# Using nudity to help establish a series



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

In season one of Yellowstone there were a few scenes of nudity. I do not remember any from Season 2 nor current Season 3. So that begets the question "Was the season 1 nudity used simply to generate interest?" 

What other shows have done the same? I'm thinking Westworld cut back on nudity in later seasons.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Shameless has virtually stopped their nudity.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

These days, more often than not, if nudity is indicated for a show it means you’ll get to see some guy’s bare butt with nary a bare boob in sight!!


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Definitely Westworld. Game of Thrones to a certain extent, though it did continue it was to a lesser degree. 

The Alienist isn't showing direct nudity per se, but the storyline this 2nd season is far more sexually charged than the first season.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

Altered Carbon. It may have been more the shift in tone for season 2, and that nudity didn't fit the "action movie/political intrigue" storyline of the season like it did the noir/gumshoe storyline of season 1. But it felt like you couldn't get through 20 minutes of season 1 without full frontal (male and female), and season 2 had almost nothing.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

The first season of Homeland had nudity almost every episode. Season 2 had sex scenes without nudity then it pretty much stops for the rest of the series.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Stargate SG-1. Although they went back pretty fast to pretend that never happened when they ended up going more Sci-Fi channel, and less Showtime.

Edit: Just looked it up. Showrunners never wanted nudity. Showtime demanded it to launch the series.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I can't prove this (I have tried searching) but I have a strong feeling that around 2016 +/- that Hollywood made a conscious decision to cut back on nudity relative to earlier in the decade. I don't know if MeToo affected things but a lot of shows dropped it off fast. 

Shameless was my example where virtually the whole adult cast went butt naked so to speak. I remember as soon as soon as Cameron Monaghan turned 18 he had a back side scene. And of course Emmy did plenty. Then it seem to have just stopped and the younger cast who are now older than 18 haven't done anything.

Similarly with other shows it has dropped off fast. I don't think it was establishing the show as the OP suggested but that we are in more conservative times what with Epstein, and Weinstein let alone subsequent accused actors like Hoffman, Kevin Spacey, ...


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

"Ballers" was that way, too.

--Carlos V.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

They're just trying to titillate their audience.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> Stargate SG-1. Although they went back pretty fast to pretend that never happened when they ended up going more Sci-Fi channel, and less Showtime.
> 
> Edit: Just looked it up. Showrunners never wanted nudity. Showtime demanded it to launch the series.


I'm not sure that was Season 1 so much as just the pilot..?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I wonder if it has to do with how established the actors become as the season moves along. Taking the GoT example, We saw Emilia Clarke nude quite a bit the first season, but later on, hardly nude at all. She became more well known and established and probably felt that the nudity wasn't going to help her career at that point.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder if it has to do with how established the actors become as the season moves along. Taking the GoT example, We saw Emilia Clarke nude quite a bit the first season, but later on, hardly nude at all. She became more well known and established and probably felt that the nudity wasn't going to help her career at that point.


I doubt she ever felt the nudity was going to help her career. She was just in a better position to say "No."


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt she ever felt the nudity was going to help her career. She was just in a better position to say "No."


Maybe I worded it wrong, but yeah, that's what I meant. But, if you are an unknown actress, sometimes a way to get your name noticed is through nudity. But yes, a more established actress has more clout to say no.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I can't prove this (I have tried searching) but I have a strong feeling that around 2016 +/- that Hollywood made a conscious decision to cut back on nudity relative to earlier in the decade.


I guess Brave New World never got the memo ... 


zalusky said:


> Shameless was my example where virtually the whole adult cast went butt naked so to speak. I remember as soon as soon as Cameron Monaghan turned 18 he had a back side scene. And of course Emmy did plenty. Then it seem to have just stopped and the younger cast who are now older than 18 haven't done anything.
> 
> Similarly with other shows it has dropped off fast. I don't think it was establishing the show as the OP suggested but that we are in more conservative times what with Epstein, and Weinstein let alone subsequent accused actors like Hoffman, Kevin Spacey, ...


I think you are spot on with this assessment. What we are seeing is a direct response to the Me Too movement. Studios and production companies are under scrutiny in a way that never existed before, and it's probably just easier to avoid gratuitous nudity and sex scenes. Even when they do have a sex scene, there are much stricter guidelines in place now ...

There's A Whole New Set Of Guidelines For How Movies Go About Simulating Sex


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> Altered Carbon. It may have been more the shift in tone for season 2, and that nudity didn't fit the "action movie/political intrigue" storyline of the season like it did the noir/gumshoe storyline of season 1. But it felt like you couldn't get through 20 minutes of season 1 without full frontal (male and female), and season 2 had almost nothing.


This topic is specifically addressed in this article ...

Why Altered Carbon Season 2 Has Way Less Nudity Than Season 1


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I will say that there's much more male nudity than I can ever remember. Are they trying to even things up?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder if it has to do with how established the actors become as the season moves along. Taking the GoT example, We saw Emilia Clarke nude quite a bit the first season, but later on, hardly nude at all. She became more well known and established and probably felt that the nudity wasn't going to help her career at that point.


