Stargate and Nudity

[ToasterOnFire]

*sigh* Carter was not replaced. She left the team to work in Area 51, and Mitchell was brought in to lead SG-1. She eventually rejoined the team, and Mitchell was nominally in charge but Carter was always treated as his equal.

That's the canon reason. I'm talking about the real life reason.

I can think of several off the top of my head. Garshaw of the Tok'ra, Linea in Prisoners, the innkeeper in The Quest 1, the leader of the Enkarans in Scorched Earth, and a couple others whose episodes I can't place.

Those are all SG1 episodes and I was specifically referring to SGA. SGA, IMO, has far more of a discrepancy between the genders than SG1.

To be fair, Elizabeth -- while not "thicker around the middle" -- isn't some young, gorgeous model. She was 40ish and average in looks, and had a very large role on the show.

"Average in looks" is getting into subjective territory, and while both Weir and Carter are older than Teyla and Keller I wouldn't call either woman average looking. Average looking to me means someone like Novak, Lucius, or Woolsey.

And Weir having a large role on the show is also debatable. She spent plenty of eps only briefing the team or worrying about the team and the storylines that focused on her were few and far between. It's pretty clear that TPTB didn't think that Weir's role was all that important either, otherwise she'd still be in charge.

[KindlyKeller]

Or TPTB just didn't like the way she was filling the role. I guess we can't know for sure. And you're right that we're in subjective territory judging people's looks. But if you acknowledge that, then the rest of the argument is hard to make. I'm sure there's somebody out there who thinks Oberoth is a dreamboat.

[Skydiver]

i do agree, daniel's descent was a bit silly.

the first time, yeah i htink it was a joke cause it was february in Kamloops...weeeee bit chilly to be running around buck nekkid.

the second time, well i think the second time was to poke fun at amanda who'd recently done the photoshoot with her wrapped in just a flag.

both times, yeah, it wasn't necessary. and was just as gratuitous as shau'ri, but not to the extent of shau'ri in the way that, well he didn't show anything 'important'.

even 'naked' he was just artfully nekkid in that his privates were covered

[SG66]

when daniel descended a first time, i didn't see the need for nudity, however when he decended a second time, i found it quite funny, appering naked in jacks office. didn't anybody notice brae'tak laufing?

[KindlyKeller]

i do agree, daniel's descent was a bit silly.

I don't know why he'd descend WITH clothes. It wouldn't make any sense to me.

[Skydiver]

orlin did

[Hatusu]

orlin did

Actually, we don't know for sure since Orlin was alone in Carter's house when he finally took solid human form. When he first appeared, he said that he watched T.V. and read books the night before, so that he would know how to appear and what to wear, so I assumed he was a naked ascendant.

That episode was on T.V. today, but I haven't seen "Children of the Gods" in a while. I actually didn't remember Share's nudity at first. I was bothered by the nudity of the kidnapped Air Force officer, since the character was so vulnerable. It could be argued that it furthered the plot and was not gratuitous, but it did bother me.

[Pitry]

It seems to me like everyone is treating nudity and violence like one thing vs. another. But it seems the two have a sliding scale, at one end is acceptable and the other is not.

Starting you have no violence, and people wear fully modest clothing.

Then you have cartoon / stylized violence, such as Spiderman fighting bad guys. At the same end you have people in slightly less than fully modest clothes think tank top vs. long sleeve shirt.

Then you would have Stargate type violence: people shoot guns, a few sparks go off and the bad guy is killed. This usually happens to save people or something. At the same level you have revealing clothes such as dresses or conservative bathing suits.

Then you have violence like above but more intense, such as a PG-13 (higher end) movie. At the same level you have low-cut clothing, revealing bathing suits, and stylized nudity (where you don't see anything).

At a higher level, you have intense violence and / or violence not being used to help people. At that same level you have full frontal nudity where you see everything.

Ah, but you're assuming that violence = nudity.
I disagree. Even if you look at your "levels", I find it a lot harder to accept violence - even if it's wrapped as "for good reason" then I do with nudity. And in our society, no, lack of violence does not equal "fully modest clothes"...

[ykickamoocow]

It seems to me like everyone is treating nudity and violence like one thing vs. another. But it seems the two have a sliding scale, at one end is acceptable and the other is not.

Starting you have no violence, and people wear fully modest clothing.

Then you have cartoon / stylized violence, such as Spiderman fighting bad guys. At the same end you have people in slightly less than fully modest clothes think tank top vs. long sleeve shirt.

