PDA

View Full Version : Maybe a bit of hard core nudity?



Pages : 1 [2]

Coronach
July 17th, 2009, 10:45 PM
Its simple. He is saying despite falling in the "hormone crazed teenager" category he thinks nudity in Stargate is a bad idea.

I see...that's not what I got out of it :P

I got the "I'm 16, so obviously nudity is a no-no" vibe, which is why I was confused :D

jenks
July 18th, 2009, 02:51 AM
I'm 16

Nudity + stargate=no

I suppose some reasoning would be too much to ask?

TryWhistlingThis
July 18th, 2009, 03:39 AM
Not likely, if you mean the need to produce offspring in order to replace the elderly and dying: the crew of the Destiny are still, in essence, explorers, not colonists. They have no intention of staying on the Destiny long enough for babies to grow into "useful" individuals.

If you mean the issue of lust in confined spaces, then yeah, maybe.

True, but this was a theme which was raised in Star Trek: Voyager from time to time. The crew here certainly had no intention of settling in the Delta Quadrant, but they needed to consider the possibility that they wouldn't get home. Therefore, they needed to be prepared to raise a "next generation" who would either continue the journey or choose to settle.

SGU Scotsman
July 18th, 2009, 04:30 AM
I see...that's not what I got out of it :P

I got the "I'm 16, so obviously nudity is a no-no" vibe, which is why I was confused :D

Hahahaha me to lol :D

Deevil
July 18th, 2009, 04:30 AM
True, but this was a theme which was raised in Star Trek: Voyager from time to time. The crew here certainly had no intention of settling in the Delta Quadrant, but they needed to consider the possibility that they wouldn't get home. Therefore, they needed to be prepared to raise a "next generation" who would either continue the journey or choose to settle.

I am unsure that following in line with ST:voyager would be something that we would want to see. I surmised, a long time ago, that the only reason that they bought up procreation was in order to have the characters 'get it on'. It was an inbuilt excuse.

Whereas in Universe the idea is they will get home, there is no room to think about having children to raise because there is no option for them other then getting home (so I can see thus far). Talking about the 2nd generation is essentially giving up, so i would hate for them to give into that.

Skydiver
July 18th, 2009, 07:22 AM
i sincerely doubt the 'raise the next generation' aspect will come up for years.

I think the only practical thing to come up is 'lonely people seeking comfort where it's to be had'

That said...there will not be nudity beyond anything we've seen in SG-1. They won't do it.

lordofseas
July 18th, 2009, 07:33 AM
And besides, they're stuck on a ship. Babies mean more mouths to feed, more diapers to change, and lots of tired, angry people. Reproducing is all well and good, but can they really afford to do it?

DigiFluid
July 18th, 2009, 07:38 AM
That said...there will not be nudity beyond anything we've seen in SG-1. They won't do it.

Well hang on, SG-1 had full frontal once ;)

I see your point, but I'm going to (guess) disagree otherwise. I can see them taking an Enterprise 'nudity' approach, which is certainly a lot more skin than SG-1 ever showed other than in CotG. I just hope they can write better than Enterprise was.

Skydiver
July 18th, 2009, 07:48 AM
when they did it in cotg, they only did it because showtime said 'put it in or else'

a) they're not on showtime, full frontal nudity isn't allowed on scifi
b) there's no network exec giving them ultimatums
c) one of the first things brad (who's also working on universe) did was to edit out the shau'ri full monty
d) it's costly to put it in and hten have to edit it out for syndie

apples to oranges

DigiFluid
July 18th, 2009, 07:52 AM
Hence the wink, my dear :)

jenks
July 18th, 2009, 04:19 PM
i sincerely doubt the 'raise the next generation' aspect will come up for years.

I think the only practical thing to come up is 'lonely people seeking comfort where it's to be had'

That said...there will not be nudity beyond anything we've seen in SG-1. They won't do it.

Not on SyFy, but they may on the DVD's.

Skydiver
July 18th, 2009, 04:48 PM
i doubt it. it'll cost too much to reedit the masters

if it was cheap and easy, all the dvd's would be full of cut out scenes

Deevil
July 18th, 2009, 05:01 PM
i doubt it. it'll cost too much to reedit the masters

if it was cheap and easy, all the dvd's would be full of cut out scenes

Exactly, not the mention the cost of added filming the scene just for DVD release. TV shows have a much more regimented filming schedule then movies (where they often noe make the 'directors cut' of every blockbuster film, with 30 minutes of extra footage), they just don't have the time, money or resources to intentially film something that wouldn't be used for anything but the DVD release.

Skydiver
July 18th, 2009, 05:03 PM
usually what they do, i think, is make the director's cut first, then pare it down for release

the director's cut is often the first cut, which is then shown to so focus group and scenes are then cut out for the release version

Deevil
July 18th, 2009, 05:58 PM
usually what they do, i think, is make the director's cut first, then pare it down for release

the director's cut is often the first cut, which is then shown to so focus group and scenes are then cut out for the release version

It's exactly what they do... but the thing is they have time to film another 30 mins of footage, whereas on TV shows they don't have the time to film too much more then is actually shown - so there is no way that they'll film anything with the intention of "let's use it in the DVD".

Skydiver
July 18th, 2009, 06:08 PM
right, most times they have 7 working days to do each episode. and since each episode is ROUGHLY 40ish pages (using the 1 script page = 1 minute of show) they have to get through 5-7 pages per day

there's just not time to do stuff for hte heck of it

Now, that said, they quite often DO have extra stuff that they shoot and edit that get cut for time. however we're usually talking 3-5 minutes of scenes that get cut.

and one reason that they're never to rarely released (it was a big deal when vegas and eatg got extra scenes put in) is that it's just too expensive to reedit them

which is also why it's massively unlikely that they'll waste time shooting boobies and tushies just to drop them into the dvd release - taking the time to clear the set if hte actors want it, etc.

it's just not practical at all. what they will shoot is what they want to air

Deevil
July 18th, 2009, 06:19 PM
Exactly Skydiver, it's just damned inpratical.