I would say also the nudity that Emilia in season 1 was important to the story and her characters evolution. Just like the walk of shame for Circe was an important moment to the story. The other whore house stuff not so much. But yea I suppose they could have done it PG.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe I worded it wrong, but yeah, that's what I meant. But, if you are an unknown actress, sometimes a way to get your name noticed is through nudity. But yes, a more established actress has more clout to say no.


I have no problem with nudity. However, there is just soooooo much wrong with this concept! Do young male actors (and that's what female actors are, actors) have nudity as a way to get their name noticed? No? Hmmm. Wonder why not.



zalusky said:


> I would say also the nudity that Emilia in season 1 was important to the story and her characters evolution. Just like the walk of shame for Circe was an important moment to the story. The other whore house stuff not so much. But yea I suppose they could have done it PG.


Westworld had quite a bit of nudity and treated it as part of an actual story line for both men and women. I don't necessarily think the best way to make things right is to have men go through the same issues women do, but if nudity is going to be used as part of the story, then yes, it there should be some balance there.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt she ever felt the nudity was going to help her career. She was just in a better position to say "No."


I've always assumed this. When it's major characters, they're in a better position to say "no". I also assume that nudity sells, so many execs like it.

But why a show like Ballers dropped nudity, IDK.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

tivotvaddict said:


> I have no problem with nudity. However, there is just soooooo much wrong with this concept! Do young male actors (and that's what female actors are, actors) have nudity as a way to get their name noticed? No? Hmmm. Wonder why not.
> 
> Westworld had quite a bit of nudity and treated it as part of an actual story line for both men and women. I don't necessarily think the best way to make things right is to have men go through the same issues women do, but if nudity is going to be used as part of the story, then yes, it there should be some balance there.


I would say though that the two nude scenes with Emilia in GOT were probably more important than all her other scenes in the whole show in that they represented her transition from being submissive to being a peer level with powerful males. I almost don't remember the nudity as much as I remember that character transition. Now the big question is if they started GOT season 1 in 2020 would it be the same as it was in 2011!

I haven't seen Westworld yet so I can't comment on that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tivotvaddict said:


> I have no problem with nudity. However, there is just soooooo much wrong with this concept! Do young male actors *(and that's what female actors are, actors)* have nudity as a way to get their name noticed? No? Hmmm. Wonder why not.
> 
> Westworld had quite a bit of nudity and treated it as part of an actual story line for both men and women. I don't necessarily think the best way to make things right is to have men go through the same issues women do, but if nudity is going to be used as part of the story, then yes, it there should be some balance there.


Often, nudity is gratuitous and the same scene can be done without it. Being that it's on a channel that shows nudity writers have free reign to use it, so they do.

Not sure what your point is in the bolded. If that's a politically correct statement, sorry but here's the definition of "actress"

actress definition - Google Search

It fits. But I get that it's politically correct to call them actors. I use "actor" when the sex of the actor doesn't matter and actress when speaking of just a female actor.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Often, nudity is gratuitous and the same scene can be done without it. Being that it's on a channel that shows nudity writers have free reign to use it, so they do.
> 
> Not sure what your point is in the bolded. If that's a politically correct statement, sorry but here's the definition of "actress"
> 
> ...


Language evolves. The more modern usage is actor, regardless of the gender of the person, just as we use doctor and delivery person. But, I wasn't trying to call you out on your language.  I was simply trying to point out that the male and female actors are doing the exact same work and thus should have the similar expectations of what is required nudity wise.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tivotvaddict said:


> Language evolves. The more modern usage is actor, regardless of the gender of the person, just as we use doctor and delivery person. But, I wasn't trying to call you out on your language.  I was simply trying to point out that the male and female actors are doing the exact same work and thus should have the similar expectations of what is required nudity wise.


Agreed, though it the past it seemed that female nudity was much more common. But that definitely seems to be changing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

tlc said:


> But why a show like Ballers dropped nudity, IDK.


Was Ballers the series that got "MeToo"ed with allegations that the lesbian showrunner was very aggressively pushing nude scenes and explicit sex scenes on the actors?
Or am I thinking of another show?


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

I see this is almost every non-network product. From the Expanse to GoT.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I will say that there's much more male nudity than I can ever remember. Are they trying to even things up?


Whenever I see the Nudity warning at the beginning of a show nowadays I pretty much expect it to be some dude's butt. This is NOT progress!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Whenever I see the Nudity warning at the beginning of a show nowadays I pretty much expect it to be some dude's butt. This is NOT progress!


Well, it most certainly is progress.

I guess the question is, do you think progress is a good thing?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, it most certainly is progress.
> 
> I guess the question is, do you think progress is a good thing?


I'm of two minds of this. The ending of the sexual objectification of women solely to satisfy the prurient interests of men is a good, timely and necessary thing.

But I miss it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

What I always come back to is, how much of the nudity we see today is necessary to tell the story and how much is just to titillate us into watching? Today is "anything goes" TV, where outside of the major OTA networks anything goes, especially where advertisers are not involved. Is it better writing just because we can see everything? I'm not so sure.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> What I always come back to is, how much of the nudity we see today is necessary to tell the story and how much is just to titillate us into watching? Today is "anything goes" TV, where outside of the major OTA networks anything goes, especially where advertisers are not involved. Is it better writing just because we can see everything? I'm not so sure.


