Outlander on Starz - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 316Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 592 Old 08-17-2014, 03:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post
It is? Why? Because our incredibly limited understanding of physics says it's improbable? Considering our youth as a species, and the inherent ignorance that comes with it, I wouldn't make such definitive statements.
I agree and disagree with that. We already know that a kind of time travel is likely because of Einsteinian physics. If you can approach very near the speed of light on a mission in space, time dilates in your favor. Upon your return to earth, you'd find a vastly different world, one you might not even recognize, decades or even centuries ahead of you. You would have effectively time-traveled to the future.

But travel into the past is a different animal and depends for its plausibility on the little-known, extremely weird world of quantum mechanics. Right now there doesn't seem to be any possibility of anything like that on the horizon that even our most brilliant scientists can see. Or on the other side of the universe, frankly.

Which really bums me out. I loves me a good time-travel tale (and there have been precious few of them) and I'd have really liked to have seen what a real dinosaur looked like before I check out.
archiguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 592 Old 08-17-2014, 03:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 5,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 287
I didn't get into this week's show as much as the premier, not enough gratuitous sex/nudity I guess(Just kidding ) ... I'm interested to see where it goes with the new lady friend she ran into, and judging from the previews I wonder how Mrs. Fitz and their at current friendship transpires.
rebkell is offline  
post #63 of 592 Old 08-17-2014, 03:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
moob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
I agree and disagree with that. We already know that a kind of time travel is likely because of Einsteinian physics. If you can approach very near the speed of light on a mission in space, time dilates in your favor. Upon your return to earth, you'd find a vastly different world, one you might not even recognize, decades or even centuries ahead of you. You would have effectively time-traveled to the future.

But travel into the past is a different animal and depends for its plausibility on the little-known, extremely weird world of quantum mechanics. Right now there doesn't seem to be any possibility of anything like that on the horizon that even our most brilliant scientists can see. Or on the other side of the universe, frankly.

Which really bums me out. I loves me a good time-travel tale (and there have been precious few of them) and I'd have really liked to have seen what a real dinosaur looked like before I check out.
But that's exactly it. Our understanding of the universe is constantly changing, so who knows what the future may hold. Just because we can't see it now doesn't mean we won't yet discover it.

I'm just not a fan of speaking in absolutes...we should always keep our minds open.
moob is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 592 Old 08-17-2014, 05:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vfxproducer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 333
vfxproducer is offline  
post #65 of 592 Old 08-17-2014, 06:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rebkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 5,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 287
The very last thing in the above article inside the spoiler tags is so true, but sometimes it seems like it is one of if not the main objective in too many shows nowadays.

Boundaries need to be pushed in such a crowded landscape. But violence and decay can't make or break a series; wince-inducing shock can't be the selling point. With so much competition, the rush to outgross the grossest can't possibly last. Nor should it.

rebkell is offline  
post #66 of 592 Old 08-18-2014, 11:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
vfxproducer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,224
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebkell View Post
The very last thing in the above article inside the spoiler tags is so true, but sometimes it seems like it is one of if not the main objective in too many shows nowadays.

Boundaries need to be pushed in such a crowded landscape. But violence and decay can't make or break a series; wince-inducing shock can't be the selling point. With so much competition, the rush to outgross the grossest can't possibly last. Nor should it.

I saw exactly 30 seconds of an episode of Hannibal once, and it featured a couple of corpses who were posed like angels and who's back's were flayed and their skin peeled back to look like wings. And I never watched another second of that series. If that's what they find entertaining, I'm done with it. Same with Walking Dead. Same with any show like that. If that's what your show is about, I'm done with you.
osu1991 likes this.
vfxproducer is offline  
post #67 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Second episode was better than the first. Only two instances of gratuitous nudity in this one.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #68 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 08:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Second episode was better than the first. Only two instances of gratuitous nudity in this one.
For the first time I agree with you. Sorta'. The sister literally getting her bodice ripped in order to torture & provoke our hero was maybe a little over the top.

