Well, no, they’re not. They deliberately violate conventions of TV all the time to shock viewers out of their complacency. Most famously, they did it via the beheading of Ned Stark in Season 1, where we learned that even the obvious good guy in the show can be killed, for little or no reason.
The use of familiar TV cliche shots to avoid nudity in a scene in which the nudity has some point runs directly counter to their usual practices.
That didn’t bother me either.
Dear me. How shocking.
Maybe by refusing to show you some tits and ass at every opportunity they are shocking you out of your complacency with regards to this show.
Use of nudity in GoT is itself a cliche at this point.
Surely you must be aware that others did not share your equanimity. I would say it was one of the most effective dramatic scenes in the history of TV.
Not shocking. As others have said, it threw them out of the scene.
Cite?
Bluenoses have been saying this for decades, but there’s no evidence you can make a bad show popular by adding nudes. And you also lose viewers who find it objectionable.
And here I was thinking that Headey had a body double in the Walk of Shame scene because she was pregnant. Must’ve been thinking of someone else…
It seems to me that the nudity in GoT is down quite a bit from the 2nd and 3rd seasons. No?
I thought it was very well done. It didn’t jolt me out of the show.
Right, and as I said, the lack of explicit nudity didn’t throw me out of the scene at all. So perhaps the showrunners/director are playing to ME in the audience, rather than to YOU.
I know this is a hard concept to accept. It can take a little getting used to. Take as much time as you need.
I clicked on this thread to point out the gratuitousness nature of the nudity in GoT. I wonder if the gratuitousness is why she no longer does the nude scenes? I am certainly not a prude, but I hate a show/movie that claims it is not gratuitous with nudity when it so obviously is. If it annoys me I can imagine it also annoys the actress who is being asked to appear nude.
That was an explanation that was given by the showrunners on the DVD commentary. However, based on when she gave birth she must have become pregnant after or just around the time of the shoot. Given the time needed to cast a body double and make other arrangements, it’s clear it was planned to use a double well before she even became pregnant.
Headey gave the explanation that it was due to acting considerations in an interview this April. The showrunners may have given the pregnancy explanation to protect her privacy. They must have known the actual explanation.
What brought me out of the show was that GoT is not afraid to show nudity when appropriate. Yes there is a lot of gratuitous nudity but what I’m talking about is when two people are having sex or lying in bed after sex they’re nude. The high sparrow wanted to humiliate Cercei so she was naked. What to me out of it was not that Dany wasn’t shown nude, but rather for a series that doesn’t hide nudity* the obviousness of NOT showing it was jarring.
*Like regular TV shows where couples have mad passionate sex in bra & panties/boxers or all of the sudden do anything to NOT show their partner their naughty bits. I remember a movie with Rahda Mitchell that was perfect. She and her boyfirend had just had sex so she gets out of bed and stans there naked. Not gratuitious but normal behavior.
Which season had the nonsense stuff with Podrick and his “freebies” from prostitutes?
I’m no expert but I have heard on various podcasts that series regulars get long term contracts in the beginning of a series. It is in the best interest of the producers so they don’t have to renegotiate in season 2. The actors are happy to have a steady paying job. Few shows are so successful that they can attempt to renegotiate before the end of the contract. As was said earlier these are not guaranteed contracts. If the show is cancelled or the character is killed off then the contract is void. There is also the game they play with naming someone a series regular or a recurring character.
And you gain viewers who get excited by viewing the forbidden. There are audiences of all types out there. Are you honestly suggesting that nudity isn’t a powerful marketing tool? Yes, there’s a demographic for which it is counter-productive, but come on. I’m pretty far from being a prude, but that also means that I don’t need to pretend that nudes in mainstream media don’t serve a financial purpose.
To clarify, I’m not arguing any kind of moral problem with nudity on TV or in film. I just find it silly that in discussions about this sort of thing people seem all-too-willing to come down hard on actresses who make the choice to not do nude scenes, implying that they’re getting in the way of the poor writers and cinematographers who just want to tell a good story if only these women would start acting like professionals and get naked like the good (bad) girls they are.
“Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, we can replace your tits with another set in a New York minute!”
Per this column, the cast members originally signed a six year contract, but renegotiated during year four to include a year seven option.
I think this opens the door to at least another renegotiation, since the signs seem to point to eight seasons total. Perhaps producers are stalling on that renegotiation until more of the A tier dies onscreen?
I completely disagree. At least in the case of Clarke, most of the nude scenes were totally gratuitous and obviously intended to appeal to the prurient interests of viewers.
I completely disagree. At least in the case of Clarke, most of the nude scenes were totally gratuitous and obviously intended to appeal to the prurient interests of viewers.
And note that I’m amongst the people who indeed were bothered by her being ostensibly not naked in a couple recent scenes. But at the beginning of the show, Clarke was shown disrobed at every possible occasion for what I remember. That equally was taking me out of the show, thinking : “Oh! mandatory boobs scene again!”
It’s not an issue of nudity being better or worse than lack of nudity. It’s an issue of consistency. GoT has, over the seasons, established its style, its voice, its look, its conventions.
Suddenly, one of them changed, quite obviously. And I knew that the reason for that change was not an artistic decision from the show runners, but an external factor at least partially out of their control.
I’m certainly not comfortable using language which implies that Emilia Clarke someone has a responsibility to continue to get naked on film, or that we have a right to see her naked as fans of the show, or anything like that. That would be disturbing and a bit rape-y.
And the extent to which I noticed the externality was only minor, not like it ruined the scene or the episode or anything. But it was definitely a real moment.
I’m not sure I agree, although I don’t categorically remember every time she was ever naked. But much of her early story arc concerned her growth from someone who was basically a slave, a possession given from her brother to her husband. Her nudity early in that arc could certainly be argued to emphasize her helplessness.
Certainly, it wasn’t gratuitous in the same way that the infamous brothel exposition scenes were.
Yeah, not really. I’ve done research on Clarke’s nude scenes and they are quite in line with the characterizations at the point in time. No spoilers, but this is a show based on books and nudity of Daenerys’s character is quite prominent in the original work. In the opening she is bathing and her brother is measuring her up as someone would a show animal. During the Drogo rape-yness it would be expected. During the fire at the end of season 1 also. The only possible gratuitousness could be the bath scene with Dario, but even that is supposed to be more empowering than anything. Given the description of the traditional clothing of the people of Meereen, what we see on the show is quite tame.
Given the contracts were renegotiated, I see nothing wrong with Clarke’s choices.
I have no dog in this fight, as I don’t watch the show, and she has the right to negotiate whatever contract she wants… but I must confess that I’m puzzled by her decision. I can understand an actress saying right from the outset that she won’t do nude scenes. There’s plenty of arguments for that, ranging from not wanting your sixth grade math teacher to be able to see you naked, to just not being the sort of person who wants that. But why would someone find it acceptable to go nude for a while, but then change her mind? She’s not stopping anyone from seeing her nude at this point, since all of the previous scenes are still available. She didn’t have any moral objection before. What changed?