Naughty Bits

[johnnysd]

20 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

But you can certainly show its dangerousness and brokenness without being explicit and showing the specific sorts of things that garner the mature ratings.  And that can often be more engaging for viewers than explicitly showing what's going on.  As Jordan himself put it, "He strains to hear a whisper, who refuses to hear a shout."

No argument but it needs to be used sparingly to be effective. I could definitely see them going your way, I could see them adding sexposition and gratuitous nudity just "because" or anything in between. Rafe's comments do seem to point to 2 versions. If they do that it is likely the TV-MA version will be more adult than if they went with just  a single TV-MA version. Would seem to be a good compromise if Amazon was insisting on GOT level content.

[Thrasymachus]

I think the key question here is whether they want it to be a show people can sit down with their families to watch it, or whether it's one of those "wait for the kids to go to bed" kind of shows.  For some context on my position, I have an 8 year old son and a 10 year old daughter.  Am I going to be able to let them watch this show with us, when it finally airs? 

 

I have no real problems with them reading the books.  In fact, I've already read them tEotW, and regularly cajole the oldest to pick up tGH.  (She's into the Wings of Fire series at the moment). I'd love to be able to watch the show with them, but if they go the GoT or The Boys route in terms of explicit violence, gore and sex, that's not gonna happen.  And that would be a shame. 

 

In my opinion, the books are suitable reading for anybody with the capacity to read and understand them, from 8 to 88, and have been great entertainment for those of nearly all maturity levels of reading.  Really, the only reason it might not be suitable for the youngest of readers is not because of the violence or graphic depictions of horrific things or of sex, because those sorts of things aren't really there, but because the emotions and relationships of the characters are too complex for them to understand.

 

If the show goes more "mature," they're cutting off an audience that the books naturally have.  There are 12 and 13 year-olds who've read and enjoyed the books.  Are we comfortable telling those younger fans that they don't get to watch the show, because the things which are left to the reader's imagination are made explicit in the TV show?

 

Which isn't to say it should be a kid's show.  But I don't consider the Lord of the Rings or Avengers to be "kids shows" either, and they manage to keep things at a level where all but the youngest of kids can watch it with their parents just fine.  They may not catch or understand everything, but the content doesn't exclude them either.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Thrasymachus

[johnnysd]

44 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

I think the key question here is whether they want it to be a show people can sit down with their families to watch it, or whether it's one of those "wait for the kids to go to bed" kind of shows.  For some context on my position, I have an 8 year old son and a 10 year old daughter.  Am I going to be able to let them watch this show with us, when it finally airs? 

 

I have no real problems with them reading the books.  In fact, I've already read them tEotW, and regularly cajole the oldest to pick up tGH.  (She's into the Wings of Fire series at the moment). I'd love to be able to watch the show with them, but if they go the GoT or The Boys route in terms of explicit violence, gore and sex, that's not gonna happen.  And that would be a shame. 

 

In my opinion, the books are suitable reading for anybody with the capacity to read and understand them, from 8 to 88, and have been great entertainment for those of nearly all maturity levels of reading.  Really, the only reason it might not be suitable for the youngest of readers is not because of the violence or graphic depictions of horrific things or of sex, because those sorts of things aren't really there, but because the emotions and relationships of the characters are too complex for them to understand.

 

If the show goes more "mature," they're cutting off an audience that the books naturally have.  There are 12 and 13 year-olds who've read and enjoyed the books.  Are we comfortable telling those younger fans that they don't get to watch the show, because the things which are left to the reader's imagination are made explicit in the TV show?

 

Which isn't to say it should be a kid's show.  But I don't consider the Lord of the Rings or Avengers to be "kids shows" either, and they manage to keep things at a level where all but the youngest of kids can watch it with their parents just fine.  They may not catch or understand everything, but the content doesn't exclude them either.

 

Well we know there is nudity and that Rafe wants it to be "accessible". Many think 2 versions, but I do not think any version would be lower than TV-14 and likely on the high end of that so it will be a parental decision.  Like I said if there is one version it will be like a lower end TV-MA. If there are two versions the second would likely be TV-14. I do not see them doing an all ages version in any form.

[Thrasymachus]

I don't see them doing two versions.  That's a lot of editing work at the very least.  And it can't just be cuts between the two making the difference, because it'll affect run-time and commercial slots, particularly if one's intended to be syndicated.

