Stargate and Nudity

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

Context is everything. Read starfox post (post 939) which discusses when nudity can be used to add to a story.

I guess it was inevitable that this thread would rear (no pun intended) its head again.

Okay, as per your suggestion, I reread post 939 along with your later reply which reads:

Brilliant post. Nudity can be used in stargate in a tasteful way and actually add to the show.

So now tell us, how does the nudity scene in COTG add to the show?

[starfox]

Actually, it's not so much about seeing particular parts of the human body, but explicit sex scenes - whether they actually show usually hidden body parts - that I wouldn't like to see in SG.

See, I think the fact that so many people automatically think nudity = sex scene is one of the reasons we should see more non-sexual nudity on television.

I think I remember hearing that they shot an underwater scene in "The Return, Part 2" with Sheppard swimming in his underwear to hit the levers, but didn't use it because they thought nearly-naked JF would be distracting and viewed as gratuitous. However, it still would have made more sense than Jack doing the same thing fully clothed, which is the scene that made it into the final cut. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that we got to see Jack being an action hero, but the fact that they cut the more realistic shot because they thought the audience couldn't handle Shep in boxer-briefs is sad. I wouldn't mind if they changed it because they wanted Jack to be the hero, but changing it because JF in his shorts is too titillating bothers me.

[ykickamoocow]

See, I think the fact that so many people automatically think nudity = sex scene is one of the reasons we should see more non-sexual nudity on television.

Very true people need to learn that nudity can be seen on screen without it having a sexual context.

I think I remember hearing that they shot an underwater scene in "The Return, Part 2" with Sheppard swimming in his underwear to hit the levers, but didn't use it because they thought nearly-naked JF would be distracting and viewed as gratuitous. However, it still would have made more sense than Jack doing the same thing fully clothed, which is the scene that made it into the final cut. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that we got to see Jack being an action hero, but the fact that they cut the more realistic shot because they thought the audience couldn't handle Shep in boxer-briefs is sad. I wouldn't mind if they changed it because they wanted Jack to be the hero, but changing it because JF in his shorts is too titillating bothers me.

I hope that isnt true as it would be a sad reflection on society in general.


Martin Gero's movie "Young People ****ing" shows that atleast 1 major writer in Stargate Atlantis doesnt mind nudity and im willing to bet that if he were allowed he would write a nude scene or two in Stargate Atlantis.

[Coco Pops]

Very true people need to learn that nudity can be seen on screen without it having a sexual context.

I get that. I really do. But as long as the scene does tie into the plot and it's not nudity "just because you can do it" and just because you want it in the show. As long as there's a time and place it is meant to be...

Other then that there is no logical reason to have nudity just for nudity's sake

[Pawe]

As long as this show is paid by American dollars, there won't be any nudity in it. Why not? Because when you look at that hypocrite nation as a whole... hey, seeing someones bare butt is just "awful". Man being shot to death with fully automatic gun point blank is alright though. See any contradictions? If you're a good storyteller, and you have director who knows how to do his job, you can use nudity for *story's sake*. That being, if it adds to the overall feeling of the episode or darkens/brightens the mood, it's okay.

It's a shame though that most of the viewers are those "OMIGOD ITS A BARE BREAST! I STOP WATCHING STARGATE!" -people. On the other hand, nowadays with all these legal suits and whatnot flourishing in US for God knows what reasons it's safer to play on the "good side" of TV. Le sigh.

[tayradio]

So now tell us, how does the nudity scene in COTG add to the show?

I think someone else somewhere in the thread described the nudity as lending to the scene a certain sense of Shau're's vulnerability, and I think that's true, IMO - she's standing there completely vulnerable in front of this "god" and his warriors, she has nothing left. No control over her situation or her life, completely at his mercy. I think in the scene as it was played out the nudity wasn't gratuitous, I thought it did add something to the show in that case.

[tayradio]

I think I remember hearing that they shot an underwater scene in "The Return, Part 2" with Sheppard swimming in his underwear to hit the levers, but didn't use it because they thought nearly-naked JF would be distracting and viewed as gratuitous.