Almost no nudity or sex scenes are needed. They could always imply what was going to happen but envelopes exist to be pushed but now women have enough societal clout to push back.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

NYPD Blue got attention with partial limited nude scenes the first few years. Talked about alot.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Yeah, Andy Sipowicz had a great butt.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lew said:


> NYPD Blue got attention with partial limited nude scenes the first few years. Talked about alot.


True, but if I remember the scene correctly it could have been done without that scene. It was for pure shock value, to create a buzz for the show and get ratings. Hence, unnecessary.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

We got Hulu for a month for something I forget, and now we're watching Future Man before it runs out. Contrary to the theory here there seems to be _more_ nudity as the show goes on (we're halfway through season 2 now). However, it's all male full frontal. Which is not my wheelhouse particularly, but doesn't bother me. And, it does serve the "story" (or at least the humor).

The interesting thing about male full frontal (for sure in Future Man) is it's (almost?) all prosthetics. For the squeamish it might help to remember that 

I agree nudity is not required for most storylines but if they're going to show people in bed / getting up I wish that they wouldn't have them wearing underwear. Fine, have them get up with a blanket or sheet or towel... it's not very realistic (unless it's a new relationship) but whatever. Or, use a bathrobe or cut away or use particular camera angles to avoid nudity if you want. But wearing underwear is so stupid... it's almost like the 50's/60's shows where the parents slept in separate beds. Just lazy directing.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> True, but if I remember the scene correctly it could have been done without that scene. It was for pure shock value, to create a buzz for the show and get ratings.


I remember watching HSB and a hooker (I think) was standing on the other side of a bed from the camera and bent over to remove her underwear and the camera zoomed straight in on her butt. I couldn't think straight for weeks.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DouglasPHill said:


> I remember watching HSB and a hooker (I think) was standing on the other side of a bed from the camera and bent over to remove her underwear and the camera zoomed straight in on her butt. I couldn't think straight for weeks.


HSB?


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I assume someone has already said this. Does nudity still draw people into watching a show? There are like a trillion pieces of nudity on the internet. Surprised anyone would care about it in a TV show.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

madscientist said:


> The interesting thing about male full frontal (for sure in Future Man) is it's (almost?) all prosthetics. For the squeamish it might help to remember that


A lot of things bug me about nudity portrayal, especially with TV, and this is one of my peeves: if the viewer THINKS that's you naked, you may as well be naked. At that point it doesn't matter.

Another peeve: cable & streaming shows have so much nudity these days to the point where it's come to be expected. In a show where 99% of the cast is or has been naked, whenever there's a scene where you would expect someone to be naked and they aren't, it takes me right out of the story. Sort of the opposite of the past when the nudity would take you out of the story, now it's like, "Ooh, looks like they have a no nudity clause" or "that guy has a contract saying he'll show his butt as much as they want but no peen".

Yet another: the classic "we just had sex but when I sit up I'm covering my breasts with this blanket". Does anybody do that? Again, it takes you right out of the story. But for me, it's more realistic if people on tv are like reality. If you portray someone taking a shower, or changing, or having sex, they're bound to be naked.

And what's up with these people who suddenly are having sex with their clothes on? I have more of these if you like.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

gchance said:


> A lot of things bug me about nudity portrayal, especially with TV, and this is one of my peeves: if the viewer THINKS that's you naked, you may as well be naked. At that point it doesn't matter.
> 
> Another peeve: cable & streaming shows have so much nudity these days to the point where it's come to be expected. In a show where 99% of the cast is or has been naked, whenever there's a scene where you would expect someone to be naked and they aren't, it takes me right out of the story. Sort of the opposite of the past when the nudity would take you out of the story, now it's like, "Ooh, looks like they have a no nudity clause" or "that guy has a contract saying he'll show his butt as much as they want but no peen".
> 
> ...


You read my mind!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gchance said:


> A lot of things bug me about nudity portrayal, especially with TV, and this is one of my peeves: if the viewer THINKS that's you naked, you may as well be naked. At that point it doesn't matter.
> 
> Another peeve: cable & streaming shows have so much nudity these days to the point where it's come to be expected. In a show where 99% of the cast is or has been naked, whenever there's a scene where you would expect someone to be naked and they aren't, it takes me right out of the story. Sort of the opposite of the past when the nudity would take you out of the story, now it's like, "Ooh, looks like they have a no nudity clause" or "that guy has a contract saying he'll show his butt as much as they want but no peen".
> 
> ...


I think in the day, it was titillating to perhaps see this or that actor (female or male...since I'm not allowed to say actress anymore!) nude and that would draw in viewers. With so much nudity on TV now, does anyone even care anymore? I can't remember the last show I watched because of nudity (not saying that having it isn't a bonus, depending on who's nude). To me, they've marginalized nudity, violence, blood and gore, and foul language. It just not a big deal anymore. In fact, sometimes watching OTA TV, I notice that it's NOT there. And frankly, it's refreshing, and often much better written to imply things like that without actually seeing/saying it.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think in the day, it was titillating to perhaps see this or that actor (female or male...since I'm not allowed to say actress anymore!) nude and that would draw in viewers. With so much nudity on TV now, does anyone even care anymore?