OTOH, it pretty much wiped out any sympathy we might feel for the British dragoons and their leader. The good guys and the bad guys are pretty clearly defined as the first two episodes set the table. I would expect shades of gray to emerge and shifting alliances to form as the story unwinds.
archiguy is offline  
post #69 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 09:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Oh, come on. The only point those scenes make is how horny the character is, all the time at every minute of every day, so that we won't be surprised when she cheats on her husband and starts boning the studly Scottish guy in the next episode.
No, that really isn't the point at all. Geez, way to reduce a female character to nothing but a madonna/whore sexual stereotype.

She explains it herself -- she and her husband are emotionally in a weird place because of their long separation, but their sex life is the one place they can still find common ground. And if you can't deal with the idea of a woman who enjoys sex on its own terms, that's really your problem, not the show's.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #70 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Why is it important to the story of this show to watch the character receive cunnilingus? Please, explain that to me. How vital is it to our understanding of her psychological state to know that she enjoys having her rug munched?
It's to show that not all sex exists for the enjoyment of the man in this world. Geez, do you actually realize how you sound?

(Sorry to the rest of you for going back to 1st episode posts, but geez.)

Last edited by Whitearrow; 08-19-2014 at 10:00 AM. Reason: because
Whitearrow is offline  
post #71 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 10:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post
She explains it herself -- she and her husband are emotionally in a weird place because of their long separation, but their sex life is the one place they can still find common ground.
I've already explained my position on this. The storyline about Claire and her husband finding common ground in sex is a writerly contrivance to justify the sex and nudity. This is pure Harlequin romance novel stuff.

It appears that these characters aren't even going to see each other again for a while in the show. Why is it important for us to know that they have a very physical relationship? If anything, having strong emotional ties would be more important, because that would explain why Claire is so desperate to get back to her husband. She could have sex with any studly guy she wants, but if she really loves her husband, she'll stay true for him and keep trying to get back to him.

If Claire's main attachment to her husband is just the sex, and she's got studmuffin Jamie rarin' to give her a roll in the hay, what's her motivation for wanting to go back to her husband at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post
It's to show that not all sex exists for the enjoyment of the man in this world.
And that's important to the story how...?

What justification is there for Claire's nude scene in the second episode? The series really couldn't find any other way to convey that she changed her clothes other than to show her on camera completely in the buff? How is that not gratuitous? Thousands upon endless thousands of movies and TV shows over the decades have depicted characters changing their clothes without showing explicit nudity. For what reason did this one need to put nudity in at that point? The answer, of course: Because it's on the Starz network and it can show T&A to titillate the audience. There's no other reason for it.

You folks keep accusing me of not understanding the show and not looking at it deeply enough, yet you accept what the characters say and do about sex purely on a surface level without questioning why the WRITER wrote the characters that way. What is the WRITER'S motivation for putting lots of sex in this story? Does it really get to some deep psychological truth, or is it just titillation? Personally, I don't see any deep psychological truth that couldn't be arrived at some other way, which leads me to the conclusion that the sex is nothing but titillation.

Anyway, I like the second episode more than the first. I enjoyed the focus on showing how this 20th Century character would have to get acquainted with and adapt to life in the 18th Century. That was more interesting to me than the silliness of the first episode. Even so, I won't pretend that this show is deeper than it really is just to make myself feel better about watching it.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #72 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 11:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
So Josh, by that logic, there's never any reason to show sex or nudity in a filmed production. After all, it must have been put there for the sole reason of titillating the audience, conditioned to expect such debauchery from their modern television programs. And it can always be hinted at by a slow fade-out or gentle laughter behind a curtain. Nudity is never called for. We must think of the children! Let's show some tasteful evisceration or gun violence instead; much more palatable for kids of all ages.

By all means, let's return to the 50's when sex was more chastely depicted, and one foot always needed to remain on the floor. Why, I know I certainly appreciate the fact that Laura and Rob Petrie slept in twin beds. Ah, the age of innocence. How I long for it! Deep, throbbing longing, the heat of it rising in my heaving, muscular torso....

Ahem... but I digress....
Pagali likes this.
archiguy is offline  
post #73 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 11:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I've already explained my position on this. The storyline about Claire and her husband finding common ground in sex is a writerly contrivance to justify the sex and nudity.
Hmm, no. It explains where their relationship is just before they part, which is important to how Claire feels and reacts to events in the future.

