There is no nudity in episode 1 of season 2.
Several of you have complained that the PC culture has infected Hollywood to such an extent that it is squashing female nudity. I don’t know whether that is true in general, but it seems to be. It is certainly true with this show. HBO used to be a good source of nudity in general, and the Game of Thrones franchise was exceptionally good. Not any more. There were plenty of opportunities for nudity in this episode: a bath and two sex scenes. There’s nothing to see.
- The first sex scene is literally fully clothed. The guy barely removes his armor. As I often say, the Inuits wear less clothing on a seal hunt.
- The second scene is far from the camera, not that it matters, because it is shot from the rear, woman on top cowgirl-style, employing the ol’ “blanket over her butt”cliche.
- The bath is photographed to reveal nothing.
Damn, this show is confusing. I am a total GoT nerd. I even own a copy of the pricey “The World of Ice and Fire,” and it’s a good thing I do, because I had forgotten a lot of season one, so I had to reread the chapters on Viseris I and Aegon II to figure out approximately what was going on in this episode. The downside of that approach is that I now know the plot twists for the entire season. Oh, well. I’ll still watch it.
If you’re not equally obsessed with Martin’s books and shows, or if you have forgotten the details of season 1, you may get lost here. If you aren’t familiar with that universe, I don’t recommend starting here.
I don’t think it has a thing to do with supposed “PC culture.” I think it has far more to do with the millennial and zoomer ability to access nudity already and discomfort with sex in media. I suppose porn has been so widely available their entire lives that nude scenes are no longer treasured. And then, so many seem to think sex scenes are uncomfortable. But at the same time, “Hacks” on HBO this season featured fairly copious nudity, and from one of the stars of the show to boot. It could be that there were SO many complaints about the pointlessness of nudity on the original Game of Thrones that the spin-off doesn’t want to be mocked for the same.
You have made my point for me.
Those two sentences are contradictory.
“Political correctness” is a term used to describe language or measures that are intended to avoid offense to members of particular groups in society. (Millennials and zoomers are the groups in this instance.)
That again is an example of PC culture, which requires deference the opinions of other people or groups in society rather than what the creator envisions or the situation requires. (Do you think Yorgos Lanthimos, the ultimate PI creator, thinks about what some snowflakes in society will think of his scenes? Nah, he creates them the way he wants them.)
The ultimate example of PC culture is the “woman on top cowgirl style, facing the man, covering her butt with a blanket” scene, or what you might call gratuitous clothing, given that this pretty much never happens in real life. What could be more PC than to have no nudity in a situation that absolutely requires nudity.
I think what I don’t like about “woman on top, facing the man, covering her butt with a blanket” is how half ass (ha ha) it is. Remember Battlestar Galactica? Mostly an excellent show, but the characters saying “Frack” all the time made me want to scream. We know you’re saying fuck. Either say fuck- or get the thesaurus out. You don’t need to swear. If you’re not going to commit to saying the words, then fucking don’t swear. (Yeah I know there were network things in that case, but it doesn’t disprove my point. If you’re not allowed to say fuck- Don’t. Don’t substitute in a made up word.)
With the covered cowgirl, you don’t need to show them having sex. There are other ways to show characters have a sexual relationship without showing them fucking. Either show all the parts and the grinding- or don’t. Convey the information another way.
(I mean, it’s cooler when they do show everything. I don’t think PC is an excuse to not be sexual. I am a millennial, and it’s something I never understand about us. Fucking is awesome. Titties, ass and dicks are awesome. Watching attractive people be naked is awesome. Just cause you like naked breasts doesn’t mean you see the woman showing them is less of a person. For actors, if no one’s forcing you, what the fuck? It’s how you handle the working relationship. I don’t hear Emma Stone telling anyone Yorgos is exploiting her)
Once again, you don’t understand the definition of PC.
“Political correctness” is a term used to describe language or measures that are intended to avoid offense to members of particular groups in society.
It has nothing to do with individuals with particular preferences. It has nothing to do with the watcher of the show, but is something done by the creator, or sometimes by a reviewer or influencer. Thus, your mom is not PC if she doesn’t like nudity, but a show is PC if it leaves out nude scenes because it is afraid of offending her and other Christians (or offending females, or gays, or any other group).
Basically if you create content to pander to or avoid offending any group, you are PC. If you create the content exactly as you personally want it and think it should be, you are not.
Not all wholesome content is PC. For example, if the content creator just doesn’t like nude scenes, ala Woody Allen, he’s not being PC. He’s just satisfying himself.
It mostly has to do with the Hollywood businesses in freefall. The reality is they are all financially dying. They have been using naked actresses to sell more HBO, more Showtime, more cable channel packages, etc. The subscriptions for all these are declining all the time. They tried adding more naked women about a decade ago and it didn’t matter, they continued to decline. They don’t want to waste naked women in businesses that are dying anyway.
