Stargate and Nudity

[rlr149]

Don't forget this scene was essentially imposed upon Mr. Wright (and the rest of us) against his wishes by the network heads at Showtime. And yes, you can argue that they have the right to do so since they control the purse strings. But were these execs exercising some sort of mature creative wisdom greater than Mr. Wright's when they made this decision? Hardly! They did it in the name of a few bucks by including this little bit of extra titillation. If this doesn't make the scene "gratuitous" I don't know what does!

unless its just some bull he's feeding us, given that he's already said he was 'forced' into it by the network, who's to say its not the same now.

maybe all 3 cuts on the dvd would get it out of the censorship 'bracket',
but i doubt that will happen

I agree that in real life violence and torture is horrendous stuff, as opposed to swearing and nudity, which is, AT WORSE, just "rude".

But like Wright said, its a family show. That means I wanna be able to watch it with my mom and dad in the room. When tits or sex scenes show up, I get uncomfortable... don't wanna share that with my parents u know... AWKWARD!

thats your problem, nobody else's!!

Where-as shooting guns or punching someone or even torturing them on screen is no big deal, because we know its actors, its not real, they are not in real pain. But the nudity IS REAL!!!!!!

kids can't always tell the difference, between real and not

The Americans have got it absolutely right, they just can't explain it properly.

no to the first, yes to the second

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

unless its just some bull he's feeding us, given that he's already said he was 'forced' into it by the network, who's to say its not the same now.

But why assume that? I don't know Mr. Wright personally, and I likely never will, but is it necessary to question his sincerity in order to justify the opposing argument?

[Melora]

"In its broadest sense [censorship] refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. . . . In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who 'censor' themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. Yet all of these restraints have the effect of limiting the diversity that would otherwise be available in the marketplace of ideas and so may be considered censorship in its broadest sense." -- Academic American Encyclopedia

"Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear or deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

From what I can tell, this is a case of self-censorship since BW has voluntarily chosen to edit out a scene that did not adhere to his creative vision for the show. Whatever his motivations for not wanting the scene, it was not his original intention to include it. If people truly believe in the right of writers and producers to have creative freedom over their own product, shouldn't they support a writer/producer's right not to include something that a network forced them to include in the first place?

In the article, BW stated that the level of violence in SG is in line with his creative vision for the series. The nudity was not. He and the other producers set the standards of morality for the show. Although some of those standards are probably based on cultural norms in the U.S., it doesn't look like anyone (including the FCC) is twisting BW's arm to self-censor his own work. Apparently a higher level of violence is acceptable to help the producers achieve their creative vision for the show and nudity is not. There's nothing contradictory about it b/c nudity, sex, violence are all separate issues that historically just happen to fall under the broader issue of morality. Every country, every group, every individual has different standards for each of these things and they don't always correlate.

Who are we to impose our own standards on BW and the other producers? Would anyone here like someone to tell you that your standards are wrong and your morals are questionable b/c you like to see nudity on TV? I wouldn’t think so. So why is it okay for you (general) to tell other people that their standards are wrong and imply they are hypocrites b/c they don’t want to include nudity in their own show?

As a show that is shown all over the world (not just in the U.S. and Europe by the way), the producers also have to walk a fine line to please the most audience members as possible. Some viewers will tolerate nudity, some won’t. Some viewers will tolerate a lot of violence, some won’t. Some like both, some like neither. All the producers can do is to try and come up with a balance and not go to extremes in either direction, while still staying true to their creative vision.

It's about freedom of choice IMHO. Producers should have the right to decide whether or not there is nudity in their show. If I don't like seeing nudity or violence, I don't have to watch a show that has those things. And if I like nudity and violence, I have the choice not to watch a show that doesn't have those things. And that is exactly what I would suggest. If people here don't like Wright's decision and want to see nudity in COTG, simply agree to disagree with his decision and don't buy the DVD. You'll still have the original episode to watch, full-frontal nudity and all.

[Pandora's_Box]

From what I can tell, this is a case of self-censorship since BW has voluntarily chosen to edit out a scene that did not adhere to his creative vision for the show. Whatever his motivations for not wanting the scene, it was not his original intention to include it. If people truly believe in the right of writers and producers to have creative freedom over their own product, shouldn't they support a writer/producer's right not to include something that a network forced them to include in the first place?

