posted
In OSC's most recent article at the Rhino Time, he bashes on Game of Thrones for its "excessive" nudity. It left me wondering about the (often) excessive nudity on premium channels.
So, at first it was just a few shows. Rome was edgy and brilliant and showed nudity. But it was artistic, and no one minded. Then a number of shows hedged their plots to legitimately incorporate a greater amount of sex, shows like Californication and Hung. Now, nudity and sex seem almost commonplace in many premium series -- oh and they are proliferating.
But what about cases like True Blood? The show is purposefully campy and about relationships -- sexual and otherwise. The sex seems to fit in with the story (even if it isn't Mrs. Harris's story). Modern relationships, like modern life, are about more than just flashing eyelashes.
I tried watching Camelot -- but the sex thrown in seemed weird and out of place. And I've actually enjoyed watching Game of Thrones. In the former, the sex seemed thrown in. In the Game of Thrones, I can't think of a single second when it didn't seem to serve the characterization directly (Tyrion and prostitutes, Jaime and Cersei, Dany). This IS an adult series. Has HBO gone too far?
Honestly, I think they've been tasteful (unlike, ahem, Camelot). I just wonder what our puritan preoccupation has done to the REST of our art.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer "Has HBO gone too far?" — in the case of Game of Thrones, the answer is "no."
But the exploits of nudity on television, starting with the premium channels, is just the old issue of changing mores. Even Rome had to deal with it, despite the artistry in its use of nudity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you actually counted the seconds of nudity, how many are they? In an hour and change episode with no commercials, there's maybe three, four minutes of nudity? And how much of it was totally useless? Eh, maybe a minute's worth?
Sure, Martin never goes out of his way to describe, in detail, sex and nudity in the novels, but they are always there. They're frequently mentioned as happening, so the show has a choice: Include them or don't, but including them is inherently graphic in a way that is easily avoided in a novel. You can say, in a novel, "she was naked," without going into details, but to depict someone naked visually, it's a binary, she's either naked or she isn't, and if she is, you're going to get far more detail that way.
Seems like his problem isn't the value of the nudity, it's with all nudity. And really, I thought the nude scenes with Dany in the first episode were very well done. I'll be watching Ep. 2 tomorrow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved Rome, my wife hates it to this day and is convinced that I only like it because of the nudity.
For me it's a question of, "Is the nudity integral to the plot or to understand the character/world?" In Rome and GameOT, I'd say yes.
But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
Nearly. So when you have the opportunity, and use it for impact and do it tastefully, it's art.
On the other hand, you have the scene in Demolition Man when John Spartan first arrives at his apartment in the future and gets a video call from a wrong number from a topless blond for zero reason other then someone said, "This movie needs some boobs in it!".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that it's now perfectly normal to see the 'hero' of a show bite someone's neck out, or decapitate them, I can't see how sex is a problem.
The violence/sex issue has been around for a long time, but I would think allowing a lot of one would eventually lead to the other - just to keep the 'shock' quotient high enough to keep people tuning in. Plus, porn has become a lot more mainstream in the last few years. Dramas have to compete (though thankfully, they're not showing the real thing yet).
Now, you might not want to see either thing, but that's up to you. I don't see why graphic simulated death is fine but graphic simulated sex is not.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, you might not want to see either thing, but that's up to you. I don't see why graphic simulated death is fine but graphic simulated sex is not.
Well for one thing, graphic simulated sex has a very powerful effect on viewers. Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Lyrhawn:
quote:Seems like his problem isn't the value of the nudity, it's with all nudity.
If you read the review his issue isn't with sex scenes, it's with sex scenes that don't advance the plot or instead of the sex being incidental to the character development its the character development is incidental to the sex. Which in the first episode of HBO I really felt they were trying to throw graphic sex at me, to entice viewership rather than just tell a story. I feel it's getting better, and many shows do that sort of thing on the first episode before tapering off somewhat.
