Stargate and Nudity

[Pitry]

that may have been the intent but it doesn't come across on screen as that............ if you actually watch the show for story and not just to find things to complain about!!

It doesn't matter that it doesn't come across as such. Actually it makes it worse. Because the network executives' intention was to tantalise the viewers, and if they think they achieved it by a scene that, basicaly, depicts rape, then it's a bit disturbing. So are they stupid for thinking a naked woman would get their viewers hot under any context, or do they think their viewers are stupid for not noticing what's actually going on there?

Brad Wright didnt want the nudity but im willing to bet if it was up to Martin Gero (the man who wrote and directed a movie called "Young People ****ing") was in charge and he was allowed to do what he wanted then we probably would see afew nude scenes on SG1/SGA.

Mmmm..... I call nonsense. The fact someone has no problem showing nudity in one show doesn't mean they automatically think it fits everywhere. The original Queer as folk has nudity and sex on each and every episode (albeit only 8 of them) an dquite a lot of it, too. Now, you know what, forget the lack of nudity and sex on DW - although this is a major showcase for putting nudity in one place and not the other - the same person also wrote a version of Casanova that, in the end, had a lot less nudity or sex than you would have expected based on title and the fact it's written by "the same person who wrote QAF". It's abuot contxt.
If Martin gero was in charge of SGA, we would have probably got the exact same amounts of sex and nudity. Maybe less.

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

Since 1996 our nudity laws arent as relaxed due to the right wing government which was incharge but Australia's nudity laws are still alot more relaxed than in the USA.

- At 6:30pm i saw footage of a female streaker in a early 1980's football Grand Final
- At 7:30pm i once saw nudity on television as a travel show went to a nude beach.
- At 8:30pm nudity is allowed with a sexual context.
- At 9:30pm you are allowed nudity with a sexual context aswell as medium level sex scenes.

Well don't tell me all this. Tell the council in Adelaide.

[rlr149]

It doesn't matter that it doesn't come across as such. Actually it makes it worse. Because the network executives' intention was to tantalise the viewers, and if they think they achieved it by a scene that, basicaly, depicts rape, then it's a bit disturbing. So are they stupid for thinking a naked woman would get their viewers hot under any context, or do they think their viewers are stupid for not noticing what's actually going on there?

the network execs probably just said 'boobs' in any context. brad wright in his wisdom put them in a scene that does actually have a context though. a reasonable reason to show it without it just being for the sake of showing it..........

and given the reaction to SGA cancellation and "OMG I WON'T WATCH UNIVERSE, THE BAS%$£%$!!!!!", i'd go with the viewers being the idiots in most cases, like i said, the 'people' want to watch x factor etc etc etc

[Pitry]

the network execs probably just said 'boobs' in any context. brad wright in his wisdom put them in a scene that does actually have a context though. a reasonable reason to show it without it just being for the sake of showing it..........

Well, I don't know when and how that demand occured. I'm just getting the feeling that if earlier you were accusing BW of selling out in giving in to the demands of the network, the reaction fo clearing them of this and going out of your way to defend such a cynical use of the female body is a bit selling out, too.

[Betelgeuze]

Maybe it would be a good thing if there is more nudity on tv. People will get used to it, and maybe stop seeing the human body as something that should allways be coverd and realise that nudity is not necessarily sexual.

[rlr149]

Well, I don't know when and how that demand occured. I'm just getting the feeling that if earlier you were accusing BW of selling out in giving in to the demands of the network, the reaction fo clearing them of this and going out of your way to defend such a cynical use of the female body is a bit selling out, too.

that's what he has done. he let nudity into COTG and is now making the judgment for all of us that nudity is somehow wrong and to be removed. hypocritical to say the least, given that he is guilty of peddling it. or is he claiming he 'was only following orders!!!'

as for a cynical use of the female body, it would have been infinitely more cynical if it had been the blond air force woman playing 'strip poker' with the other airmen, 'ensign expendable' if you will, instead of a woman being viewed as a piece of meat by a totally evil bast%^$, the key 'bad guy' for seasons to come, and a key plot element.

to clarify, i'm not advocating or defending network execs, they do what they do! however, people holding up brad wright as the creator and saying its what he wants and those evil network execs made him do it!!!. no they didn't 'make' him do it, he could have stayed true to his belief that nudity is wrong and walked with his creation, but no, he went for the cash!.......... just seems a bit of a cheat to only be pious when you can afford to be.

[Cory Holmes]

that's what he has done. he let nudity into COTG and is now making the judgment for all of us that nudity is somehow wrong and to be removed. hypocritical to say the least, given that he is guilty of peddling it. or is he claiming he 'was only following orders!!!'

I disagree with the bolded bits. I understand that what he's doing is making the judgement for all of us that nudity is somehow wrong for his show. That's the difference.

[big-boss-91]

i'm not sure there should be any naked moments in stargate, it just doen't suit the stargate fans as its a family show.
when 30 seconds to mars music video "from yesterday" it had nudity for part of a seconds and the video had been branded explict from everyone just because of that tiny brief moment.
plus naked people would give a child ideas about the opposite sex that they shouldn't know about until the infamous video in yr 7. plus parents wouldn't be happy knowing that a 8 year old is watching porn that turned out to be a very badly writen scene from stargate (children of the gods)

[rlr149]

I disagree with the bolded bits. I understand that what he's doing is making the judgement for all of us that nudity is somehow wrong for his show. That's the difference.

it was good enough at the time, and if it was 'his' show, why is the nudity there?

i'm not sure there should be any naked moments in stargate, it just doen't suit the stargate fans as its a family show.

it was in the first episode, the 'pilot' that sold the show to the channels. it kind of defines the shows intended audience don't you think?