It's still this or that actor vs an extra they don't know, so yeah there's still an appeal to it. This is why early nude scenes by ones who suddenly become really famous for some reason will always pop up: nobody cared as much until they knew who they were.


----------



## kdelande (Dec 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> HSB?


Pretty sure that's Hill Street Blues.


----------



## Tiger62 (Mar 27, 2018)

Steveknj said:


> To me, they've marginalized nudity, violence, blood and gore, and foul language. It just not a big deal anymore. In fact, sometimes watching OTA TV, I notice that it's NOT there. And frankly, it's refreshing, and often much better written to imply things like that without actually seeing/saying it.


On the foul language thing...Do people really converse using 7 f'words in the same sentence? Maybe, but I've never been around anyone who does.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Tiger62 said:


> On the foul language thing...Do people really converse using 7 f'words in the same sentence? Maybe, but I've never been around anyone who does.


I agree, and in fact, most families I've been with, including mine, the idea of using curse words for just the sake of saying them (for example instead of saying "You've got to be kidding me!" you would say "You've got to be F****** kidding me." Is not something encouraged. But some shows just overuse language, because they can. It's like someone untied their hands and now they have to make up for lost time. For some shows, sure, it's more realistic, but for many, it's just there because it can be.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I agree, and in fact, most families I've been with, including mine, the idea of using curse words for just the sake of saying them (for example instead of saying "You've got to be kidding me!" you would say "You've got to be F****** kidding me." Is not something encouraged. But some shows just overuse language, because they can. It's like someone untied their hands and now they have to make up for lost time. For some shows, sure, it's more realistic, but for many, it's just there because it can be.


Well the wife can get into a mood and the potty mouth will flow. When I am in the car the potty mouth flows. So yea it does happen.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> HSB?


Sorry, Hill Street Blues


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Tiger62 said:


> On the foul language thing...Do people really converse using 7 f'words in the same sentence? Maybe, but I've never been around anyone who does.


I don't, but I know people who do. It drives me absolutely up the wall, and now my 18yo has become one of those people. We don't speak like this! But apparently he and his friends do.

I used to hang out with a group of guys, and one of them cursed so much that if he were to stop cussing, the efficiency of his speech would go up ten-fold. There would only be one or two words of substance per sentence, and somehow he had replaced "um" with "effin". So he would be talking and pause and say, "effin..."

There are TV shows as a result I just don't like, or have a hard time watching, like The Leftovers. Nobody speaks like the main character of that show, but the story was so good I kept watching. It made it difficult to say the least.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tiger62 said:


> On the foul language thing...Do people really converse using 7 f'words in the same sentence? Maybe, but I've never been around anyone who does.


I do when I'm at home. I catch myself and refrain at work or with strangers. Weirdly, my sisters will not even say any curse words (even very mild ones), but I don't know where they picked that up. It certainly wasn't from our parents. TV must be a bad influence.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Tiger62 said:


> On the foul language thing...Do people really converse using 7 f'words in the same sentence? Maybe, but I've never been around anyone who does.


In the beforetimes when I worked in an office with other people, i definitely heard cursing every day, and this is a white collar office job.

Now that I work at home alone in my office I still hear cursing every day 

Maybe there is a common denominator 

Swearing makes you 'happier, healthier, more intelligent and honest'


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

zordude said:


> In the beforetimes when I worked in an office with other people, i definitely heard cursing every day, and this is a white collar office job.
> 
> Now that I work at home alone in my office I still hear cursing every day
> 
> Maybe there is a common denominator


'Way back when we had Damnit Jim.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zordude said:


> Swearing makes you 'happier, healthier, more intelligent and honest'


Well, I'm as ****ing happy, healthy, and intelligent and honest as they come! And if you don't like it, you can just eat ****.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

zordude said:


> In the beforetimes when I worked in an office with other people, i definitely heard cursing every day, and this is a white collar office job.
> 
> Now that I work at home alone in my office I still hear cursing every day
> 
> ...


If it matters, I do work in a building full of Software Engineers for additional context


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zordude said:


> In the beforetimes when I worked in an office with other people, i definitely heard cursing every day, and this is a white collar office job.
> 
> Now that I work at home alone in my office I still hear cursing every day
> 
> ...


I find cursing highly unprofessional. Does it happen? Sure, and in my office as well. We al through the SH** curse around on occasion. Rarely the F curse. And NEVER speaking with clients. I know my grammar and spelling is bad, but to me, if you constantly use bad language, it makes you seem crude and uneducated. There, I said it, call me old fashioned. I think we've devolved quite a bit and have taken whatever is shocking and special away from cursing, nudity, and blood and gore. I get reality and all that, but sometimes it's used for shock value, and when EVERYONE tries to use it for shock value, it loses that value. Then it's just crude. I would not begrudge anyone from watching it if that's what you enjoy, nor should it ever be censored, but I've learned to appreciate those writers who can have the same effect without using it. I think it takes MUCH more talent to do that.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

Exactly -- too much use loses the value. In the office, I heard it very rarely, where the emphasis was generally warranted and had that effect.