The biggest notable exception is Threads, where they intentionally filmed it with the desire of having a 90 minute episode... that is not something that they are going to go about doing to often as it is not cost effective, and they do have a budget they have to stick to.

And as you said... for nude scenes they also clear the set, which would basically mean an entire day - or at least half of it - would be dedicated to filming what could amount to a single page. Not the most pragmatic use of time, not at all.

Eternal Density
July 18th, 2009, 07:43 PM
more diapers to changeMore? I hope you mean more than 0 :P

lordofseas
July 18th, 2009, 08:04 PM
More? I hope you mean more than 0 :P

I do. :P

jenks
July 19th, 2009, 03:00 AM
i doubt it. it'll cost too much to reedit the masters

if it was cheap and easy, all the dvd's would be full of cut out scenes

All of the DVD versions of the episodes are edited differently already, new material added and some taken out, it's not like they'd have to put a whole new scene in, they'd just cut it differently.

Deevil
July 19th, 2009, 03:05 AM
All of the DVD versions of the episodes are edited differently already, new material added and some taken out, it's not like they'd have to put a whole new scene in, they'd just cut it differently.

Erm... no they aren't. Some countries may have re-edited versions that they aired on TV, but that had nothing to do with TPTB.

jenks
July 19th, 2009, 03:09 AM
Erm... no they aren't. Some countries may have re-edited versions that they aired on TV, but that had nothing to do with TPTB.

Erm, yes they are. Read Mollozzi's blog, they're all edited differently for TV and DVD because the cuts for commercial breaks etc, don't work when you're watching them continuously. There are always things that are slightly different, it's usually something small, though there are quite a few changes in the season 5 DVD's.

Deevil
July 19th, 2009, 03:17 AM
Erm, yes they are. Read Mollozzi's blog, they're all edited differently for TV and DVD because the cuts for commercial breaks etc, don't work when you're watching them continuously. There are always things that are slightly different, it's usually something small, though there are quite a few changes in the season 5 DVD's.

I beg to differ. I have watched the TV versions and the DVD versions before, and there haven't been any editing differences. They do not re-edit every single episode... That is not to say there aren't some differences in some of them - just no where near all of 'em.

That being said, even if that were the case you are ignoring the fact that it wouldn't only be an editing problem it'll be a cost and time (which ironically is also cost) problem. They'd have to film the scenes first. That is not a practical thing to do in the least.

All in all, they are not going to include nudity anyway, so it's all kind of moot.

Skydiver
July 19th, 2009, 08:35 AM
if a person wants to get his/her daily dose of boobies or bare bums, they're just gonna have to find a different show

Demonique
July 19th, 2009, 01:44 PM
Perhaps not hard core nudity, but if they're going to make it younger and prettier they might as well include sex. (Playing devil's advocate). After all, there was sex on SG-1 once or twice.

Hasn't there been sex in SGA as well, Ronon and Melena in Sateda spring to mind.

As for nudity, I'm pretty sure Daniel Jackson has been nude from time to time, but I'm not sure if they showed his naked rear


I think they can show nudity from the back etc, but they cut the nudity out of the pilot, that seemed too much for them.

It was SciFi themselves who cut out the nudity. As far as I'm aware the censorship laws don't apply to cable channels, but the channels tend to self-censor.


Hard core nudity? What is that supposed to mean? How can nudity be hardcore? lol

Hardcore nudity probably means a guy at full-mast or a woman with her legs spread.


On topic, does anyone think that maybe the actors/actresses don't want to get naked on camera for your amusement?

Claudia Black had a "no nudity" clause in her contract for Farscape. She mentioned in an interview filming a scene (I think it might have been for 'A Country Practice') where she was wearing a towel and filming it made her uncomfortable.
Farscape never went past "full back-al" nudity if I remember correctly

Skydiver
July 19th, 2009, 01:55 PM
they have NEVER shown a bare backside of any actor

the closest there's ever been has been the wide crane shot of a 'naked' daniel lying on the ground after he descended. all you see is his bare hip

A_PophisandhisFran
July 19th, 2009, 02:02 PM
It always seems like this topic is unusually popular on gateworld, hehe. They won't do it, Sy-Fy or TPTB. After all, Brad Wright did just take out the nudity in the SG-1 pilot episode. At this point, I don't think a bit of nudity would bring many more viewers in, but it will certainly drive a few away. Imo that's one of the reasons some shows will show some skin without any real nudity (Atlantis included with some of Teyla's outfit) is so that they'll get the best of both worlds.

jenks
July 19th, 2009, 04:09 PM
I beg to differ. I have watched the TV versions and the DVD versions before, and there haven't been any editing differences. They do not re-edit every single episode... That is not to say there aren't some differences in some of them - just no where near all of 'em.

Beg all you want, you're wrong either way. Every episode has a TV cut and a DVD one, even if the changes are minimal, the process is always there.


That being said, even if that were the case you are ignoring the fact that it wouldn't only be an editing problem it'll be a cost and time (which ironically is also cost) problem. They'd have to film the scenes first. That is not a practical thing to do in the least.

Of course it is, they film loads of scenes that don't make it into the final cut, why would this be any different?


All in all, they are not going to include nudity anyway, so it's all kind of moot.


if a person wants to get his/her daily dose of boobies or bare bums, they're just gonna have to find a different show

For now, that's just speculation.

XxX_Kavan Smith_is_Mine_XxX
July 19th, 2009, 04:33 PM
if a person wants to get his/her daily dose of boobies or bare bums, they're just gonna have to find a different show

A different show?

Hmm...

Deevil
July 19th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Beg all you want, you're wrong either way. Every episode has a TV cut and a DVD one, even if the changes are minimal, the process is always there.

No, I'm really not. Not every single episode had a DVD cut and a TV cut, although I am talking mainly about SG-1, Atlantis tends to have a lot of differences between the TV and DVD releases. Maybe I should have made the distinction before. Sorry about that :o


Of course it is, they film loads of scenes that don't make it into the final cut, why would this be any different?

