General Waddellian, Riptidian, Funchian
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
Jason, why did you make me read this with my very own eyes.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Y'all be acting like hobbits and elves didn't fuck. Bezos at least has the balls to make this realistic everyone, unlike this Tolkien fellow, whoever that might be. Why aren't you happy!
Nudity is not a requirement for a show to be good. Obviously, we all know this.
But restricting your product by Censoring it leads to a lower quality. I feel like people are in two groups:
1. The first group is the large group of people who are very loud on the internet. They don't want nudity in Middle Earth because they want it censored away so they don't have to think about how little hobbits, humans and elves are born. But more importantly, they believe they are the smaller group of the two. And they think the other group is childish and that they only want nudity because they wants to see tits.
2. The other group is the smaller group who are having a hard time arguing this subject because the first group is very loud and because their statement of pro nudity is sore subject in most parts of the world. They want nudity only because the producers want nudity. Not because they want to see tits but because the producers decided it would be the best product. They like when things are reasonable and realistic within the premise of the show. Obviously dragon's aren't real but as soon as you've bought the premise, this group wants the story to be as realistic as possible. Even if it means nudity. Or worse, rape. Or worse, murder. Or worse, war.
Last I heard the producers want nudity not because they want to show tits but because they want their show to be real. A show for adults and not kids. And because the people who fell in love with Peter Jackson's film version are now grown up and do not want a kids show where things are forbidden because young ones are sensitive.
But restricting your product by Censoring it leads to a lower quality. I feel like people are in two groups:
1. The first group is the large group of people who are very loud on the internet. They don't want nudity in Middle Earth because they want it censored away so they don't have to think about how little hobbits, humans and elves are born. But more importantly, they believe they are the smaller group of the two. And they think the other group is childish and that they only want nudity because they wants to see tits.
2. The other group is the smaller group who are having a hard time arguing this subject because the first group is very loud and because their statement of pro nudity is sore subject in most parts of the world. They want nudity only because the producers want nudity. Not because they want to see tits but because the producers decided it would be the best product. They like when things are reasonable and realistic within the premise of the show. Obviously dragon's aren't real but as soon as you've bought the premise, this group wants the story to be as realistic as possible. Even if it means nudity. Or worse, rape. Or worse, murder. Or worse, war.
Last I heard the producers want nudity not because they want to show tits but because they want their show to be real. A show for adults and not kids. And because the people who fell in love with Peter Jackson's film version are now grown up and do not want a kids show where things are forbidden because young ones are sensitive.
My objection is more that LotR isn't great at telling those sorts of stories. As Japahn said so well, sex is not on anyone's mind in LotR. To insert discussion of it would be like having a musical episode of Breaking Bad or suddenly spending an episode of Battlestar Galactica on global warming--these are just not things that are going to be productive by virtue of the shows not having the tools to deal with them. It might be interesting, but it would detract from the story because it would take away a lot of time from the telling of the core narrative as well as require a lot of energy expended to weave it into the plot in a reasonable way.
Granted, Amazon has pumped literally a billion dollars into this, so maybe they can do whatever they want with those kinds of resources. I just don't think that it'll add anything meaningful to the universe. Others will do/have done it better, so why waste your limited screen time on that if you're not going to say something significant?
Edit: of course, I'm coming at this from an artist's perspective, not a consumer's perspective, which may make a difference here. I'm not a TV director, ofc, but in general I have a fair bit of experience as a creator of art (if I do say so myself--maybe not good art, but art nonetheless) and so tend to look at these things from that angle.
On the flip side, it feels tacked-on, part of Amazon's explicit attempt to make this series as much like Game of Thrones as possible. The ending of Game of Throne was terrible. I do not want this show to be like that, so I want them to not try to replicate those decisions, least of all the superficial characteristics. If they're going to include sex, I want them to treat it as a part of the narrative and not, as you say, simply to get horny eyes on the show. So part of my objection is the presupposition that they're going to add sex poorly and gratuitously, which I don't think is unreasonable, given how American media tends to handle this sort of thing.
Granted, Amazon has pumped literally a billion dollars into this, so maybe they can do whatever they want with those kinds of resources. I just don't think that it'll add anything meaningful to the universe. Others will do/have done it better, so why waste your limited screen time on that if you're not going to say something significant?