If you use your strongest language for everyday stuff, what do you use in situations that need something stronger than usual?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I find curing highly unprofessional. Does it happen? Sure, and in my office as well. We al through the SH** curse around on occasion. Rarely the F curse. And NEVER speaking with clients. I know my grammar and spelling is bad, but to me, if you constantly use bad language, it makes you seem crude and uneducated. There, I said it, call me old fashioned.


That's a major difference between our workplaces - clients. My building just has ~800 IT professionals in it that are all internal employees.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zordude said:


> That's a major difference between our workplaces - clients. My building just has ~800 IT professionals in it that are all internal employees.


One thing I noticed, at least in my office...when I started working for this company (I've been there 6 years), I was in a group where the average age of my team was under 30. There was a lot more cursing. In my current group where we are a mix of older and younger folks, there's hardly any. I think when you are younger, cursing is a "cool" thing to do. Once you get older, it's more for effect than for just general speech. I probably cursed a lot more with my friends and classmates when I was in HS and college. But as I "grew up", I curse much less. But I also think perhaps having kids around in your house makes you less likely to curse (and now that my kids are all adults, we curse more, but not all the time).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> ... I know my grammar and spelling is bad...


You mean ARE bad, don't you?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

zordude said:


> In the beforetimes when I worked in an office with other people, i definitely heard cursing every day, and this is a white collar office job.
> 
> Now that I work at home alone in my office I still hear cursing every day
> 
> ...


I was at a small tech company for a few months and it was pretty high energy (great people) but my direct boss and everyone around me swore a LOT. I generally don't swear much when in public/office. But I ramped up my swearing to fit in more  Was kinda fun


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> You mean ARE bad, don't you?


Proving my own point, aren't I?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I agree, and in fact, most families I've been with, including mine, the idea of using curse words for just the sake of saying them (for example instead of saying "You've got to be kidding me!" you would say "You've got to be F****** kidding me." Is not something encouraged. But some shows just overuse language, because they can. It's like someone untied their hands and now they have to make up for lost time. For some shows, sure, it's more realistic, but for many, it's just there because it can be.


One other observation. Once we learned smoking was bad for you they used to use smoking as a way of distinguishing the lower/upper and criminal/law abiding classes in movies and TV. As smoking has faded, I see language as a replacement in your face cheap trick to do it.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Proving my own point, aren't I?


*"Ain't I!"*


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> But as I "grew up", I curse much less. But I also think perhaps having kids around in your house makes you less likely to curse (and now that my kids are all adults, we curse more, but not all the time).


I used to almost never curse, and really didn't until I was in college. Even now, I use it far more than I used to. Part of it's context though, there are certain areas where I don't do it at all, and certain areas where it's far more common, really depends on who I'm about and what we're doing.

I wouldn't say it's common in my workplace (which is in academics, I work around a lot of faculty members at a university), but it's also not unknown. And I do have one faculty member that man, if you get her going on a topic, let's just say she's pretty fluent in cursing. I think the first time that happened when I was around I almost keeled over in shock, because I never expected it from her.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gschrock said:


> I used to almost never curse, and really didn't until I was in college. Even now, I use it far more than I used to. Part of it's context though, there are certain areas where I don't do it at all, and certain areas where it's far more common, really depends on who I'm about and what we're doing.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's common in my workplace (which is in academics, I work around a lot of faculty members at a university), but it's also not unknown. And I do have one faculty member that man, if you get her going on a topic, let's just say she's pretty fluent in cursing. I think the first time that happened when I was around I almost keeled over in shock, because I never expected it from her.


But one thing I don't do, even when I need to curse, it throw the F curse into every sentence. You see that so often on TV, like they are making up for lost time. I remember one episode of Suits (where they didn't use the F curse much if at all) that when they were suddenly allowed to use the S*** word, they put it in like every sentence. In fact one time one of the main characters said something like, "It's S***, S***TY, S***, S**T." And is colleague responded with "Yeah, it's really S***, S***, and so forth. It was really obvious to me that they were just using the language because they could.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I only read the first page then jumped here.. so I see this was mentioned.. The language on 'basic cable' has gotten WAY more coarse over the past few years. The "s word" is commonplace nowadays, and it was a HUGE deal when 'er' was allowed to say it ONCE on an episode in the late 90s or early 2000s. They also say the 'd' word often too, though that one shows up on broadcast too.

e.g. The Daily Show has swearing nowadays.

Edit: Yes, I know cable isn't covered by the same FCC rules, but at least the commercial basic cable channels tended to de facto follow the same rules.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

mattack said:


> I only read the first page then jumped here.. so I see this was mentioned.. The language on 'basic cable' has gotten WAY more coarse over the past few years. The "s word" is commonplace nowadays, and it was a HUGE deal when 'er' was allowed to say it ONCE on an episode in the late 90s or early 2000s. They also say the 'd' word often too, though that one shows up on broadcast too.
> 
> e.g. The Daily Show has swearing nowadays.
> 
> Edit: Yes, I know cable isn't covered by the same FCC rules, but at least the commercial basic cable channels tended to de facto follow the same rules.


