Actress Gemma Whelan, who played Yara Greyjoy in Game of Thrones, has said that the show’s sex scenes were “a frenzied mess”.

During an interview with The Guardian, she recalled her time filming intimate scenes on Game of Thrones where actors were left to get on with it.

“They used to just say, ‘When we shout action, go for it!’, and it could be a sort of frenzied mess,” she said. “But between the actors there was always an instinct to check in with each other.”

On the hit HBO fantasy show, Whelan played the bisexual Lady Yara Greyjoy, who shared more than a few sex scenes throughout the show’s 8 seasons.

“There was a scene in a brothel with a woman and she was so exposed that we talked together about where the camera would be and what she was happy with,” she explained. “A director might say, ‘Bit of boob biting, then slap her bum and go!’, but I’d always talk it through with the other actor.”

During the second season of Game of Thrones in 2012, Whelan performed one of the show’s most infamous sex scenes – a horseback scene involving Yara’s brother, Theon, played by Alfie Allen. “Alfie was very much, ‘Is this OK? How are we going to make this work?’"

Whelan explains that the addition of intimacy directors – film set employees specifically brought into help actors feel comfortable with love or sex scenes – has improved the process on other projects. "With intimacy directors, it’s choreography – you move there, I move there, and permission and consent is given before you start. It is a step in the right direction.”

Recently, Game of Thrones star Kit Harrington described “mental health” issues he faced while filming the show, which led to him taking time away from acting. Hannah Waddingham, who played Unella, also called the filming of one scene in the show "the worst day of my life". Game of Thrones is set to return to TV in 2022 with the upcoming prequel series, House of the Dragon.

Ryan Leston is an entertainment journalist and film critic for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.

David Chase, creator of The Sopranos, has opened up about the iconic, controversial ending of the hit series, and what he originally had in mind for the fate of Tony Soprano.

During an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Chase has finally revealed what was originally going to happen at the end of The Sopranos series finale, when he got the idea for the final ending, and why some of the fan reaction annoyed him.

This story contains spoilers for the final scene of The Sopranos – if you, like many others, are on your first viewing, turn back now.

As a refresher, The Sopranos ended with a scene in which James Gandolfini's Tony Soprano waits for his family in a diner. After family members and unknown characters gradually enter the restaurant, and one shady figure heads to the bathroom, the diner door's bell rings, Tony looks up, and the show abruptly cuts to black.

As it turns out, Chase's original plan for the ending was more clear-cut. “The scene I had in my mind was not that scene,” he said of the ending. “Nor did I think of cutting to black. I had a scene in which Tony comes back from a meeting in New York in his car. At the beginning of every show, he came from New York into New Jersey, and the last scene could be him coming from New Jersey back into New York for a meeting at which he was going to be killed.”

While some showrunners know exactly how they’ll end their show from the very beginning, Chase admits that The Sopranos ending came a lot later.

“I was driving on Ocean Park Boulevard near the airport, and I saw a little restaurant,” he explained. “It was kind of like a shack that served breakfast. And for some reason I thought, ‘Tony should get it in a place like that’. Why? I don’t know. That was, like, two years before.”

Although The Sopranos ended in 2007, the series has seen a resurgence following The Many Saints of Newark – a prequel film penned by Chase himself.

But when it comes to The Sopranos, the ending still dominates the conversation, something that clearly bothers Chase.

“Yeah, nobody said anything about the episode,” he said. “No, it was all about the ending.”

“I had no idea it would cause that much— I mean, I forget what was going on in Iraq or someplace; London had been bombed! Nobody was talking about that; they were talking about The Sopranos. It was kind of incredible to me. But I had no idea it would be that much of an uproar. And was it annoying? What was annoying was how many people wanted to see Tony killed. That bothered me.”

Ever since the final episode aired in 2007, the infamous cut-to-black moment had sparked debate among fans as to whether Tony was dead or not – and whether a death should have been shown onscreen. Many Sopranos fans wanted to see Tony’s demise for themselves – something which has long irritated Chase.