Edit: of course, I'm coming at this from an artist's perspective, not a consumer's perspective, which may make a difference here. I'm not a TV director, ofc, but in general I have a fair bit of experience as a creator of art (if I do say so myself--maybe not good art, but art nonetheless) and so tend to look at these things from that angle.
On the flip side, it feels tacked-on, part of Amazon's explicit attempt to make this series as much like Game of Thrones as possible. The ending of Game of Throne was terrible. I do not want this show to be like that, so I want them to not try to replicate those decisions, least of all the superficial characteristics. If they're going to include sex, I want them to treat it as a part of the narrative and not, as you say, simply to get horny eyes on the show. So part of my objection is the presupposition that they're going to add sex poorly and gratuitously, which I don't think is unreasonable, given how American media tends to handle this sort of thing.
It’s a fallacy to claim that LOTR and Middle Earth are not great platforms for adult shows because.. no one has seen an adult show on Middle Earth and see it fail.
Tolkien described nudity. But Peter Jackson removed it for his movies. Now Amazon wish to put it back.
I don’t think we are in a position to say that it will be bad until we have seen at least one minute of the show. We are also in no position to say it will be good. Right now we can just wait and hope for the best.
Tolkien described nudity. But Peter Jackson removed it for his movies. Now Amazon wish to put it back.
I don’t think we are in a position to say that it will be bad until we have seen at least one minute of the show. We are also in no position to say it will be good. Right now we can just wait and hope for the best.
Horse hockey. That's like saying that the universe of Dora the Explorer is ripe for adult themes because no R-rated Dora the Explorer film has been a flop thus far. We absolutely can and should judge based on our expectations of things--it's a great part of the reason we don't get into traffic accidents or stick our hands into lit fires. Yes, keeping an open mind is important, but it's equally important to know when you don't want to try something. Classical orchestras tend to not program a new work by Aphex Twin before the intermission if they want people to stay for the second half.
I'm still looking forward to the show, and I also tend to rip on the Jackson movies, which are some of my absolute favorites (well...until we hit The Hobbit...), so take my gnashing of teeth with a grain of salt, because it's mainly driven by a desire to Do Better. But we don't go to see Adam Sandler movies and expect to be moved because that's not something his expertise and focus lend themselves to. (Admission time: Adam Sandler movies oftentimes move me out of the theater and sometimes out of the state. But the point stands.) I'm all for exploring new things in old settings, but sometimes these combinations don't work (peanut butter and pea puree) regardless of how hard you try or how clever the idea may be.
Sure, Tolkein described nudity. He absolutely, 100% did. But nothing in the authorial intent suggests that an 'intimacy coordinator' would be needed (quite the opposite), nor in the text itself (Maybe in the tale of Beren and Lúthien, maybe in The Children of Húrin, but not in the mainline story for sure). This show is absolutely expanding into the wilder world of Middle-Earth, and this may be a part of that. However, in the same way that we don't need to hear about how death certificates are written, we don't need to hear about Middle-Earthian sex because it's not the interesting part of the world.
My main objection is this: why do they want to put it back? Is it because it's part of the story they're trying to tell? With Gollum, nudity was central to his story, especially how his lack of concern contrasts with the increasingly tattered clothing of Sam and Frodo, signifying how far they've come out of the comfort zones, how far they've grown from their comfortable homes with their comfortable, safe, norm-driven rituals of everyday life. That's great. That's a tasteful use of nudity to make an artistic point.* But--is it because they want to find the next Game of Thrones? Is it because they think that sex is part of the magic formula that will make them money?** I'm afraid that it's the latter. As you say, there's no way of knowing which it is. Sometimes projects motivated by greed can create great art. But I think it's unlikely.
*Are nudity and sex casual things under certain contexts? Yes, but not in this universe as it's been set up. It's like asking for a Star Trek episode about poverty within the Federation. This simply doesn't exist in the universe's canon, and any attempt to talk about it is going to use up a lot of the narrative capital which could be better used tot alk about other things, not to mention the time required to justify it, etc. That makes it a categorically bad idea.
**Note: it's possible to ask these questions about violence; whether we ought to treat it with greater respect, as a more sensitive topic, etc. I wish they were asked more often. However, that seems to be a losing battle, so I've made my peace with it. Besides, as sensitive a topic as violence is, on average more people have sex than die of violence, so I'd rather focus on the philosophical topic with the more practical applications. See: the number of people who participate in making babies vs. the number of people who die violent deaths.
