Since there’s always two sides in a negotiation, why is it more the actress’s fault and not the producers for failing to offer “can’t refuse” amounts of money?
Clever use of the word “nudity” to get me to click on my first-ever Game of Thrones discussion topic. 
Since I don’t watch or follow the show, I am probably missing many important details but, from the context clues I was able to pick up on in the other thread, it seems to me that @SenorBeef’s representation of the situation as:
… is false. ISTM that a more accurate representation of the situation is that Ms. Clarke signed a contract that obliged her to do nude scenes, and she fulfilled the terms of her contract in good faith. And then, the contract obliging her to do nude scenes expired, and she didn’t want to do it any more. But, the show continued to be on the air, and the producers wanted to bring her back. Which meant that it was time to sign a new contract. At which point, she got her new contract to stipulate that which she had the leverage to negotiate, just like everybody else walking the earth.
I’d say why on earth wouldn’t she be.
I don’t think that is true but someone with more concrete information may be along. I heard that the actor’s contracts were for 6 years with an option for 7. All the principles recently signed up for season 7 with a hefty raise. They are currently in season 6. Her decision to not do nudity occurred under the old initial contract.
Headey has done nude scenes in other movies, and apparently was originally OK with doing the Walk of Shame scene nude. From what I posted in the other thread, they deliberately refrained from showing Cersei nude in previous scenes in order to heighten the impact of the Walk of Shame. In a recent interview she said the reason she wanted to use a body double in this one was that she thought her performance would suffer if she had to be nude in front of crowds of extras for three days.
As I said in the other thread, I have no problem if a actor decides they don’t want to do nude scenes even if they haven’t done them before. Emilia’s non-nudity in recent episodes has been a little incongruous based on what she has done before, but not enough that it is a significant issue. There are a lot more things in the show that make me smack my head worse. If the producers considered it a serious issue they could have used a body double as they did with Headey.
True story: I watched one episode, but that was just to see Andrew Rannells naked. 
I saw Tom Felder (Draco Malfoy) interviewed at a con and somebody asked if it was true he was offered the lead male role in The Reader. He said he wasn’t exactly offered it but he was approached, but he turned it down as soon as he learned it involved nudity. It’s not that he’s embarrassed of his body, he said, but that Daniel Radcliffe had recently gone starkers in Equus and the pics are all over the internet and he (Felder) hopes to have kids one day and really doesn’t want them and all their friends to be able to google his wand forever (especially in a few years when he no longer has that youthful glow and new car smell and all).
Per what I can find, her decision not to do nudity came after the third season, not just before this one.
People are asserting vociferously that her original contract obligated her to do nudity. While she was informed before auditioning that the role included nudity, I would like to see a cite that her contract included a requirement to do nudity.
There are a lot of assumptions flying around about what Clarke actually agreed to do. It’s not clear to me that anyone has an actual shred of information about what her contract actually said.
Are you looking for volunteers?
I think I’ve seen one episode of the show, but if she doesn’t want to display the goods anymore, and she is a big enough star to make the request stick, I can’t see a reason to object.
What difference does it make if they use a body double? I wonder if that would affect her decision.
Didn’t Bricker start a thread a while ago about two actors on the show who were brother and sister IRL, but might do a make-out scene together? Or am I misrembering?
Regards,
Shodan
I think that, once the show took off and Clarke gained huge visibility because of it, she figured she could negotiate a new contract. I don’t believe the story about six or seven year contracts from Year One of the series, because how could they know the series would be renewed for six or seven years? It’s a tremendously expensive show to make, and the only reason it has continued to be made is that it’s the greatest success HBO has ever had with a series. I could be wrong about that, but I feel comfy with the logic.
Was she within her legal rights to do so? Yes, she was. Was it completely ethical? No, it wasn’t. As Super Chicken used to say, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.”
Yeah, it’s this in my opinion. If you’re comfortable working nude, do it until it becomes a cliché as long as it gets you work, and doesn’t conflict with your artistic sensibilities. If it’s not really your thing, or you think it’s obfuscating the meaning of the work, then negotiate with the understanding that you may have to bow out. If she’s the latter, more power to her. Their vision and pocketbooks are all fine and dandy, but she’s not a slave.
-scabpicker,
Who’s worked starkers as a model for art more often than not, and am always flattered that I’m asked, either way.
Should there be a “not” in that sentence?
