Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Killuncle

Full Frontal Nudity

Recommended Posts

Say no to frontal nudity, but say yes to gang rape (naturally gang rape with no nudity shown but with every horror detail of blood and tears).

You've exaggerated and its a silly argument anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cramer v Cramer had a wee boy and a naked chick in the same scene.

There's also the scene with theon getting a BJ which is a huge part of GRRM's characterisation of him. Just as important as him killing those two kids and pretending they're the stark boys. (hopefully one of them will 'buy it' later)

There's the girl on girl scene with Dany. (or did I dream that one?)

Doesn't Sansa get her kit ripped off by Jofrey too?

Vital to show the characters' personalities.

There's no reason for anyone to be upset by nudity and sex in this program when it plays a massive role in the books. You visualising it when you read the book anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct question should be this: How many people on this page it uncomfortable to see naked? The nude is a vital part to tell a story natural and realistic. Nobody complains about the violence, but when we see a penis are scandalized by anything!

I think the point is that some people seem to be confusing artistic integrity with titillation.

For my part, I wouldn't have any problem with this sort of thing in the show. But I don't think it's essential to the story, and I question why anyone would think that it is.

GRRM spends more time writing his genealogical appendices than he does composing sex scenes, but I really don't think we need a ten minute blurb at the end of each episode telling us that Amerei Frey is Walder's 28th granddaughter or whatever. It's superfluous and would put off people who might otherwise enjoy the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that some people seem to be confusing artistic integrity with titillation.

For my part, I wouldn't have any problem with this sort of thing in the show. But I don't think it's essential to the story, and I question why anyone would think that it is.

GRRM spends more time writing his genealogical appendices than he does composing sex scenes, but I really don't think we need a ten minute blurb at the end of each episode telling us that Amerei Frey is Walder's 28th granddaughter or whatever. It's superfluous and would put off people who might otherwise enjoy the series.

It's not superfluous. If it was then GRRM wouldn't have included so many graphically described sex scences in his books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's there to paint a vivid picture. But a picture is worth a thousand words, and in truth, I think some of the things George attempted to get across on the page are going to be much more vivid if seen directly on screen -- the show shall have to make some choices there. OTOH, other aspects of what he wrote -- the internal dialogs and thoughts of characters, their innermost feelings -- are things that are more closed to viewers, and I suspect it's these very things that the show will have to find ways to bring out and emphasize.

It's a balance.

If the show did a 1-to-1 translation of the sex scenes, some of them would be what would be called "X" rated, back in the day, and HBO simply doesn't do that... and so you're not going to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we really need is for the show to be wildly successful. So much so that it gets its own porn parody. And then everyone in the thread will be happy.

We've been waiting 5 years for the book; will it really be so hard to wait a year or two for the porn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I don't think HBO are allowed to show boners, right? I think we might not get to see Sam's famous fat pink mast. :thumbsdown:

Interestingly enough, showing an erect penis is quite different than a flaccid one.

For example, the end of "The Hangover" depicts pictures from the guys' overnight adventure, one of which was Allan's character receiving oral sex from a much older woman in the casino.

Zach Galifianakis was fine with the scene depicting his erect penis, but when they submitted it to the ratings board, they were told that it was an automatic NC-17 (read: total commercial failure) rating to show an erect penis. It was not made clear if this was due to it being in the actress's mouth (or nearly) or that it was erect. So, they filmed it with a extremely realistic silicone penis, and no problem, film away. :wacko:

Flaccid penis, although not common, is seen frequently enough in movies and on HBO.

Is there a high demand to see Samwell Tarly's tarlywhacker? I would not have picked him as the one, certainly not over Jaime or Khal Drogo or really over any other except maybe Tyrion (no offense to Peter Dinklage or his....dinklage.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO had a (unsuccessful) TV series a year or two ago that offered a frank look into modern relationships, and it caused a little stir with a scene of a hand job or some such. That, too, was using a prosthetic, however.

Technically, I believe HBO is not actually subject to any sort of content restrictions at all, being on cable... but for whatever reason (probably related to image and subscribers), they and every other pay-cabler (save the adult channels) seem to hew to the line that R is okay, NC-17 is not.

I don't really mind this, personally, because I don't think it's actually needed to tell the ASoIaF story in a faithful way...

Soylent,

Oh my god. Yeah ... porn parody is totally likely to happen if it's a success. There's a True Blood porn parody, I believe. Google suggests there's no Boardwalk Empire parody... yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, I believe HBO is not actually subject to any sort of content restrictions at all, being on cable... but for whatever reason (probably related to image and subscribers), they and every other pay-cabler (save the adult channels) seem to hew to the line that R is okay, NC-17 is not.

I don't know about that; the MPAA is pretty silly with what will cause movies to be rated NC-17, and I'd guess most of the soft porn they show on Cinemax would cross that barrier. 'Showgirls', one of the more famous NC-17 movies to come out in my lifetime, was shown on the pay cable stations, un-edited AFAIK. Some of the stuff depicted on some of HBO's shows might cross into NC-17 territory, too, like a scene in 'The Wire' of Kima having sex with another woman and putting that woman's nipple in her mouth (I was surprised they actually filmed this, just because I thought it would be too weird for the actors). The pay cable station might not show some of the stuff that would qualify for an NC-17, like an erect penis, but you can definitely see more lurid content than you're likely to see in most movie theaters. They definitely won't show any hardcore pornographic movies, probably not even the ones where no penetration is shown. I wonder if they'd show that famous scene from 'The Brown Bunny' where Chloe Sevigny gives head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO had a (unsuccessful) TV series a year or two ago that offered a frank look into modern relationships, and it caused a little stir with a scene of a hand job or some such. That, too, was using a prosthetic, however.