Because nude scenes take more time, including the need to have a closed set with minimal crew & actors. It's a really difficult, long and protracted thing to do and there is no way they are going to do it solely for a DVD release.


For now, that's just speculation.

Not really, given the fact that Brad Wright just cut the nude scenes out of Children of the Gods. This is not gonna become a T&A show.

MechaThor
July 22nd, 2009, 03:50 AM
I beg to differ. I have watched the TV versions and the DVD versions before, and there haven't been any editing differences. They do not re-edit every single episode... That is not to say there aren't some differences in some of them - just no where near all of 'em.

That being said, even if that were the case you are ignoring the fact that it wouldn't only be an editing problem it'll be a cost and time (which ironically is also cost) problem. They'd have to film the scenes first. That is not a practical thing to do in the least.

All in all, they are not going to include nudity anyway, so it's all kind of moot.

Actually there are slight differences between the TV cuts and the DVD cuts, not all of them, but most. This was even confirmed in the Audio Commentary of one of the Atlantis Series 5 episodes (I forget which one), where they talk about small, tiny, edits where cut scenes and dialog from the TV versions where added into the DVD edit.

Also the DVD edits run as full episodes without breaks like most TV broadcasts, therefore the DVD versions are slightly edited to provide better transitions between the clips that would have preceded and followed advertisements. Finally the Series 5 DVDs of Atlantis have the full titles rather than the 9 second TV version.

.... Anyways as for nudity in Universe, with this shower room set I imagine we will see the backsides of the female characters, maybe at an angle to reveal enough of the boob but not the nipple. The men will of course be shirtless with nipples and and we might see some quick shots of buttocks from both sexes. oh and Naked CGI aliens protected by natural exoskeletons. :cameron:

Eternal Density
July 22nd, 2009, 04:43 AM
.... Anyways as for nudity in Universe, with this shower room set I imagine we will see... I don't think it'll go quite that far, when I compare to SG-1. Consider the amount of the newly-constructed RepliCarter we saw. And I can't think of anything like that in Atlantis, off the top of my head.

oh and Naked CGI aliens protected by natural exoskeletons.There's a slight chance, given the apparent rarity or absence of humanoid aliens. And even if we do see them... I bet they won't be using the Destiny showers :P
*chuckles at my blatant misinterpretation*

SGU Scotsman
July 22nd, 2009, 05:30 AM
I don't think it'll go quite that far, when I compare to SG-1. Consider the amount of the newly-constructed RepliCarter we saw. And I can't think of anything like that in Atlantis, off the top of my head.
There's a slight chance, given the apparent rarity or absence of humanoid aliens. And even if we do see them... I bet they won't be using the Destiny showers :P
*chuckles at my blatant misinterpretation*

Hmmm still a good debate going on in this thread lol yes as ED said we only saw a portion of repliCarters body and i think it was enough if we ever do get a shower room part then i think it will just be like the repliCarter part :D ;)

MechaThor
July 22nd, 2009, 05:38 AM
I don't think it'll go quite that far, when I compare to SG-1. Consider the amount of the newly-constructed RepliCarter we saw. And I can't think of anything like that in Atlantis, off the top of my head.


In "The Tower" we saw that woman take her cloths off in front of Sheppard but they did it the same way as Replicarter. One shot from the back with the screen ending just above the arse and the front shot cropping just before the breasts, "shoulders and up".

That is what I am saying we will see in Universe, The naked back to buttocks shots and the "shoulders and up" shots from the front.

SGU Scotsman
July 22nd, 2009, 05:41 AM
In "The Tower" we saw that woman take her cloths off in front of Sheppard but they did it the same way as Replicarter. One shot from the back with the screen ending just above the arse and the front shot cropping just before the breasts, "shoulders and up".

That is what I am saying we will see in Universe, The naked back to buttocks shots and the "shoulders and up" shots from the front.

Very True MT i agree with you on this one :D

Eternal Density
July 22nd, 2009, 03:08 PM
In "The Tower"Ah yes, that one had slipped my mind. I was pretty sure there had to be something. Anyhow, that sounds pretty reasonable.

Deevil
July 22nd, 2009, 07:20 PM
Actually there are slight differences between the TV cuts and the DVD cuts, not all of them, but most. This was even confirmed in the Audio Commentary of one of the Atlantis Series 5 episodes (I forget which one), where they talk about small, tiny, edits where cut scenes and dialog from the TV versions where added into the DVD edit.

Erm... You'll notice later that I said that I was mainly talking about SG:1, because Atlantis did have a lot of differences.

SG:1 for the first 5 seasons was on Showtime which = no ad breaks.

That being said, what I was talking about with editing was not quick timing differences :), it was the idea that they would edit in complete scenes just to include nudity - which is a more difficult thing to do and much more time consuming.

As for nudity, I agree we will see implied nudity without any actual butt shots or breast shots...

PG15
July 22nd, 2009, 07:54 PM
Pfft. Hardcore nudity is for losers.

What we need is X-Treme nudity.

Deevil
July 22nd, 2009, 08:06 PM
Pfft. Hardcore nudity is for losers.

What we need is X-Treme nudity.

Is that when all flesh is stripped away so we can look at their pretty bones?

Hmmm, x-treme nudity!

PG15
July 22nd, 2009, 08:18 PM
No no, see, that's Bonafide Nudity. Get it? Bon[e]afide nudity? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, mercy me.

Meanwhile, X-Treme Nudity is, like, extreme and stuff. Out of this world whacked out punkin' brewsterin' mindblowin' socksblowin' windblowin' crazy up in your face ****.

You won't know what hit ya, until it hits ya, hard. Like a brick of old cheese.