I don’t know what her first contract said but it probably obligated her to do nudity. It’s a pretty standard provision of actor contracts where it’s relevant. The Screen Actors Guild-AFTRA contract requires that producers notify an actor before they audition for a role if the producers know that the actor’s nudity is required or if they were planning to use a body double to simulate nudity–they certainly knew in this case. The contract also requires the producers to get the prior written consent of the actor to the nudity or the use of body doubles to simulate the actor’s nudity. (SAG-AFTRA contract (pdf warning): https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sag/2005theatricalagreement.pdf)
I don’t know if Game of Thrones is a union production. Even if not, the actress in Game of Thrones would likely have had a similar nudity clause in her contract. The producers want to know that the actress they hire will do the scenes they want her to do and including it in the contract makes everyone’s expectations clear.
The SAG-AFTRA contract also allows an actor to withdraw consent to do nude scenes. In that case, the producers have the right use a body double even if the actor doesn’t consent. Also, once the actor has filmed a nude scene, the actor can’t withdraw consent, so the producers can still use the already-filmed footage.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
I don’t believe the story about six or seven year contracts from Year One of the series, because how could they know the series would be renewed for six or seven years? It’s a tremendously expensive show to make, and the only reason it has continued to be made is that it’s the greatest success HBO has ever had with a series. I could be wrong about that, but I feel comfy with the logic.
Was she within her legal rights to do so? Yes, she was. Was it completely ethical? No, it wasn’t. As Super Chicken used to say, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.”
[/QUOTE]
An actor would often sign a three-year contract with a new series. Generally, those contracts require the actor to stay on the series for a minimum number of episodes filmed within a certain time period. The producers though are not similarly bound to the actor. If the show is cancelled, or the actor is unpopular or hard to work with, or if the writers just want to kill off the character or send them to Mars, the producers can fire the actor and not pay them for any more episodes. When popular actors on successful series renew their contracts, they can usually negotiate more pay, better working conditions, and guarantees that they will appear in and be paid for every episode of the show that airs or even for every episode contemplated by the contract even if the show is cancelled in the middle of the run.
An actor would probably not sign a seven year contract. The actor’s agent doesn’t want to bind them to a seven-year contract. If the show is popular enough for a seven-year run, the actors on it will build enough negotiating power before the end of the contract to get better terms. The agent makes more money if the actor does.
It was indisputably completely ethical of her to withdraw her consent to do nude scenes within the bounds of her contract or when negotiating a new contract. Just because she showed you her body once, it doesn’t mean she owes you the right to see her body again.
Clarke’s decision to forego more scenes with nudity seems to have more to do with the public treatment of the actress than issues with the production of the show, and she may well want to preserve her reputation as a thespian over just being considered a pin-up (although she needs to be more judicious about selecting her projects). However, if we’re being honest, the vast majority of the nudity in Game of Thrones is almost entirely gratuitous and exists simply to let the viewer know why they are paying a premium for HBO. The only real scene where Clarke’s character logically or thematically needed to actually be naked was her emerging from the funeral pyre, and in that scene the show actually reduced the saliciousness of the scene.
Stranger
The Resolution in this thread does not get to the heart of the actual matter at hand. Of course she has a right to negotiate or re-negotiate her contract to remove the requirement to do nude scenes, and in this case she had the leverage to do so. However, the scene in question involved her having her stately robes removed as a sign of humiliation. It was a powerful use of nudity to advance the story, so when they used odd angles, and only showed her from the neck up, it brought me out of the scene and made me think, “Oh yeah, she doesn’t do nudes anymore”. At least for me, it brought me out of the scene, back into the real world, which was very conspicuous, and diminished the power of the scene. The show has used gratuitous nudity before, but usually it is used with minor characters. When any of the leads appear nude, it is usually done for an important reason, and this would have been such a case. So, while I agree she certainly has the right to make the decision, I can see how this decision could be used against her in the future if there are any roles available which require nudity.
Imagine if her contract did require nudity but she balked. What would be the outcome of that? The producers could sue her for breach which would be really off putting, suing an actress to force her to take her clothes off.
Without the terms of the contracts I’ll reserve judgment.
She changed her mind. She asked to re-negotiate. The producers had the choice to fire her for breach or come to a new understanding. They chose the latter. Why is this even an issue?
Your concern for her career is touching. Is Cinemax still “Skinemax” late at night? If so, she’ll be ineligible for the remake of all those “Emanuelle” films. What a disappointment to have no future in soft core pseudo-porn.
Look if it was about seeing Emilia naked then that’s why Gore invented the internet. My issue is that after having so many nude scenes in the first few seasons now when she is holding a blanket up or like last week she is stripped naked as the camera goes in for a close up it seems really off.
Alternately, it was a perfectly well-executed scene and nothing about it jolted me out of the story. Perhaps the producers/showrunner are playing to audience like me rather than to audience like you.