In the article, BW stated that the level of violence in SG is in line with his creative vision for the series. The nudity was not. He and the other producers set the standards of morality for the show. Although some of those standards are probably based on cultural norms in the U.S., it doesn't look like anyone (including the FCC) is twisting BW's arm to self-censor his own work. Apparently a higher level of violence is acceptable to help the producers achieve their creative vision for the show and nudity is not. There's nothing contradictory about it b/c nudity, sex, violence are all separate issues that historically just happen to fall under the broader issue of morality. Every country, every group, every individual has different standards for each of these things and they don't always correlate.

And he has every right to establish whatever level of violence and/ or nusity he feels is necessary for his television show. I think that if it was his choice to take it out because it didn't fall in with his artistic vision then he was right in removing the scene in question.

Who are we to impose our own standards on BW and the other producers? Would anyone here like someone to tell you that your standards are wrong and your morals are questionable b/c you like to see nudity on TV?

Of course I don't like it and yet, some people do exactly that.

I wouldn’t think so. So why is it okay for you (general) to tell other people that their standards are wrong and imply they are hypocrites b/c they don’t want to include nudity in their own show?

I would never judge a person's moral standard by the choices they make regarding whether or not to include nudity in a television show. Just like I wouldn't judge someone's morals based on what they watch.

That is an individual decision and shouldn't be imposed on them by anyone else.

I think a lot of people were upset by the 'self-censorship' because they honestly believed Wright to have been forced into making that decision. If that's not the case then I fully support his decision.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time nowadays most showrunners don't really have the option of showing any form of nudity in most programming. Those that do face cesorship by the FCC or severe backlash from various groups. Which, of course, is within their rights to give, but unfortunately this often results in "self-censorship" by those that showed the nudity in the first place. And I don't believe anyone has the right to impose their own morality on someone else's artistic vision.

As a show that is shown all over the world (not just in the U.S. and Europe by the way), the producers also have to walk a fine line to please the most audience members as possible. Some viewers will tolerate nudity, some won’t. Some viewers will tolerate a lot of violence, some won’t. Some like both, some like neither. All the producers can do is to try and come up with a balance and not go to extremes in either direction, while still staying true to their creative vision.

It's about freedom of choice IMHO. Producers should have the right to decide whether or not there is nudity in their show. If I don't like seeing nudity or violence, I don't have to watch a show that has those things. And if I like nudity and violence, I have the choice not to watch a show that doesn't have those things. And that is exactly what I would suggest. If people here don't like Wright's decision and want to see nudity in COTG, simply agree to disagree with his decision and don't buy the DVD. You'll still have the original episode to watch, full-frontal nudity and all.

Of course!

[rlr149]

But why assume that? I don't know Mr. Wright personally, and I likely never will, but is it necessary to question his sincerity in order to justify the opposing argument?

i don't know him either!! i don't know whether he's a lying ****** out to make a few quick bucks on another recut or whether he is in fact telling the truth.
thats the point though, he's admitted to compromising his 'art' originally, so why could it not be the same now?(i'll expect an apology in 5 years when the "cut i really wanted to make" comes out)

the fact is, you can 'not watch' something anytime you like!!............. I'm not watching the movie 'sunshine' right now,and i'll continue to not watch it because it offends me with its GAPING plotholes, its easy!!! anyone can not do it.

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

(i'll expect an apology in 5 years when the "cut i really wanted to make" comes out)

Well, if that happens 5 years from you'll get the apology. Perhaps this thread still be going strong five years from now?

the fact is, you can 'not watch' something anytime you like!!.............

Of course, sure we can. But some of us prefer to NOT 'not watch'.

[Skydiver]

How are the people's right to freedom of speech upheld when the FCC imposes a 5-second delay on live tele-casts? Maybe not anymore, but right after Nipplegate, this was rampant.

Or, for that matter, when people get cut off mid speech because they're saying something unpleasant? If a viewer didn't want to hear it they could have just changed the channel. Where was that person's right to freedom of expression?

I'm not advocating censorship, i'm really not.

but what some are suggesting 'don't like the boobs, turn off the set' is akin to nudity = eating meat 'oh, you're a vegetarian? well tough, our surveys show that people enjoy eating meat so if you don't want to eat it, just go hungry'

Again, and again, and again i have no issue with nudity if it is necessary to the story. if it's vital, go for it.

but if it's just there to give the fanboys a thrill, i consider it a waste.