I find it funny that breaking bad and better call Saul on AMC was allotted one or two f words a season so they used him sparingly and made them count but Yellowstone on Paramount uses the same word at least a dozen times an episode this season.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I remember True Blood was like this. They still had some nudity later on, but it was a lot less prevalent in later seasons.

I wonder if after a series gets popular the actors are just in a position to demand less/no nudity?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Maybe the actors, being older, don't look as good nude in later seasons.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

zalusky said:


> One other observation. Once we learned smoking was bad for you they used to use smoking as a way of distinguishing the lower/upper and criminal/law abiding classes in movies and TV. As smoking has faded, I see language as a replacement in your face cheap trick to do it.


It used to be that way with cussing in the 80s. In Robocop the tipoff to know someone is a bad guy is they cuss. The second Bob Jones opens his mouth you think ahh, bad guy.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I remember True Blood was like this. They still had some nudity later on, but it was a lot less prevalent in later seasons.
> 
> I wonder if after a series gets popular the actors are just in a position to demand less/no nudity?


That's my theory, which I mentioned up thread. Once the actors are "famous" enough to say no, they can. As I mentioned with GoT, Emilia Clark was nude almost every episode the first season, and hardly at all later on. And even later on, there might have been a body double. There certainly was one for Lena Heady in the famous "shame" scene.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

ct1 said:


> The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel


I think that was absolutely intentional to get husbands to watch the show with their wifes.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Though as a counter-example, while I think the swearing is "excessive", I actually would rather have that than bleeping most of the time. Except for a live show before 10PM, I think bleeping should basically never be used. Especially when sitcoms nowadays intentionally have swearing and them bleeping AND BLURRING THEIR MOUTHS, it's stupid. Either have the swearing or use different language.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Squeak said:


> I think that was absolutely intentional to get husbands to watch the show with their wifes.


I'd be more inclined to agree if it didn't happen near the end of the episode.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

lambertman said:


> I'd be more inclined to agree if it didn't happen near the end of the episode.


Really? I think everyone will watch a show once, right? That was the "OMG!" hook at the end to get them to watch the next episode.


----------



## zyzzx (Jan 22, 2002)

Love on Netflix and Red Oaks on Amazon Prime had first-ep nudity and then little to none after that.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

tivotvaddict said:


> The more modern usage is actor, regardless of the gender of the person, just as we use doctor and delivery person.


"Delivery person" I get (though I don't think I've ever used the phrase). But "doctor"? You're suggesting that we now use "doctor" for both male and female doctors when previously we used....what exactly?

The new word choice I use most often is "server" instead of "waiter" or "waitress"---except for cocktail waitresses; that's still a thing.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> "Delivery person" I get (though I don't think I've ever used the phrase). But "doctor"? You're suggesting that we now use "doctor" for both male and female doctors when previously we used....what exactly?
> 
> The new word choice I use most often is "server" instead of "waiter" or "waitress"---except for cocktail waitresses; that's still a thing.


I didn't mean to imply that different words were previously used for male and female doctors. I was giving an example of how a profession uses a non-gender-specific term.

I like "server."


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Amnesia said:


> But "doctor"? You're suggesting that we now use "doctor" for both male and female doctors when previously we used....what exactly?


The feminine of doctor was "doctrix". But it was obsolete before there were any female doctors to speak of.


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure that was Season 1 so much as just the pilot..?


The only instances I can think of:
The pilot, as mentioned elsewhere, had the full frontal nudity of Sha're in its Showtime and DVD/Blu-Ray version and forced on the production by Showtime. Of course this was edited out of the Final Cut version and is cut out of the two-part syndicated version.

There is a brief nude appearance of Daniel Jackson (with Michael Shanks's arm strategically placed) at the beginning of the season seven two-hour premiere, "Fallen"/"Homecoming" (and it is reused in a later clip show). Comet airings blur most of Shanks.

Sam Carter appears post-coital without clothes but covered in sheets in season seven's "Death Knell".


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> That's my theory, which I mentioned up thread. Once the actors are "famous" enough to say no, they can. As I mentioned with GoT, Emilia Clark was nude almost every episode the first season, and hardly at all later on. And even later on, there might have been a body double. *There certainly was one for Lena Heady in the famous "shame" scene.*


Part of that was because Lena Heady was pregnant when that scene was filmed.


Lenonn said:


> There is a brief nude appearance of Daniel Jackson (*with Michael Shanks's arm strategically placed*) at the beginning of the season seven two-hour premiere, "Fallen"/"Homecoming" (and it is reused in a later clip show). Comet airings blur most of Shanks.
> 
> Sam Carter appears post-coital without clothes *but covered in sheets* in season seven's "Death Knell".


"Nudity" with something strategically placed or covered by sheets is not nudity at all. If you're going to point out instances where nudity is implied but covered, then we may as well start citing every single show ever made.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Squeak said:


> I think that was absolutely intentional to get husbands to watch the show with their wifes.