Streaming is the future, but that presents another problem. They are having a hard time making money in streaming because there is so much competition. And if streaming grew too fast it would only cause more people to cancel cable which is where Hollywood companies make their most money. They are in a catch-22. There really isn’t any solution so they will continue to decline for years to come. At some point, traditional media like cable will become obsolete and Hollywood companies will focus solely on the future. They will probably also be much smaller then so it will be easier to grow. At that point they will become far more aggressive in trying to compete. At this point in time, they are just milking what they got and have given up on trying to compete with Netflix.
Basically, all this always comes down to the revenues and profits that the huge Hollywood studios are getting and has nothing to do with the audience. Streaming which is growing fast is filled with more beautiful naked women than you could ever need (if that is possible). And these naked women are a huge part of that success, it has always worked in competing against big Hollywood studios. The naked women are here to stay, not sure how much longer big Hollywood studios have. The studio names will be around, but they won’t be so big.
Apparently there is full frontal nudity later in the season, but not female one.
For whatever reason, male nudity does not get a “tut, tut” from the high sheriffs of the PC police.
Same with the current season of The Boys so far.
It isn’t PC culture. That’s like “woke” which is only used by right wing idiots. It doesn’t exist in reality.
Two things happened:
1. The actor’s strike. Performers suddenly have a bit more oomph in the business. A producer saying “we need tits in this show” can’t exactly guarantee he’ll get them. Intimacy coordinators are now the standard. Did you know unsimulated sex acts are now against union rules? Banned. Period. No matter who is down for it. If it’s a union shoot, it’s simulated. Period. Both things have producers less likely to greenlight nudity and sex, especially female. It costs more now. Actors earn more, extra staff is needed, and rules are followed more strictly. It has zero to do with “pc” and everything to do with performer power. Surprisingly, sex scenes aren’t fun. Not having to do them? Preferred.
2. With this show in particular, there was a bunch of backlash against the OG show. From Ian McShane’s “tits and dragons” to the generally abusive and nasty nature of a lot of the spicy scenes turning off female viewers, I think HBO was fine saying so long to Benioff and whoever. The new powers that be are focusing on show, and it’s getting a great response…without being the butt (pun intended) of public ridicule.
Iit’s getting a great response? House of the Dragon didn’t even come close to GOT’s viewership. Ratings/reviews are also worse.
As far as I have seen, the show has had both good reviews and good ratings. HBO is very satisfied with it.
A streaming platform will never admit failure, especially when the series is high-budget. But if we look at independent data, House of the Dragon has definitely lower viewership than GOT, and worse ratings.
All episodes of season one averaged 29 million total viewers (about three times the number who watched the first-night broadcast).
That was quite comparable to the final season of GoT.
Internationally, the first season of HotD actually did BETTER than the final season of GoT, making it the most popular HBO series of all time in overseas markets.
As important, the new series also caused people to go back and re-watch GoT, creating a massive spike for all seasons of GoT on HBO Max.
And it has an RT rating over 90%.
It’s difficult to find anything to complain about in those numbers.
(Of course it’s extremely expensive, so I don’t know whether HBO can claim it is profitable, but they are satisfied with it.)
The thing is, none of these things mean anything. And comments from companies like HBO are marketing bullshit. The only thing that matters is the value of the company, in this case WBD. The stock is in decline, down to $7 a share. It had steadily been around 30 to 40 in recent years. It, and HBO with it, is a dying company. They can’t make money in streaming like they did in cable because they can’t get enough people to pay enough each month. These businesses no longer care as they no there is no place to go but down.
None of these businesses give a flying fuck about ratings or streaming hours watched. The only thing they give a shit about is the current market value of the company. There is a reason why Wall Street is demanding Paramount to be sold, and WBD is shortly behind them. The only thing keeping Disney afloat is their parks and cruises.
RIGHT! I rest my case.
As I mentioned in response to the previous commenter, your comments actually prove that it IS PC.
“Political correctness” is a term used to describe language or measures that are intended to avoid offense to members of particular groups in society. (In your particular analysis, as you noted, female viewers.)
Creators who are free of PC are not concerned with offending segments of society. They create shows and scenes the way they want them, without regard to external concepts of propriety. I used Yorgos Lanthimos as the ultimate example.
That said, I like the PC House of the Dragon, and don’t care at all for Lanthimos’ PI films, so PC isn’t all bad.
I’m sure you’ve probably read that Ryan Condal and Miguel Sapochnik have actually admitted to political correctness. They wanted the series to be less white, the crowds to be more diverse, and for sexual violence to be de-normalized. That was contrary to the world imagined by George Martin, who once said, “The books reflect a patriarchal society based on the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages were not a time of sexual egalitarianism. There weren’t a lot of Asians either.” In his universe, there are few people of any color but white in the seven kingdoms.
