Stargate and Nudity

[Col. Newman]

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!

Well if you look only at the movie, then I have to agree they made the movie satirical. I have actually never read the book either but I have heard a lot of people talk about it and I read a couple articles about it. It is on my To Read List.

[Atlantis1]

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 could understand the time with Ernest but turned off the other two episodes.

[rlr149]

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.

i mean thats its not listed as a fundamental human right to have the tv show you like meet with your approval. its a 'privilege' to have a tv, not a 'right'.

[Cory Holmes]

In regards to Starship Troopers, one of the more interesting arguments I've heard about it is that it's a movie within a movie.

The movie we're shown in is actually propiganda film for the universe it's set in, complete with commercial breaks (the soldiers and kids, "I'm doing my part!"). That would explain why all the actors are gorgeous, muscle-bound, and pro-government.

That execution scene is also a subtle hint at the facism in the movie's government. Complete abolishment of due process as we know it.

Still, the movie itself was a fun (if somewhat brainless) romp.

[dosed150]

I could understand the time with Ernest but turned off the other two episodes.

you seriously were that offended by those 2 scenes even though you really dont see anything, isnt that a bit of an over reaction

[Madeleine]

I could understand the time with Ernest but turned off the other two episodes.

I can't remember if there was a plot justification for RC being naked, but I'm sure there was one for Daniel being unclothed.

He was yanked from his mode of existence, and thrust with no memory, no clothes, nothing; at the mercy of the weather and the local fauna and folk: it rather emphasises The Others' attitude to those ascended who would help the still-living, and it sets the scene for Daniel's attatchment to the blue-robed people and his initial rejection of SG-1.

I agree that naked men don't look as nice as men with trousers, and I understand that some people wouldn't want to see nudity, but the same could be said of blood and gore and death and torture and sweraring and all sorts of unsavoury things which are not a frequent feature of the show but are used, at times, to emphasise the severity of a situation, or highlight the bravery of our heroes or the callousness of their adversaries, and to give verissimilitude to the episode in question.

Is your distaste confined to the nudity, or are there other visual things that have made you turn off?

[Daedalus-304]

Is your distaste confined to the nudity, or are there other visual things that have made you turn off?

Needles, I can't watch when someone gets a shot or something.

[Madeleine]

Okay, I get that, I cannot handle any TV depictions of dentists at work, I have to leave the room

Which leads us to the question of whether nudity is intrinsicly immoral, or automatically exploitative... or merely unpleasant to look at, like needles and drills

[Shipperahoy]

Well it certainly CAN be unpleasant to look at.

Still, I would much rather see an unattractive naked person than someone being beheaded or tortured onscreen.

[jenks]

Okay, I get that, I cannot handle any TV depictions of dentists at work, I have to leave the room

Which leads us to the question of whether nudity is intrinsicly immoral, or automatically exploitative... or merely unpleasant to look at, like needles and drills

Some people find it unpleasant/embarrassing to look at, which is fine. Unfortunately some people are often so selfish that they'll try to argue that it's immoral or exploitative in order to justify its censorship, for their own sake and no one else's.

[Daedalus-304]

Some people find it unpleasant/embarrassing to look at, which is fine. Unfortunately some people are often so selfish that they'll try to argue that it's immoral or exploitative in order to justify its censorship, for their own sake and no one else's.

But it has been viewed as immoral for a long time. I don't think first people thought it was unpleasant then decided it was immoral. There is a long tradition of believing nudity is immoral. For example you had people back in the Renaissance that went around covering up nude statues with leafs.

[aretood2]

Some people find it unpleasant/embarrassing to look at, which is fine. Unfortunately some people are often so selfish that they'll try to argue that it's immoral or exploitative in order to justify its censorship, for their own sake and no one else's.

Well, If they find it unpleasant and thus try to censor it, Is that not a selfish reason by your logic, and sort off by mine?

[jenks]

But it has been viewed as immoral for a long time. I don't think first people thought it was unpleasant then decided it was immoral. There is a long tradition of believing nudity is immoral. For example you had people back in the Renaissance that went around covering up nude statues with leafs.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Do you think it's immoral? If so, what's your reasoning?

Well, If they find it unpleasant and thus try to censor it, Is that not a selfish reason by your logic, and sort off by mine?

Yes, that was my point.

[rlr149]

But it has been viewed as immoral for a long time. I don't think first people thought it was unpleasant then decided it was immoral. There is a long tradition of believing nudity is immoral. For example you had people back in the Renaissance that went around covering up nude statues with leafs.

first human = circa 60000 years ago news.nationalgeographic.com/news/

renaissance = circa 600 years ago

does 1% of the total time of human existence constitute a 'long time' now?

[longhorn21]

I don't think that there is any justifiable reason to show nudity