If it makes you feel any better, if the (spoilers) white walkers had slowly tortured the men before severing their heads in a very graphic fashion I would have been bothered by that too. It's not as violence gets as free a pass as some say it does. It generally has to be brief or it goes from person to person. Prolonged scenes where a person is consistently and extensively harmed are reserved for media like Saw.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to. Yes, there's going to be older people offended by the obscenity of godless depictions of sex (gasp! and between unwed couples! shock! and sometimes it is the gay sex) and you can either court them, or work with the censors and move on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whether a sex/nudity scene is perceived as "thrown in" or is seen as "excessive" is to a large extent dependent on a person's comfort with nudity. If you're bothered by it, then your threshold for an acceptable level of meaning in the scene is much higher than if nudity doesn't phase you.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Well, for you maybe. A few people watch violence and gain inspiration from it for their own violent acts. Certainly, you could argue that seeing images of extreme fake violence helps to numb people to images of real violence.
As for seeing sex making you want to... well, I kind of think a lot of people want to have sex a lot of the time anyway. After all, sex is kind of an important foundation of our existence. I also think that most people can deal with this impulse without grabbing the nearest unwilling stranger.
But it basically boils down to market forces. You have to give the punters what they want. And they want sex, and don't see anymore why they can't have it. That envelope has already been pushed (as it were).
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seeing others have sex makes many of us want to have sex. I wouldn't say that is remotely as true for violence.
Most people do not want to hurt others, and even those like myself who collect weapons, are in martial arts and pride themselves on the ability to protect themselves and others do not relish killing.
But I watched the scene in Last Samurai when (SPOILERS) Tom Cruse's character kills five armed assassins while unarmed himself ten times over and over while I pranced around the room with a katana in hand.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really would rather see nudity than violence, myself. People make too much of a big deal out of it, I think.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people really struggle with seeing that kind of stuff.
I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom. You don't see a lot of TV shows/movies where going to the bathroom is the selling point. And you don't see a lot of people having sex in public OR going to the bathroom in public.
I don't know how to explain this in better terms, but since sex is an intimate act, putting it in a film creates a false intimacy between the audience and the character. (This may be more applicable to women than men.) If the point of the film is to create that intimacy from the beginning, it may have a purpose. But most films don't take this route. They are emotionally destitute, but they throw in a random sex scene, for what purpose, I don't know.
I think on-screen sex creates more emotional confusion than people are willing to admit.
That doesn't mean violence is okay in its place. Casual violence is as disturbing to me as casual sex.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom.
Spoken like a person that hasn't peed on enough walls (Or in a washroom full of urinals for that matter)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to.
Also, historically, it isn't like Romans were particularly shy about depicting nudity (or even sexual acts) in their mosaics and artwork. Going out of our way to make our art about the Romans more conservative than Roman art about Romans is just odd.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not afraid nudity and am currently watching Carnivale through netflix and sometimes wonder if they could do without the nude scenes. Its very applicable considering the setup with the "cooch dancers" characters but other episodes include them naked without doing shows while other characters can be involved in sexual situations without nudity. It starts to seem like they have certain actress' who will go topless, and then go out of thier way to get them naked.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on the topic. Sex and violence were a big part of both the Game of Thrones series as well as the Southern Vampire Mysteries (True Blood series). I'm sure part of choosing those series were for the sex in them, but once the series were chosen I don't think it was strange to have sex/nudity/violence in them.
Of course, it has become expected for there to be sex in premium channel shows, and some have more than others. Entourage and Dexter both had some...but I don't think they went overboard with it.
I think that premium channels should have more leeway since you must pay extra for them (so people with just basic cable are not exposed).
As for the comment that watching sex makes people want to have sex, but watching violence does not make you want to be violent, many developmental psychologists disagree. Look for Bandura's social learning theory.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spartacus is basically pornography. It's worth it for the fighting scenes, though. And when you're into the Classics, you take what you can get.
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I don't know how to explain this in better terms, but since sex is an intimate act, putting it in a film creates a false intimacy between the audience and the character.
I don't buy it. I think this is an observation that is true for you individually, but does not extend beyond self-analysis. it's certainly not what it engenders for many other people's viewership of such scenes. I definitely would disagree that I get a 'false intimacy' with the characters represented.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: Some people really struggle with seeing that kind of stuff.
I feel sex is a very private, intimate thing, like going to the bathroom. You don't see a lot of TV shows/movies where going to the bathroom is the selling point. And you don't see a lot of people having sex in public OR going to the bathroom in public.
I also don't use the bathroom with the help of my wife. I don't equate the privacy of sex with the privacy of using the bathroom.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to ask if it was in the source material, and it looks like it is.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. I'm guessing those complaining didn't read the books. There is a reason why it is on HBO and not NBC.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course the final responsibility lays with the viewer, but this is not a topic of people complaining about all nudity, rather a discussion of when it is appropriate and when it isn't, and to what extent.
