NBC has nipples - Emerald City (2017) Discussion

[–] blust2 7 years ago

Those are nipples when Tip was a boy. Last time I checked, you can show men's and boy's nipple on televisions. And it is clear that they are a boy's nipples when he was in a bathtub. (Even you know he will turn into a girl later.)

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

So are you saying that the portrayal of a character negates a woman being a woman simply because at the moment she is playing a man?

reply

[–] Taylorfirst1 7 years ago

The girls head was cgi'd onto a boys body. This has been done before more than once on TV.

PS, you are one weird person.

WE GOT MOVIE SIIIIIGN!

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

That is interesting. Can you cite a source confirming that, or is it just speculation that is what was done?

Edit: Yes, I am. I like to know, understand, tear apart, rebuild, research and comprehend things.

reply

[–] puredieselbc 7 years ago

Can you cite a source confirming that, or is it just speculation that is what was done?

Why? Almost everyone on the board understands the scene was achieved through Special Effects.

Apparently you don't.

I like to know, understand, tear apart, rebuild, research and comprehend things.

Good, so you can do your own research.

Hate-watching says more about the viewer than it does about the show.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

It seems you used the wrong word there. Just because everyone assumes something is true does not in fact make it accurate. So that is why I asked. I was not the one making the assertion it is CGI, which is why I asked for a citation.

reply

[–] britney-shagwell 7 years ago

He didn't use the wrong word...

If:

Yes, I am. I like to know, understand, tear apart, rebuild, research and comprehend things.

Posting a question in an open forum ONLY is hardly "research". Most people understand that the scene in question was done with special effect. Why, you might ask? Because in the scene in question, the character had ZERO breasts, just nipples and a flat chest. OBVIOUSLY some"special effect" took place, as we see later that the actress posseses a normal-sized female bosom.

YOU assert that the onus is on somebody ELSE to "prove" the obvious to you. If, as you say, you like to "comprehend things", why don't you wrap your head around the concept that you saw nipples without any visible breast(s), ans see what conclusion YOU reach...

If I'm (no longer) responding, it means you're on /ignore. I'm sure this is no surprise :)

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

Actually, I have in fact done research on it and can not find a single conclusive piece of evidence that states the confirmation that special effect were or were not used.

I am sorry, but I think you are looking at the effects backwards. You can look up ample numbers of pictures of Jordan to find that she is basically flat chested.

As for the scene in question look at the whole of the scene.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmh660n7reayodx/tipsnips.png?dl=0

Yes you see nipples but you do NOT see "underboob" because the section where that would be present is obscured with milky water which obscures that natural curvature that is present regardless if male or female because it is still part of the muscular structure. Also do not forget the visual angular displacement effect water typically has. Also observe the camera angle in relationship to Tips position in the tub which is lined up flush with the camera. This is a similar technique that heavier girls sometimes use when trying to obscure a second chin when they take photos from a slightly higher angle, or intentionally angle their heads upward. You can see this is an awkward angle through muscle tension where one shoulder is protruding more to aim at the camera, whereas the other is resting.

As for the later scenes focusing on her cleavage, what is most obvious is that her chest was "smooshed" together to create the illusion of cleavage which is not hard to accomplish with things like a push up bra or body tape.

This makes a whole lot more sense to utilize practical effects to accomplish something in a show that is clearly burning through much of its budget on elaborate sets and complex props.

So yeah, The burden of proof IS on the person presenting the answer to a question. If nothing else there is most certainly a dark shadow of doubt to the usage of CGI in this scene, especially given there is no actual citation or evidence provided other than the assumption that it is a CGI'd boys body and everything seen that is being pointed to as evidence to CGI can be accomplished with the right body and practical effects both before and after the shot.

Regardless, why does it even matter if it is a boys body or not. The actor is a female. Just because you CGI body double a woman's head onto a young boys body does not really do much to negate the imagery when that chest is not that far from an accurate representation of what the actresses body actually looks like. That is why the question gets raised because it is what is being portrayed as well as what is being presented and that represents a divergence from what censors would have allowed in times past, as censors would have not looked just at a shot for shot occurrence, they would watch the entirety to see things like context. THAT is the point of the question.

So given that I was the one initially asking the question, the answer that was provided was "Of course it is CGI" absolutely does require some form of citation of validity because otherwise without substantiation the answer being given is just an assumption, of which is a very lazy one that illustrates a lack of understanding about film making and the techniques employed in the craft.