 

Regarding nudity, time was, in the US, you could get away with ass-shots and topless shots and not trigger an "R" rating (this was before there really were TV ratings and before PG-13 was around).  They just had to be brief, ~ a second, and not be involved in a sex act, and not be more than one or two per movie.  Rafe may decide to push that envelope back in that direction a bit more.  Quick flashes of Egwene and/or Nynaeve full-frontal when they're stripped for their Accepted's test, for example.  Ass shots of the boys, and a few of the girls/side characters like Aviendha when she flees from Rand, Melindhra when she and Mat jump out of bed upon being attacked by Darkhounds, or Perrin after waking up buck naked in Berelain's tent.

 

In my opinion, I'm fine with that.  US TV and movies have gotten way too culturally accepting of graphic violence and gore, while remaining very prudish, indeed getting moreso, regarding ritualistic or casual, i.e., non-sexual nudity.  I don't have any problems with my kids seeing that kind of brief nudity, as long as it's not just gratuitous or distracting, and I'm there with them.  There's nothing "wrong" or "dirty" about the human body, after all.  Graphic depictions of sex, on the other hand, would make that quite a bit more uncomfortable.  Sex is for adults.  And while I'm fine with them knowing about sex in general, there's a lot more they need to learn and understand before they're ready to be titillated in that way.  Besides, watching sex scenes, even obscured and tame ones, with one's parents is never very comfortable for anybody.  Even if the kid is old enough to be watching such things.

[johnnysd]

4 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

I don't see them doing two versions.  That's a lot of editing work at the very least.  And it can't just be cuts between the two making the difference, because it'll affect run-time and commercial slots, particularly if one's intended to be syndicated.

 

Regarding nudity, time was, in the US, you could get away with ass-shots and topless shots and not trigger an "R" rating (this was before there really were TV ratings and before PG-13 was around).  They just had to be brief, ~ a second, and not be involved in a sex act, and not be more than one or two per movie.  Rafe may decide to push that envelope back in that direction a bit more.  Quick flashes of Egwene and/or Nynaeve full-frontal when they're stripped for their Accepted's test, for example.  Ass shots of the boys, and a few of the girls/side characters like Aviendha when she flees from Rand, Melindhra when she and Mat jump out of bed upon being attacked by Darkhounds, or Perrin after waking up buck naked in Berelain's tent.

 

In my opinion, I'm fine with that.  US TV and movies have gotten way too culturally accepting of graphic violence and gore, while remaining very prudish, indeed getting moreso, regarding ritualistic or casual, i.e., non-sexual nudity.  I don't have any problems with my kids seeing that kind of brief nudity, as long as it's not just gratuitous or distracting, and I'm there with them.  There's nothing "wrong" or "dirty" about the human body, after all.  Graphic depictions of sex, on the other hand, would make that quite a bit more uncomfortable.  Sex is for adults.  And while I'm fine with them knowing about sex in general, there's a lot more they need to learn and understand before they're ready to be titillated in that way.  Besides, watching sex scenes, even obscured and tame ones, with one's parents is never very comfortable for anybody.  Even if the kid is old enough to be watching such things.

 

Agree with you on the imbalance in the US between graphic violence and nudity. I worked in Germany for a while and they have no issue with nudity at all but violence is very strictly related.

 

The thing I keep coming back to is that a family-friendly version of WoT will probably drive less new Prime subscriptions and drive the same level of media attention as one in the GOT/Withcher range

[Thrasymachus]

I think that depends more on how compelling they make the show to watch.  I would argue that it wasn't the violent gore or explicit nudity in either of those shows that make them so compelling.  It was the writing and acting, combined with the set work and costumes that made those worlds feel real and vital, according to the standards of the world it was depicting.  The violence and nudity contributed to a degree, but only because the source material was already very violent and sexually mature.  The Wheel of Time books are neither.  What makes that world feel real and vital is the depth of worldbuilding and character development.