Last edited:
An intimicy coordinator is not a person you hire to create the most evocative sex scenes as possible. It is a person you hire to protect the actors from doing things they do not wish to do. They coordinate the scenes to a way that is both satisfying to the camera and the actors.
And yes, as I described initially, I knew you would be in that latter category of “Is it because they think that sex is part of the magic formula that will make them money?** I'm afraid that it's the latter.” which we have no idea of knowing.
If I made a show, I would make it as good as possible. And I would disregard the sensitive people who would be in the way of making the show good. In other words: I wouldn’t put restrictions on my show. If a storyline required nudity, I would add nudity. If a storyline didn’t require nudity, I would not include nudity. I believe this is the way all of us would do it. So this will be a story where romance is a small part of the show.
The only thing we can conclude with 100 % certainty is that the show is not made for kids only. The target audience is at least 15+. Other than that we will have to wait and see. Speculating any further is like speculating if the Dungeons & Dragons: Adventures in the Forgotten Realm Magic set will impact Standard more or less than Theros: Beyond Death did. We have not seen a single card of the set or a single minute of the show.
And yes, as I described initially, I knew you would be in that latter category of “Is it because they think that sex is part of the magic formula that will make them money?** I'm afraid that it's the latter.” which we have no idea of knowing.
If I made a show, I would make it as good as possible. And I would disregard the sensitive people who would be in the way of making the show good. In other words: I wouldn’t put restrictions on my show. If a storyline required nudity, I would add nudity. If a storyline didn’t require nudity, I would not include nudity. I believe this is the way all of us would do it. So this will be a story where romance is a small part of the show.
The only thing we can conclude with 100 % certainty is that the show is not made for kids only. The target audience is at least 15+. Other than that we will have to wait and see. Speculating any further is like speculating if the Dungeons & Dragons: Adventures in the Forgotten Realm Magic set will impact Standard more or less than Theros: Beyond Death did. We have not seen a single card of the set or a single minute of the show.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
I'm glad that we've given the newcomers a taste of who we are by debating LOTR nudity in the Funchian design thread and Funchian design in the Strixhaven spoilers thread
This confused me at first in 2015 when I was a spectator on this site. Still confused about it in 16 when I became a member. By 2018 I was in love with the tangents having tangents.
You raise a good point that making sex scenes look good on camera isn't their only job; however, by saying they're making it "satisfying to the camera" does, in fact, mean that they're "creat[ing] the most evocative sex scenes possible. Of course they're going to want it to play well, (duh), but it's disingenuous to say "it's just for the actors' safety."
For what it's worth, I think that we actually are both sitting at the same point of 'wait and see,' but I'm taking a pessimistic outlook and you're taking an optimistic one. However, the thing that I want to get across is that I don't think it's censorship or prudishness to say that LotR doesn't need to cover the topic of sex. First off, you can have adult stories without the topic of sex ever coming up. If it's relevant, sure, include it, but it's not always relevant. Secondly, it's not tonally consistent with the world. For example, you could introduce guns into Middle-Earth--they have gunpowder, it wouldn't be too much of a leap--but it would be really jarring, as suddenly it's a very different story. Clearly, the showrunners want to tell this story, but it's not reactionary to say that it's going to be very different from existing stories in this world, nor is it repressive to say that they might not keep any similarities to the Tolkeinverse besides window dressing. I also don't think it's crazy to say that sometimes adding to a story can detract from the experience of other stories in that same series, even to the point of ruining them (see: Game of Thrones S8). For something as self-contained as LotR, I'd honestly rather not see anything at all get added, regardless of content--but since it's being made, I'm not going to intentionally stay away from it.
Also, if we're not speculating baselessly, can we even call ourselves Magic fans?
But that's the thing. All we know is nudity is included. We don't know if it's relevant or not. Therefore we can only give them the benefit of the doubt. It's very difficult to judge someone guilty without evidence.
But you do know that guns do not exist in Middle Earth and sex does exist, right? Including nudity in a few scenes would be truer to the source material than Peter Jackson's movies were. Including tons and tons of sex would obviously not be true to Tolkien. But we have 0 indication this should be the case.
Also, if we're not speculating baselessly, can we even call ourselves Magic fans?