What normal person accepts a baseless assumption as the answer to any question? The same kind who would make a statement, plug their ears and walk away so they cannot hear any sort of response to the statement for fear of what might be said in response.

None the less, you have a nice day.

reply

[–] zyrah-88144 7 years ago

Why would NBC be dumb enough to air it if it was a real female boob? Those kind of mistake have never happened in recent years. The last time that happened was on CBS's reality show when some guys dick accidentally got out of his boxers while running. Do you have any idea how much NBC is gonna pay if they did that?

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

In all fairness, The limits are intentionally pushed and skirted all the time. A scripted show is quite a different beast than a reality show where something like your cited example could have legitmately been an oversight. Scripted shows have far greater scrutiny because every single element of what is presented is completely controlled. So in those cases there are no "accidents"

Personally this is why I find the matter interesting cause I think we need to stop with the censorship all together. The rules are clearly ridiculous, unevenly applied and are against the nature of the law of the land the show was distributed for.

Again, 25 years ago this would have not happened. So the thing I find interesting is the manner in which this is being allowed and WHY it is a different standard from an organization that has textbooks worth of policy for nearly every imaginable possibility.

This seems to have slipped through not because it was not an offense, but more that it had not been considered as something that could have hypothetically been possible when such texts were compiled to create standard practices. Long before the technology and techniques to do it existed. However it seems also somewhat possible that it was allowed for concerns of a public backlash had they forced it to be cut out and the creators took to the internet to rally a backlash out of it on the basis of it oppressing transgenders.

reply

[–] purple_dave 7 years ago

That's not entirely true. I distinctly remember seeing one late-night urban fantasy series where a woman was thrown across the room and you could very clearly see her naked boobs during the stunt. I also remember an episode of CSI where the cadaver wasn't lit brightly enough by the ME's overhead floodlight to completely wash out the shape of her nipple. And lastly, Disney currently owns a movie that has a few shots of boobs that are only covered in fishnet and body paint, and I don't think those have ever been edited to obscure them (though, admittedly, I haven't watched that film in broadcast form for a long time, since it first became available in THX-rated VHS, and then later DVD).

You know what noone tells you about cooking with the Dark Side? The food is really good!

reply

[–] mjwm44 7 years ago

Speaking of Disney, in Fantasia (1940), they removed the nipples of all the sprites, fairies, pixies and centaurs, but left them on the female demons that fly at the camera toward the end of the Night on Bald Mountain sequence.

reply

[–] blust2 7 years ago

The last time that happened was on CBS's reality show when some guys dick accidentally got out of his boxers while running.

It is not an accident. Just a Cuban guy to promote Cuban cigar.

reply

[–] Taylorfirst1 7 years ago

Well my first clue was the fact that the body in the tub had no breasts but the actress does have breasts.

WE GOT MOVIE SIIIIIGN!

reply

[–] sized-2 7 years ago

Then tear apart the fact that the body isn't something to be ashamed. Just take a look at Europe, nudity isn't a big deal at all. Chill out.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Huge_Ack_Man 7 years ago

I'm all in favor of nude females on TV. I think male nudity is what should be banned.

If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do...you are misinformed---Mark Twain

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

Since nudity has started creeping into TV male nudity has been disproportionately what we have gotten.

reply

[–] blust2 7 years ago

Has anyone here watched Game of Thrones S6E5? Not only they have shown male nudity but a closeup on a guy's penis. Worse than that, it is uncircumcised. I have never seen such thing on cable television.

reply

[–] pauli_gomez 7 years ago

What the,,?

First, who gives a crap if they show nude or not?

Second, I've seen all nudity on tv, for instance, GoT has male and female. Penny Dreadful has female, IIRC.

Third, the scene clearly was edited, so there was not a female bossom. I am pretty sure it is special effects. I think the problem was not boobs or not boobs but underage nudity, as she is suppose to be a young girl, so she was shown bare chested when she was a boy but not when she recovered her natural sex.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

So lets confirm. I ask if there is some sort of confirmation of the use of special effect and I get a wall of backlash screaming "just look at it" trying to deride me for asking, yet not one of you can back any of it up with ACTUAL information.

Again, there is absolutely nothing there in that scene that cannot be accomplished with practical effects.

Now as for why care? That was already written. It is a question of the changes in policies, why it changes, how it changes, If it actually changed at all.