 

Consider the Shannara Chronicles. It managed to score a second season on the back of a lackluster first.  Did it suck because we didn't get to see elven boob?  Because there weren't explict sex scenes between the main characters?  Because we didn't get to see limbs severed and blood spurting, or watch as people gurgle their last breath oozing through vicious injuries?  Or was it because the writing sucked, the adaptation didn't respect the source material, the acting was bad, and the setting and costumes weren't believable?  There are tons of highly respected and long-lasting fantasy and sci-fi TV shows out there that keep things family-friendly, that have anchored or greatly contributed to the bottom lines of the channels they were syndicated to, from SG-1 on Sy-fy, to Merlin and Dr. Who on BBC, though, granted, most aren't adaptations from a novel.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Thrasymachus

[Carebear Sedai]

1 hour ago, Thrasymachus said:

There are tons of highly respected and long-lasting fantasy and sci-fi TV shows out there that keep things family-friendly, that have anchored or greatly contributed to the bottom lines of the channels they were syndicated to, from SG-1 on Sy-fy, to Merlin and Dr. Who on BBC, though, granted, most aren't adaptations from a novel.

 

As a big Merlin and Dr. Who fan, as well as many cheesy shows on the Sy-fy channel, I can tell you that the former (and a good many of the latter) are shows that target adults such as me, who still watch anime and children's cartoons. Basically people who can handle a sizeable serving of cheese. WoT is a high budget show and by all accounts aiming for that prestige TV audience and on a completely different ballpark aimed a different demographic. 

 

Every indication we've gotten from the show, from casting calls to quotes from the people involved indicate the show will be aimed at adults and will have a TV-MA rating. Both Rafe and Sarah Nakamura have said that those wanting a child/teen friendly show will have to find a version that's been edited online.  

Edited July 30, 2020 by Carebear Sedai

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Thrasymachus said:

I think that depends more on how compelling they make the show to watch.  I would argue that it wasn't the violent gore or explicit nudity in either of those shows that make them so compelling.  It was the writing and acting, combined with the set work and costumes that made those worlds feel real and vital, according to the standards of the world it was depicting.  The violence and nudity contributed to a degree, but only because the source material was already very violent and sexually mature.  The Wheel of Time books are neither.  What makes that world feel real and vital is the depth of worldbuilding and character development.

 

Consider the Shannara Chronicles. It managed to score a second season on the back of a lackluster first.  Did it suck because we didn't get to see elven boob?  Because there weren't explict sex scenes between the main characters?  Because we didn't get to see limbs severed and blood spurting, or watch as people gurgle their last breath oozing through vicious injuries?  Or was it because the writing sucked, the adaptation didn't respect the source material, the acting was bad, and the setting and costumes weren't believable?  There are tons of highly respected and long-lasting fantasy and sci-fi TV shows out there that keep things family-friendly, that have anchored or greatly contributed to the bottom lines of the channels they were syndicated to, from SG-1 on Sy-fy, to Merlin and Dr. Who on BBC, though, granted, most aren't adaptations from a novel.

 

1000% this.

 

Writing, acting and production will determine whether the show is good or not - not whether there's graphic sex and gore. Like you, I have kids - a little older - and like you, I have no problem with them reading it (though my youngest fell hard into the Cosmere and WoT is way at the end of his reading list now). I would love for them to be able to watch it with me. 

 

I don't know if you've ever watched The Last Kingdom. I feel like it is a show my older teen boys could watch, and deals with similar levels of violence and sex as WoT. That's sort of the vibe I hope they go for on this show.

[mistborn82]

We're in a different world than even GOT and it will be noticed and remarked upon if there's an excessive explotation of female nudity vs male. It would strike me as lazy writing, like I really need the audience to pay attention so I'll give you full frontal to help you concentrate.

[Carebear Sedai]

I expect that for every Wise One meeting in the sweat tents there will be one of the Clan Chiefs with Rand. Considering how conventionally attractive Lan and Thom actors are, I'd say the show is committed to equality. 

[Thrasymachus]

17 minutes ago, Carebear Sedai said:

 

As a big Merlin and Dr. Who fan, as well as many cheesy shows on the Sy-fy channel, I can tell you that the former (and a good many of the latter) are shows that target adults such as me, who still watch anime and children's cartoons. Basically people who can handle a sizeable serving of cheese. WoT is a high budget show and by all accounts aiming for that prestige TV audience and on a completely different ballpark aimed a different demographic. 

 

Every indication we've gotten from the show, from casting calls to quotes from the people involved indicate the show will be aimed at adults and will have a TV-MA rating. Both Rafe and Sarah Nakamura have said that those wanting a child/teen friendly show will have to find a version that's been edited online.  