I recall that show (not the name) and that scene, and it was a very realistic prosthetic, as I didn't know it was until weeks later when I saw an interview with either that actor and actress and they were asked about filming that scene.

I thought that was a compelling show, I don't know if it ran its course or was unpopular, but I was sorry to see it didn't get two (more?) seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not know how the MPAA works, but I have understood that an organization is very rigid and puritanical. We're talking about an organization it qualifies as R, kissing between two men. Other countries do not go that far.

Americans you have a very serious problem. I like Game of Thrones has an NC-17. It is time to see a fantastic story to tell of medieval and very wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that anyone here is squeamish about showing full frontal nudity. But, when it becomes gratuitous, it takes focus off the important aspects of a good story.

In truth, a good sex scene (one that isn't a bodice-ripper or Penthouse Forum pieces) is difficult to write. In my dealings with other creative writers, it's usually the scene that writers skim over, ignore or rush through. You learn to write a good sex scene. You learn what's necessary to the story/character/theme and you give it your best.

When I've facilitated workshops in the past, I find that students and colleagues prefer to write a violent scene than a love/sex scene.

The first thing that comes to mind in regard to Martin's work ISN'T the sex scenes, or the description of a penis going into a vagina, rape or so forth. Sure, that's there, but it wasn't where my main focus went when I read "A Song of Ice and Fire." It was there for character building, for world-building, historical reference, motivation. It wasn't just thrown in for the sake of it. In my eyes, that's the mark of a good writer. (Again, we're not talking romance novels or erotica which is another genre altogether).

I'll restate my thoughts from before. This is HBO. If you haven't seen Rome (or any number of HBO shows) then you simply aren't aware of how they, as a studio, handle sex and nudity in their dramatic series.

I'm not worried about it. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Game of Thrones has more wild personages and to understand better, the series needs to be very raw and explicit. As not are more sex than Rome series or Empire boardwalk! HBO Game of Thrones, failed.

Most people want to see morbidity, sex and much violence, and HBO is handled very well.

Does anyone remember "Deadwood"? This series is also a half erect penis.

No further discussion. Who wants to see a game of thrones produced by Disney, is going to hell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Motion Picture Association of America is a voluntary organization that provides content ratings for films. But only films -- they don't content rate TV programs.

There are federal laws that dictate what can go over the airwaves, and so the broadcast networks have to follow certain guidelines (hence, the furor over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"). But HBO uses cable, not the public airwaves, and so that's not a concern either.

HBO's only concern is the right balance for its audience and its partners (such as the cable companies who actually provide the service to individual households).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Motion Picture Association of America is a voluntary organization that provides content ratings for films. But only films -- they don't content rate TV programs.

There are federal laws that dictate what can go over the airwaves, and so the broadcast networks have to follow certain guidelines (hence, the furor over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"). But HBO uses cable, not the public airwaves, and so that's not a concern either.

HBO's only concern is the right balance for its audience and its partners (such as the cable companies who actually provide the service to individual households).

Good points.

It could be that readers enter into that "contract" with the writer for different reasons. Some might have returned to ASOIAF over and over again FOR the rawness of the sex. But, I think those individuals are in the minority. I think most people return to the stories because they:

1. Love the characters.

2. Like the narrative arc(s).

3. Love the medieval fantasy genre in general.

For me, the sex/nudity is simply part of the "flavor" of the world. If we cater to the minority on this, I fear we'll drive off the majority who are not interested in turning the focal point toward the sexuality (as raw/gritty/realistic as it might be).

If you want realism, consider how long we actually spend engaging in coitus. Unless you're a porn star, it's probably not taking up 90% of the day, 80%. Hell, for most of us, try 10-15% of the day. I wouldn't want a series to skew "reality" to show people having sex from morning to night and running around (Benny Hill style) shaking their fannies at the camera.

Furthermore, there is the topic of what is appropriate, even for HBO. They raised the ages of characters to bypass some of that.

Look at "Big Love," a show that frequently addresses the topic of underage sex (consent given or not). Do they have to show the scene when 14 year old Nikki Grant has sex with her much older husband (after her father arranges the marriage on the compound)? No. Eluding to some of it is intense enough.

Finally, what is scarier? The idea that bigfoot might be lurking in the forest, peeking around the corner? The howling at night, the rustling of the bushes? Or showing the guy in broad daylight ambling across the road?

Sex, like violence and suspense, will have its role to play. Perhaps I've conformed to the notion that showing everything doesn't a good drama make. It's how that sex scene is executed.

It could simply be a difference of opinion. When I see a black, lacy bra peeking out behind a woman's business shirt, I find that far more sexy and enticing than a stripper spreading her legs to show me the insides of her vagina.

Leaving some things to the imagination is a good thing. But, there are times when the rawness and the stark nakedness of it all IS appropriate. I'm just left wondering why people are obsessing over this as though it's the touchstone of the entire series.

Deadwood was made no less gritty because they didn't show more cocks flapping around. The subtext itself was gritty enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you're a porn star, it's probably not taking up 90% of the day, 80%. Hell, for most of us, try 10-15% of the day.

Most of us spend 2.4 to 3.6 hours every day having sex? Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe on a weekend. Even removing 8 hours for sleep from 'the day' that is still probably overly optimistic for most people. A good amount don't even have sex regularly, much less every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us spend 2.4 to 3.6 hours every day having sex? Damn.

Oh man, how do I fix that math? I am SO not a math person. It's embarrassing.

:blushing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×