Stargate and Nudity

[Pitry]

which is it?

I dunno if the last quote is mine so I don't know if the mistake is mine But no, Stargate is definitely not BW's creation, it's Roland Emmerich's and Dean Devlin's, and they sold their right to have a say on it (to their later regret BTW) to MGM.

[rlr149]

I dunno if the last quote is mine so I don't know if the mistake is mine But no, Stargate is definitely not BW's creation, it's Roland Emmerich's and Dean Devlin's, and they sold their right to have a say on it (to their later regret BTW) to MGM.

it wasn't you(skydiver) and we're at cross purposes, i was talking about SG1 and you appear to be talking the initial SG franchise.
either way if MGM only let him make the show without the final decision on content, which he now has garnered the rights too, it makes him much lamer than george lucas for his changing of star wars............ and that really was his to do with as he pleased.

lets hope ringo starr doesn't get the beetles song rights and decide it didn't go his way the first time.

[Skydiver]

roland and emmerich created the stargate movie, wright and cooper the television version. since the nudity is in the television pilot, it's the episode that BW wrote. R&E had nothing to do with it

[Pitry]

Yes, and neither E&D nor W&C can walk out with Stargate, which was the point. The rights are MGM's, and, as I was trying to say, had BW decided to stick to his principals back with the first episode and preferred to walk away rather than enter nudity, someone else would have got the job and Stargate would still have been produced with nudity.

[Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper]

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?

Well if the intended audience is to be defined as those who like to be tantalized or titillated, then I suppose we could argue that this same audience was cheated when the rest of the series didn't include nudity on a regular basis.

But it seems that Wright and the network may have been at cross-purposes as to who the intended audience was to be. For Wright he was likely aiming the show at the genre of fans who enjoyed (or who would enjoy) the Emmerich-Devlin film and the unfolding mythology that could be woven from it. The network, at that point, seemed to be aiming at a slightly different denominator.

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

Someone did say that a while back, but for most of us, we're not claiming the scene to be porn.

Yes, and neither E&D nor W&C can walk out with Stargate, which was the point. The rights are MGM's, and, as I was trying to say, had BW decided to stick to his principals back with the first episode and preferred to walk away rather than enter nudity, someone else would have got the job and Stargate would still have been produced with nudity.

Plus we don't really know what the consequences would have been for Mr. Wright if he had just walked out. A breach of contract in showbiz is something can result in a lawsuit, or a blacklisting, or totally end a career.

[rlr149]

Well if the intended audience is to be defined as those who like to be tantalized or titillated, then I suppose we could argue that this same audience was cheated when the rest of the series didn't include nudity on a regular basis.

i feel cheated that a 'dark' show is now being retrospectively made for 6 yr olds, and younger apparently!! not so much the nudity per se.

Plus we don't really know what the consequences would have been for Mr. Wright if he had just walked out. A breach of contract in showbiz is something can result in a lawsuit, or a blacklisting, or totally end a career in TV.

fix'd, TV isn't the only industry and its hardly the spanish inquisition!! are your principles worth so little?

[starfox]

i feel cheated that a 'dark' show is now being retrospectively made for 6 yr olds, and younger apparently!! not so much the nudity per se.

fix'd, TV isn't the only industry and its hardly the spanish inquisition!! are your principles worth so little?

Okay, jumping to the other side of the argument for a moment, because this argument is so hugely flawed.

a) Brad Wright never said specifically that he opposed the nudity because of some high falutin' moral precept. It ran counter to his vision for the show which, arguably, is an artistic argument.

b) Creative artists frequently have to compromise their vision for commercial interests. It is either that or live on a street corner and eat stolen dog food, because artists who refuse to compromise don't get hired unless they're the most talented and/or high-profit creatures known to mankind.

c) It was a brief shot of nudity. Not a 30-minute rape scene, not children being carved up and eaten. On the spectrum of things for the average person to quit one's job over, this ranks barely above not liking your desk chair. BW could live with it at the time, however, once he got the chance, he went back and fixed it. Whether or not you agree that the scene required fixing, it was his prerogative.