Quote:
It appears that these characters aren't even going to see each other again for a while in the show. Why is it important for us to know that they have a very physical relationship? If anything, having strong emotional ties would be more important, because that would explain why Claire is so desperate to get back to her husband. She could have sex with any studly guy she wants, but if she really loves her husband, she'll stay true for him and keep trying to get back to him.
You're really missing the point. She does love him deeply, but they are alienated from the years of separation. Wars change people. They've barely seen each other in years, and hardly know the people they've become. Their physical relationship is one place they can come back to without those restraints.

As for your ideas about a woman "staying true"... well. Never mind.

Quote:
If Claire's main attachment to her husband is just the sex, and she's got studmuffin Jamie rarin' to give her a roll in the hay, what's her motivation for wanting to go back to her husband at all?
Even if she hated her husband, and her only connection to this other guy was physical, that's still insufficient motivation for wanting to stay in the freakin' 18th century if you are a 20th century woman, accustomed to independence and autonomy. How would you like it if you were essentially a piece of property?

Quote:
And that's important to the story how...?
This is a story about an (essentially) modern woman in the 18th century world. Showing that she has modern ideas about sex and sexuality is an important part of her character.

Quote:
What justification is there for Claire's nude scene in the second episode? The series really couldn't find any other way to convey that she changed her clothes other than to show her on camera completely in the buff? How is that not gratuitous?
Starting to wonder who is really the one from the 18th century here. The purpose was to show her getting dressed, start to finish, and that required taking off her clothes in an entirely non-sexual context. If you really find that so objectionable, you seriously need to find another show.

Quote:
The answer, of course: Because it's on the Starz network and it can show T&A to titillate the audience. There's no other reason for it.
Um, a huge part of the audience for this show, if not the vast majority is female, and I assure you, few to none of us were titillated by a woman, who was obviously feeling embarrassed about her situation, getting dressed. If anyone was, well, that says more about them than the show.

Quote:
What is the WRITER'S motivation for putting lots of sex in this story?
Other than it being in the source material? It's a time-travel romance. That's what it is. When these books started coming out, they were in the romance section of the bookstore (yes, a real bookstore, it was a while ago). They've reached a crossover audience because of the time travel element and the fairly solid historical fiction writing, but at their core, these are romance novels, the same genre of the Harlequins you deride. Sex is an important part of it.

And if a total of, oh, 3 minutes or so in a grand total of two scenes out of two hours thus far is "lots" of sex to you, again, you need a different show. You aren't going to be happy with this one.

Last edited by Whitearrow; 08-19-2014 at 11:29 AM.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #74 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 12:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
So Josh, by that logic, there's never any reason to show sex or nudity in a filmed production. After all, it must have been put there for the sole reason of titillating the audience, conditioned to expect such debauchery from their modern television programs. And it can always be hinted at by a slow fade-out or gentle laughter behind a curtain. Nudity is never called for. We must think of the children! Let's show some tasteful evisceration or gun violence instead; much more palatable for kids of all ages.
Sigh.

I'm saying that the sex and nudity is not needed in this story and feels out of place here.

That really shouldn't be a very difficult concept to grasp.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #75 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 12:21 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
I'm tired of having this argument and repeating myself, so forgive me if I don't respond to every point that I already answered earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post
As for your ideas about a woman "staying true"... well. Never mind.
Is it your contention that a married woman of the 1940s was not expected to be faithful to her husband?

Quote:
Even if she hated her husband, and her only connection to this other guy was physical, that's still insufficient motivation for wanting to stay in the freakin' 18th century if you are a 20th century woman, accustomed to independence and autonomy. How would you like it if you were essentially a piece of property?
And what does any of this have to do with sex? Those points can be made without sex and nudity.

Quote:
This is a story about an (essentially) modern woman in the 18th century world. Showing that she has modern ideas about sex and sexuality is an important part of her character.
She is not a modern woman. She is a woman of the 1940s.