Seriously, for all these people claiming to "know" who are stepping up to answer the question, why is it none of you have provided a source to back up your assumptions?

pauli_gomez
You do realize all those examples you cited are not on standard TV, right? You listed shows from HBO and showtime, both considered premium channels that have been able to show breasts since the 1980s.

What is being discussed is the potential instance of female nipples being displayed on NBC... a major network, Not a cable, and certainly not premium cable channel, during prime time. Most of the instances of nudity on TV are typically relegated to either cable stations such as FX, or outside of primetime 8-11PM weekdays and sunday. As far as I am aware, the showing of female nipples on primetime broadcast network TV has NEVER happened before. The major networks are combed over much harder than even non premium cable networks are by censors.

So its a question of why this is something unprecedented, Not a case of something you didnt realize that there were distinctions.

reply

[–] icon-9 7 years ago

The young woman playing the role visibly has breasts, quite noticable when fully clothed. So appearing naked in a bath with a visible lack of breasts, must be "special effects". So the only thing left for you to research and understand is "how did they make those boobs disappear?"

CGI seems likely. If it was done in some novel non-CGI way then surely that would be a story worth telling and would be easily discoverable.

Or are you suggesting they are getting away with forbidden TV boobs being shown secretly but in plain sight, because TV is made by and for naughty 10 year olds? Is that what you think is going on here?

reply

[–] LeMarchand 7 years ago

The young woman playing the role visibly has breasts, quite noticable when fully clothed. So appearing naked in a bath with a visible lack of breasts, must be "special effects". So the only thing left for you to research and understand is "how did they make those boobs disappear?"

CGI seems likely. If it was done in some novel non-CGI way then surely that would be a story worth telling and would be easily discoverable.

Or are you suggesting they are getting away with forbidden TV boobs being shown secretly but in plain sight, because TV is made by and for naughty 10 year olds? Is that what you think is going on here?

^^This.

What they showed was perfectly acceptable on TV as it was a young boy's chest, not that of grown woman.

No tears please, it's a waste of good suffering.

reply

[–] puredieselbc 7 years ago

The OP is a troll. Or a bot.

Either way he/she/it knows this scene was achieved using special effects and has done the same thing on other boards.

Trying to get others to prove their point.

Hate-watching says more about the viewer than it does about the show.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

No... I dont know it because YOU dont KNOW it, nor does anyone in this thread KNOW it.

Every last person including myself is speculating on this because there is not one single piece of evidence from the actress or anyone involved in the production that have spoken on this specific matter.

Clearly you do not understand what a bot is, and it seems highly probable you do not understand what a troll is either.

Unequivocal FACT is that no one in this thread has presented a single bit of evidence to back up the claim this was CGI'd other than "look at it!!"

As someone who does understand things about film making I look at it, and I see NOTHING that suggests CGI, and EVERYTHING that suggests practical effects.

I have already pointed to exactly how this works and that the actress is flat chested enough to pull it off. Yet people keep pointing to after the transformation the cleavage shots that are so painfully obvious that they were achieved with body tape.

https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Fashion-Secrets-Breast-Lift/dp/B005WJQUJ4/ref=sr_1_13_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1485938882&sr=8-13&keywords=body+tape

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp7mbqq4kk96lqt/tipstits.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wg0k2taks314kqb/tipstits2x.png?dl=0

In the second one, notice how the line of her bust protrusion on the left is a straight line down the length of her body? You only see that with someone whos gut hangs out and clearly this is not a person with excess body fat. That kind of cleavage for a 20 something actress would be a C cup or larger which this actress most certainly does not posses.

The only thing "obvious" is that the cleavage was produced with body tape because again look at the way the clothing lays on the body. Look at the fact they used layers to obscure that that deep cleavage in that plunging neckline have zero presence around the arms which to produce such cleavage naturally would be unavoidable given how deep the cleavage is.

Simple fact is that the cleavage seen in Ep2&3 is not visible in Ep 5 and beyond because there is no longer a need to have it. The illusion has been created and clearly it worked flawlessly

That same magical tape could easily be used to pull in different directions like downward and toward the armpits given that the tape would easily be obscured with murky water and camera angles

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmh660n7reayodx/tipsnips.png?dl=0

Also just look at historical examples of the power of tape. I am reminded of how Christina Ricci had to be heavily taped down to continue playing prepubescent Wednesday Addams.

The tape can giveth and the tape can taketh away.

NOW.. lets get to what research produces because in fact there is every bit of ACTUAL evidence to suggest it is NOT CGI.