I used to read comic books, and there were some that decided that big boobed and nearly naked women had to have a splash page in every single issue. It wasn't necessary to the story, it wasn't vital, it was just a legal version of titilation for the young boys. 'johnny's just reading comics' when johnny was really enjoying the drawing of a nearly naked female.

I stopped reading them. And, last i knew, some of those books didn't last too much longer because the audience that liked to read a STORY got tired of the senseless and gratuitous near nudity and there weren't enough 'johnnies' to keep the sales high enough to keep the books in print.

In many cases nudity is just a way to 'pad' a weak story.

If it's necessary for the story, then put it in. but if it's not, keep it out. or you go to the cost of making a pg-13 version and a R version and let people choose to see/not see as they wish.

But, in this case, brad never wrote COTG to have the nude scene in it. he was TOLD to put in. he was basically forced to put it in. thus it wasn't necessary. Had he, the writer and creator, chosen to put it in there in the first place, then this topic wouldn't exist.

[Pandora's_Box]

I'm not advocating censorship, i'm really not.

but what some are suggesting 'don't like the boobs, turn off the set' is akin to nudity = eating meat 'oh, you're a vegetarian? well tough, our surveys show that people enjoy eating meat so if you don't want to eat it, just go hungry'

Again, and again, and again i have no issue with nudity if it is necessary to the story. if it's vital, go for it.

but if it's just there to give the fanboys a thrill, i consider it a waste.

I used to read comic books, and there were some that decided that big boobed and nearly naked women had to have a splash page in every single issue. It wasn't necessary to the story, it wasn't vital, it was just a legal version of titilation for the young boys. 'johnny's just reading comics' when johnny was really enjoying the drawing of a nearly naked female.

I stopped reading them. And, last i knew, some of those books didn't last too much longer because the audience that liked to read a STORY got tired of the senseless and gratuitous near nudity and there weren't enough 'johnnies' to keep the sales high enough to keep the books in print.

In many cases nudity is just a way to 'pad' a weak story.

If it's necessary for the story, then put it in. but if it's not, keep it out. or you go to the cost of making a pg-13 version and a R version and let people choose to see/not see as they wish.

But, in this case, brad never wrote COTG to have the nude scene in it. he was TOLD to put in. he was basically forced to put it in. thus it wasn't necessary. Had he, the writer and creator, chosen to put it in there in the first place, then this topic wouldn't exist.

Then we're on the same page. Cool. 'Cause this is also where I think some people are misunderstanding me.

I'm not advocating for nudity all the time, everywhere. Really guys, I'm not. Neither am I sex-crazed or depraved. I just don't see anything wrong with nudity when it is done tastefully and appropriately. That's all. No biggy.

That's why audience warnings exist. Although, I do think that showing a bare breast or bare tush shouldn't merit a warning if it's not used in a sexual way, but that's a whole other can of worms.

[Skydiver]

with shau'ri, it wasn't a glimpse like situations where someone gets out of bed or someone is changing, it was a lingering and deliberate 'see, look at the boobies we can show you'

did they focus on the terror on her face? or pops being a perv and a letch?

no, they took thier time to show off a pretty girl for no other reason than they COULD show off the pretty girl

There are times when you need to spell stuff out for the audience...such as chimera and pete and since no one has ever canonly explained how he found the stakeout, the assuption was made that he stalked sam. if they'd have just explained it, the character wouldn't have been assassinated.

however, we didn't need to see shau'ri in her birthday suit to realize her terror and vulnerabilty. It could have been established just as well with seeing her dress get cut off, it fall to the floor, her horror and pops leering like a perv

and if we were supposed to connect with her vulnerabilty, shouldn't the focus be on her face and her emotions rather than her body?

[Pandora's_Box]

with shau'ri, it wasn't a glimpse like situations where someone gets out of bed or someone is changing, it was a lingering and deliberate 'see, look at the boobies we can show you'

did they focus on the terror on her face? or pops being a perv and a letch?

no, they took thier time to show off a pretty girl for no other reason than they COULD show off the pretty girl

There are times when you need to spell stuff out for the audience...such as chimera and pete and since no one has ever canonly explained how he found the stakeout, the assuption was made that he stalked sam. if they'd have just explained it, the character wouldn't have been assassinated.

however, we didn't need to see shau'ri in her birthday suit to realize her terror and vulnerabilty. It could have been established just as well with seeing her dress get cut off, it fall to the floor, her horror and pops leering like a perv

and if we were supposed to connect with her vulnerabilty, shouldn't the focus be on her face and her emotions rather than her body?