Martin and the original showrunners wanted the show to reflect the cultural reality of medieval times. Clearly the new showrunners have abandoned that to pander to the new cultural environment of the 2020s, in which other shows have earned wide acceptance and praise for placing people of color in unlikely, counter-historical roles (The Great, Bridgerton, Wheel of Time, etc).
Condal has made no secret of his desire to be PC. He specifically and bluntly told Entertainment Weekly, “It was very important for Miguel and I (sic) to create a show that was not another bunch of white people on the screen.” Sapochnik actually cited both the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements as inspirations for his casting and creative decisions in an interview with the Times.
I’m all for showing POC in traditional fantasy settings, and to an extent historical ones (make it clear you’re not a documentary). But they should maybe make something new out of it? Leave the baggage behind? Someone said about that LORT prequel show, you see black elves in the show. That’s fine, but then in the Lord of the Rings movies there are no black elves anymore. What happened to them?
I have to say that I don’t care one way or the other when they are creating an imaginary world. Imaginary denizens can be white, black, mauve, lime green, burnt sienna, or any other color in the Crayola Spectrum.
If you are willing to believe that elves and trolls exist, you also have to accept that these fanciful creatures may be bright red, cerulean blue, peach, salmon, fuchsia or any other color.
Have we learned nothing from My Little Pony?
A story from Variety. Confirms what I was saying. Note the lack of “we’re doing less because it’s more woke” or anything similar. A showrunner who wants to be more story-focused, and a knowledge that the OG series was just REALLY heavy with the tits and dragons. Add at least one star that straight-up doesn’t like doing them, and there you go.
The creators’ decisions regarding diversity and such have -zero- to do with the amount of bare asses.
Note also that in those two interviews I quoted earlier, the showrunners specifically admitted to being PC. That is their thing. They want to appeal to all audiences, offend none. (Which is sensible marketing, after all.)
The worst PC failing is HotD’s pro-forma casting of diverse actors, just because they specifically wanted the show to be PC and diverse, even though it made no sense at all in the context of the plot. That specifically added a modern political overlay in a place where none was appropriate. As Matt Smith said in the article, “Are you representing the books, or are you diluting the books to represent the time [we’re living in]?’ And I actually think it’s your job to represent the books truthfully and honestly, as they were written.”
It’s interesting that both Smith and Cooke are expressing public disagreements with the showrunner, and both about sex scenes. Olivia felt that her scene should have stayed in, while Matt felt that he was asked to do too many. (Basically consistent with what my readers are saying – too many guys, too few women.) I guess it’s a sign of a healthy environment that they feel free to criticize their showrunner in public.
The important fact is that the story line is solid and closely parallels the books. Story quality has not been put on the back-burner behind the PC agenda, so the whole thing is fine with me.
On a more direct political matter, it seems the video posted here of Joe Biden freezing up like Mitch McConnell was fake. A heavily edited video put out by the RNC, one of a whole bunch they’ve made in the last 2 weeks or so.
The obvious question proves my point that there is no problem with Biden’s mental or physical abilities at this time: if Biden is unfit for office, why does the Republican party have to resort to fake videos to demonstrate this?
“More Americans may think President Joe Biden tried to sit on a nonexistent chair the other day than know the boring truth that there was, in fact, a chair,” NBC News reports.
“The chair-that-was-there was just one of many quick video clips the conservative media ecosystem willed into virality over the past two weeks, leaving fact-checkers and Biden’s team with little chance to catch up.”
“The Republican National Committee, major conservative media outlets and right-wing influencers have succeeded in blasting out videos that they claim show ‘proof’ of Biden’s wandering off, freezing up or even filling his pants with a substance commonly represented by a brown swirl emoji.”
You are correct about at least two of these being stripped of context by editing.
1) The non-existent chair was there. It was out of frame.
2) He was not staring off into space at the G-7. He was talking to a paratrooper who was out of frame.
Those two were bullshit, but the non-dancing video was totally real.
Okay, thanks for the correction. I think my broader point is correct: if Biden is so ‘out of it’ why do the Republicans have to make fake videos to show that?
No, you are wrong about that one. The Republicans have spun many of those videos and have done some editing tricks, etc, but not that one. That shit was real. You know that for two reasons:
1. All the other people in the video are moving at normal speed, and the singing is not slowed down, so it must be in real time.
2. The White House issued a response to that one, and if it had been altered in some way, they would have said so in their response. INSTEAD, they admitted that it was real, but tried to spin it with context: (a) there were other people not dancing if you look at other footage of the same moments; (b) he was not dancing because he has long said he is not much of a dancer, and in fact barely danced at his own inaugural ball.
The first part of the remarks can be found below. As his spokesperson pointed out, a failure to dance is not a sign of mental illness. (If it were, I would be quite insane.) That’s true enough, but in my opinion, the Republicans don’t need to make any comments about the video, they just need to keep showing it over and over, because Biden looks totally lost. They can let people look at the unaltered video and make up their own minds about Biden’s cognitive abilities. When I watched it, his demeanor caused me to be worried about him.