Yes the show uses CGI, but look at confirmed cases of it. It is not that good. It seems to always be faded looking and lower resolution compared to how vibrant the rest of the shots are. Examples being the Giants or the Tornado above the castle in Ep 3. That shows the level of quality of CGI from the studio who worked on the production which creates a very uncanny valley effect looking so fantastic but clearly not an actual part of the scene they are in.

Lets hear what has actually been said about CGI.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/emerald-city-nbc-wizard-of-oz/

Singh aimed to use as little CGI as possible to capture the "original magic".......

Now the context of this quote does not specifically cite using it on Tip one way or another. In fact in context it refers to its use in landscape shots, like the giants or the tornadoes. However what it suggests is that using CGI is used sparingly. That is understandable given how huge of a budget this show must have doing overseas location filming in Eastern Europe and other locales. With that being a huge budget of course they are going to have to sparingly use CGI which the type of CGI people are assuming that has been used being fairly new usage of it only really beginning to emerge (with the likes of what Disney has done resurrecting the dead), whereas things like landscape CGI has been used for decades.

Lets also consider the social engineering aspect of it. The show does have obvious nods to LGBT sensibilities. From the same article....

"Then there's Tip (Jordan Loughran), a character not very well known to casual Wizard of Oz fans, who'll come to play a big role and be a moving meditation on the complexities of gender identity and compassion for transgender individuals. "

So obviously this transformation is one of social commentary , as there are other progressive commentary such as on gun control, science vs religion, feminism, ect. So why is it hard to fathom a show that is outwardly TRYING to push social boundaries would be adverse by pushing another social boundary in censorship of a woman's body? I mean did we not just see the "Free the Nipple" movement no more than a few years ago?

So why is this an issue? as Lynxx put it...

CGI nipples OK, actual nipples not OK?

That is my purpose for asking. I stated that in the OP. It is a change of position from what censors would allow in the past. I am trying to figure out why censors today would allow something like this on prime time network TV whereas there has never been a case of it before, regardless if it is CGI or not. Even if it is only her head, it is still a female. She is the actress, meaning that image is a representation of the actress as a whole and in no uncertain terms would censors have allowed such a thing to happen 5, 10, 20 years ago regardless if the technology had been available then or not.

So I think it is well beyond going without saying I am not trying to get anyone to prove my point. I have actually done research on this trying to get to the real answer, Be it CGI or not. However I am NOT just going to accept that it is CGI when I have produced clear evidence suggesting that it is not, when the only counter evidence offered has been ADMITTED assumption and speculation. It is not unreasonable that if someone makes a statement that is trying to disprove what I have said, for there to be some actual supporting evidence to back it up.

This is a case of Occams razor. You have to ask which is more likely? The use of cheap practical effects that were very successful in fooling people when it doubles as pushing boundaries which is clearly a modus operandi of the show, Or that they used expensive CGI on top of an already expensive filming budget with how many destination sets were used, when you know that NBC was very much concerned with budget issues?

"This was a big leap of faith for Bob Greenblatt, the chairman of NBC Entertainment, Cassidy points out. Singh told them he could make the series look like “a $300 million movie but would have to shoot it like a 10-hour movie.”...

...Singh also wanted to use as little CGI as possible, and wanted the magic to come from the exotic beauty of the remote locations: a national park in Croatia, 15th century castles in Hungary, and the Park Güell in Barcelona."

http://www.montereyherald.com/article/NF/20170105/FEATURES/170109888

So clearly when there are already expensive location shoots, and existing usage of CGI what logical reason would there be to use CGI on this shot (which the CGI company clearly is not up to that level of proficiency when compared to the other work they did for the show)when they could readily get BETTER results for these shots with practical effects, careful wardrobe choices and 20$ of tape?

If people want to believe it to be CGI.. that is totally fine. I am not trying to convince anyone it is or is not. However if they want to go out of their way and try and tell me I am wrong, then yes the burden of proof is on them to support their claims. To think this has to be accepted in the absence of evidence simply because the general consensus assumes it to be true is nothing more than ignorance. I would gladly admit that I am wrong if actual evidence had been supplied. However not a single shred of it has materialized. While admittedly circumstantial, I have provided much more evidence to support my claim. Circumstantial evidence is still better than "JUST LOOK AT IT!" which is no evidence at all. The only thing that can prove is what I suggested and that it worked.