Quote:
Starting to wonder who is really the one from the 18th century here. The purpose was to show her getting dressed, start to finish, and that required taking off her clothes in an entirely non-sexual context.
WHY? Seriously, what is the point of that? Why was that put in the episode?

There was no need for nudity in that scene. The nudity served no purpose to the scene or the story other than to say, "LOOK, BOOBIES!!"

Quote:
Um, a huge part of the audience for this show, if not the vast majority is female,
Are you saying that the audience for sex-filled Harlequin romance novels is not female?

Quote:
and I assure you, few to none of us were titillated by a woman, who was obviously feeling embarrassed about her situation, getting dressed. If anyone was, well, that says more about them than the show.
What it says is that the show-runner for the series is a man, and that the network has mandated a minimum quotient of nudity on screen every episode to keep the male viewers in the audience entertained.

How much do you want to wager that every single episode this season will have nudity in it, regardless of story necessity or context?

Quote:
Other than it being in the source material? It's a time-travel romance. That's what it is. When these books started coming out, they were in the romance section of the bookstore (yes, a real bookstore, it was a while ago). They've reached a crossover audience because of the time travel element and the fairly solid historical fiction writing, but at their core, these are romance novels, the same genre of the Harlequins you deride. Sex is an important part of it.
Thank you for at least acknowledging what this story really is: a very silly and frivolous Harlequin romance surrounded in some sci-fi trappings. Others in this thread are taking the show far too seriously.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #76 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
There was no need for nudity in that scene. The nudity served no purpose to the scene or the story other than to say, "LOOK, BOOBIES!!"
Oh, ferpetesake. Any shots of Claire's "BOOBIES" in this series thus far have been brief glances from the side, and extremely fleeting. You are imagining much more in the nudity department than there has actually been seen. I'm starting to worry about you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
What it says is that the show-runner for the series is a man, and that the network has mandated a minimum quotient of nudity on screen every episode to keep the male viewers in the audience entertained. How much do you want to wager that every single episode this season will have nudity in it, regardless of story necessity or context?
That's quite an accusation. Do you have any proof of that other than your own fervent desire that it be true? Even boilerplate genre shows like 'Black Sails' don't have nudity in every single episode. Perhaps the network feels the horny male demographic can hang on for a week or two without defecting in spite of NO BOOBIES. Give the young bucks some credit.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Thank you for at least acknowledging what this story really is: a very silly and frivolous Harlequin romance surrounded in some sci-fi trappings. Others in this thread are taking the show far too seriously.
Yeah, we are taking it seriously We want to. As I and others have said already, Ron Moore is not your typical producer. He's earned the benefit of the doubt. We want to give it to him. And again, this clearly isn't going to be your kind of show if you insist on looking at it that superficially. There have been half a dozen posters over the last couple of pages that have tried to enlighten you as to the characters' motivations and how the sexual aspect is a very minor part of what's going on (this isn't Magic City or Banshee) and all you keep seeing is T&A. I'm telling you man, this isn't going to be your kinda' show. Do yourself a solid; let it go.
archiguy is offline  
post #77 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Is it your contention that a married woman of the 1940s was not expected to be faithful to her husband?
Nowhere did I say that. A woman of the 1940's -- and the 2010's -- and men of the 2010's -- are all expected, generally, to be faithful to their spouses.

Quote:
And what does any of this have to do with sex? Those points can be made without sex and nudity.
By that logic, sex and nudity should never ever be shown. It was an artistic choice by the people who make the show. If you don't like it, watch something else.

Quote:
She is not a modern woman. She is a woman of the 1940s.
Are you intentionally missing the point or are you serious? She's "essentially" (the word you left out) a modern woman when compared to 1743.

Quote:
WHY? Seriously, what is the point of that? Why was that put in the episode?
To show the "alienness" she was talking about. Even dressing is a huge production you can't do by yourself.

Quote:
There was no need for nudity in that scene. The nudity served no purpose to the scene or the story other than to say, "LOOK, BOOBIES!!"
Thanks, Mary Whitehouse.

Quote:
Are you saying that the audience for sex-filled Harlequin romance novels is not female?
1) Nowhere did I say that.