Completely agree. Showing skin for the sake of it cheapens the whole argument. It just serves as fodder and proof for those that wish to portray all forms of nudity in a bad light.

If it's not there to prove a point or to further illustrate one then it shouldn't be there. Just like any other thing that the showrunners would cut if it didn't serve a purpose.

In this case, her nudity could have been used tastefully. Nudity is often associated with vulnerability, and emotional, as well as physical, nakedness, or helplessness. It could have been used to further illustrate that she was being subjected to the will of a perverse and sick captor. So I can see them potentially using the visual of her nude to depict that aspect of the scene as well as showing the terror in her eyes.

If however, their sole purpose for the nudity was to potentially drag in more male viewers, well, like I said, that's a step backward for the cause.

[Nolamom]

if we were supposed to connect with her vulnerabilty, shouldn't the focus be on her face and her emotions rather than her body?

That was such an unnecessary shot, at the expense of truly showing the terror of the situation. Showtime has done that with a few shows. One of the things I found so disappointing with Odessy 5 was the incredible amount of bad language - just for the sake of saying it.

[Skydiver]

BSG gets on my nerves with thier endless frakking

i'm a fan of cussing,t rust me i am, but seriously, they cram it in so often that it gets trying.

i got sick and tired of enterprise because i got sick of hte characters stripping down to thier undies every episode and t'pol's boobs being put on display at every opportunity

[jenks]

with shau'ri, it wasn't a glimpse like situations where someone gets out of bed or someone is changing, it was a lingering and deliberate 'see, look at the boobies we can show you'

did they focus on the terror on her face? or pops being a perv and a letch?

no, they took thier time to show off a pretty girl for no other reason than they COULD show off the pretty girl

There are times when you need to spell stuff out for the audience...such as chimera and pete and since no one has ever canonly explained how he found the stakeout, the assuption was made that he stalked sam. if they'd have just explained it, the character wouldn't have been assassinated.

however, we didn't need to see shau'ri in her birthday suit to realize her terror and vulnerabilty. It could have been established just as well with seeing her dress get cut off, it fall to the floor, her horror and pops leering like a perv

and if we were supposed to connect with her vulnerabilty, shouldn't the focus be on her face and her emotions rather than her body?

Err no? Vulnerability isn't something they could have conveyed with a facial expression, especially not after Apophis had used the hand device on her so her face was completely blank. What better way to show her vulnerability than showing her completely naked, exposed, defenseless? I know they could have just shown her from the back, but I don't think it would have had the same impact.

[rlr149]

If it's not there to prove a point or to further illustrate one then it shouldn't be there. Just like any other thing that the showrunners would cut if it didn't serve a purpose.

it did further illustrate a point, yes, it wasn't 'needed', but then was the severed head 'needed'? was teal'c driving a sword down slowly through someones chest 'needed'? does the actual stargate show itself 'need' to be made? do you even 'need' a TV? non of it 'needs' to be done. they were using violence to titilate/excite............... yet i'm not seeing 8 page threads about how they weren't 'needed'.
out of ten years of stargate, one 5 second scene, garners more shock and horror than............ how many hideous, 'not needed' deaths?

[Pandora's_Box]

it did further illustrate a point, yes, it wasn't 'needed', but then was the severed head 'needed'? was teal'c driving a sword down slowly through someones chest 'needed'? does the actual stargate show itself 'need' to be made? do you even 'need' a TV? non of it 'needs' to be done. they were using violence to titilate/excite............... yet i'm not seeing 8 page threads about how they weren't 'needed'.
out of ten years of stargate, one 5 second scene, garners more shock and horror than............ how many hideous, 'not needed' deaths?

Ummmm....I wasn't speaking about that scene in particular, just FYI. I did note in that very same post you quoted that nudity in this case served the purpose of illustrating her vulnerability, helpness, emotional and physical nakedness etc....
And I have said in many, many posts I am also one who doesn't see the sense or correctness of being so overly comfortable with violence on this show (and I have used that same severed head example too) than we are with nudity.

Just clearing that up, cause you're comment felt a little like an attack (if you didn't mean it that way, then cool) and I have made my position clear on topic. Very, very clear in fact.