plus naked people would give a child ideas about the opposite sex that they shouldn't know about until the infamous video in yr 7.

don't let them watch it then, you are allowed to say 'no' to kids you know?

plus parents wouldn't be happy knowing that a 8 year old is watching porn that turned out to be a very badly writen scene from stargate (children of the gods)

i wouldn't let an 8 year old watch stargate full stop(unless i considered him/her reasonably/very mature for their age). the reason last on the list being that scene in COTG. as an arbitrary age rating i'd say 12 but it does depend on the child, i bet all parents at this point are saying "mines ok" because all parents 'want' to believe the best of their child, if that was always the case though we would have no 'problem' children other than actual physical disorders. until you're sure they can differentiate right from wrong then just be safe and deny them the show, they won't die without it. or even be harmed in any way! you may even teach them something valuable about not always getting what they want.
and having looked at the listings, there's 20 channels specifically for kids in the UK alone, if you as a parent don't have time to watch the show first to see if its suitable, wouldn't you be better picking one of those channels for your child to be babysat by? not that i think you should use TV as a babysitter!!!

and lol at that scene being 'porn' have you not seen 90% of the internet?

[Pitry]

that's what he has done. he let nudity into COTG and is now making the judgment for all of us that nudity is somehow wrong and to be removed. hypocritical to say the least, given that he is guilty of peddling it. or is he claiming he 'was only following orders!!!'

I'm wiht Cory Holmes on this one, he says he doesn't feel it belongs in Stargate. Do I feel it's a bit of a hypocritical POV? yes, as I've said several posts back, when we still Talion to this day. That's not "family material" either.

as for a cynical use of the female body, it would have been infinitely more cynical if it had been the blond air force woman playing 'strip poker' with the other airmen, 'ensign expendable' if you will, instead of a woman being viewed as a piece of meat by a totally evil bast%^$, the key 'bad guy' for seasons to come, and a key plot element.

What makes the use fo the female body cynical is not the context, but the thought behind it. Having the airforce soldiers playing strip poker would have been just as cynical as showing full frontal nudity with the hope of making young males want to watch the show. This is exactly the part where you make excuses for the network executives - you're putting false context into their actions in order to excuse what you think is right. Well, sorry, the end does not justify the means in my world, and the fact that scene can be seen as a horrific mment of vulnerability to Sha'uri does not excuse the fact that it was put there in the first place in order to tantalise men.

to clarify, i'm not advocating or defending network execs, they do what they do! however, people holding up brad wright as the creator and saying its what he wants and those evil network execs made him do it!!!. no they didn't 'make' him do it, he could have stayed true to his belief that nudity is wrong and walked with his creation, but no, he went for the cash!.......... just seems a bit of a cheat to only be pious when you can afford to be.

Here's the thing though. It's not his creation. It's not like JMS could have walked out with his crusade, or Joss Whdeon with his Firefly. Stargate is owned completely and utterly by MGM, who have hired Brad Wright to take care of the franchise. He could have walked off, in which case someone else would have got Stargate and the nudity would have still been there. By staying there he put himself in a powerful enough position to say "okay, we'll give you that but this is the only scene of this kind we're going to put", and to include episodes in Stargate such as Enigma or Solitudes that are more family viewing than what you would have expected from Showtime in primetime.
The key here, as soon as he could, and a long time before he could re-edit CotG and do something about it, he said howmuch he doesn't like that scene.
Again - yes, I do think he's a hypocrite for having a problem with the nudity and not the violence, and with the fact that apart from actual nudity he seems to have no problem whatsoever with putting women in very revealing clothes with no actual reason other than show some cleavage.
But yes, defending the artistic freedom when the seen in quesion is something the artist (for lack of a better word) didn't want to include in the first place, and that was put there not for all the giood reasons it cuold have been put there but for cynical reasons is a bit hypocritical too.

Again - I'm not speaing against nudity in television or movies in general. If BW would have had to fight the network executives in order to put that scene in there because of all these good reasons you have been reciting and failed I'd probably complained too. But context is important.

[Womble]

Maybe it would be a good thing if there is more nudity on tv. People will get used to it, and maybe stop seeing the human body as something that should allways be coverd and realise that nudity is not necessarily sexual.

Next time you walk down the street, look around you and ask yourself how many of those people you would want to see naked.

What's with the clothes-hating these days?

[Coco Pops]

Here's the thing though. It's not his creation. It's not like JMS could have walked out with his crusade, or Joss Whdeon with his Firefly.

Actually wasn't Firefly an idea created by Joss Whedon? He just needed the network to put int he money to see his idea come to life?

Same for Crusade and Babylon 5..... In which case had both these people walked way they would have retained their original creation while someone else made it "their" creation, thus changing it forever?

[Pitry]

Actually wasn't Firefly an idea created by Joss Whedon? He just needed the network to put int he money to see his idea come to life?

Same for Crusade and Babylon 5..... In which case had both these people walked way they would have retained their original creation while someone else made it "their" creation, thus changing it forever?

The Firefly bit was taken frmo a different discussion, I personally believed up til then it was just cancelled due to ratings.
Crusade, however, is a case in point - because it was cancelled after JMS walked away, and apparently he retained enough of the rights to be able to do that without the network installing someone else instead.

[Erised]

I didn't like nudity in CotG, but it'd be nice to see a little more than we did in Fallen! Maybe a butt?

[rlr149]

Next time you walk down the street, look around you and ask yourself how many of those people you would want to see naked.

What's with the clothes-hating these days?

it makes a nice change from the incredibly common nudity hating we usually have.

Here's the thing though. It's not his creation.

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

thus, in the mind of the show's creator, it wasn't necessary,

which is it?