“They wanted to know that Tony was killed. They wanted to see him go face-down in linguini, you know? And I just thought, ‘God, you watched this guy for seven years and I know he’s a criminal. But don’t tell me you don’t love him in some way, don’t tell me you’re not on his side in some way. And now you want to see him killed? You want justice done? You’re a criminal after watching this shit for seven years’. That bothered me, yeah.”

The Sopranos fans are finally getting some of their questions answered, with The Many Saints of Newark finally revealing who killed Dickie Moltisanti. And with a new prequel series reportedly in the works, it looks as though The Sopranos is picking up steam once more.

Ryan Leston is an entertainment journalist and film critic for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.

David Chase, creator of The Sopranos, has opened up about the iconic, controversial ending of the hit series, and what he originally had in mind for the fate of Tony Soprano.

During an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Chase has finally revealed what was originally going to happen at the end of The Sopranos series finale, when he got the idea for the final ending, and why some of the fan reaction annoyed him.

This story contains spoilers for the final scene of The Sopranos – if you, like many others, are on your first viewing, turn back now.

As a refresher, The Sopranos ended with a scene in which James Gandolfini's Tony Soprano waits for his family in a diner. After family members and unknown characters gradually enter the restaurant, and one shady figure heads to the bathroom, the diner door's bell rings, Tony looks up, and the show abruptly cuts to black.

As it turns out, Chase's original plan for the ending was more clear-cut. “The scene I had in my mind was not that scene,” he said of the ending. “Nor did I think of cutting to black. I had a scene in which Tony comes back from a meeting in New York in his car. At the beginning of every show, he came from New York into New Jersey, and the last scene could be him coming from New Jersey back into New York for a meeting at which he was going to be killed.”

While some showrunners know exactly how they’ll end their show from the very beginning, Chase admits that The Sopranos ending came a lot later.

“I was driving on Ocean Park Boulevard near the airport, and I saw a little restaurant,” he explained. “It was kind of like a shack that served breakfast. And for some reason I thought, ‘Tony should get it in a place like that’. Why? I don’t know. That was, like, two years before.”

Although The Sopranos ended in 2007, the series has seen a resurgence following The Many Saints of Newark – a prequel film penned by Chase himself.

But when it comes to The Sopranos, the ending still dominates the conversation, something that clearly bothers Chase.

“Yeah, nobody said anything about the episode,” he said. “No, it was all about the ending.”

“I had no idea it would cause that much— I mean, I forget what was going on in Iraq or someplace; London had been bombed! Nobody was talking about that; they were talking about The Sopranos. It was kind of incredible to me. But I had no idea it would be that much of an uproar. And was it annoying? What was annoying was how many people wanted to see Tony killed. That bothered me.”

Ever since the final episode aired in 2007, the infamous cut-to-black moment had sparked debate among fans as to whether Tony was dead or not – and whether a death should have been shown onscreen. Many Sopranos fans wanted to see Tony’s demise for themselves – something which has long irritated Chase.

“They wanted to know that Tony was killed. They wanted to see him go face-down in linguini, you know? And I just thought, ‘God, you watched this guy for seven years and I know he’s a criminal. But don’t tell me you don’t love him in some way, don’t tell me you’re not on his side in some way. And now you want to see him killed? You want justice done? You’re a criminal after watching this shit for seven years’. That bothered me, yeah.”

The Sopranos fans are finally getting some of their questions answered, with The Many Saints of Newark finally revealing who killed Dickie Moltisanti. And with a new prequel series reportedly in the works, it looks as though The Sopranos is picking up steam once more.

Ryan Leston is an entertainment journalist and film critic for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter.

Crystal Dynamics has announced that it will be removing Hero's Catalysts and Fragment Extractors from the Marvel's Avengers in-game marketplace. The game's official Twitter account laid out the reasoning.

"We apologize for not responding sooner to your concerns about the addition of paid consumables in the Marketplace,” said the statement. “We introduced them as an option for an evolving player base, and did not see them as pay-to-win since they don’t offer power directly.”

