Stargate and Nudity

[Pandora's_Box]

i'd say it depends on whether you think the show/ movie your waiting for is a 'right' or a 'privilege'

I don't think it much matters in the minds of the viewing public. They'll be disgruntled regardless of whether they'd be in the right to do so.

[Cory Holmes]

I still maintain that the only nude scene in Stargate to get worked up over is one by Amanda Tapping or Torri Higginson.

Any other scene is, by definition, less important.

[Atlantis1]

I would tend to agree. Everyone always has the option to change the channel, not see a movie, turn around, whatever.

And then I look at it from another perspective. Say you've waited years and years for a an adaptation of your favourite novel or graphic novel or what-have-you. You've been super excited, nearly to tears with anticipation. Now say you're also a person that doesn't particulary enjoy seeing nudity in movies or on TV. Those shows you tend to avoid.

Now imagine that the producers, screen-writers, and director have decided to go ahead and make this film you've been waiting eons to see, more sexually explicit than you particularly like? It's not necessarily gratuitous, but you've heard beforehand and seen from trailers and the rating that it's going to not be something you enjoy watching. Do you then not have the right to get upset and to rally others around you and protest this move?

I'm not trying to analyse whether either party is right or wrong, merely to point out that while it's easy to say, "change the channel" or "stop watching" (and I'm guilty of doing the saying, I'll admit) that sometimes there are situations where a lot of people will remain displeased and disgruntled.

I realize that it is impossible to please everyone all the time, but sometimes even I have to wonder if more than half of all the shows and movies and motifs that Hollywood sexualizes are necessary to be depicted that way.

So bringing this thread back to Stargate. While I have a right to change the channel if they added nudity to Stargate, how many others would do the same as me. How big of a viewership would the show have if this happened.
Right now my only reason for paying for cable is to see SGA. When it goes off the air, I will be cancelling my cable.

[Womble]

I guess it depends on how big your movie going life is.

Mine's significantly bigger than average.

Can you give us a list of said movies, and which ones are violent and which ones have too much sex?

Robocop- X-rated, insanely violent in the original version. The gore had to be trimmed and additional scenes inserted to lighten the mood for the movie to get an R rating. Strong fascist overtones, easily detectable if you keep your eyes open.

Total Recall- violence overload again; had to be edited to receive an R rating. Quite mild compared to other Verhoeven movies though.

Basic Instinct- you know.

Showgirls- gratuitious nudity, full frontal all over the place. It couldn't even be trimmed out; they had to censor the whole thing by digitally added bras and panties all throughout the film). Generally considered to be one of the worst movies ever made.

Starship Troopers- probably the first movie since World war II that had its good guys wear uniforms transparently based on those of the Nazi SS. Abundant violence and some seriously disturbing imagery. The "brain bug" not only looks like a huge vagina on legs, it is also being drilled. Literally. With a jackhammer.

Hollow Man- a seriously psychotic R-raterd rendition of H.G. Wells "The Invisible Man". Graphic violence (against women, of course; every Verhoeven movie has lots of violence against women), voyerism and all-around disturbing character interaction. Woefully bad to the point of unwatchable on top of everything else.

Would that be enough, or do I need to go into his European cinematic exercises, with stuff like a raped woman flirting with her rapist or the same couple having sex in front of a chained prisoner they have just tortured together?

[jenks]

Starship Troopers- probably the first movie since World war II that had its good guys wear uniforms transparently based on those of the Nazi SS.

Well the movie was pretty much a satire of the right wing/fascist elements of American society, so it's not surprising.

Abundant violence and some seriously disturbing imagery. The "brain bug" not only looks like a huge vagina on legs, it is also being drilled. Literally. With a jackhammer.

The girls you know don't happen to live near nuclear reactors do they?

[Coco Pops]

Mine's significantly bigger than average.


Robocop- X-rated, insanely violent in the original version. The gore had to be trimmed and additional scenes inserted to lighten the mood for the movie to get an R rating. Strong fascist overtones, easily detectable if you keep your eyes open.

I have the DVD set with the uncut version of this and had no major issues with the content. The world in this movie has gone to crap, hence the violence and the need for a robocop. Not fascist but the government seems to have gone on holiday permanently and now corporations run the world.

Sadly a scenario that is likely to happen in the real world as governments lose their balls to corporations calling the shots like big oil.....

Total Recall- violence overload again; had to be edited to receive an R rating. Quite mild compared to other Verhoeven movies though.

I just thought it was the typical Arnie movie and didn't mind.

Basic Instinct- you know.

Tame by today's comparisons

Showgirls- gratuitious nudity, full frontal all over the place. It couldn't even be trimmed out; they had to censor the whole thing by digitally added bras and panties all throughout the film). Generally considered to be one of the worst movies ever made.

The premise was crap so it could have been avoided without knowing all the rude bits were there.

Starship Troopers- probably the first movie since World war II that had its good guys wear uniforms transparently based on those of the Nazi SS. Abundant violence and some seriously disturbing imagery. The "brain bug" not only looks like a huge vagina on legs, it is also being drilled. Literally. With a jackhammer.