I don't recall any nudity in Mrs. Maisel's two seasons. But I don't need that to get me to watch. I grew up in New York in the 60's and this show has so many characters that are like so many people I grew up with it's like a trip down memory lane for me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> I don't recall any nudity in Mrs. Maisel's two seasons. But I don't need that to get me to watch. I grew up in New York in the 60's and this show has so many characters that are like so many people I grew up with it's like a trip down memory lane for me.


Yep, that was the draw for me. I knew a lot of people like in the series, though we were in a bit lower tax bracket than the main characters. The summer they did in the Catskills brought back so many memories.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Craigbob said:


> I don't recall any nudity in Mrs. Maisel's two seasons. But I don't need that to get me to watch. I grew up in New York in the 60's and this show has so many characters that are like so many people I grew up with it's like a trip down memory lane for me.


Pilot episode, at the very end when she does her first standup routine. She gets arrested for it.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of attraction for lots of people due to the nostalgia and that era, and that area.

And they could've just have easily done that scene with implied nudity, without actually showing the TV audience. That decision, in my mind, was intentional to attract a male audience.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> I don't recall any nudity in Mrs. Maisel's two seasons. But I don't need that to get me to watch. I grew up in New York in the 60's and this show has so many characters that are like so many people I grew up with it's like a trip down memory lane for me.


There have been three seasons of Maisel. And as Squeak said, she showed her boobs in the pilot episode.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> There have been three seasons of Maisel. And as Squeak said, she showed her boobs in the pilot episode.


And I think that is where the "t*ts up" catch phrase that her and her manager share before she goes on stage comes from.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

dwatt said:


> And I think that is where the "t*ts up" catch phrase that her and her manager share before she goes on stage comes from.


That's a pretty common exhortation for female performers about to go on stage.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

As a contrary, adding nudity to an established series, Ellis' backside has gotten lots of airtime on "Lucifer" on the move to Netflix.

--Carlos V.


----------



## kellyld (2 mo ago)

Squeak said:


> Pilot episode, at the very end when she does her first standup routine. She gets arrested for it. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of attraction for lots of people due to the nostalgia and that era, and that area. And they could've just have easily done that scene with implied nudity, without actually showing the TV audience. That decision, in my mind, was intentional to attract a male audience.


 Absolutely. Unfortunately that is the case for most shows. As I think someone previously mentioned, I think scripts are often much more well developed and interesting with far better storyline’s when some things are left to the imagination. I feel that society has been so desensitised to language, nudity, violence, gore and it’s a shame. I think it was lovely that once upon a time your body was special and exciting, something that was just for your partner. These days, not so much as it’s common in every other movie and tv show which I find a bit sad really.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

kellyld said:


> Absolutely. Unfortunately that is the case for most shows. As I think someone previously mentioned, I think scripts are often much more well developed and interesting with far better storyline’s when some things are left to the imagination. I feel that society has been so desensitised to language, nudity, violence, gore and it’s a shame. I think it was lovely that once upon a time your body was special and exciting, something that was just for your partner. These days, not so much as it’s common in every other movie and tv show which I find a bit sad really.


I've always said, it's much more difficult to write for shows where the amount of nudity, violence and language is limited (or non existent) than it is where anything goes. Today, language, nudity and violence is a crutch. There's a shock factor (though that is much less so now that it's more acceptable) and there's the laziness where they can just write to be "gritty and realistic" rather than actually trying to be creative. I always point to the famous Seinfeld episode "The Contest" where EVERYONE knew what they were talking about without ever having to say it once. That's what made the episode so creative and clever. Sure, showing T&A all over the screen might get people to watch, or blowing someone's head off, or saying the F-bomb every third word might seem realistic (depending on your culture), but to me, it's lazy and too easy. A talented writer doesn't need crutches like that to get their story told.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I've always said, it's much more difficult to write for shows where the amount of nudity, violence and language is limited (or non existent) than it is where anything goes. Today, language, nudity and violence is a crutch. There's a shock factor (though that is much less so now that it's more acceptable) and there's the laziness where they can just write to be "gritty and realistic" rather than actually trying to be creative. I always point to the famous Seinfeld episode "The Contest" where EVERYONE knew what they were talking about without ever having to say it once. That's what made the episode so creative and clever. Sure, showing T&A all over the screen might get people to watch, or blowing someone's head off, or saying the F-bomb every third word might seem realistic (depending on your culture), but to me, it's lazy and too easy. A talented writer doesn't need crutches like that to get their story told.


The Sopranons & Lillyhammer would beg to differ with you.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> The Sopranons & Lillyhammer would beg to differ with you.


Obviously there are exceptions, but all too often there aren't. I've actually seen The Sopranos when it was on A&E some years ago with the nudity and language tampered down. You know what? It was jarring to see it that way at first (having seen it on HBO originally) but you know what? It was still very good, and, if it was written with those restrictions in place, it might have even been great. Only saw a few episodes of Lillyhammer, and that show was just OK. They wrote TV show for the better part of 40 years without it, was it bad TV?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> ...They wrote TV show for the better part of 40 years without it, was it bad TV?


Oh my god yes. Have you never heard of the "vast wasteland" that TV used to be?