Maybe "on ignore" is the right place for you. Guess I shouldn't be surprised though, given that were living in the age of "alternative facts"

reply

[–] mjwm44 7 years ago

I have already pointed to exactly how this works and that the actress is flat chested enough to pull it off.

However flat-chested the actress might be, that would not move her nipples to be nearly at armpit level, as the added nipples are in the screenshot of Tip in the bathtub.

So it appears that they filmed her breasts under the milky water, flattened out the contouring and any trace of her real nipples, and added small boys nipples up high at the waterline.

reply

[–] lynxx55 7 years ago

In summary:

CGI nipples OK, actual nipples not OK? Poor NBC.

Many of my friends have real nipples of their own.

reply

[–] blust2 7 years ago

More accurately, men's nipples are OK, women's nipples are not OK. It is clear that on the scene, what we saw are a young man's nipples. So it is OK. End of discussion.

reply

[–] LeMarchand 7 years ago

It is clear that on the scene, what we saw are a young man's nipples. So it is OK. End of discussion.

I'm beginning to think that snexstudio is just a bit confused and wants to know if it's safe to enjoy the scene in an onanistic way or not.

No tears please, it's a waste of good suffering.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

/eyeroll

Jesus.. really? This is the internet, home to more free porn than there are websites in general and you think I am looking for jack fodder? If I was would I really be writing friggen essays for more than a week on a such a boring, not remotely titillating subject about Special vs practical effects?! Imagine the difficulty of doing that with one hand figuratively tied behind my back.

My position is exactly how I have repeatedly stated it. There is NO evidence to support that NOT being her natural body. There is no evidence of CGI being used. There is however evidence to the contrary. Evidence like muscle tension, lighting, angles, water displacement, budgetary concerns, quality of CGI in confirmed usage, and all the rest I have went over. Evidence that would be abundantly evident to someone who has an understanding of how images work, how cameras work, how CGI works, how science works, and most importantly how the human body looks.

Hells bells, Ignorance is one thing but this whole thread has taken willful, defiant ignorance to literally an "alternative facts" level.

Maybe I need to take this in a different direction and return the sort of disrespect and ignorance I have received here.

Prove me wrong or STFU.

How about any of you cite actual credible sources. IE confirmation article regarding the scene, first hand accounts from crew, or something actually more tangible than people clearly falling for the illusion of television and film making.

Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Because...

There is a sucker born every minute

Clearly we have no shortage of the fooled responding to me. Some of which have taken the issue so personally that ranting against me in the thread was not enough and went out of their way to rant on me in PM as well, all still on the same baseless assumptions of CGI.

I mean seriously, at this point wouldn't it just be easier and more satisfying to prove me wrong and put me in my place with tangible facts and proof than deride me with speculation for writing a thesis on the subject? What is with all the tap dancing around it?

By all means actually PROVE me wrong. I welcome it. I will gladly accept being wrong. It was not as if ever suggested that I cannot be wrong. Only that the evidence put forth telling me that I am wrong is literally nonexistent. Mobbing up telling me I am wrong and proving me wrong are two very very different things.

reply

[–] LeMarchand 7 years ago

Jesus.. really? This is the internet, home to more free porn than there are websites in general and you think I am looking for jack fodder? If I was would I really be writing friggen essays for more than a week on a such a boring, not remotely titillating subject about Special vs practical effects?! Imagine the difficulty of doing that with one hand figuratively tied behind my back.

My position is exactly how I have repeatedly stated it. There is NO evidence to support that NOT being her natural body. There is no evidence of CGI being used. There is however evidence to the contrary. Evidence like muscle tension, lighting, angles, water displacement, budgetary concerns, quality of CGI in confirmed usage, and all the rest I have went over. Evidence that would be abundantly evident to someone who has an understanding of how images work, how cameras work, how CGI works, how science works, and most importantly how the human body looks.

Well you do seem to have spent a lot of time poring over that scene.

Anyway, you have yet to offer up proof to support your argument of the same level you demand of your detractors.

No tears please, it's a waste of good suffering.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

Well I agree to that I lack the same proof that everyone else lacks. However I still feel fairly confident that half a dozen examples of evidence make a more compelling case than what amounts to assumptions that it was used, as well as assumptions they wouldnt try to do it.

In fact you are right, I have poured over the scene, simply to see if there is anything I am missing there to have so many people collectively trying to tell me I am wrong.