d) There is a very real difference between losing your job (and the jobs of those who work for you) over something and sucking it up at the time, only to go back and fix it later. Most people get their start working under someone and have to follow along with decisions they may not agree with as they work their way up. This is simply the way the world works. Lambasting a guy for letting one decision slide in order to keep his dream job is simply childish and unrealistic. In a land with unicorns and pixies where everyone crapped rainbows, perhaps artistic principles would be enough to guarantee all people jobs where they could do exactly as they pleased and still make enough money to put food on the table. However, the real world (and the entertainment industry especially) doesn't work like that.

````````````````````````````

I still think the nudity was fine and that COTG didn't need to be re-done, but I can't let flawed arguments stand.

[rlr149]

a) Brad Wright never said specifically that he opposed the nudity because of some high falutin' moral precept. It ran counter to his vision for the show which, arguably, is an artistic argument.

1. it wasn't his show, if it was, the nudity wouldn't be there. arguably he shouldn't be allowed to change it now, not being 'his' vision and all and you can't remove nudity citing 'family' appropriateness as a reason without implying a moral precept.

b) Creative artists frequently have to compromise their vision for commercial interests. It is either that or live on a street corner and eat stolen dog food, because artists who refuse to compromise don't get hired unless they're the most talented and/or high-profit creatures known to mankind.

2. i don't work in TV, i neither eat dog food or live on a street corner----------invalid

c) It was a brief shot of nudity. Not a 30-minute rape scene, not children being carved up and eaten. On the spectrum of things for the average person to quit one's job over, this ranks barely above not liking your desk chair. BW could live with it at the time, however, once he got the chance, he went back and fixed it. Whether or not you agree that the scene required fixing, it was his prerogative.

3. no it isn't, as it wasn't his decision in the first place. and if it was............... still lucas lame.

d) There is a very real difference between losing your job (and the jobs of those who work for you) over something and sucking it up at the time, only to go back and fix it later. Most people get their start working under someone and have to follow along with decisions they may not agree with as they work their way up. This is simply the way the world works. Lambasting a guy for letting one decision slide in order to keep his dream job is simply childish and unrealistic. In a land with unicorns and pixies where everyone crapped rainbows, perhaps artistic principles would be enough to guarantee all people jobs where they could do exactly as they pleased and still make enough money to put food on the table. However, the real world (and the entertainment industry especially) doesn't work like that.

4. how come TV is apparently the only industry in which you can earn enough money to live?!?!?!?.............. or is this idea also from the land of pixies and unicorns and rainbow excrement?

I still think the nudity was fine and that COTG didn't need to be re-done, but I can't let flawed arguments stand.

obviously not, yours 'walked' flawlessly onto the forum

[starfox]

It's the field in which he is trained. Should a doctor never practice medicine again because s/he disagrees with the method of treatment his/her patient chooses? Should a prosecutor abandon years of legal training because the District Attorney made a bad call? You're basically saying that people should be operating under impossible stakes, where every choice is worth ending a career over. Television production isn't simply a job. It's a career. And no rational adult abandons a career because of one disagreement in judgement.


Why should he have to leave his field of choice because his bosses made a crappy decision? As I said in point a; he did not oppose the nudity because of some deep-seated moral aversion to racks, but because it ran counter to his vision of the show. Whether or not he legally had right to said vision then is a moot point because he does now, and is exercising that right, for good or ill.

[satta]

I am Swedish so I don't care about nudity or violence in movies or on TV shows. Americans are to sensitive about everything natural like violence, nudity and sex, it is ridiculous if you ask me.

[SG-ME]

I haven't read all 57 pages before posting so forgive me
I have watched Stargate since it was made in 1997, I had been a enjoyed the movie and i am a sci-fi fan so my sister and i watched the series when it was released on video/tv (which ever came first). But i was born in 1990 and you don't have to be Rodney to figure that i was 7 when i watched the pilot because it appealed to me. Could you all honestly say that u would be fine to let your 7yr old to watch a 4 minute scene where an attractive woman is in the skud? Bare in mind what average 7-11yr olds watch on tv and what they are exposed to on a daily basis??