Then you would have Stargate type violence: people shoot guns, a few sparks go off and the bad guy is killed. This usually happens to save people or something. At the same level you have revealing clothes such as dresses or conservative bathing suits.

Then you have violence like above but more intense, such as a PG-13 (higher end) movie. At the same level you have low-cut clothing, revealing bathing suits, and stylized nudity (where you don't see anything).

At a higher level, you have intense violence and / or violence not being used to help people. At that same level you have full frontal nudity where you see everything.

Im using the Australian system here (as it is the one i know). All these ratings are allowed on Free to Air television.

G - For general exhibition
PG - Parental guidance is recommended for young viewers. PG content may only be broadcast between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and between 7:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. on weekdays, and between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. on weekends.
M - Recommended for mature audiences. M content may only be broadcast between 8:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. on any day, and additionally between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on school days.
MA 15+ - Not suitable for people under 15. MA15+ content may only be broadcast between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. on any day. Consumer advice is mandatory.
AV 15+ - Not suitable for people under 15. This is similar to the MA15+ rating, however it is used specifically to differentiate violent programming. In all other respects, the content cannot exceed the guidelines for MA15+. AV15+ content may only be broadcast between 9:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. on any day (though there has been one exception, Saving Private Ryan which aired at 8:30 p.m. with an additional warning). Consumer advice is mandatory.

Here is what each what each classification allows you to see (not exact but rather my observations)

G - No Violence or Nudity allowed
PG - Low level violence and very low level nudity
M - Medium level Violence, Medium Nudity and Low Level Sex Scenes
MA15+ - High Level Violence, High Level Nudity and Medium Level Sex Scenes

If you want to know where stargate fits in

Stargate
Season 1 - M15+ (that is a DVD rating which is in between M and MA15+
Season 2 - PG
Season 3 - M15+
Season 4 - M15+
Season 5 - M15+
Season 6 - M15+
Season 7 - M15+
Season 8 - M
Season 9 - M
Season 10 - M

Atlantis
Season 1 - M
Season 2 - M
Season 3 - M

So going by those ratings Stargate (and Stargate Atlantis) usually has a ratings level of M (Mature) which allows for nudity and low level sex scenes.

------------------------------------------------------------

So what im trying to say is there is look at the Stargate ratings on your DVD's and then look and what is allowed in your respective countries in terms of nudity and sex scenes. Really if the nudity doesnt raise the ratings of Atlantis then there should not be a problem in showing it. Occasional nudity and low level sex scenes will NOT raise the rating level of Atlantis.

[Skydiver]

Actually, we don't know for sure since Orlin was alone in Carter's house when he finally took solid human form. When he first appeared, he said that he watched T.V. and read books the night before, so that he would know how to appear and what to wear, so I assumed he was a naked ascendant.

That episode was on T.V. today, but I haven't seen "Children of the Gods" in a while. I actually didn't remember Share's nudity at first. I was bothered by the nudity of the kidnapped Air Force officer, since the character was so vulnerable. It could be argued that it furthered the plot and was not gratuitous, but it did bother me.

no one really had an issue with kettering's nudity (that's the character's name) because she was 'artfully nude'...which means we didn't see her assets.

the question is, why couldn't shau'ri have been done the same way? was the plot really furthered by us seeing her full frontal nudity or would the scene have been just as effective had she been 'artfully' nude like the other actress

[Mister Oragahn]

Many here talk about how the full frontal nudity wasn't needed in COTG.
Oh my, I mean. It's not like Apophis pretends to be one of those ruthless gods from the mythology, you know, those who enjoyed raping and ****ing sisters and borhters, cutting people to bits and whatelse. It's not like he would be influenced by his male host, and concerned about the beauty of the female he'd choose for his snake-mate.

I think clearly showing out what Apophis did to Sha're pretty much settled the evilness of the guy for the years to come, the sort of shock from a part of the audience actually helping drawing Pops' personality and how Goa'uld see human hosts - a point made rather clear years later, in Pretense, where Goa'uld don't think we're better than livestock.

Now, as I said earlier on, there is that episode where we get to see Carter and Pete just after they had sex, and Carter, still sitting on the bed, hides her rack just like if some stranger entered the room and they were in one of those awkward "oops sorry" moments, while we perfectly know that the two adults had sex just two minutes ago.
She's probably been fraked to death, all holes explored and all that, swallowed whole gulps of this and him drank gallons of that, you get the picture, and as two big lads, they just had a great time together, but suddenly, as long as the semen has made its way outside of the men's testicles, end of show, pull the curtain and no more ostentatious boobs, because it's shocking, even to the man who probably lost a liter of saliva just licking them.

