Within her rights to re-negotiate, absolutely.
However, I think the producers should have just re-cast the role in response.
I would find it very uncomfortable to have to do my job nude. I’ll bet she does too. They offered her the job only if she was willing to work nude. Now they are letting her do the job with clothes on, and she probably prefers to do it that way. It’s not that hard to understand.
They had that option but they apparently thought the actress was worth more than her boobs. I’m sorry you disagree.
Are you kidding?:dubious: There’s lots of male nudity in GoT, including some full frontal scenes (including by one of main actors, Alfie Allen). It’s been so prevalent that it was parodied by South Park, where Butters complained that all they ever got to see in the first few seasons were “floppy wieners” but no dragons. Admittedly there’s been far more female nudity (of breasts and butts, at least, though full frontal has been rarer), but there’s more male nudity, especially wieners, than in most shows.
Here’s your parental guide to all the sex and violence in GoT.
As to the OP: Yes, even if it somehow “hurts the show”. Especially since the producers would do the same if it benefitted them.
It makes it a bit jarring to see her covering herself after NOT doing it before, but it’s her body and she can do what she wants.
Sorry, as many have said, most simply want more naked Emilia, period no matter the gratuitousness.
[QUOTE=Sampiro;19325323**]
It is interesting to me how nudity is far more likely to be essential to the plot if the actors are good looking and have toned bodies.** You do get an occasional Kathy Bates or fat-hairy-guy-from-Borat nude scene, but when you do they’re usually for comedy and such the exception that they make headlines.
Also surprising that they’re not as essential to the plotlines of shows on basic cable. Which is a shame: I can think of lots of potential plotlines where nudity would benefit the plotline and my spank bank on the show Supernatural for instance. (“The brothers and Castiel go undercover at a nude wrestling camp to investigate demons or monsters or something… the point is nekkid Winchester and Castiel.”)
[/QUOTE]
(My bolding)
Exactly. Nobody wanted to see Walda having sex with Roose, more air time to hag-Melisandre, or Alliser Thorne’s dick.
We want more Missandei/Ygritte boobs and/or* Daario/Jon ass. This show (as great as it is) is the mother of all Sexpositions.
*Depending on how you roll.
We sure it didn’t go like this?
“Okay, these nude scenes are starting to bug me, can we please stop doing them?”
“But the nudity is important to the show and the character. Ask us for anything else.”
“Can we at least fix this fucking shitty wig?”
“Well, maybe we could use a body double…”
Of course, I don’t watch the show (not an HBO fan in general, really), but I’m pretty sure she’s not supposed to be wearing a wig–despite it so obviously being one. If it bugs me this much when I just see clips and pictures, I can’t imagine how it works on the show proper.
South Park Game of Thrones Wiener Song,conducted by George RR Martin.
No, they really didn’t. That’s the whole point of this debate. She’s one of the most important and recognizable characters on the show. You can’t just pull a switcheroo like that without it kinda ruining things for the audience.
(and yes, I know they’ve had to recast some of the minor characters and even that is unusual for a popular TV series to do, but became inevitable due to the absolutely gigantic cast)
So, the actress was worth more than her boobs.
Yes, since a few of the times I was modeling for my wife. There’s a (IIRC, I didn’t go back and check the size) 4X3 oil painting of me sitting back in the studio, and a few woodcuts. She was admonished about showing penises by a gallery owner who was a complete idiot :rolleyes:, so she’s actually a little shy about showing them.
I won’t say it’s a huge deal, but if it’s throwing people out of the scene, it’s not exactly trivial either.
But I wouldn’t want them recasting over this. There aren’t that many scenes where it’s an issue. But let’s not pretend it isn’t an issue, even if it is a relatively small one.
I’ve never seen the show either, and just had to look up Emilia Clarke on Wikipedia because I didn’t know who she was. So I’m not in a position to make a good guess as to what her reasons might have been, but the obvious thing that would have changed between signing her original contract and renegotiating for no nudity is that she now has actual experience doing nude scenes on a popular TV series. The reality of the situation presumably turned out to be worse for her in some way than she had expected. I doubt Clarke has much to gain by publicly saying exactly why she is no longer willing to do nude scenes on GoT, since that would likely involve badmouthing the show or its fans or else opening herself up to (even more) personal criticism and accusations of hypocrisy.
I did notice that her Wikipedia entry mentioned that Clarke had turned down the lead role in 50 Shades of Grey because it would have required her to do nude scenes. 50 Shades of Grey was released last year, and I’d guess the casting was going on at least two years ago. So it sounds like Clarke has been wanting to move away from doing nude scenes for a while.
If someone is getting thrown out of a scene by a GD L-shaped sheet…then how thrown will they get when a completely new actress is playing The Khaleeeeeeesiiiii? And how thrown will they get every time the new Khaleeessssssiiii shows her tits, knowing that’s why Clarke got fired?
Shit, I almost created new canon in my head over the Daario recast cause they looked so different.
Narrative film and television are not documentaries and everyone knows this. They are full of artifice. The goal of film has never been to try to recreate a literal universe. It’s theatrical and it always has been. The audience must overlook an endless number of things to stay in the picture. Theft that the camera might look away from a naked character is possibly the least of those things.
It’s mainly so noticeable because L-shaped sheets are such a well-known and well-remarked-upon Hollywood cliche, and early in its run, the show was so vigorous about ignoring or demolishing Hollywood cliches, on the large scale (what happened to Ned) and the small (all the nudity at times when most shows or movies would back away).
Suddenly changing gears with respect to nudity is definitely noticeable.
Look, you can make a perfectly good movie or TV show in which the characters spend a lot of time at a strip club, but for some reason all the strippers are always wearing bikinis. And you can make a perfectly good movie or TV show in which the characters spend a lot of time at a strip club at which the strippers are in fact naked. But if you make a movie or TV show which starts out with naked strippers and then suddenly switches to bikini-clad strippers, people are going to notice and comment on it.
It won’t necessarily ruin your movie or TV show, it’s not the hugest deal in the world, it’s not worthy of huge condemnation, and maybe it’s the best compromise possible given the real-world limitations you had to work with, but it will still be an abrupt enough change to be worthy of comment.
It’s noticeable because they keep insisting in shoe horning scenes where she should by all rights be naked but isn’t, there is a much easier fix for that.
Commenting on something is very different from declaring that Emilia Clarke has compromised the artistic vision of the show, which is where this conversation started in the show thread.
There was certainly some hyperbole in that thread, and some fairly offensive comments about Ms. Clarke. That doesn’t mean that the entire conversation is purely entitles assholes who want to see more tits.
The show has noticeably less nudity this year IMO anyway.
Among the most offensive is certainly “Now that I’ve seen it all, what does she think she’s hiding?” category of commentary.
No, but the thing is once you agree that you noticed it but it’s not really important and Clarke was well within her legal, professional, moral, and ethical rights to do it, then where does the conversation go from there? So far it has been little more than a repetition of the same points.