Art reflects life, and sex is a big part of human lives, and must remain so. We are born naked, it is our natural state. There is nothing fundamentally wrong about a naked human body, but our society has placed limits on what is "private" and what is "public".
And while you may well have naked time with your wife and never have bathroom time with her, both fall under the heading of "private".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But I do have to disagree with Lyrhawn about a visual format being binary or not when it comes to nudity...you can show the audience that characters are nude without showing any "forbidden parts" through creative use of camera angle, lighting and cuts, and still get nearly the same emotional effect.
That's true, but a series like Rome (among many other earlier examples) shows that there's really no need to. Yes, there's going to be older people offended by the obscenity of godless depictions of sex (gasp! and between unwed couples! shock! and sometimes it is the gay sex) and you can either court them, or work with the censors and move on.
I disagree. Like Stone Wolf says, you're basically suggesting nudity, you aren't showing it. Again, you show it, or you don't. If they are covered up or using strategic lighting to hide the naughty bits, then they aren't naked, they're censored.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: society has placed limits on what is "private" and what is "public".
Society changes. 150 years ago women would have been arrested for wearing the stuff many wear (or don't wear) now. Other societies are fine with topless women on beaches, while others don't allow ANY affection in public.
The new generation of youth is growing up in a world where it is quite common to record yourself having sex and uploading it to the internet.
Softcore porn on premium stations is nothing new. I remember being a teenager and trying to watch the stuff on Cinemax and HBO back then. The only difference is that the new stuff actually has a good story.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure I'm following all this right...but...
As to the binary state, there are still so many different levels. You could take suggestive dialog, with lots of footage of a hip thrusting couple, showing many many personal aspects of sexual intercourse and never show any "naughty bits" and it would be an adult, sex scene.
You could show a woman getting a breast exam with a doctor in a lab coat and fully show breast and nipple, in an instructional video meant to help prevent breast cancer and you would have a vid about health and safety and it could be shown to teenagers with no moral ambiguity.
My public high school showed Schindler's List, with full frontal nudity and the birth of a baby, from head crowning to placenta to me and my classmates at the age of 15.
My point is that content, not nudity is the deciding factor. There are infinite possibilities, not just two, show or no show.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the purpose of alot of these shows IS to bring the audience into the private lives of the characters. The creators are trying to get their viewers to relate to and develop an attachment to these characters. Often, as the audience, we'll know more about the lead character than his or her own friends do.
We aren't shown bathroom scenes because they're private, but because its rare for these types of moments to be intellectually or emotionally important. I guess a director or a screenwriter could have their character have a revelation on the toilet, but the gross factor still sort of remains which can distract from what they're trying to accomplish story-wise.
But sex is fun. And it means lots of different things to different people so it can be used to accomplish a variety of storytelling purposes.
Personally, I like the realism of nudity. I don't find its as easy to relate to the Hollywood version of sex with its soft focus, odd lighting, and awkward camera angles. Some stories want a sex scene even if its not necessary to the story, so it makes sense to use cleaned-down approach. But now I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to watch a Hollywood version of "Queer as Folk" or "True Blood." They'd be telling very different stories. As to the latter, the sex scenes give the show a sense of a darkness and danger which is much appreciated when surrounded by modern vampires that sparkle and wait until their wedding night.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
You need to stop addressing the idea that all nudity is bad. I waltzed around Rome all week long and saw nekkid statues/paintings/art the entire time. That didn't bother me, they were celebrating the human form, and the human form looks like the way they depicted it.
GOT has nudity, that in of itself does not bother me. I was fine with Dany and Drogo's stuff, it makes sense. I was slightly perturbed by Tyrion's scene, but OK he likes whores and they are some sort of replacement for his family. But it was a very lengthy scene, and it could have been in a much shorter period of time without losing its effectiveness, and in a TV show time is of the essence.
Dany and her brother felt pointless, OK he was appraising her value and we are meant to realize he doesn't care about her at all. But we had a better scene right afterward where he flat out states his feelings on the matter. We had nudity and sex at Dany's wedding, prior to the wedding night, OK primitive culture, that's just how they are. Taken in isolation I've only really got any criticism for the length of Tyrion's scene, and the scene with Dany and her brother, as well as the fact they decided to put all those scenes so close together. But taken as a whole it seems excessive, and I don't think anybody would argue that on the average the first episode featured more nudity and sex than most media outside pornography.
