a crap show like GOT get soo much attention.
while a true masterpiece that doesn't rely on casting porn-stars showing penises and sex. and teases us with dragons and zombies gets a 50+ pages thread.
the intelligence of jf-ers truly disappointed me
While I like GOT, and several other pay cable series (e.g., Black Sails, Pennydreadful, Da Vinci's Demons), I'm a bit weary of the gratuitous nudity and sex. I'm by no means a prude about this, my complaint is that typically it does little to advance the plot and appears to be there mostly for titilation (sic) purposes. Pay cable long ago established that it can show nudity (usually of the female variety) and sex, so having proved this and broken the barriers, it seems to me that it doesn't have to keep proving the point, just for the sake of it. If the nudity and sex is really critical to the plot, then fine, but I'm not some hard up for sex teenager who won't watch GOT if they don't show me lots and lots of boobs. I can see boobs and more any time I want and in as much graphic detail as I want via other means. The spoof SNL did years ago was spot on, in which Adam Sandberg portrayed the creative director of the GOT as a horny teenage boy who just wants to see lots of boobs. Fewer boobs and more plot advancement would suit me fine.
While we're on it, how about some more male nudity? I mean, the gals have hormones too, don't they? Or perhaps women aren't' the main demographic, or perhaps more they don't watch a show just to see dicks. Which of course raises another issue, the pay cable nudity tends to be breast centric, if we're 'lucky' enough to see the woman's genital area, its just a quick glance, nothing lingering. BUT, if they show more male nudity, they'll have to show dicks, in which case, in the spirit of equal opportunity, does that mean we get to see more vaginas? On behalf of all the horny teenage male viewers out there, let's hope so.