Eternal Density
July 22nd, 2009, 10:35 PM
Does that mean skeletons are naked?
I was thinking just skinless.
Just as the type caused by being reduced to just a head and then regrown in a regen tank.http://www.schlockmercenary.com/comics/schlock20041213.png

SBN
July 23rd, 2009, 05:38 AM
I figure I'll chime in with what I want to see and what I don't want to see. Nudity per se does not make me want to watch a show such as this, or make me not want to watch. I am watching for the Scifi elements. With that said something I find extremely annoying in U.S. censored television is the PG-13 tease. I do not particularly enjoy watching the extended filming of what is alluded to be a hot and steamy act of sex....while they have their cloths still on solely because of the censors. Either show the couple as they would actually be, or simply allude to the act in another way. But extending it for great lengths of time just gets ridiculous. Same goes for the obligatory scene of nudity that shows no nudity. The one where the woman comes out of a shower and we are teased with a nude woman. Either show it for purpose, or skip the scene. It is neither pertinent to the story usually, nor exactly sexy.

Kezia
July 23rd, 2009, 04:37 PM
I rate this thread.

RevPicky86
July 23rd, 2009, 04:42 PM
In the words of Troy Mcclure... "and I'll leave with what we all came to see: Hardcore Nudity!"

PG15
July 23rd, 2009, 05:14 PM
What did you rate this thread as?

I suspect it's rated PG15 R for nudity? ;)

Eternal Density
July 23rd, 2009, 05:36 PM
What did you rate this thread as?

I suspect it's rated PG15 R for nudity? ;)I rate you, PG15 :D
And did anyone other than me actually deliver in this thread?

jelgate
July 23rd, 2009, 05:47 PM
I gave it an S for Snarkery

Jack_Bauer
July 23rd, 2009, 10:26 PM
In the words of Troy Mcclure... "and I'll leave with what we all came to see: Hardcore Nudity!"

Final Scene, Final Episode: Camera pans out to see cast members dancing around naked in the shower room...

MechaThor
July 24th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Well from the new trailer its safe to say they there will ne nudity, sex and shower rooms :cameron:

However like speculated here is only going to be shots of naked backs, topless men and topless woman filmed from the shoulders and up.

Also if you have not seen the new trailer yet I recommend you do it now as its AWESOME

JohnDuh
July 24th, 2009, 06:36 AM
Younger audience they say..... well i'm pretty young and i wouldn;t mind seeing a bit of nudity in SGU, why not? i would watch.... maybe some alien chicks..... who knows?


NO. Why not? Because you can find a ton of porn on the internet and 0.0000000001% science fiction! (and no gay kissing either - get on with a story instead please)

locutes
July 24th, 2009, 06:43 AM
if you want gay eroticism watch Star Trek Hidden Frontier.......



ScyFy is cool aslong as I dont get grossed out by gay eroticism....

Skydiver
July 24th, 2009, 06:48 AM
i don't see a place in it for ANY eroticism, be it het or gay

ya want to see boobies and bums, go check out your local premium channel

locutes
July 24th, 2009, 06:57 AM
I wont mind some [email protected]

Mr.Mantas
July 24th, 2009, 08:53 AM
if a person wants to get his/her daily dose of boobies or bare bums, they're just gonna have to find a different show

Well, to be honest, people, who want nudity of that scale, get it for free from ''other sources''.

Mr.Mantas
July 24th, 2009, 08:56 AM
i don't see a place in it for ANY eroticism, be it het or gay

ya want to see boobies and bums, go check out your local premium channel

Sorry for repeating myself, but as I said, people don't pay for that kind of stuff usually :)

And some nudity would make sense, as people are confined to a closed space without any real entertainment options.

jenks
July 24th, 2009, 04:44 PM
i don't see a place in it for ANY eroticism, be it het or gay

ya want to see boobies and bums, go check out your local premium channel

I don't see anyone calling for nudity on it's own, a lot of people just find it rather pathetic that the producers are censored the way they are. If there is nothing in the story that calls for nudity then so be it, but I hate the fact that even if there were the producers would be stopped from showing it.

Skydiver
July 24th, 2009, 04:47 PM
if they wanted to show it so bad, they'd try to get the show moved to showtime where the nudity isn't an issue (watch dexter and you'll see that pretty much anything goes)

while they may certainly depend on some chest shots and butt shots, tight shirts and tight pants to 'sex' it up, these folks won't do it. it's not the kind of story they want to tell.

jenks
July 24th, 2009, 04:52 PM
if they wanted to show it so bad, they'd try to get the show moved to showtime where the nudity isn't an issue (watch dexter and you'll see that pretty much anything goes)

Don't be ridiculous, you think the writers have any sort of say where the show is aired?


while they may certainly depend on some chest shots and butt shots, tight shirts and tight pants to 'sex' it up, these folks won't do it. it's not the kind of story they want to tell.

There's no such thing as that 'kind' of story, besides, how do you know if they'd want to use nudity or not?

Kevman7987
July 24th, 2009, 04:54 PM
The furthest they'll ever go is probably as far as that Enterprise episode with T'Pol's ass.

Skydiver
July 24th, 2009, 04:57 PM
if MGM wanted to have the show contain nudity and sex, they'd have shopped it to a premium channel. they chose 'less' adult content and a wider reach than more adult content and a smaller distribution

SBN
July 24th, 2009, 05:31 PM
In the words of Troy Mcclure... "and I'll leave with what we all came to see: Hardcore Nudity!"

Awwww I remember that.



if MGM wanted to have the show contain nudity and sex, they'd have shopped it to a premium channel. they chose 'less' adult content and a wider reach than more adult content and a smaller distribution

You know on second that, it does seem curious that MGM would not have a US version and Export version that is unedited. Folks, let us all be at least honest....nudity sells! Quick, someone name a single HBO or Showtime show that did NOT have lots of naked people

Skydiver
July 24th, 2009, 05:37 PM
dexter does not have 'lots', just when the plot calls for it. (usually when someone is getting laid)

diary of a call girl has very little graphic nudity

sex doesn't ssell as much as people think, largely because so many use it as a crutch to prop up weak writing. and, as someone already pointed out, 't&a movies' are a dime a dozen and are easily obtainable, especially online

jenks
July 24th, 2009, 06:12 PM
if MGM wanted to have the show contain nudity and sex, they'd have shopped it to a premium channel. they chose 'less' adult content and a wider reach than more adult content and a smaller distribution

Who said anything about MGM?



sex doesn't ssell as much as people think, largely because so many use it as a crutch to prop up weak writing. and, as someone already pointed out, 't&a movies' are a dime a dozen and are easily obtainable, especially online

There aren't that many American shows I can think of with graphic nudity in them, but of the few I can (Sopranos, Rome, Band of Brothers) I think they were some of the best series ever made. The 'it's all just rude and crude titillation' argument from the resident prudes doesn't really hold water, it's usually the more thoughtful and adult series that take the more healthy approach to nudity and treat it as any other scene. Movies on the other hand seem to be a totally different story...