I'm still excited for episode #3 tonight, but I don't want to feel like I'm being given sex just because the film makers feel they need it to maintain interest. They are already showing that there is plenty to this story, including sex that can sell this story, so use every tool, not just the easy ones.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why on Earth does sex have to advance plot or contribute to character?
In real life, sex is fun and requires no justification. A critic complaining that a sex scene does not advance the plot is a lot like a Catholic complaining about sex that does not lead to procreation.
Why not just enjoy it? Yeesh. It's just a boob.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason, if a show is on HBO or other premium channels, because you can show nudity = you must show nudity. You can use profanity = you must use profanity.
Look at a typical Bill Maher show. "How about those teabaggers. F --- them" (cue audience cheering). His use of profanity seems almost forced.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
A socially conservative viewpoint that is exasperated by the sexualization of modern media?
Well, alright, as an underlying basis, but OSC, for example, has tried to couch his objection in the form of storytelling, which is totally different.
If that's someone's complaint, then we just plain disagree, and fair's fair, nothing wrong with that. But I don't think I've seen that used as a stand alone complaint yet.
I'm continually amused though, by those who support their version of morality and family values having such a lopsided hatred for the sexualization of the media over the desensitizing of violence. That's another issue though, I suppose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I just watched the second episode of GoT, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The sex scenes between Drogo and Dany are fairly integral to the plot. Their sexual relationship is both a vehicle for her development as a stronger character, and is representative of her power relationship with both Drogo and others around her. It's how she comes into her own. This was the one sexual encounter that Martin DID actually describe in some detail.
I still fail to see what the complaints are based on.
You need to stop addressing the idea that all nudity is bad. I waltzed around Rome all week long and saw nekkid statues/paintings/art the entire time. That didn't bother me, they were celebrating the human form, and the human form looks like the way they depicted it.
GOT has nudity, that in of itself does not bother me. I was fine with Dany and Drogo's stuff, it makes sense. I was slightly perturbed by Tyrion's scene, but OK he likes whores and they are some sort of replacement for his family. But it was a very lengthy scene, and it could have been in a much shorter period of time without losing its effectiveness, and in a TV show time is of the essence.
Dany and her brother felt pointless, OK he was appraising her value and we are meant to realize he doesn't care about her at all. But we had a better scene right afterward where he flat out states his feelings on the matter. We had nudity and sex at Dany's wedding, prior to the wedding night, OK primitive culture, that's just how they are. Taken in isolation I've only really got any criticism for the length of Tyrion's scene, and the scene with Dany and her brother, as well as the fact they decided to put all those scenes so close together. But taken as a whole it seems excessive, and I don't think anybody would argue that on the average the first episode featured more nudity and sex than most media outside pornography.
I'm still excited for episode #3 tonight, but I don't want to feel like I'm being given sex just because the film makers feel they need it to maintain interest. They are already showing that there is plenty to this story, including sex that can sell this story, so use every tool, not just the easy ones.
The quote you included in your post has nothing to do with nudity for the sake of nudity being bad, it's about the role that nudity and sex play in the show as a plot device.
Was the Tyrion scene even that long? It felt like three or four minutes. Didn't strike me as a particularly long scene. I'll grant you that I felt it could have been lifted right out. I agree that that particular bit of nudity wasn't really necessary. Maybe none of it was necessary, but was it justifiable? That's the thresh hold I'm looking for. For the Tyrion scene? Not so much. For the other scenes? Yes, I think so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the Dany and Drogo scene tonight was shockingly tame after the first two episodes. And still conveyed the point.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying "X just seemed forced" when you probably really just mean "X pushed my moral buttons" is the most forced argument of all.
It's incredible bad faith. "Bad story telling" is all too often used as a cover for a complaint about a portrayal of sin.
It's the flip side of the "I took off my top because the story really justified it" excuse that actresses with a certain kind of public image use to justify appearing in nude scenes. We don't take that sort of statement seriously, and neither should we take seriously the statement "you shouldn't take off your top because the story doesn't justify it."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Woah complaining about nudity in an HBO show!?
Nudity!? In *my* HBOs? Surely you jest!