The Hero Catalysts and Fragment Extractors were consumable items that boosted XP for characters and speed up the usual grind in the game. The items can still be earned as normal gameplay rewards and those already earned will still be usable.

We have decided that by the end of today we will remove Hero’s Catalysts and Fragment Extractors for purchase. pic.twitter.com/8am9nSstP2

— Marvel's Avengers (@PlayAvengers) November 2, 2021

Marvel's Avengers was added to Xbox Game Pass on September 30 for console, cloud, and PC. This news was received favorably given its potential to attract new players, but the mood quickly soured. The decision to include these consumables into the in-game marketplace last month was met with backlash.

Fans noted that the game's website said any content that was purchasable in the game with real-world money would be limited to cosmetics only. Fans thought that the inclusion of purchasable XP boosts directly contradicted the statement.

As for the future of Marvel's Avengers, fans can look forward to the PlayStation exclusive Spider-Man DLC, which will have its own story and cutscenes.

George Yang is a freelance writer for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter @yinyangfooey

Crystal Dynamics has announced that it will be removing Hero's Catalysts and Fragment Extractors from the Marvel's Avengers in-game marketplace. The game's official Twitter account laid out the reasoning.

"We apologize for not responding sooner to your concerns about the addition of paid consumables in the Marketplace,” said the statement. “We introduced them as an option for an evolving player base, and did not see them as pay-to-win since they don’t offer power directly.”

The Hero Catalysts and Fragment Extractors were consumable items that boosted XP for characters and speed up the usual grind in the game. The items can still be earned as normal gameplay rewards and those already earned will still be usable.

We have decided that by the end of today we will remove Hero’s Catalysts and Fragment Extractors for purchase. pic.twitter.com/8am9nSstP2

— Marvel's Avengers (@PlayAvengers) November 2, 2021

Marvel's Avengers was added to Xbox Game Pass on September 30 for console, cloud, and PC. This news was received favorably given its potential to attract new players, but the mood quickly soured. The decision to include these consumables into the in-game marketplace last month was met with backlash.

Fans noted that the game's website said any content that was purchasable in the game with real-world money would be limited to cosmetics only. Fans thought that the inclusion of purchasable XP boosts directly contradicted the statement.

As for the future of Marvel's Avengers, fans can look forward to the PlayStation exclusive Spider-Man DLC, which will have its own story and cutscenes.

George Yang is a freelance writer for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter @yinyangfooey

In the last month or so, World of Warcraft has been working on a number of small changes to older parts of the game, removing or editing content that, well, hasn't aged all that well.

Some of this, Blizzard explicitly addressed, such as its removals of references to real-life employees who have departed the company in the wake of a lawsuit alleging harassment, discrimination, and a toxic work environment. Other changes are more subtle, though, like the toning down of some in-game paintings and the removal of a number of "joke" lines that players could deliver using a chat command. Much of the removed content could be considered unnecessarily sexual compared to the tone of the rest of the game, or was explicitly or implicitly degrading toward women.

These changes have been steadily rolled out on World of Warcraft's Public Test Realm, but are preparing to go live in an upcoming game patch. As websites have datamined, discovered, and reported on these changes, the community's reaction has been mixed, a reaction that was acknowledged in a recent VentureBeat interview with game director Ion Hazzikostas.

While many welcomed the removal of inappropriate content, he noted, others were confused or even frustrated. Why was Activision-Blizzard removing years-old joke lines instead of spending its energy on more pressing matters, like fixing its company culture or dealing with the lawsuit?

In the interview, Hazzikostas argued that the World of Warcraft team is doing its part of the whole to improve the company's work culture with the tools in front of them:

"On the other end there are those who have expressed concern that we’re almost doing this as a smokescreen,": he said. "Rather than actually tackling the hard issues, we’re just changing some words in a game. This isn’t an 'or.' It’s an 'and.' We understand that we’re not fixing systemic injustice by changing an emote in World of Warcraft. But why not do that while we’re also working on larger cultural unity and diversity and safety issues and more?