Are you kidding? I mean, I'd rather have seen Jack as the hero just because I like Jack better and we hadn't seen him around much at that point, but... I don't think I would have been scarred for life OR distracted beyond rational thought at the sight of JF in a pair of wet boxers. Not that there's anything wrong with JF in a pair of wet boxers. I just don't think that's quite naked enough to be considered distracting to me.

[Skydiver]

if it's a logical part of the story, ok. like someone getting out of bed, walking out of the shower.

but out of place 'let's show skin cause we can'???

it's gratuitous and, to me, unnecessary. If it's being stuck in to hit a quota or 'ok, we havent' had them in their skivvies for 3 eps, it's time now' then it's silly.

I literally stopped watching enterprise, not only because the stories sucked, but i also got tired of t'pol's boobs being in the shot all the time, along with the persistent 'in their undies smearing decontamination jel on each other' on a regular basis.

when it becomes that persistent, it's not necessary to the story as much as it's being used to prop up what the writers/ptb know are a weak show/story.

i do feel that shau'ri's full monty was unnecessary. they'd already showed that ketterlin was nude without baring it all, so shau'ri could have been handled the same way. but tehy chose to go for the 'lowest common denominator' and titilate the fanboys.

it was transparent and slightly pathetic, and, in my opinion, fortunately a trend that didnt' continue.

Just because you CAN show nudity doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD.

For example, Dexter strips down his victime (he's a serial killer in the showtime series Dexter) but they use plastic wrap to cover the pertinent bits. so they're nude but i'm not seeing all their bits and pieces. I don't need to see boobs to know she's naked.

On the other hand, when Dexter has sex with his girlfriend, we'll see bits of boob, and it fits in because it's a logical time to bare her breasts.

naked when it's logical in the story to be naked, covered when it's not.

[ykickamoocow]

if it's a logical part of the story, ok. like someone getting out of bed, walking out of the shower.

Agreed. What always annoyed me though is the film techniques used to cover up nudity when nudity is called for in the script. For example Earnest in season 1 where they had objects in very convenient places to hide his nudity. It was silly and i wouldnt have had a problem with them actually showing him naked instead of using weird film techniques to hide it.

Another film technique i have a problem with is after 2 characters have had sex you see them talking to one another in bed. The man has the sheets down to his waist but the woman has the sheets all the way up her shoulders. I wouldnt have a problem if both characters had the sheets up to their shoulders but to have the male with the sheets down to his waist and the female have the sheets up to her chin just seems stupid. Either have both characters have the sheets up to their chin or have both characters with the sheets down at their waist. Dont have different sheet levels for different characters who are in the same bed.

I literally stopped watching enterprise, not only because the stories sucked, but i also got tired of t'pol's boobs being in the shot all the time, along with the persistent 'in their undies smearing decontamination jel on each other' on a regular basis.

There writers use of T'Pol was irritating and i agree with you that it was completely pointless as it added nothing to the story other than for T'Pol to show abit of skin.

when it becomes that persistent, it's not necessary to the story as much as it's being used to prop up what the writers/ptb know are a weak show/story.

I agree. When the story can be improved by showing nudity then they should show it but adding nudity for the sake of nudity isnt a good thing.

i do feel that shau'ri's full monty was unnecessary. they'd already showed that ketterlin was nude without baring it all, so shau'ri could have been handled the same way. but tehy chose to go for the 'lowest common denominator' and titilate the fanboys.

it was transparent and slightly pathetic, and, in my opinion, fortunately a trend that didnt' continue.

I disagree here. They didnt show the first woman completely naked as she was a no name SF who the audience didnt really care about. Shau'ri on the other chand was the wife of a main character and as such the audience cared what happened to her. Seeing her completely naked and completely helpless infront of the Apophis showed to the audience how the Goa'uld were evil and saw humans as nothing more than cattle.

naked when it's logical in the story to be naked, covered when it's not.

Agreed 100%. If a character has just had sex and are getting out of the bed they should be nude, if a character is having a shower they should be nude. When it is logical for a character to be nude they should show the nudity instead of treating the audience like children by hiding the nudity.