Skydiver
July 24th, 2009, 06:33 PM
and many tv shows that just toss it in there for the sake of tossing it in there end up with gratuitous T&A displays

in rome, characters were naked when it made sense in the story...it wasn't just a flash of a butt or boob for the hell of it

MGM has a say in it because it was mgm's decision, when showtime canceled the show, to take it to skiffy. If they'd have wanted to keep it on showtime, they could have said 'ok, we'll charge you less' to keep it on there

you'll also notice, even after 5 years when they coulda flashed boobs and butts and sex in the first 5 seasons, they didn't. Because the titillation hour wasn't what they wanted to make.

and the show did just fine for 5 years without bare flesh and bedroom scenes in every episode.

Deevil
July 24th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Given the fact that Atlantis they were stranded, with apparently limited entertainment options - we didn't see nudity there.

Just because they are stranded does not mean that they have to get their kit off, and given the fact that a) Brad Wright has recently edited out the nudity in Children of the Gods, b) as Skydiver said, they had 5 years to include nudity while it was on Showtime and they didn't... I'd say it's very likely that TPTB don't believe that they need nudity to drive their story - and I'd say they would be right.

After all, Battlestar Galactica would have called for nudity more then Stargate ever could - and you know... I think we got maybe 1 butt shot in the entire series. Nudity is not a requirement to telling a good, dark story.

Stargate is not a vehicle for T&A, it never has been and it never will be... and really, that's a good thing. I like nudity when it makes sense - in Stargate there is no reason I can think that we need nudity. And there is not a one that anyone has presented that makes sense either.

jenks
July 25th, 2009, 06:46 AM
and many tv shows that just toss it in there for the sake of tossing it in there end up with gratuitous T&A displays

Name some.



in rome, characters were naked when it made sense in the story...it wasn't just a flash of a butt or boob for the hell of it

Glad you agree, now why couldn't this be the case for a Stargate show?


MGM has a say in it because it was mgm's decision, when showtime canceled the show, to take it to skiffy. If they'd have wanted to keep it on showtime, they could have said 'ok, we'll charge you less' to keep it on there

You're not listening. I'm not bothered about what MGM want, I'm bothered about what the writers want to show, MGM aren't going to renegotiate multi-million dollar deals just because the producers aren't happy with the cencorship



you'll also notice, even after 5 years when they coulda flashed boobs and butts and sex in the first 5 seasons, they didn't. Because the titillation hour wasn't what they wanted to make.

Well we're already agreed that nudity doesn't have to be about titillation, so why do you have to keep degrading it to suit your argument? Besides, as the writers have said, SG-1 was a family show and it wasn't deemed appropriate, SGU isn't.


and the show did just fine for 5 years without bare flesh and bedroom scenes in every episode.

No one said anything about bedroom scenes in every episode or flashing bare flesh for ratings, I know why you're continuing down this road, and it's pathetic.

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 06:54 AM
Well we're already agreed that nudity doesn't have to be about titillation, so why do you have to keep degrading it to suit your argument? Besides, as the writers have said, SG-1 was a family show and it wasn't deemed appropriate, SGU isn't.
.

Where has anyone said SG:U isn't a family show? Apart from stating it's darker, I have not read anyone expressly stating that the show is not suitable for family viewing.

Skydiver
July 25th, 2009, 07:05 AM
Name some.
NYPD Blue, that put a butt shot in once for the 'shock value' and then, as it got them added media attention, started to put it in just because it was 'expected'

Enterprise: no nudity but was scenes of them in their underwear rubbing 'decontamination gel' all over each other necessary? Or was it just there so they could undress the actors and ramp up the titillation factor?






You're not listening. I'm not bothered about what MGM want, I'm bothered about what the writers want to show, MGM aren't going to renegotiate multi-million dollar deals just because the producers aren't happy with the cencorship

MGM does have a say in what they do. They have to send their scripts to scifi for approval. And if MGM wanted the show to have more adult content, they'd hire writers that wanted to do it, they'd get the show on a premium channel where nudity, violence and sex are allowed to a greater level than broadcast and regular cable.

the hard truth is, as much as some cry censorship, show us the boobs, we wanna see blood splatter, give us that fight scene, 'hard core' material like that doesn't increase a show's draw and popularity. It limits it.

Why do you think so many movies are rated PG-13? Because if they have the content to be rated R, then that cuts out most of the teenage movie audience - anyone under 17 can't pay to see it,, they don't make that money.

Dexter is a really good show, Rome was good, but Dexter only got distributed to network TV because of a ratings strike and the lack of programming made it worth while to spend thousands to edit out he nudity, curse words and gore. But you don't see them doing that with seasons 2 and 3 do you? No, cause they don't need it.

Rome was great, but not enough people were watching it on HBO to make it popular enough to keep making it, so it died before its time because its content limited its distribution.

Stargate, on the other hand, has been and will be seen all over hte world, because its content level is appropriate for wide distribution.

If MGM wanted to make an ultra violent, ultra sexed and graphic and gritty show, they'd get it made. They don't want to do it any more than these writers want to do it.

jenks
July 25th, 2009, 07:12 AM
MGM does have a say in what they do. They have to send their scripts to scifi for approval. And if MGM wanted the show to have more adult content, they'd hire writers that wanted to do it, they'd get the show on a premium channel where nudity, violence and sex are allowed to a greater level than broadcast and regular cable.