"As we’re improving our processes for evaluating managers, for sharing feedback with the team; as we’re improving our recruiting and hiring to build a more diverse team, let’s also turn that same eye on our game. That’s one thing that may be more visible in the short term. But in the long term we understand that what we’re going to be judged for as a team, as a company, and as a game is far beyond that. That work is still underway."

What does that work entail, then, exactly? Hazzikostas says that the system for changing game content was born in the wake of the lawsuit from a need for individual teams to assess where they, specifically, could be better.

"One thing that came up is that there are pieces of our game that, over the course of 17-plus years now, that were not necessarily the products of a diverse or inclusive range of voices, that did not necessarily reflect the perspective of the current team and of many of our players. There are things that people on our team were not proud to have in our game. These are many things that people, over the years, have pointed out in the community, but we didn’t necessarily listen in the way we should have at the time."

So they set up an internal process for the World of Warcraft team to flag pieces of the game for review, such as old quests or specific dialogue lines. For instance, jokes and references "made a dozen years ago" mocking male blood elves for being feminine. "That doesn’t sit right in 2021," Hazzikostas said.

The content submitted is then reviewed by a group that "reflects the diversity of our team today" on the WoW team to determine whether it should be kept or changed.

"We made decisions on whether to leave some things standing, because they’re borderline, but we’re not looking to reinvent everything, turn over every single stone and rewrite 17 years of WoW," Hazzikostas continued. "It might be a little bit juvenile. It might be off-color. But this isn’t something that is really making our game feel less welcoming for people, which is what we’re aiming to change. Those things we left. Others were removed, others were rewritten or changed accordingly."

Aside from content changes, Hazzikostas reassured that the WoW team is also working to tackle in-game toxicity by improving machine learning to catch bad behavior in-game. Previously, WoW has relied heavily on manual reporting, a system that works well enough in big cities when someone is spamming a general chat, but not as well in small parties or for harassment over messages sent to individuals.

Finally, Hazzikostas stressed how and why the World of Warcraft team is trying to improve diversity in its new hires.

"We can’t just open up a position, take the first couple dozen resumes, look through them, and pick someone out of that pile, because we may just get a couple dozen white male resumes," he said. "...This is not about any preferential decisions in the hiring process itself. It’s about working harder to understand how our job descriptions, the way we’re sourcing candidates, the way referrals work, and all the rest are filtering out qualified candidates of other backgrounds before they even make it to us. And then once we’re interviewing people, we’re going to pick the best person for the job at the time, but doing that extra work up front, we have found and continue and find, leads to a more diverse team that is more reflective of the country that we’re in and the player base that plays our game globally."

Hazzikostas's discussion occurred prior to today's Activision-Blizzard quarterly earnings call, during which former Blizzard co-lead Jen Oneal stepped down from her position after only three months, leaving Mike Ybarra as sole leader of Blizzard. Both Ybarra and Oneal were appointed to their positions following the departure of former president J Allen Brack in the wake of the lawsuit.

Activision-Blizzard has pushed a number of company-wide changes since the lawsuit, such as an end to forced arbitration and a massive CEO pay cut, but an attempt at a settlement unearthed a potential conflict of interest on Activision-Blizzard's part.

Rebekah Valentine is a news reporter for IGN. You can find her on Twitter @duckvalentine.

In the last month or so, World of Warcraft has been working on a number of small changes to older parts of the game, removing or editing content that, well, hasn't aged all that well.

Some of this, Blizzard explicitly addressed, such as its removals of references to real-life employees who have departed the company in the wake of a lawsuit alleging harassment, discrimination, and a toxic work environment. Other changes are more subtle, though, like the toning down of some in-game paintings and the removal of a number of "joke" lines that players could deliver using a chat command. Much of the removed content could be considered unnecessarily sexual compared to the tone of the rest of the game, or was explicitly or implicitly degrading toward women.