Wright says he isn't prude. Then I suppose he must have a very compelling reason as to why Carter masks her boobs, no?
Or is it just that he actually is plain prude, as simple as that?

Or is he afraid that it could hurt his precious audience numbers, huh?

Have you ever wondered how stupid it was to guess just how much of the flesh of a boob you're allowed to see? Have you ever calculated how much visible surface area is allowed, or how far the radius around a nipple has to reach to cover the whole "outrageous range"?

Are you realizing people that this is just plain retarded?

So why is it so hard to believe that many people are offended by nudity and not with violence?

One of the reasons many object to nudity (especially with children) is that it teaches people to objectify women, that is treat them more like objects rather than people.

I think if people made less of a deal seeing a nipple, it would get much less importance, the attention would be less focused on bits of flesh, thus there would be less claims about objectification.
Or what?
This is a woman. Now this is a woman with boobs. OMGz, an object!
And sorry for the lunatics around there who don't get it despite hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, but men like feminine silhouettes.
It seems these days that men are really made guilty of paying attention to the body of women.

There are many tribes in South America and Africa where women harbour naked boobs. Are men of those tribes sexual pervs and, above all, are the kids completely traumatized and killing people raping others and such crap?

I would also like to point out that in shows like stargate, there is violence, but it's not like in Grand Theft Auto were people go around and shoot people on the street. SG-1 usually uses violence to help people / save the world. Take a look at all kid shows (especially the ones focused at boys) the good guys fight bad guys (using violence) to save the world.

I thereby demand a Special Edition of episode Origin, because seeing Vala getting burned crisp and alive is untolerable for the family.

And the objections to cursing is self-explanatory I think, if kids hear people saying bad words on TV, they will say them.

SG-1 does contain quite a good deal of cursing. Son of a Beeyatch made its way through a couple of times, like other things.
Hypocrisy anyone?

Bolded parts for emphasis. As it turns out, this sequences was forced upon the creators by the network and not something they wanted in the first place. Add to that the fact that this scene is the only one of it's type in more than 10 years of storytelling and to me, it just clashes with the artisitic style of the rest of the show.

And you could probably rebold that part, because it's during that time of inquisition aw my gawd that SG-1 was the best on all points.
There's just clash for the people who get their mind stuck on that bit of flesh. The problem is in their mind.

I guess it's rooted in cultural differences. People of the US in general are much more sensitive (some might even say prudent) about nudity than Eurropeans. Let me just tell you an example.

I studied in a dual language high school where I had some American teachers. When I was a first year student (age 15) I had a young teacher from Dallas called Daniel. He was a nice guy always up for some fun he even tried to teach us how to play baseball. One morning I walked into the school I saw that there was an exhibition in the main hall of nice pictured calendars. Those were artistic pieces and some of them had pictures of nude women. Not in a pornographic but in an artistic way. Some of the pictures were really nice and gave you a sense of the beauty of the human body. Everyone was pleased to see these beautyful pictures and we walked into the classrooms with a smile on our faces because we thought this day actually started well. Then Daniel came into the room with a deep red face in total embarassment and uttered: "When I walked into the school I saw a naked lady! Is that OK here?"

We were really suprised by his reaction but we realized that he has a different cultural background. Nudity is much less acceptable in certain cultures than others. Is it silly? It might seem so from one perspective but for those people it's natural and I don't think any of us has the right to judge them for that.

This same absurd reasoning could be used in favour of those who think the burka is right. I hate dogooders who tell people not to judge. That's wuss talk.

I am in late in the game, but first, don't say that America has problem with nudity and other countries it's a ok. If thats the case, why is it Doctor Who has no nudity in it, hmmmm? An Tourchwood? Hmmm?

Because Americans watch it a lot, and thus you have to please american audience.
And because Brits follow US on many issues.

And why is it worse then violence? Honestly, can't answer that one. But the violence on SG-1 is not violence, honestly, but Atlantis in my opinion has upped the anny on violence....i mean, with a head and all being cut off.

It's edgy-style darker tone for the sensible souls out there.
But god prevent showing humanoid aliens ever appearing naked.
I'd have laughed my ass off if the asgard specimen who was 30,000 years old had a bikini.

And lastly, there's another reason for this. Would seeing boobies make you happier and make the story better?

Depends of the case and context, as simple as that.

Where you shocked when you saw Daniel naked?

Ah, of course, god forbid us from seeing the horrible Mr. dildoooooo.

He was, what a surprise, lying on his side. If he had not, we'd have needed a Special Edition and 0.218% of the budget to mask his genitals.