Truer words have never been spoken
Also off topic since you keep mentioned Game of Thrones season 8 The show began deteriorating in season 5.
Season 8 was only a little worse than season 7.
Season 7 was only a little worse than season 6.
Season 6 was only a little worse than season 5.
It's not like season 7 somehow was great and suddenly they made a huge dive that we call season 8. Dialogues clearly became shorter and less interesting (and out of character sometimes) from season 5.
To me the show is one of the two best shows of all time. This includes the deterioration. Even a bad Game of Thrones season is fucking incredible.
The show began deteriorating in season 5.Season 8 was only a little worse than season 7.
Season 7 was only a little worse than season 6.
Season 6 was only a little worse than season 5.
It's not like season 7 somehow was great and suddenly they made a huge dive that we call season 8. Dialogues clearly became shorter and less interesting (and out of character sometimes) from season 5.
To me the show is one of the two best shows of all time. This includes the deterioration. Even a bad Game of Thrones season is fucking incredible.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Season 8 was pretty awful and put me off of ever watching the series again. And that's from someone who really loved the show, had many rewatches of the early seasons, and ended up reading all the books after the 1st season was completed. It's just so important to stick the landing when completing a series. It's what makes the classic and timeless shows (and other works of media) from the past worth revisiting. It's just not worth revisiting for me because I know how horribly it ends with everything just going off the rails. If it had maintained the quality from the 1st half of the series, hell even the diminished quality of the sixth season, it would be an all-timer. But as is it's kind of turned into a pariah as far as TV shows go.
I can't think of the last show that was so present on the minds of people, where you'd have full on conversations in the months between seasons about theories/hopes, to just turning into something people just want to forget. And it's all on the showrunners for rushing it so badly and completely eschewing previous character developments and progress. It's just so damn unfortunate.
Exactly! This is why it (once again) to me it is one of the two best shows ever. I don’t evaluate all shows by the same criteria.
I read the GRR Martin five books. The last two were so bad that I probably won't bother to read any more even if he does ever finish them. Adding a bunch of new characters and settings can wait for a sequel trilogy. You gotta finish the story arc you spent three books creating before you can turn it into a universe worthy of dozens of books. I think he started running before he caught the ball.
Not my style, I'm fine with changes from books to tv because it's obvious that changes have to be made and cuts of scenes will happen.
Removal of two of the main characters with no reasons given why is a bit daft. Changing the setting to modern fantasy is also odd, granted it is pleasing to the eye, but I think most eyes were expecting high fantasy (especially mine). Especially cuz we don't get enough adaptations of Discworld, there are some good ones, Wyrd Sisters has some enjoyable stuff, I usually point people to the 2008 adaptation of The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic if they want to start the series. But that's basically it, which is distressing cuz there's what like 30 other books? (Leaving out some of the Science and Wisdom books).
The Watch as a show is still good and enjoyable, but as an adaptation it's more of the same. They could have slapped some different names on it and said, "loosely based on the Discworld books" and I probably would have enjoyed it more.
I feel like live-action tv shows and movies are still catching up to the fact that anime and manga figured out a couple years ago, fans don't want filler (unless it's filler made by the original creator lol), and they don't want an unfaithful adaptation, they want it to be as faithful as it can be. There's obviously a reason why fans like it, there's no reason to change and try to increase your profit margin.
Removal of two of the main characters with no reasons given why is a bit daft. Changing the setting to modern fantasy is also odd, granted it is pleasing to the eye, but I think most eyes were expecting high fantasy (especially mine). Especially cuz we don't get enough adaptations of Discworld, there are some good ones, Wyrd Sisters has some enjoyable stuff, I usually point people to the 2008 adaptation of The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic if they want to start the series. But that's basically it, which is distressing cuz there's what like 30 other books? (Leaving out some of the Science and Wisdom books).
The Watch as a show is still good and enjoyable, but as an adaptation it's more of the same. They could have slapped some different names on it and said, "loosely based on the Discworld books" and I probably would have enjoyed it more.
I feel like live-action tv shows and movies are still catching up to the fact that anime and manga figured out a couple years ago, fans don't want filler (unless it's filler made by the original creator lol), and they don't want an unfaithful adaptation, they want it to be as faithful as it can be. There's obviously a reason why fans like it, there's no reason to change and try to increase your profit margin.