (2)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470069)

They had to keep up with the times.
So they made it look like Obama instead.

Factual error (0)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470113)

It needs to be remastered because the Lannisters are red, cruel, they hate the common folk, torture people, and have all the cash. Obviously, they are affiliated with the Republican Party.

Re:Factual error (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470145)

And I forgot to mention that they are devious, lying bastards.

Re:you what? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470151)

Same reason Disney edited out the topless lady in the Rescuers and the penis in the Mermaid poster. They don't want to offend anyone (or lose money because of it).

TO BAD SO SAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469573)

Although they yanked it off the shelves, people like me have copies from watching it on DVR"s and recording it.

HAHAHA Nice try jackasses.
And as for President Bush having a beef about it, TUFF SHIT!

Re:TO BAD SO SAD (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469653)

I see nothing saying the former president is even aware of it, much less has a beef about it.

Re:TO BAD SO SAD (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469823)

I doubt he watches much outside of The Cartoon Network...

Re:TO BAD SO SAD (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469931)

I doubt he watches much outside of The Cartoon Network...

If so, he's far more intelligent than I previously gave him credit for...

Production costs (1)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469603)

Is this why the complete season purchase price is so much???

Re:Production costs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469743)

Hang on to your first-run Blu-Ray set, it's now a collector's item.

Who's that annoying fucking bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469607)

Who's that annoying fucking bitch on speed Gilian Penis? Somebody shut her up - please.

Collectors edition (5, Funny)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469615)

Does this mean the copies already bought off-the-shelf have just become instant collectors editions? Expect to see "Game of Thrones - George Bush's Head Edition" on Ebay for about x5 the list price.

Re:Collectors edition (2)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470201)

I'd hang on to your copy of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, too. To me, it's always looked like they used a model of George W. Bush for the face of Grawp, Hagrid's giant brother in the woods, then mixed in a little Alfred E. Newman to disguise it.

Trust me, once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Eunuchs (4, Insightful)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469623)

This is either some kind of "clever" ploy to make already existing box sets scarce or a way to push people to pirate the unedited versions.

Or HBO really just has no balls and can't stand up for themselves. Probably that.

Re:Eunuchs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469791)

It's probably as the TFA says, they never intended it to look like Bush and turn their enjoyable show into yet another political wankfest - because people are kind of sick of watching a dead horse being bent over a lawnchair and sodomized every time they turn on the TV.

Remember how Lucas shit on the prequels by making it into "Palpatine is George Bush". I can only speak for myself, but I kind of wanted to watch a Star Wars movie, not watch Rachel Maddow interview Sean Penn.

It had nothing to do with HBO standing up for themselves, they were never under fire.

Re:Eunuchs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469841)

Remember how Lucas shit on the [Star Wars] prequels by making it

FTFY

Re:Eunuchs (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470335)

Damn! It wasn't all that bad. Of course I think what pissed everyone off is that it could have been so much better. All those years of waiting only to be let down made a lot of people bitter.

Re:Eunuchs (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470325)

I agree. When I watch something like Game of Thrones it's to escape from the real world for a while. The last thing I want is to see shit from today's political goat rope brought into my entertainment. Leave that shit on FOX, CNN and NBC etc. where it belongs.

Re:Eunuchs (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469799)

It's to be expected that HBO would be spineless twits. What surprises me is that, in their capacity as profit maximizing spineless twits, they decided that this recall/re-edit/lament/apologize/etc. tactic is more cost effective than just issuing a generic "Yeah, we are making a blood-drenched swords-n-sorcery series, so we buy prop heads by the fucking truckload without carefully vetting them for non-resemblance to any persons living or dead. Who cares?" and going on with their day.

That is the disturbing bit, to my mind.

Re:Eunuchs (1)

Achra (846023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470469)

Mod parent +1 ex-fucking-xactly.

Oh geez. ADD a head not subtract one. (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469629)

If they REALLY wanted to fix this, they would have left Bush's head there and digitally-added Obama's head right next to it. BOTH of these men deserve the ultimate punishment for the ~2 million humans they have either killed or maimed during their careers as president. I hope the International Criminal Court presses charges.

Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469675)

Your comment is stupid, selfish, and full of foul stenched bitchism. Putting Obama's head in there is devoid of any rational sense and must be based purely on your personal hatred. Such an act cannot be tolerated in the show.