I agree that it's harder to write when one has to bowdlerize one's self; and as a result, that handicap produces an inferior product. There was nothing in the old days like "The Wire" nor "The Sopranos"; as much as I liked "The Twilight Zone", if you re-watch is does not compare favorably with today's show.

In my opinion, the problem with nudity on TV is there still isn't enough of it!


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> ....In my opinion, the problem with nudity on TV is there still isn't enough of it!


Emilia Clarke in GOT comes to my mind.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> Oh my god yes. Have you never heard of the "vast wasteland" that TV used to be?
> 
> I agree that it's harder to write when one has to bowdlerize one's self; and as a result, that handicap produces an inferior product. There was nothing in the old days like "The Wire" nor "The Sopranos"; as much as I liked "The Twilight Zone", if you re-watch is does not compare favorably with today's show.
> 
> In my opinion, the problem with nudity on TV is there still isn't enough of it!


There's more of a vast wasteland today, simply because there's much more of it. The "vast wasteland" was not because there was no quality TV, but because there was a huge backlash about WATCHING TV, as it wasn't considered as intellectual as books, or the arts. You can't watch TV from back then and compare it to today. it's different and much of that is what I said, the ability to write any type of crap you want, and technically it looks head and shoulders better. But compare the types of shows you had in the 1950s and 1960s, the types of dramas, that were very artistic in it's day. I think M*A*S*H and All in the Family and Mary Tyler Moore, Hill Street Blues, and even shows like Mission Impossible compare favorably to anything done today, and without all the uneeded cursing and nudity. I'm NOT a prude, and I enjoy the nudity as much as anyone else, but that doesn't make for great writing. It make for "I want to see so and so nude" or "I want to see someone's head get blown off" or I want to hear this or that person curse so they can show how "real" they are. So much of it is lazy writing. Like in any generation, there are great shows, there's crap shows. We are heading to another era of "vast wasteland" with all the stupid True Crime crap and reality shows. Is that any better than what we saw in the early days? No, it's much worse. It's voyeurism TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DouglasPHill said:


> Emilia Clarke in GOT comes to my mind.


Of course Emilia Clarke was only nude for a couple of seasons and then she became too big (and that stopped). Or maybe it was just used as shock value....look, here's our main character nude all the time. Eventually there was less and less nudity on GOT as they felt it was not needed as much. Nudity got a segment of people to watch.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Of course Emilia Clarke was only nude for a couple of seasons and then she became too big (and that stopped). Or maybe it was just used as shock value....look, here's our main character nude all the time. Eventually there was less and less nudity on GOT as they felt it was not needed as much. Nudity got a segment of people to watch.


I believe Emilia Clarke put an end to it as her influence grew. I think female empowerment movements like the Me Too movement had a lot more to do with ending gratuitous female nudity onscreen than audience boredom with it. Porn is still booming so it's not like men suddenly got tired of looking at boobs. It just became culturally risky for directors to insist on it when it has no real plot purpose.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I believe Emilia Clarke put an end to it as her influence grew. I think female empowerment movements like the Me Too movement had a lot more to do with ending gratuitous female nudity onscreen than audience boredom with it. Porn is still booming so it's not like men suddenly got tired of looking at boobs. It just became culturally risky for directors to insist on it when it has no real plot purpose.


Exactly this. Plus it is often used as a way to get people to watch, non-porn, i.e it's more cultrually acceptable to watch an HBO show with nudity, than porn on the internet. I know a few people who watched GoT because of the nudity and violence because they were curious. If the story is good enough, it's just not needed.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I believe Emilia Clarke put an end to it as her influence grew.


I recall the same, there was some reporting about that fact when she did agree to relent and do one more nude scene in one of the later seasons -- when she emerged unscathed from a fire that (among other things) burned all her clothing off.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Forcing nudity is bad. But worse is forcing non-nudity. Like when there is a couple in bed under the sheets, and one of them gets up, and goes through a complicated series of contortionist movements to make sure they sheet they have covers everything. No one gets up after sex and takes the sheet to go to the bathroom. And even worse when they are getting dressed, without dropping the sheet. Just don't show it like that.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Forcing nudity is bad. But worse is forcing non-nudity. Like when there is a couple in bed under the sheets, and one of them gets up, and goes through a complicated series of contortionist movements to make sure they sheet they have covers everything. No one gets up after sex and takes the sheet to go to the bathroom. And even worse when they are getting dressed, without dropping the sheet. Just don't show it like that.


And similarly all the women having sex wearing their bra.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

ej42137 said:


> ...Have you never heard of the "vast wasteland" that TV used to be?


"Used to be"?! In my opinion, the vast wasteland is now. I'm rarely on this forum compared to 15 years ago.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

zalusky said:


> And similarly all the women having sex wearing their bra.


Don't kink shame.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> "Used to be"?! In my opinion, the vast wasteland is now. I'm rarely on this forum compared to 15 years ago.


Every time is a vast wasteland, if you don't like the content, or you have some reason to hate TV. That's where "vast wasteland" came from. From intellectuals who hated TV because it marginalized more traditional forms of entertainment, especially books. Of course these are the same people who railed against trashy novels too. TV was beneath them. It still would be today.


----------