Like this morning I reviewed it and noticed that there are instances of muscle flexing in the face that corresponds with movement in the jaw that can also be seen present in the neck and shoulders. That is a fairly fine detail that a CGI artist would not have been able to splice together very well when such post texturing for TV still looks a lot closer to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YLS80Nmls&t=5s

than what is seen in TV with vastly greater budgets such as Westworld

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69m9B96aVwY

And the highest possible budgets such as from Disney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-BXiJjoGtg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4ZbOecKMs

that despite being on the bleeding edge of the technology still look artificial to a discerning eye.

Older tech could certainly be used such as green screen with post editing. Again there are still telltale signs of when such technology is used. Visual artifacts such as subtle differences in skin tone and lighting, and again different and phantom muscle reactions that do not correspond. None of that is present.

For one scene it seems completely implausible to pay literally thousands of dollars for frame by frame editing regardless of what tech was used when you have a director openly saying they use Special effects sparingly, The level of result achieved does not match other examples of CGI usage, the results look Way beyond what much higher budget examples are able to achieve, and all things being equal every bit of the effect being presented on screen CAN be achieved with practical effects and look exactly the same.

So yeah I have done a lot of research on the scene as well as the tech and production of it. The only reason I have done as much as I have, is trying to make reasonable and well founded assertions and that seemingly no amount of logic, reason or evidence seems to be enough for even the shadow of doubt and being browbeaten into accepting an assumption as a fact which I will never do. You are still trying to less aggressively affirm that insinuation it is for jack fodder, but if it were there would be no reason to keep doing it over the course of a week and it wouldn't explain doing research on production press releases, special effects techniques and industry information that is as boring as watching flies *F`U'C^K*. (your fault IMDB)

So yeah I think I have offered up enough evidence to support me posing the original post. I never demanded anything until those detractors came in claiming I was wrong. Again more than welcome to do so, but if you are going to prove someone wrong, you need to provide proof.

Honestly I have never seen so much of a consolidated effort to prove something wrong whilst tap dancing around avoiding trying to provide evidence as to why it is wrong and relying solely on ad-hom attacks as the basis of the argument.

Now.. admittedly I have invested far more time than I should have on something trying to express the shadow of doubt and I do not have the luxury to continue repeating the same things. So Until someone does in fact offer up something for consideration on this, Ill simply refer back to what I have already put down.

reply

[–] LeMarchand 7 years ago

Well given that there has been a reasonable amount of CGI in the last couple of eps to illustrate various magics being used (East's blue swirls, Dorothy's powers) it seems as if there is a CGI budget. so why wouldn't they use it in the "bath" scene?

No tears please, it's a waste of good suffering.

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

Like I had already posited, why would they waste CGI budget on it?

Speaking of waste, if the forums are coming down, why waste energy on this inane discussion?

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EtaoinShrdlu001 7 years ago

If IMDb is stopping their discussion boards,
it's because they're running out of paper and ink
due to long-winded, repetitive and self indulgent posters like this one.

What a huge waste of everyone's time, including your own.

You Fill Me with Inertia.

reply

[–] purple_dave 7 years ago

Wouldn't be the first time NBC has cheated the rules by not actually showing anything. On Heroes, they showed an underaged Hayden Panatierre playing an underaged cheerleader, shot from the front in a nude, topless scene with no body double. Her chest had been cut open for an autopsy, so the flaps of skin were laid over where her boobs would be, and otherwise it was all just internal organs, and the whole thing was really just done with props and makeup anyways, but it was still kinda funny to see how people reacted when you mentioned that they had an underaged girl in a topless scene on broadcast TV. Thankfully, I never had anyone react with piqued interest, or it would have ruined the whole thing.

You know what noone tells you about cooking with the Dark Side? The food is really good!

reply

[–] snexstudio 7 years ago

Both interesting examples. There has always been ways that media producers skirt the line intentionally as well as things that are allowed.

For example the reference to body paint, I think it is allowed in more recent years because it is typically seen similarly to wearing a close fitting shirt with nipple protrusion, thought I have only seen examples where the nipples were taped down before painted.

Another odd example I remember from my own childhood is that animation sometimes gets a pass where live action does not. I recall seeing an old series of animated movies that were based off of old stories, specifically the one I recall was that of the little mermaid (not the Disney version) that would expose nipples, but they were represented as simple black dots. However at the same time when you get more detailed examples they were typically cut. For example how heavily edited the film Heavy Metal was when being a staple of rebroadcast on TBS in the 80s and 90s.