Everyone knows there are no black people in Westeros. Putting his head in there would ruin the suspension of disbelief. What are you, nuts?

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469711)

What are you, nuts?

Nope, just Republican. Read cpu6502's comment history, very amusing, sometimes sad.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469771)

Everyone knows there are no black people in Westeros. Putting his head in there would ruin the suspension of disbelief. What are you, nuts?

Summer isles, the original brothel owner and her daughter.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469979)

Everyone knows there are no black people in Westeros.

I don't. Of course, I also don't waste my life obsessing over poorly-written, over-sexualized drivel.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470351)

I don't. Of course, I also don't waste my life obsessing over poorly-written, over-sexualized drivel.

I didn't think we were talking about Slashdot - just a TV program.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470383)

How can something be over-sexualized? Actually most of the sex in GOT is pretty casual. The violence is the real driving force. It's a brutal environment and your favorite characters are subject to get dead at any time.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470519)

Meh. If I want to be entertained in such a fashion, I'll stick to Anne Mccaffrey.

Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470411)

thanks for letting us all know. I don't obsess over Justin Bieber. There, we have something in common. We both dislike something the other likes. Of course, what I watch is, granted, overly sexualized, but at least I don't have over-sexualized dreams of a boy pop star.

Re:Oh geez. ADD a head not subtract one. (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469729)

I hope the International Criminal Court presses charges.

I bet you also hope for unicorns, a Ron Paul presidency and Pandora to be a real planet... keep on hoping, none are going to happen.

Re:Oh geez. ADD a head not subtract one. (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470391)

>>>I bet you also hope for unicorns, a Ron Paul presidency and Pandora to be a real planet...

No, no, and yes (or any earthlike planet). BTW I find it sad you think the lives of 2 million innocent men, women, and children don't matter.

Lib'rul bias! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469817)

they would have left Bush's head there and digitally-added Obama's head right next to it

Left Bush's head there? But that's offensive and unfair!

BOTH of these men deserve the ultimate punishment

You're saying Bush deserves punishment? But that's offensive and lib'rully biased! Why are you so unfair to us conservatives? Why are you unfair and unbalanced?

Re:Oh geez. ADD a head not subtract one. (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469927)

I couldn't agree more (with the intention and sentiment). I LOL'd at your proposal, and I think it's a strikingly good one.

The irony is that the last decade of warfare has basically been continuous and at higher cost than Vietnam with much broader collateral damage. Unfortunately, Bush and Obama can not be held singularly responsible for this: US Congress as well as the people involved on the OF side.

The real tragedy is that it's being waged for political reasons, not actual stabilization. See: the jihadist coups of Egypt and Libya thanks to our benevolent administration. Jingoism is bad, but jihadism is probably a bit worse in terms of negative effects (deaths, poverty, enslavement, etc.) on the grander scale of history.

Re:Oh geez. ADD a head not subtract one. (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470015)

If they REALLY wanted to fix this, they would have left Bush's head there and digitally-added Obama's head right next to it. BOTH of these men deserve the ultimate punishment for the ~2 million humans they have either killed or maimed during their careers as president. I hope the International Criminal Court presses charges.

Contrary to what is apparently popular opinion, I totally agree with you, man*.

Funny how people can easily forget inhuman transgressions, so long as the individual committing them is the one said people voted for.


* Regarding the war crimes. TV shows, I couldn't give a shit less about.

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469633)

Bushs fault.

(what a stupid waste of time and money. just say 'oops' and get the fuck over it.. )

Heads, spikes, walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469665)

In other news, President Joffrey decreed a new policy of looking "forward not back" on treason cases.

Couldn't see it. (4, Informative)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469679)

Okay, I watched the clips. I saw the before and after pictures.

And I didn't see the faintest hint of resemblance. Am I the only one?

Re:Couldn't see it. (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469735)

Okay, I watched the clips. I saw the before and after pictures.

And I didn't see the faintest hint of resemblance. Am I the only one?

Probably. Maybe it'd also fool Lois Lane, I'm not sure if hair makes more of a difference than glasses.

Re:Couldn't see it. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469769)

Nope. The head was mostly facing away from the camera, and had a big wig on it. Someone had a lot of time to waste if they picked out, from a slight profile, a fake George W. Bush head.

It's amazing what some people will spend time doing, just on the hope of a slight chance of finding something to complain about.

Re:Couldn't see it. (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469953)

Yeah.. very true..