IP: Logged |
posted
I think "it was too long" and "it seemed force" and "they could have eliminated it without changing the story" and related complaints are all a proxy for a moral discomfort with nudity. It's like nudity is, if not an absolute evil, then a necessary evil which we'll reluctantly allow provided it meets our individual standards for appropriate content/context/duration. We get the same way about profanity.
It's interesting what hold portrayal of these vices have on our evaluation of media. You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it." for anything but sex/nudity or profanity. Maybe violence, but not nearly as often.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
In GOT that was an important point. It doesn't become passionate until the doggy style stops. Though I find it funny that THAT scene was not shown when they finally try new positions.
Have any of you seen This Film is Not Yet Rated? The documentary makes a fairly strong case that Hollywood (or at least the MPAA) frowns on female pleasure.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that really is a odd recent development, Tom. I think that might be the more gratuitous part - in that position everyone gets an eyeful of all the bits and pieces of the woman at all times, while the man still keeps his privates out of sight. Plus, yes, in these cases the male pleasure and dominance is focused on much more than the female's enjoyment.
Not to get too feminist, but this is one thing that bugs me - as far as I'm aware, there's still a lot more focus on the naked ladybits than the manparts. This may be changing, but it's certainly not equal.
(And I hate it when people pull the 'naked vaginas are pretty but naked penises are ugly', because that all depends on where you're coming from on the sexual map.)
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Yes, that really is a odd recent development, Tom. I think that might be the more gratuitous part - in that position everyone gets an eyeful of all the bits and pieces of the woman at all times, while the man still keeps his privates out of sight. Plus, yes, in these cases the male pleasure and dominance is focused on much more than the female's enjoyment.
Not to get too feminist, but this is one thing that bugs me - as far as I'm aware, there's still a lot more focus on the naked ladybits than the manparts. This may be changing, but it's certainly not equal.
(And I hate it when people pull the 'naked vaginas are pretty but naked penises are ugly', because that all depends on where you're coming from on the sexual map.)
Depends on the camera angle. In GOT it was pretty much the same view of them both. You saw his chest, you saw her chest. Neither the vagina or penis is visible.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I'm bothered by the apparent cinematic truth that almost all really "passionate" heterosexual sex is done doggy-style.
I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
You know, you're right. In movies, that appears to be the case. On pay cable, though, it's doggy-style.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would have thought that a majority of "good" sex in movies is cowgirl.
You know, you're right. In movies, that appears to be the case. On pay cable, though, it's doggy-style.
Except in the Matrix. When you live inside of computer programs it's good old missionary style!
On the subject though, I haven't really seen one scene in GoT that contains nudity that wasn't justified. They wanted to show you that Tyrion liked whores. They wanted to show that Lady Stark was not comfortable being in a brothel. They could have showed a lot more of Jaime and Cersei but it turned out to be pretty tame, because they didn't need to show anything more than they did.
Spartacus though....Man.. That show had nudity just to have nudity. I can't remember even one sex scene that was needed in that entire show, with the exception of Spartacus/Mira.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think "it was too long" and "it seemed force" and "they could have eliminated it without changing the story" and related complaints are all a proxy for a moral discomfort with nudity.
That's nice you feel that way, I don't really appreciate you trying to tell me what I really believe or think. But for the sake of fairness I do believe there is inherent immorality in excessive displays of nudity and sex. We live in a society where clothing serves a purpose outside mere comfort with the weather. Most societies including the one depicted in GOTs use clothing to hide nakedness, inform others of rank/position, as well as augment their ability to do their jobs. Each scene in episode one was depicting not just sex, but for most people, sexual immorality. Prostitution, humiliation, rape, incest, adultery, etc.
Now those things happen, that's fine. They involve sex, also fine. They involve people taking off their clothes so they can more easily enjoy sex in some circumstances, also fine. But there is a line between telling a story that contains sex and using sex to tell a story.
quote:It's interesting what hold portrayal of these vices have on our evaluation of media. You rarely hear someone say "I stopped watching that show - it had too much <x> in it." for anything but sex/nudity or profanity. Maybe violence, but not nearly as often.
I've stopped watching shows because I found them too violent. What other things besides, sex/nudity/violence/profanity would you expect people with consistent moral reasoning to leave a movie over?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped playing the game "BioShock" as the 50s naivete twisted into something sinister and evil, the gore and maniacal laughter gave me nightmares...I wasn't expecting it, as a friend gave it to me on loan saying "Here, you'll like this."