2) Actual Harlequin romances are not "sex-filled" -- they generally have the fade-to-black you seem prefer. There are specific "brands" of romance novels that have higher or lower explicit content.

Quote:
What it says is that the show-runner for the series is a man, and that the network has mandated a minimum quotient of nudity on screen every episode to keep the male viewers in the audience entertained.
Prove it. Why is there sex in the books, then?

Quote:
How much do you want to wager that every single episode this season will have nudity in it, regardless of story necessity or context?
With you deciding necessity? No thanks.

Quote:
Thank you for at least acknowledging what this story really is: a very silly and frivolous Harlequin romance surrounded in some sci-fi trappings. Others in this thread are taking the show far too seriously.
Thanks for minimizing and disparaging an genre and the audience its meant for without ever having read one, including the one this story is based on. I'm sure you appreciate it when people do the same to scifi or whatever it is you're into.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #78 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
As I and others have said already, Ron Moore is not your typical producer. He's earned the benefit of the doubt.
After BSG he has absolutely earned the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it comes to women characters. Ira Steven Behr is also a producer on this show -- no slouch either when it comes to story or character.

Is it possible they've both lost their minds after decades in ad-supported TV and are now running around shouting "boobies! we need more boobies!!!" Sure, I guess that's possible, and after some of the absurd restrictions Moore talked about on the BSG podcasts, I could hardly blame him if it were true. But there's not a shred of evidence so far.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #79 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Oh, ferpetesake. Any shots of Claire's "BOOBIES" in this series thus far have been brief glances from the side, and extremely fleeting. You are imagining much more in the nudity department than there has actually been seen. I'm starting to worry about you.
Did Claire flash her naked breasts and bare ass in this episode or didn't she?

Quote:
And again, this clearly isn't going to be your kind of show if you insist on looking at it that superficially. There have been half a dozen posters over the last couple of pages that have tried to enlighten you as to the characters' motivations and how the sexual aspect is a very minor part of what's going on (this isn't Magic City or Banshee) and all you keep seeing is T&A.
You keep trying to "enlighten" me about the character motivations. I perfectly understand the character motivations. Where we seem to be at loggerheads is that I am looking past the character motivations toward the motivations of the writer for giving the character those motivations, whereas you hit a brick wall and accept anything the characters say at face value.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #80 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
daryl zero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 4,801
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1634 Post(s)
Liked: 1921
Someone once told me that the reasons to see movies are: to make you cry, make you laugh, make you scared, make you thrilled or make you hard.
Starz wants viewers. I have no idea why there are lengthy posts debating the use of nudity on premium channels. Frankly, I don't know why nudity isn't allowed everywhere. Our society is much more comfortable with violence than with nudity or sex.
Pagali and JoeTiVo like this.

"Don't blame me -- I voted for Kodos." Homer Simpson
daryl zero is offline  
post #81 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Did Claire flash her naked breasts and bare ass in this episode or didn't she?
Again, it was a relatively chaste scene, showed very little besides her bare back, and as already been mentioned, served to show how complicated just getting dressed was for a woman of that time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
You keep trying to "enlighten" me about the character motivations. I perfectly understand the character motivations. Where we seem to be at loggerheads is that I am looking past the character motivations toward the motivations of the writer for giving the character those motivations, whereas you hit a brick wall and accept anything the characters say at face value.
I'm accepting the story at face value. This is how the producers and directors have chosen to tell this story, and apparently this is how the writer of the series chose to write it. Perhaps you would write if differently. But that would be your show and this is their show. No offense, but I prefer theirs.

Perhaps it would be better if they showed nothing at all and instead used vaguely racy expository dialog to explain what's happening, discreetly off camera? Because that's always a good plan for the visual medium of film.
archiguy is offline  
post #82 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 02:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Again, it was a relatively chaste scene, showed very little besides her bare back, and as already been mentioned, served to show how complicated just getting dressed was for a woman of that time.
Which couldn't be accomplished without putting her tits on camera?