I don't know how to explain this to you any simpler. What MGM wants doesn't interest me, I don't care whether MGM wants more nudity or not, what does bother me is the fact that even if the writers needed a nude scene, they wouldn't be allowed to show it because of the ridiculous censorship in place.


the hard truth is, as much as some cry censorship, show us the boobs, we wanna see blood splatter, give us that fight scene, 'hard core' material like that doesn't increase a show's draw and popularity. It limits it.

Why do you think so many movies are rated PG-13? Because if they have the content to be rated R, then that cuts out most of the teenage movie audience - anyone under 17 can't pay to see it,, they don't make that money.

So? I'm bothered about quality not popularity.


Dexter is a really good show, Rome was good, but Dexter only got distributed to network TV because of a ratings strike and the lack of programming made it worth while to spend thousands to edit out he nudity, curse words and gore. But you don't see them doing that with seasons 2 and 3 do you? No, cause they don't need it.

Rome was great, but not enough people were watching it on HBO to make it popular enough to keep making it, so it died before its time because its content limited its distribution.

Stargate, on the other hand, has been and will be seen all over hte world, because its content level is appropriate for wide distribution.

If MGM wanted to make an ultra violent, ultra sexed and graphic and gritty show, they'd get it made.

*Sigh*

See above.



They don't want to do it any more than these writers want to do it.

You've no idea whether or not the writers would like to use nudity in SGU.

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 07:35 AM
I don't know how to explain this to you any simpler. What MGM wants doesn't interest me, I don't care whether MGM wants more nudity or not, what does bother me is the fact that even if the writers needed a nude scene, they wouldn't be allowed to show it because of the ridiculous censorship in place.

You're calling censorship when TPTB just eliminated a nude scene - they didn't have to censor - from the pilot of SG1. You catch cry is falling on deaf ears because you seem to that TPTB are 'censored', rather then what appears to be the greater reality of - they don't want to go there. That they'd rather write, and direct, around it... as we have seen in the 15 seasons Stargate has aired.

Not everything needs a nude scene to be edgy, dark or awesomely cool and I don't understand why you think it does.

Skydiver
July 25th, 2009, 07:43 AM
tptb didn't 'censor' COTG, Brad Wright removed something that was in teh show that he hadn't wanted to put there in the first place. It's no different from George Lucas putting things into episode 4 that he'd cut out for the 1977 release.

If these writers felt stifled by not being allowed to put in violence, gore, nudity or sex, they'd go and find other places to work where they would have no restrictions

PG15
July 25th, 2009, 10:07 AM
If these writers felt stifled by not being allowed to put in violence, gore, nudity or sex, they'd go and find other places to work where they would have no restrictions

Unless the desire to remain in a comfortable job doing things they like outweighs the desire to put in those things.

But that is not to say they don't want to put those things in, sometimes.

jenks
July 25th, 2009, 10:35 AM
You're calling censorship when TPTB just eliminated a nude scene - they didn't have to censor - from the pilot of SG1. You catch cry is falling on deaf ears because you seem to that TPTB are 'censored', rather then what appears to be the greater reality of - they don't want to go there. That they'd rather write, and direct, around it... as we have seen in the 15 seasons Stargate has aired.

The writers have never expressed any aversion to nudity, they just didn't feel that it were appropriate for what was a family show. You can't say they've felt this was for 15 years, you have absolutely no idea, they might have wanted to be a bit more adult with Atlantis but their hands were tied, we'll probably never know. All of this is besides the point anyway, as what I have said seem to have eluded you too. Whether they want nudity or not doesn't bother me, I couldn't care less, what does bother me is that even if they did want it they wouldn't be allowed to show it.



Not everything needs a nude scene to be edgy, dark or awesomely cool and I don't understand why you think it does.

I haven't said anything that should give you the impression that I do think that, though it does help your argument to lower the tone so I can understand why you've done it...



If these writers felt stifled by not being allowed to put in violence, gore, nudity or sex, they'd go and find other places to work where they would have no restrictions

Don't be ridiculous. Every TV and movie writers creativity is stifled in some way or another, if they all walked out because of it the industry would collapse. I challenge you to find a writing job where they would have no restrictions.

Eternal Density
July 25th, 2009, 03:08 PM
I can't help but imagine the thread title being read in a very proper British accent. Hilarious!
(Maybe I should cut down on the Monty Python clips on Youtube?)

aretood2
July 25th, 2009, 06:03 PM
The writers have never expressed any aversion to nudity, they just didn't feel that it were appropriate for what was a family show. You can't say they've felt this was for 15 years, you have absolutely no idea, they might have wanted to be a bit more adult with Atlantis but their hands were tied, we'll probably never know. All of this is besides the point anyway, as what I have said seem to have eluded you too. Whether they want nudity or not doesn't bother me, I couldn't care less, what does bother me is that even if they did want it they wouldn't be allowed to show it.

Unless they themselves said that at the time they made Children of the Gods they wanted an adult level show there is no reason to assume so. However we do have reason to assume that they have an aversion to nudity cuase they themselves cut it out by there own incentive. This to me seems that they are expressing some aversion to nudity.

Skydiver
July 25th, 2009, 06:30 PM
in cotg, the shau'ri implantation scene could have - and was originally written - to be done without showing the full frontal or the boobs. they did the ketterling scene that way, not showing the nudity.

mgm/showtime said 'put it in' so they did as they were ordered.

and, when they reedited the movie, they took it out.

They made a creative decision. Just like George Lucas did when he put in more Ewoks and had han solo shoot first.

They are going to make the show they want to make - with the exception of when the person holding the check book tells them otherwise

IMHO, even if tptb wanted to put in nudity and other content to earn the show a TV-MA rating, scifi won't let them do it. There are advertisors out there that won't allow their product to run in adult rated programming.

The lack of nudity isn't about censorship. It's about people making creative decisions about the product they want their name attached to

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 06:36 PM
The writers have never expressed any aversion to nudity, they just didn't feel that it were appropriate for what was a family show. You can't say they've felt this was for 15 years, you have absolutely no idea, they might have wanted to be a bit more adult with Atlantis but their hands were tied, we'll probably never know.

You know, I think Brad Wrights statements on the revamp of Children of the Gods tends to lend weight to the fact that they don't believe nudity fits into the Stargate universe.