On the other hand, now they have found it, we all get to laugh.

What's the minimum clip length needed for a 'fair use: satire' exemption? I was thinking of putting a 14.59min rolling loop of this on someones tube, with the single comment 'LOL' and then claiming it was protected satirical speech if HBO objected.

Re:Couldn't see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470681)

Satire's not protected by Fair Use, Parody is. So you can make fun of the original, but you can't alter the original to make fun of something else.

Re:Couldn't see it. (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470055)

No one wasted any additional time other than the time it wastes to watch the episode normally. The fact that they used a GWB head was pointed out in the commentary on the DVD, it wasn't something that someone just noticed.

Re:Couldn't see it. (3, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469781)

I noticed the similarity, but only after I saw a still frame. If nothing had been said in the commentaries, I never would have noticed.

Re:Couldn't see it. (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470001)

Certainly the weakest "issue" I can recall seeing in a good, long time.

Political Correctness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469699)

Political correctness rears its ugly head again. Oh noes! Some neo-conservative might think this is a slur on Bush and get offended! (Neocons seem to be perpetually offended at everything anyway, so this wouldn't be anything new.)

Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469751)

The worst part is, nobody would have ever caught it if the commentary had not pointed out the likeness. Butthurt over something you didn't even know about until somebody told you is the worst kind of butthurt.

Re:Stupid (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470219)

This. I think that although the choice of head was deliberate, it was never supposed to be obvious: just something the crew could look back at in later years and snicker among themselves, and if someone spilled the beans it could be chalked up to an urban legend.

But two things went wrong. One, the head wasn't quite turned far enough away. Two, some idiot blabbed on the DVD commentaries: the one place where every single person with a copy of the series could easily go to find out about it.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470563)

some idiots blabbed. Those idiots being the creators Weiss and Benioff. Maybe they forgot it was supposed to be an inside joke or maybe the prop folks did it. I could see that. If I were a prop guy and found a president, or famous person's, head I'd probably try to sneak it in there.

You brought attention to Bush's severed head... (1)

RavenLrD20k (311488) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469795)

in a public forum... and THEN stated that you are editing out the likeness in a public forum...

I for one have never seen the GoT series, and until now had no interest in it. Thankfully, we have the season in question recorded (my wife likes it). Now I'm gonna go through and find that scene, and make sure it never gets lost from the archives of the interwebs. Muaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Cue Streisand Effect in 3...2...1...

STILL NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469825)

held responsible for war crimes, and the tanking of the global economy (yet more war crimes...)

WOW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469833)

A fictional show had a character (or head) that looked like someone from real-life - oh noes - call the press!
Our society is quickly devolving into a country/planet of politically correct, zero-tolerance douches with no commonsense or sense of humor, morals or reality.

Game of Fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469903)

Fagets like head coming out of bush of public hair. Pennis head. Cuz fagets like pennis cuz their gay fagets and like the faget dick.

Re:Game of Fagets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470013)

It's not faget, faggot.

Hmmm... (1)

FrAnkRYzzO (1453769) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469905)

I'm pretty sure this was feature and not a bug...

Fan Edit? (3, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 2 years ago | (#40469929)

I'm hoping this leads to a fan edit in which every dead character on screen is replaced by Bush! I say this not because of hatred for Bush, but because HBO and various commentators have taken this amusing situation way too seriously.

Not even the first revision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40469967)

Originally it was the bleeding head of Arnold Palmer.

ROFL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470009)

MAO...

WTIME.

I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470025)

It looked nothing like Bush's head and it even had long hair.... how the hell did someone claim that it was Bush's head?

Actually, it looked more like ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470471)

... some slashdoterdood named Anonymous Coward.

Pussies... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470143)

So..., what? It's wrong to have latex likenesses of former presidents in motion pictures now? Well, OK, if that's what it takes to make sure there's never a remake of "Point Break".

Four words (4, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470207)

Abraham... Lincoln... Vampire... Slayer!

Someone give that soccer Mom a job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40470421)

i bet its the same woman who found sex written in the disney clouds , she gutz the eye of de tigaaar !!

give that woman a job to spot terrorists at the airport so we dont have to go trough 560 humiliating time consumming checkups .

They should use a likeness of ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470427)

... Jerry Sandusky. Or maybe Bernie Madoff.

Who *did* they make it look like? (2)

whitroth (9367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40470631)

And why didn't they have a Cheney head beside it?

                mark

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>