[Jill_Ion]

yes, its best to desensitize her to the violence now so she can be more effective as 'cannon fodder' later, do you live in america by chance?

You must be addressing someone else, even though you quoted me because I said,

Nudity doesn't bother me, but IMHO, it doesn't fit with the style of the SG franchise. I like that my young niece can watch this show.

Actually, it's not so much about seeing particular parts of the human body, but explicit sex scenes - whether they actually show usually hidden body parts - that I wouldn't like to see in SG.

Still, I don't need to see Shep's bare butt to know it's totally hot.

I didn't say anything about violence. Notice how "violence" doesn't appear anywhere in my post? My preference for a young girl to not be exposed to nudity or explicit sex scenes has nothing to do with my preferences on her viewing violence. That's a different topic for a different thread. You made a leap that simply wasn't there. Do you do that a lot, by chance?

BTW, you don't want to get into it with me about "cannon fodder."

See, I think the fact that so many people automatically think nudity = sex scene is one of the reasons we should see more non-sexual nudity on television.

Uh...no. That's why I talked first about nudity, then about sex scenes. They are two different things, so I addressed them separately. When I was talking about sex scenes, I said,

Actually, it's not so much about seeing particular parts of the human body, but explicit sex scenes - whether they actually show usually hidden body parts - that I wouldn't like to see in SG.

There are lots of explicit sex scenes on TV that don't show breasts, butts, penises or vaginas, but are explicit. As I said, I don't want to see that on SGA, because I know pre-teens watch the show.

And I still think nudity isn't in the SG style and wouldn't add to the show. YMMV.

[rlr149]

You must be addressing someone else, even though you quoted me because I said

no, i was addressing you, hence the quoting of your post

I didn't say anything about violence. Notice how "violence" doesn't appear anywhere in my post?

seeing as you mention 'explicit sex' later in this para........... which has never been in SG either...... pot, kettle, calling, black. rearrange please.

My preference for a young girl to not be exposed to nudity or explicit sex scenes has nothing to do with my preferences on her viewing violence. That's a different topic for a different thread. You made a leap that simply wasn't there. Do you do that a lot, by chance?

read the thread again, violence being OK whilst nudity is abhorrent is a recurring theme

BTW, you don't want to get into it with me about "cannon fodder."

yes i do, you intrigued me with this cryptic statement

[Coco Pops]

I have a question that I wish to ask again.. it's only a little one and I think it got lost in the discussion, but since people have mentioned violence and nudity in the same posts I will ask again.

"Is stylised violence similar to scenes like in Dr. Who where people clearly get shot but you don't see any blood?" For example Jenny in the "doctor's daughter" episode. She gets shot in the chest but no blood.

In other words you see the act, and the intent but no gore

[ykickamoocow]

I have a question that I wish to ask again.. it's only a little one and I think it got lost in the discussion, but since people have mentioned violence and nudity in the same posts I will ask again.

"Is stylised violence similar to scenes like in Dr. Who where people clearly get shot but you don't see any blood?" For example Jenny in the "doctor's daughter" episode. She gets shot in the chest but no blood.

In other words you see the act, and the intent but no gore

I personally think stylised violence is at a similar level to low level nudity (breast and buttocks). Higher level of violence and gore (like Michael raising the head of the decapitated Wraith queen, seeing vissions of horribly burnt Ancient pilots aswell as Vala being killed by the Ori using fire) is probably equal to seeing full frontal nudity.

[Jill_Ion]

no, i was addressing you, hence the quoting of your post

seeing as you mention 'explicit sex' later in this para........... which has never been in SG either...... pot, kettle, calling, black. rearrange please.
read the thread again, violence being OK whilst nudity is abhorrent is a recurring theme

yes i do, you intrigued me with this cryptic statement

I don't have the time or interest to "read the thread again," or talk with you about this topic. I said (twice) what I was talking about. You choose not to see that. You've already set up in your mind my entire opinion about this topic, so discuss it with yourself.

[jenks]

I just wish it wasn't an issue, if a scene requires nudity then put it in, I honestly don't understand why nipples are so controversial anyway...