And that they could have included nudity for the first 5 years of SG-1 kind of eludes to that fact as well.


All of this is besides the point anyway, as what I have said seem to have eluded you too. Whether they want nudity or not doesn't bother me, I couldn't care less, what does bother me is that even if they did want it they wouldn't be allowed to show it.

Ohh, the poor TPTB - having to write a show around nudity and tell a story without it. How I pity them. It's such a horrible thing for them... however will they tell a good story without nudity? Those poor poor men, having to follow guidelines of acceptablity.

I really do feel sorry for them.

Instead of thinking about it as 'censorship', consider it a mandate for creatively writing... because, that's what it is. But then again, for awhile there, TPTB could have done with a mandate that said 'no SFX', 'cause they were bordering on abusing them in order to prop up having no actual story.


I haven't said anything that should give you the impression that I do think that, though it does help your argument to lower the tone so I can understand why you've done it...

Actually, you have said lots of things that give me that impression. Whether or not you intended it is incidental to the impression you have given.

All that being said, I think you have missed where I have said nudity can work in a show... but it can also be OTT (True Blood is a mixture of nudity that works, and nudity that doesn't), and in the case of Stargate there is no reason to include it... not after all these years.

If they did include it, it would be damned obvious that they were trying to be 'edgy', without any substance to back it up. Something else that happens quite often.


Don't be ridiculous. Every TV and movie writers creativity is stifled in some way or another, if they all walked out because of it the industry would collapse. I challenge you to find a writing job where they would have no restrictions.

Exactly, so your cry of censorship is unwarranted and seriously off base. They have made a creative decision in order to allow the show to be marketed to the masses... not the the niche market.

Of course, in TV and movie land the creative decisions are a mix of business and creative; but in the end if they were grossly unhappy and their hands were tied often with this so called censorship you talk of... they would have left years ago. Given TPTB haven't really changed in 15 years, I'd say they don't feel as tied as you think they are.

Nor do I feel their creativity has been adversely affected by the need to have advertisers, and the studio happy with them... actually, I think their need to follow certain guidelines has only strengthened the show, because for a while there they went very low brow - and imagine how bad it could have gotten without someone pulling htem back?

Skydiver
July 25th, 2009, 06:42 PM
i tried to watch true blood

ran across too many scenes that i personally felt were in there for the singular sake of tossing in sex and nudity...couple that with some absolutely horrible southern accents and i stopped watching the show

aretood2
July 25th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Exactly, so your cry of censorship is unwarranted and seriously off base. After all, is it censorship to say you cannot

Just a question. I see this word thrown around

Is it not viable for a Privet company to limit what they want their employes to do on the job i.e. include nudity? This is there property, if they don't want shows to show this or that, then they have full unquestionable constitutional rights to do so.

If MGM limit it, they are controlling what their money does there is not censorship, only managment. Second, the creative minds behind a tv show also have full moral rights to exclude what ever material they feel like with out question, as long as it matches what the boss wants it is unquestionably constitutional.

So where is the censorship?
By the looks of it BW was probably happy that Skiffy cut out the only nude scene in the whole show. So this is more of a favor than censorship.

Skydiver
July 25th, 2009, 06:50 PM
people tend to toss the word 'censorship' around, and use it improperly most of the time.

there is a difference between 'this is the content we'll print...content meaning 'language, violence, etc.

and the other examples of 'i don't care that 10 people died when a japanese bomb exploded in the forest of washington state, it didn't happen and you'll be put in jail if you print the story'

or 'there was no demonstration in tianmen square'

or 'i don't care what rumors you heard, the german u boats didn't sink a single freighter last month'

There is a difference between editing for content, violence, language, sex, nudity in entertainment and silencing a news story

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 07:02 PM
i tried to watch true blood

ran across too many scenes that i personally felt were in there for the singular sake of tossing in sex and nudity...couple that with some absolutely horrible southern accents and i stopped watching the show

Exactly... the excessive use of nudity and sex to create an 'edge' has turned off many a person who might get interested in the story independent of the nudity/sex propping.

aretood2 said


Is it not viable for a Privet company to limit what they want their employes to do on the job i.e. include nudity? This is there property, if they don't want shows to show this or that, then they have full unquestionable constitutional rights to do so.

That's all very true... as Skydiver said, the word censorship is bandied around all the time, and often incorrectly. The thing is the word censorship is very sensationalist and it conjours up all kinds of negative imagery...

But no, it isn't censorship for the investors to have a say in what is created. After all, if you are an artist commissioned to paint a mural, it isn't censorship for the person commissing the art to give guidelines and wants...

jenks
July 25th, 2009, 07:08 PM
You know, I think Brad Wrights statements on the revamp of Children of the Gods tends to lend weight to the fact that they don't believe nudity fits into the Stargate universe.

And that they could have included nudity for the first 5 years of SG-1 kind of eludes to that fact as well.

All Brad Wright has said is that nudity wasn't appropriate for SG-1 because it was a family show, he's also said that SGU is a very different show.


Ohh, the poor TPTB - having to write a show around nudity and tell a story without it. How I pity them. It's such a horrible thing for them... however will they tell a good story without nudity?

I really do feel sorry for them.

Is there a point in there somewhere?


Actually, you have said lots of things that give me that impression. Whether or not you intended it is incidental to the impression you have given.

I don't believe you, I think the impression you have has come from you, not from anything I have said.


All that being said, I think you have missed where I have said nudity can work in a show... but it can also be OTT (True Blood is a mixture of nudity that works, and nudity that doesn't), and in the case of Stargate there is no reason to include it... not after all these years.

All these years of SG-1 and Atlantis, which are by all accounts very different shows to SGU. I'm still yet to see an reasoning as to why it can work in other shows but not Stargate.


If they did include it, it would be damned obvious that they were trying to be 'edgy', without any substance to back it up. Something else that happens quite often.

It wouldn't be obvious, it would just be your own personal knee-jerk reaction. Surely the fact that the writers haven't included unnecessary nudity in the past (as you yourself have said) indicates that they won't now, and any we might see would be there for a reason.