Just my point and i think brad wright had every right to object to the scene as it gave that episode an 18 rating in the UK and there is nothing other than the nakedness that would put this up beyond a PG, (you pick up an 18 or R-rated sci-fi film/TV show and you expect violence, swearing and explicit alien sex )
It came as a bit of a shock to me when i watched the uncut version for the first time this week (i had only the PG rated video untill monday lol) It didnt fit with the tone of the series or of the episode. Although i see no problem in the nudity as it wasn't sexual or anything in fact it was quite horrifying to watch, i just don;t seethe point in even filming that scene, we were given a shorter version of how the gouald take hosts at the end with Kowalski and it satisfied me for 11 years

[rlr149]

It's the field in which he is trained. Should a doctor never practice medicine again because s/he disagrees with the method of treatment his/her patient chooses?

not at all.

Should a prosecutor abandon years of legal training because the District Attorney made a bad call?

criminal cases are slightly more important than TV. at least they are in my 'multi-coloured feaces'-less world

You're basically saying that people should be operating under impossible stakes, where every choice is worth ending a career over. Television production isn't simply a job. It's a career. And no rational adult abandons a career because of one disagreement in judgement.

not every choice, just those involving your principles. i wouldn't kill a man because my boss said so. and i'd be happy to leave if he asked.

Why should he have to leave his field of choice because his bosses made a crappy decision? As I said in point a; he did not oppose the nudity because of some deep-seated moral aversion to racks, but because it ran counter to his vision of the show. Whether or not he legally had right to said vision then is a moot point because he does now, and is exercising that right, for good or ill.

TV/film is the 'field', stargate but a 'blade of grass', why does not doing SG mean he can't work in the field any more?!?!?! he could make cartoons or something and not even be asked to put 'racks' in in the first place. keeping his vaunted morals that kids shouldn't see 'racks', in an appropriate area. and not rewriting history to make himself look better.

[starfox]

not at all.
criminal cases are slightly more important than TV. at least they are in my 'multi-coloured feaces'-less world

not every choice, just those involving your principles. i wouldn't kill a man because my boss said so. and i'd be happy to leave if he asked.

TV/film is the 'field', stargate but a 'blade of grass', why does not doing SG mean he can't work in the field any more?!?!?! he could make cartoons or something and not even be asked to put 'racks' in in the first place. keeping his vaunted morals that kids shouldn't see 'racks', in an appropriate area. and not rewriting history to make himself look better.

Yes, but the only one equating television nudity to murder is you, and the differences do matter here. One cannot function in a world where every single principle and moral value is given equal weight, unless one has a low number of principles; s/he would stagger under the sheer weight of living.

[rlr149]

Yes, but the only one equating television nudity to murder is you, and the differences do matter here. One cannot function in a world where every single principle and moral value is given equal weight, unless one has a low number of principles; s/he would stagger under the sheer weight of living.

i'm not equating them, i'm saying using your principles as an excuse to rewrite history when you went against them for a paycheck on the very same episode is hypocritical(given that destitution wasn't his only option as you said!), his 'principle' in this case is worthless for that reason. so why should i be happy for him to go ahead using such an excuse. i shouldn't, and i'm going to be damn vocal about it. and only because i don't want the 'holier than thou's' to get their own way again just because of the general apathy of everyone else including me............ again!

[starfox]

i'm not equating them, i'm saying using your principles as an excuse to rewrite history when you went against them for a paycheck on the very same episode is hypocritical(given that destitution wasn't his only option as you said!), his 'principle' in this case is worthless for that reason. so why should i be happy for him to go ahead using such an excuse. i shouldn't, and i'm going to be damn vocal about it. and only because i don't want the 'holier than thou's' to get their own way again just because of the general apathy of everyone else including me............ again!

You still haven't addressed the point of why the hell you're giving all principles equal weight in the first place by saying that one should be willing to lose one's job over a relatively minor point. It wasn't a crusade, it was an annoyance. It's like the fly buzzing around at a garden party. If the polite thing to do is ignore it and/or delicately swat it away, then you ignore it. Doesn't keep you from killing the darned thing once no one's looking.