These changes have been steadily rolled out on World of Warcraft's Public Test Realm, but are preparing to go live in an upcoming game patch. As websites have datamined, discovered, and reported on these changes, the community's reaction has been mixed, a reaction that was acknowledged in a recent VentureBeat interview with game director Ion Hazzikostas.

While many welcomed the removal of inappropriate content, he noted, others were confused or even frustrated. Why was Activision-Blizzard removing years-old joke lines instead of spending its energy on more pressing matters, like fixing its company culture or dealing with the lawsuit?

In the interview, Hazzikostas argued that the World of Warcraft team is doing its part of the whole to improve the company's work culture with the tools in front of them:

"On the other end there are those who have expressed concern that we’re almost doing this as a smokescreen,": he said. "Rather than actually tackling the hard issues, we’re just changing some words in a game. This isn’t an 'or.' It’s an 'and.' We understand that we’re not fixing systemic injustice by changing an emote in World of Warcraft. But why not do that while we’re also working on larger cultural unity and diversity and safety issues and more?

"As we’re improving our processes for evaluating managers, for sharing feedback with the team; as we’re improving our recruiting and hiring to build a more diverse team, let’s also turn that same eye on our game. That’s one thing that may be more visible in the short term. But in the long term we understand that what we’re going to be judged for as a team, as a company, and as a game is far beyond that. That work is still underway."

What does that work entail, then, exactly? Hazzikostas says that the system for changing game content was born in the wake of the lawsuit from a need for individual teams to assess where they, specifically, could be better.

"One thing that came up is that there are pieces of our game that, over the course of 17-plus years now, that were not necessarily the products of a diverse or inclusive range of voices, that did not necessarily reflect the perspective of the current team and of many of our players. There are things that people on our team were not proud to have in our game. These are many things that people, over the years, have pointed out in the community, but we didn’t necessarily listen in the way we should have at the time."

So they set up an internal process for the World of Warcraft team to flag pieces of the game for review, such as old quests or specific dialogue lines. For instance, jokes and references "made a dozen years ago" mocking male blood elves for being feminine. "That doesn’t sit right in 2021," Hazzikostas said.

The content submitted is then reviewed by a group that "reflects the diversity of our team today" on the WoW team to determine whether it should be kept or changed.

"We made decisions on whether to leave some things standing, because they’re borderline, but we’re not looking to reinvent everything, turn over every single stone and rewrite 17 years of WoW," Hazzikostas continued. "It might be a little bit juvenile. It might be off-color. But this isn’t something that is really making our game feel less welcoming for people, which is what we’re aiming to change. Those things we left. Others were removed, others were rewritten or changed accordingly."

Aside from content changes, Hazzikostas reassured that the WoW team is also working to tackle in-game toxicity by improving machine learning to catch bad behavior in-game. Previously, WoW has relied heavily on manual reporting, a system that works well enough in big cities when someone is spamming a general chat, but not as well in small parties or for harassment over messages sent to individuals.

Finally, Hazzikostas stressed how and why the World of Warcraft team is trying to improve diversity in its new hires.

"We can’t just open up a position, take the first couple dozen resumes, look through them, and pick someone out of that pile, because we may just get a couple dozen white male resumes," he said. "...This is not about any preferential decisions in the hiring process itself. It’s about working harder to understand how our job descriptions, the way we’re sourcing candidates, the way referrals work, and all the rest are filtering out qualified candidates of other backgrounds before they even make it to us. And then once we’re interviewing people, we’re going to pick the best person for the job at the time, but doing that extra work up front, we have found and continue and find, leads to a more diverse team that is more reflective of the country that we’re in and the player base that plays our game globally."

Hazzikostas's discussion occurred prior to today's Activision-Blizzard quarterly earnings call, during which former Blizzard co-lead Jen Oneal stepped down from her position after only three months, leaving Mike Ybarra as sole leader of Blizzard. Both Ybarra and Oneal were appointed to their positions following the departure of former president J Allen Brack in the wake of the lawsuit.

Activision-Blizzard has pushed a number of company-wide changes since the lawsuit, such as an end to forced arbitration and a massive CEO pay cut, but an attempt at a settlement unearthed a potential conflict of interest on Activision-Blizzard's part.