I happen to like the idea of a one world government. And I don't think the one here is fascist. I don't know where everyone gets the idea that ST shows a fascist government. Their only requirement is that if you want to be a true citizen you contribute to society, but doesn't mean they abandon everyone.

Oh come on. You only saw what you wanted to see and because you did you can criticize the film. Yes well there you go. And in that same scene a big banner saying "censored" drops onto the screen so you don't see any of what you were complaining about. So the movie self censored itself.

Sure it was violent but it was make believe, and the bad guys were CGI bugs gee. who would have thought that would cause uproar?

Hollow Man- a seriously psychotic R-raterd rendition of H.G. Wells "The Invisible Man". Graphic violence (against women, of course; every Verhoeven movie has lots of violence against women), voyerism and all-around disturbing character interaction. Woefully bad to the point of unwatchable on top of everything else.

I sort of like Hollow Man. So I guess that makes me a bad person

Would that be enough, or do I need to go into his European cinematic exercises, with stuff like a raped woman flirting with her rapist or the same couple having sex in front of a chained prisoner they have just tortured together?

That's enough... and we shall agree on most things but disagree. I liked some of the movies in your list.

[Coco Pops]

Now imagine that the producers, screen-writers, and director have decided to go ahead and make this film you've been waiting eons to see, more sexually explicit than you particularly like? It's not necessarily gratuitous, but you've heard beforehand and seen from trailers and the rating that it's going to not be something you enjoy watching. Do you then not have the right to get upset and to rally others around you and protest this move?

No.... Why should I want to protest a movie say updates and makes modern a favourite story of mine. Why should I spoil the fun of other people by protesting. I will just not go to the movie if I felt that strongly about the changes to the story, or I would wait till the DVD comes out and watch it in comfort in my own home.

Why should I protest. It's not my role to protest just because the film isn't to my liking. I just won't go to see it.

[Womble]

Well the movie was pretty much a satire of the right wing/fascist elements of American society, so it's not surprising.

That's how it is often explained away, yes- very convenient- except that it's this weird kind of "fascist" in which there's neither racial nor gender discrimination. There is, in fact, nothing in the movie's society that would cause it to be seen as a satire on the American right wing. In no part of the movie does it actually target anything conservative; on the contrary, if anything, it depicts a society that is liberal to the point of Utopian except for its bizarre militarism. A considerable effort is made to make us love and identify with these Nazi uniform-wearing characters. And then one notices that the "propaganda adverts" in the movie are indeed satire- on the World war II anti-Nazi propaganda films, most notably Frank Capra's "Why we fight", and things get interesting indeed.

The girls you know don't happen to live near nuclear reactors do they?

Have you kept your eyes closed when watching the movie or something?

[Madeleine]

So bringing this thread back to Stargate. While I have a right to change the channel if they added nudity to Stargate, how many others would do the same as me. How big of a viewership would the show have if this happened.

I'd be interested to know if anyone was offended by Ernest, Daniel or Replicarter being naked. Does anyone know of anyone who turned off because of any of those?

[LostCityGuardian]

I'd be interested to know if anyone was offended by Ernest, Daniel or Replicarter being naked. Does anyone know of anyone who turned off because of any of those?

I personally had no trouble with any of these. They all seemed to serve the plot - or the flip side of this, it wasn't gratuitous nudity. Ernest is justifiable, as a guy out of touch with the rest of humanity for 50 years is unlikely to dress when no one else is present. Daniel makes sense in the context that his clothes were left behind when he ascended, meaning that continuity was maintained with him reappearing without clothes. Maybe Replicarter is the least convincing (since replicator clothes seem to be made up of replicator blocks), but I still thought that given the writers seemed to be trying to suggest that she was an infant when she emerged, having her naked and covered with liquid like a baby is when born seemed appropriate.

[jenks]

Have you kept your eyes closed when watching the movie or something?

Ha ha you might be right actually, I couldn't understand what you meant until I refreshed my memory...

[Coco Pops]

Ha ha you might be right actually, I couldn't understand what you meant until I refreshed my memory...

That's nothing like a vagina... At least none that I am familiar with

[Daedalus-304]

I'd be interested to know if anyone was offended by Ernest, Daniel or Replicarter being naked. Does anyone know of anyone who turned off because of any of those?

Actually, this one time a few years ago my sister brought a friend over and noticed I was watching Stargate. She mentioned that she like Stargate, but thought the part with Daniel naked was gross.

I don't have a problem with these however, because you don't see anything.

[Col. Newman]

Well the movie was pretty much a satire of the right wing/fascist elements of American society, so it's not surprising.

LOL no it's not statire. I take it you have never read the book.

[jenks]

LOL no it's not statire. I take it you have never read the book.

I haven't, but I know the movie makes little effort to stay true to the book at all. The satire in the movie is blatant, remember the 'a murderer was caught this morning and tried today, witness the execution live tonight!' part, or something like that... about as subtle as a bag of hammers!