Also I don't think the point of the scenes is "Tyrion likes whores" more like, Tyrion longs to be loved, but does not trust anyone to love his twisted form and family money for real, so he baths in comfort for hire to feel the shadow of actually being wanted and loved.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Also I don't think the point of the scenes is "Tyrion likes whores" more like, Tyrion longs to be loved, but does not trust anyone to love his twisted form and family money for real, so he baths in comfort for hire to feel the shadow of actually being wanted and loved.
You know that, I know that, but the average viewer doesn't. Not yet at least.
For someone that has read the books it is easy to see what you said. When Tyrion first gets with Shae it becomes very easy to see how he feels about himself. In a television series though all we saw was Peter Dinklage laughing and having a good ol' time.
For the average viewer that has not read the books they don't think Tyrion wants to be loved. They think he likes whores. As the series progresses I'm sure they will show how he feels, but right now it isn't doing a good job of showing that. Drogo and Danerys on the other hand is being depicted pretty well.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to the average viewer, but I think they are doing a good job at least of laying the ground work for all this, showing his discontent with his family, and his attitudes about his deformity.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's nice you feel that way, I don't really appreciate you trying to tell me what I really believe or think. But for the sake of fairness I do believe there is inherent immorality in excessive displays of nudity and sex.
BB, did you just complain about MattP accurately describing your point of view?
quote:What other things besides, sex/nudity/violence/profanity would you expect people with consistent moral reasoning to leave a movie over?
I change the channel most of the time when confronted with any of the following things I find morally wrong:
1) Exploiting poor or stupid people and their interpersonal conflicts for laughs (Maury, Jerry, lots of "court" shows).
2) Exploiting young children for the vanity of the parents (child beauty pageants, some talent competitions, lots of reality tv)
3) Playing up expensive taste and conformity as the keys to an acceptable level of self esteem (What Not To Wear, Extreme Makeover, etc.)
4) Contrived competitions masquerading as romantic love stories (the Bachelor[ette] and ilk)
When it comes to movies, there's rarely such a discrete theme, but I do find it morally objectionable to perpetuate the following ideas that crop up in a lot of popular movies, and try to avoid the ones where they are most blatant:
* Stalking is romantic and likely to work out well
* Everyone should have a glamorous job; people with boring jobs aren't worth telling stories about.
* You should have a wedding that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
* Slight dissatisfaction with your mate justifies breaking up your family.
---
I put all of the above on par with portraying reckless promiscuity as a good thing, or exploiting vulnerable people for titillation.
I think some pay cable entertainment walks a line between doing that and being willing to titillate without selling culturally harmful lies.
It's worth exercising your conscience and spending power to support only the entertainment that has the kind of cultural inertia you like, I think.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, did you just complain about MattP accurately describing your point of view?
No, I don't have an innate (edit: moral) discomfort with nudity. My protests regarding the nudity in GOT were not some sort of cloak I was hiding behind because in reality I'm so insecure about being around nudity that I feel a need to remove it from my consciousness by trying to get rid of it throughout society.
quote:I change the channel most of the time when confronted with any of the following things I find morally wrong:
1) Exploiting poor or stupid people and their interpersonal conflicts for laughs (Maury, Jerry, lots of "court" shows).
2) Exploiting young children for the vanity of the parents (child beauty pageants, some talent competitions, lots of reality tv)
3) Playing up expensive taste and conformity as the keys to an acceptable level of self esteem (What Not To Wear, Extreme Makeover, etc.)
4) Contrived competitions masquerading as romantic love stories (the Bachelor[ette] and ilk)
When it comes to movies, there's rarely such a discrete theme, but I do find it morally objectionable to perpetuate the following ideas that crop up in a lot of popular movies, and try to avoid the ones where they are most blatant:
* Stalking is romantic and likely to work out well
* Everyone should have a glamorous job; people with boring jobs aren't worth telling stories about.
* You should have a wedding that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
* Slight dissatisfaction with your mate justifies breaking up your family.
So basically most reality and documentary television, that's fine. I refuse to watch Toddlers in Tiaras for much the same reason.
I would put any of those shows on par with any show that glorifies other things I think are reprehensible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Or in a washroom full of urinals for that matter)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