Rebekah Valentine is a news reporter for IGN. You can find her on Twitter @duckvalentine.

Actor Jason Momoa announced Monday that he has tested positive for COVID-19. Momoa shared the news on Instagram Monday (which was later shared via a fan TikTok, reported by ), saying he'd been "hit with COVID" sometime after the in-person theatrical premiere of Dune, in which Momoa plays House Atreides' swordmaster Duncan Idaho.

"There's a lot of people I met in England, so...I got a lot of aloha from people, but who knows?" Momoa said. "But either way, I'm doing fine. Thank you for all your concerns and love."

Momoa says he's now "camped out" in his house. Another Instagram video shows Momoa in good spirits at home hanging out with his friend Erik Ellington, a pro skateboarder.

England's COVID prevalence has risen to its highest count since the beginning of the year according to Britain's Office for National Statistics, Reuters reported late last month. 1 in 55 British residents are reportedly experiencing some symptoms of COVID.

Momoa had been filming Aquaman 2 at Warner Bros.' Leavesden Studios in Hertfordshire, England. The last significant update on the film came via DC FanDome earlier this year, when DC showed off Momoa's new Aquaman suit.

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/desert power enthusiast for IGN.

Actor Jason Momoa announced Monday that he has tested positive for COVID-19. Momoa shared the news on Instagram Monday (which was later shared via a fan TikTok, reported by ), saying he'd been "hit with COVID" sometime after the in-person theatrical premiere of Dune, in which Momoa plays House Atreides' swordmaster Duncan Idaho.

"There's a lot of people I met in England, so...I got a lot of aloha from people, but who knows?" Momoa said. "But either way, I'm doing fine. Thank you for all your concerns and love."

Momoa says he's now "camped out" in his house. Another Instagram video shows Momoa in good spirits at home hanging out with his friend Erik Ellington, a pro skateboarder.

England's COVID prevalence has risen to its highest count since the beginning of the year according to Britain's Office for National Statistics, Reuters reported late last month. 1 in 55 British residents are reportedly experiencing some symptoms of COVID.

Momoa had been filming Aquaman 2 at Warner Bros.' Leavesden Studios in Hertfordshire, England. The last significant update on the film came via DC FanDome earlier this year, when DC showed off Momoa's new Aquaman suit.

Joseph Knoop is a writer/producer/desert power enthusiast for IGN.

Star Trek fans may be able to look forward to a film similar to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, according to Paramount's CEO.

Speaking to THR, Star Trek: Prodigy writer Alex Kurtzman and Paramount Pictures CEO Brian Robbins both spoke about the possibility of a Star Trek: Prodigy movie. Prodigy is the latest Star Trek animated series that is currently airing on Paramount Plus, and Robbins said they've already started talking about what a movie could look like.

"Alex and I have talked about what the theatrical film version of this show is and the likes of that," Robbins said. "We’re really excited."

Kurtzman then talked about his ideas for the type of movie he would want to make, citing a family movie like Into the Spider-Verse.

"Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is still one of the best movies over the past decade, animated or not," Kurtzman said. "I went with my whole family and another family and we all sat there with our jaws on the floor. Ultimately, Star Trek is about family, it’s about these giant universal themes. Getting to tell a story like that, especially given the level of cinema we’ve already brought to the television show, is a wonderful opportunity. It would thrill me to do that."

It's unclear just how much inspiration this potential Star Trek movie could take from Into the Spider-Verse, but based on the interview, it seems like Kurtzman is specifically talking about Spider-Verse's appeal to the whole family.

In our Star Trek Prodigy premiere review, we called the episode "good", saying, "The premiere sets the stage for a credible course for adventure that has the potential to grow into something special."

As for Spider-Verse, the movie is getting a sequel next year on October 7, 2022. We recently learned that the movie was in production a whole year before the original came out.

Logan Plant is a freelance writer for IGN. You can find him on Twitter @LoganJPlant.