Quote:
Perhaps it would be better if they showed nothing at all and instead used vaguely racy expository dialog to explain what's happening, discreetly off camera? Because that's always a good plan for the visual medium of film.
Seems to work for Downton Abbey.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #83 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 02:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Which couldn't be accomplished without putting her tits on camera?
There was barely a glimpse. I watched the show and I honestly don't have any idea what her lady-parts look like, seeing as how the sum total of the time they've popped up is probably less than 2 or 3 seconds and I wasn't watching for that specifically. I know, I know - what's wrong with me? Don't I understand this is Starz, forgodsake?

Oh, what's the use? I give up.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Seems to work for Downton Abbey.
And mob hits seemed to work for 'The Sopranos'. Different shows do things differently, depending on the differing preferences of their different showrunners. Crazy how that works ain't it?
archiguy is offline  
post #84 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
moob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Seems to work for Downton Abbey.
Then maybe you should stick to Downton Abbey.

I'm surprised you didn't give up sooner archi.

I don't know if anyone will have an answer to this, but there weren't clothing labels back in the 1940's?
moob is offline  
post #85 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by moob View Post
I don't know if anyone will have an answer to this, but there weren't clothing labels back in the 1940's?
Oh, there definitely were. But maybe she'd removed the one on her bra because it was annoying. She wouldn't be the first woman on earth to do that. *cough* It's possible the one on her dress was either removed, didn't exist because it was homemade (possible during the war), or was farther down on the seam and therefore not noticed by Mrs. Fitz. If anything the machined seam would have been more noticeable than the lack of a label, but I guess it's one of those things you sort of have to handwave off.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #86 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 5,185
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1514 Post(s)
Liked: 2663
<gasp!> Sex on the telly?!? Think of the children!

(clutches pearls and fans herself)
A really good show so far and all I see is talk about a glance of boobies . Maybe I should just watch this thread instead!

I really ought to act more like a woman of my advancing years, but I’m growing old disgracefully.
Nayan is offline  
post #87 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
moob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post
Oh, there definitely were. But maybe she'd removed the one on her bra because it was annoying. She wouldn't be the first woman on earth to do that. *cough* It's possible the one on her dress was either removed, didn't exist because it was homemade (possible during the war), or was farther down on the seam and therefore not noticed by Mrs. Fitz. If anything the machined seam would have been more noticeable than the lack of a label, but I guess it's one of those things you sort of have to handwave off.
Those are reasonable answers. It was just the first thing I thought of when she gave Mrs. Fitz her clothes but you're right...it could easily be explained away.
moob is offline  
post #88 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 03:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Elastic straps on the BOOBIES! holder would also raise a few eyebrows. Something she could use if she needed to bolster her story, not yet revealed, of being from another time.
archiguy is offline  
post #89 of 592 Old 08-19-2014, 03:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Whitearrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Elastic straps on the BOOBIES! holder would also raise a few eyebrows. Something she could use if she needed to bolster her story, not yet revealed, of being from another time.
LOL. I don't know much about 1940's bras. From what we could see of hers, it didn't look like the shoulder straps were elastic at all. I'm not sure when elastic commonly started being used in the back. It also might have been something in short supply during the war, like a lot of textiles. The UK was still on rationing for quite some time after the war.

Oh this is interesting. Here is an entry from Terry Dresbach's blog (she is the costume designer and Ron Moore's wife) about that scene.

Quote:
When we shot the scene of Claire getting dressed with Mrs. Fitz, Ron insisted that we film the entire sequence. “Are you sure?” I asked, “It takes about 30 minutes !!” But he insisted. He knew it would help to tell the story of a stranger in a strange land. Since the beginning Ron has said that the world Claire lands in, had to be as foreign as if she had landed on another planet.
The whole thing is well worth reading. Maybe she would answer a question in a comment about the 1940's clothes if someone asked nicely.
Whitearrow is offline  
post #90 of 592 Old 08-20-2014, 08:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,910
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4995 Post(s)
Liked: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
And mob hits seemed to work for 'The Sopranos'. Different shows do things differently, depending on the differing preferences of their different showrunners. Crazy how that works ain't it?
I think we both know that this show is far closer to Downton Abbey than it is to The Sopranos.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off