Exactly, so your cry of censorship is unwarranted and seriously off base. They have made a creative decision in order to allow the show to be marketed to the masses... not the the niche market.

I think I'm going to have to give up on you, if you still don't get it I don't know how to explain it any clearer. I'm not complaining that the writers haven't been able to put things in that they want to in the past, whether they want to put it in or not is irrelevant, it's the fact that the completely nonsensical censorship exists in the first place that annoys me. I don't like the idea that their creativity is stifled at all, let alone by something as laughable as this.


Of course, in TV and movie land the creative decisions are a mix of business and creative; but in the end if they were grossly unhappy and their hands were tied often with this so called censorship you talk of... they would have left years ago. Given TPTB haven't really changed in 15 years, I'd say they don't feel as tied as you think they are.

Have you even read a word I've posted? At no point have I said the producers are 'grossly unhappy' with the censorship or anything even similar.



Nor do I feel their creativity has been adversely affected by the need to have advertisers, and the studio happy with them... actually, I think their need to follow certain guidelines has only strengthened the show, because for a while there they went very low brow - and imagine how bad it could have gotten without someone pulling htem back?

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Besides, what makes you think the low brow stuff wasn't the networks idea? How do you know the 'pulling back' isn't what resulted in the low brow stuff in the first place?

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 07:33 PM
Jenks, if you think that not being able to use nudity = stifled creativity, mores the pity. Creativity is not only the ability to tell a story in the way one wants, but it's the ability to tell a story irrespective of the hurdles and problems that are faced. Creativity is how problems are handled and dealt with in as much as everything else.

Throwing money, blood and flesh at a story does not equate to creativity.

Yes, nudity can be a creative choice (that can work, or can be there to prop up bad stories)... but not showing nudity, and still projecting something raw and venerable can be equally as creative and interesting to watch.

It isn't censorship for the investors or networks to no allow nudity. It is a choice, a business choice. Censorship is a fun buzz word, to be sure, but it is a word that doesn't apply when people are being commissioned to tell a story.

It doesn't apply when they are being asked to present a product within guidelines. Not being able to use nudity doesn't mean they cannot tell a particular story, it just means they have to be creative and tell it a different way - sans nudity.

I don't know about you, but I think that fosters creativity.

Add to that, with Brad Wright's adversion is nudity (and as much as you don't want to hear it, Brad cutting the nudity scene in CotG is evidence of this), and the simple fact it has never been used before... I'd say there is no need to worry about TPTB being held back by the lack of nudity in their guidelines. Nor do I think they have the problem with it that you seem to have.

jenks
July 25th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Jenks, if you think that not being able to use nudity = stifled creativity, I think you don't really understand creativity...

Yes, nudity can be a creative choice (that can work, or can be there to prop up bad stories)... but not showing nudity, and still projecting something raw and venerable can be equally as creative and interesting to watch.

You're contradicting yourself. If using nudity can be a creative choice, and that choice is taken away, then creativity is stifled.


It isn't censorship for the investors or networks to no allow nudity. It is a choice, a business choice. Censorship is a fun buzz word, to be sure, but it is a word that doesn't apply when people are being commissioned to tell a story.

You can call it what you like, either way writers are being given ridiculous guidelines to follow that don't help anyone, certainly not from an entertainment point of view anyway.


It doesn't apply when they are being asked to present a product within guidelines. Not being able to use nudity doesn't mean they cannot tell a particular story, it just means they have to be creative] and tell it a different way - sans nudity.

I don't know about you, but I think that fosters creativity.

I disagree. I think it backs writers into corners which leaves them little choice but to paste over the limitations put on them with cop outs and concessions, and ultimately waters down the story being told. All you end up with is lowest common denominator crap that you find on any number of channels. Not that Sci Fi are particularly bad at this, they're better than most, but any is too many in my opinion. I suppose I just don't understand it, TV isn't run the same way over here.

Deevil
July 25th, 2009, 07:57 PM
You're contradicting yourself. If using nudity can be a creative choice, and that choice is taken away, then creativity is stifled.

I said nudity can be a creative choice... but not having that choice does not equate to stifled creativity. It'd be kind of like saying not having green paint would stifle an artists creativity. It just isn't true.

Why, on earth, is nudity considered a requirement for creativity? You aren't allowed to kill an animal on TV either, does that mean that TPTB's creativity has been stifled as well?


You can call it what you like, either way writers are being given ridiculous guidelines to follow that don't help anyone, certainly not from an entertainment point of view anyway.

They are not ridiculous, and frankly the continued ascertation to the contrary is what is ridiculous. To think that TPTB would be or should be given an open slather in order to tell their story is ridiculous.

Without guidelines, it would not ensure quality TV. It would more then likely ensure a drop in quality.


I disagree. I think it backs writers into corners which leaves them little choice but to paste over the limitations put on them with cop outs and concessions, and ultimately waters down the story being told. All you end up with is lowest common denominator crap that you find on any number of channels. Not that Sci Fi are particularly bad at this, they're better than most, but any is too many in my opinion. I suppose I just don't understand it, TV isn't run the same way over here.

TV everywhere have guidelines to follow. As do movies. It's a collaborative art form which requires the ability for a show to be consumable by the largest number of people in order to facilitate the continued production of them. Even niche film and TV has to have an audience - and still have guidelines to follow.

The fact that there are guidelines means that TPTB of any show have to be continually creative in the way in which they tell their stories. If they decide to 'cop out', this is a decision they will make irrespective of the guidelines they are given... or because they just don't have the creative ability to tell a story - period.

Creativity in Film and Television does not exist independent of the need to make money, and to touch as many people as they can. It cannot be like that and survive, anywhere in the world.

amconway
July 25th, 2009, 10:22 PM
Tried to green you, Deevil, but I have to spread it around some first. I owe you one. ;)

Skydiver
July 26th, 2009, 06:35 AM
I think this is a circular argument and is going nowhere.

so let's table it until we get some real episodes to see and have something real to discuss beyond one's own personal opinions and speculation