On the underage thing, yeah normally censors are VERY strict on that. That is why it is more common to see actors in their 20s playing teenagers. Remember Luke Perry being in his 30s on 90210 while most the rest of the cast were in 20s? However that hits on another odd caveat. Corpses are not seen in the same light either, as I think in that context it is viewed in an clinical sense. Much like what was perhaps the first example of such nudity on Non premium cable tv was the TLC documentary about sex that was shown after the Superbowl back in the 1990s was getting by with it in an anthropological sense.

But NBC is seen as one of the big four broadcast networks. The FCC is far more strict about such content on Network TV as they are cable as they view cable as a subscription service.

While they make only a small page or two on the matter available to the public on their websites...

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/oip/
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

But they are trained with reams of intricate examples and rules on what is permissable and what is not that is always changing. That is again the whole purpose behind the thread, to better understand this example to understand if it is a tolerated precedent, or if it is simply an oversight.

With this show airing on national broadcast at 9PM on Fridays, it seems as if the FCC would have been even more tight on this as it does not even fall within their 10P-6A "safe harbor" period that often is how cable channels skirt around many of traditional FCC censorship rules.

Lastly, thank you both for participating in a pleasant and respectful manner which makes having a discussion much easier.

reply

[–] purple_dave 7 years ago

The body paint is from a film that came out almost 34 years ago. The nipples are most definitely not taped down. An additional scene was shot some years later, and it's way more obvious in that one. The only thing is, I'm not sure how long it has been since it was broadcast over-the-air vs. being played on cable (an important distinction, as I explain in a bit).

Regarding The Little Mermaid, that would be a film produced in former USSR or Japan. On a guess, it was Japan, since the cover art for that on IMDB doesn't make a point of showing any sea-shell bra like Disney used. It should be noted that Japan has very different tolerances and problems with nudity, but if a kid's animated film is imported into the US for broadcast they might not pay as much attention to it as long as it got rubber-stamped in the country of origin. Maybe.

Actually, the reason 20-somethings tend to get cast is because they circumvent child labor laws by not being children. If you cast kids in a TV show, there are restrictions on how many hours they can work, and you have to make sure they get adequate schooling. As soon as they turn 18, all bets are off. So, you see 20-somethings cast as high-schoolers even in sugary-sweet productions that wouldn't even think of hinting at nudity, like what you can expect to see on the Disney Channel.

If the corpse is a live actor and not a dummy, censors absolutely would jump all over that. If it's a real corpse, and/or if it's not shown for gratuitous purposes, they may get special permission and cloak the whole thing in viewer warnings after every ad break, like the time they showed an unedited cut of Shindler's List on broadcast TV.

FCC has jurisdiction over over-the-air broadcasts because those are considered to be public airwaves that TV stations are merely borrowing. Other restrictions they have are that they have to set aside at least one hour every day to broadcast news on behalf of the public, they have to do educational programming for kids, and they have to do PSAs and emergency alert tests. Cable has zero restrictions from the FCC. It's not a public system, but a private one that you have to pay to access. It's not using public resources because it doesn't involve airwaves. The only real issue is that they rely on advertising at the basic cable level, and showing graphic sex is going to get every ad partner to pull their ads immediately. Premium channels don't have that problem to deal with because they work purely on a subscription basis, but even then they have to consider how far they can go before they'll start dropping subscriptions. Parents still expect to be able to let their kids tune into HBO during daytime hours without seeing closeup shots of full penetration and such.

"Safe Harbor" in the US (known as "watershed" in other countries) runs 10pm-6am. Your typo would result in the four hours between 6am-10am being the only ones that are restricted to family-safe content, rioting in the streets, parents tearing their hair out and throwing their TVs out.... But even Safe Harbor didn't cover everything. Full frontal is forbidden for either gender, as are bare female breasts. NYPD Blue famously played the line on that one by regularly showing bare butts and backs, but even that got them in trouble in the Central/Mountain time zones because their programming runs on the Eastern time schedule and only when you get to Pacific does it reset back three hours to match the Eastern timeslots.

But, in this case, as has been pointed out, as long as they pasted the actress' head on a male actor's body for the scenes in which her character is still a boy, all they have to do is prove that to the FCC and it should shut down any attempt at censorship.

You know what noone tells you about cooking with the Dark Side? The food is really good!

reply

[–] IamGOB1 7 years ago

i am naked right now, somebody fine me

reply