Greeks. All pervs.

Actually, to tell you the truth, I wouldn't want to watch SG-1 if it was about nudity. I HATE writers/directors who make their show/movie all about who is naked in it. Why can't you sell your **** with no sex? So your telling me you would rather have boobs or penis all over SG-1? Maybe see O'Neil naked a few times, hmmm? Would that make you happy? Make the story better.

I think you're actually mistaken about what people complain about.
There's also a lot of people who don't get it until they see it.
Seeing the stuff happen makes it clearer, more solid, gets the point through with much more efficiency. Just like you see raw thrusting in BSG or Rome. Oh my god, shows for sinners.
Go Texas.

Oh yes, thats right, I remember now....in "The Lost City" I was so wanting to see O'Neil naked in that chair. Man would that make the story better!!

Man you so don't get the point!!

Or in Season 3 finale, "Out of Mind", I sooo should have seen all of sg-1 naked when they pulled them out. That would have made the show soooo much more interesting and better.

Actually, considering how the staff of SGA is rolling out babes to grab more audience, I think armadas of boobs would help ratings a bit.
I mean, is it any better than all those gurlz who watch a show just because it features Mr. cuteface watzisname? and don't give a flying frak about the story?

I also find it particularily hypocrit how one of the most violent and belligerent nations in the world dictates its law on what's acceptable and what is not, and get so shocked by a bit of boob.
Sometimes, I wonder where the Vatican is.

[Skydiver]

in all your posturing you're ignoring one very real thing the show's writers/directors/producers have to deal with

carter hides her 'rack' as you so adroitly and intelligently put it because stargate is broadcast on over the air television, thus is subject to the rules set by the FCC...which say that you can't cuss too much, can't be too violent and yep, can't show nudity.

shows are shot they way they are shot because that's how they have to be shot if they are to be on broadcast television.

That's why there are two versions of COTG, one that aired on showtime that had shau'ri fully naked and at least one scene between daniel and jack talking, and both of these scenes were cut for the broadcast version because not only did it have to fit the fcc rules and regs, it also had to fit in the time allotted and allow for commercials in the broadcast version.

If you've been watching Dexter, you'll notice that parts of it have been dubbed...because cuss words that are allowed on cable are not allowed on broadcast television. There may also have been violence and nudity that was cut out, i never watched it on showtime to know the difference.

[ykickamoocow]

in all your posturing you're ignoring one very real thing the show's writers/directors/producers have to deal with

carter hides her 'rack' as you so adroitly and intelligently put it because stargate is broadcast on over the air television, thus is subject to the rules set by the FCC...which say that you can't cuss too much, can't be too violent and yep, can't show nudity.

Well im not certain about rules in America but in Australia PG nudity (when a travel show goes to a nude beach and we see some women sunbathing without a top on) is allowed on television at 7:30pm and M rated nudity (topless women) is allowed on at 8:30pm and Full Frontal nudity is allowed on Australian tv at 9:30pm. 9:30pm is the point where not only are you allowed Full Frontal nudity but also rather graphic sex scenes. If America has rules similar to Australia then if Stargate Atlantis is broadcasted past 8:30 then they are allowed to broadcast nudity (breasts and peoples baacksides) and if Atlantis is broadcast past 9:30 then they are allowed to show Full Frontal nudity.

[jonos101]

ok, personly i dont have a problem with nudity but i dont think the full frontal shot has needed. But the shot where the snake was crawling along her rack really added to the sense of fear IMO

[Skydiver]

i think our rules are brief flashes of nudity are acceptible after 9pm at night. but by brief they mean a few seconds, not the lingering pan that we had of shau'ri.

and i don't think they even permit frontal shots. bum shots are okay, if they are brief, but not the front.

One thing though, oranghan's post shows just why people are content to not have the nudity. many treat it with all the adultness and sensibility of a 13 year old giggling over his daddy's playboy. crudity makes it very easy to just say 'oh, cut it all out' because you get tired of what many call the 'beauty' of the human body being denigrated to trash talk and nastiness.

You want people to stop being so uptight, don't go treating the nudity as if it's some titty show put on for a .50 thrill. The crudity of his post illustrates why it's easier to deny or control it than to accept it. Becuse there are so many out there that don't treat it with the respect or acknowledgement that it deserves adn instead turn it into something to be mocked and belittled and made fun of.

talk about sex and nudity in a nasty and immature way, and it'll contiue to be treated as if it's something to be hidden.

maybe it's not the nudity they hide but the base and crude reactions to it taht people are trying to avoid