The Wheel of Time books are pretty cheesy at times as well.  Particularly Nynaeve and Mat.  But Rand and Perrin, Egwene, Elayne, Aviendha and Min all have moments of cheese as well.  The size of the budget doesn't really tell you much in terms of how graphic the nudity or violence will be, just what the quality of actors, costumes, sets, practical and special effects and musical accompaniment ought to be.  The world of the Wheel of Time deserves high production values for a live-action adaptation.  But high production values don't necessarily mean realistically graphic violence and gratuitous sex.

 

I don't doubt and am not arguing that the show shouldn't earn a hard TV-14 rating that occasionally strays into TV-MA territory where it's warranted, e.g., Dumai's Wells, that scene with Rand and the little girl's corpse in the Stone, and elsewhere.  But for them to push into The Boys or GoT territory would not only be a perversion of the source material (pun somewhat intended), but also limit the target audience to a particular kind of adult audience, when it could have a much broader appeal than that.

[Carebear Sedai]

20 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

The Wheel of Time books are pretty cheesy at times as well.  Particularly Nynaeve and Mat.  But Rand and Perrin, Egwene, Elayne, Aviendha and Min all have moments of cheese as well.  The size of the budget doesn't really tell you much in terms of how graphic the nudity or violence will be, just what the quality of actors, costumes, sets, practical and special effects and musical accompaniment ought to be.  The world of the Wheel of Time deserves high production values for a live-action adaptation.  But high production values don't necessarily mean realistically graphic violence and gratuitous sex.

 

I don't doubt and am not arguing that the show shouldn't earn a hard TV-14 rating that occasionally strays into TV-MA territory where it's warranted, e.g., Dumai's Wells, that scene with Rand and the little girl's corpse in the Stone, and elsewhere.  But for them to push into The Boys or GoT territory would not only be a perversion of the source material (pun somewhat intended), but also limit the target audience to a particular kind of adult audience, when it could have a much broader appeal than that.

 

I completely agree about the books, however, the books were hot in the 90s and the early 2000s, when the audience taste for fantasy was widely different than it is now. Just compare shows with similar genre aimed at the same age group from the early 2000s to now. Merlin and Cursed are both Arthurian legends aimed at a YA audience. While Merlin was cheesy and innocent, the violence never even showing gushing blood, Cursed is much darker and more gruesome. 

 

TV execs tend to cater to trends, and for WoT to match the current mood of fantasy, it will have to be TV-MA. Imagine it from their POV where they're primarily concerned about what is hot and selling, GoT first, then Witcher. They don't care if the trend is not book accurate, because at the end of the day, the show is gonna made to appeal to a 2020s audience. Also "broader audience" gets thrown around a lot, but at the end of the day, the only people who will be excluded from a show with adult themes are children, not teens. I worked with teenagers during the run of GoT and it was rare for a 14 or 15 year old not to be an avid watcher and fan. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Carebear Sedai

[Thrasymachus]

I have little doubt they'll go more in that direction as well, for just the reasons you state.  But I don't think that will help the series appeal to anybody it wouldn't have appealed to anyway.  I think those who think that GoT and the Witcher, or The Boys and to a slightly lesser degree Carnival Row, are popular because of the nudity and gore, is mistaken.  Those shows are popular because they're compelling in the ways the world and the characters are presented.  Nudity and violence sometimes adds to that, but, as mistborn above says, it can often be used as a cover for bad acting or writing, and when badly used, can be distracting or detrimental to the presentation.

 

So, while I'm expecting something along the lines of Carnival Row in terms of nudity and graphic violence, my hope is that they can stay around the area of The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina or Riverdale.

[Dovie'andi se tovya sagain]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:32 PM, Thrasymachus said:

I don't see them doing two versions.  That's a lot of editing work at the very least.  And it can't just be cuts between the two making the difference, because it'll affect run-time and commercial slots, particularly if one's intended to be syndicated.

 

Regarding nudity, time was, in the US, you could get away with ass-shots and topless shots and not trigger an "R" rating (this was before there really were TV ratings and before PG-13 was around).  They just had to be brief, ~ a second, and not be involved in a sex act, and not be more than one or two per movie.  Rafe may decide to push that envelope back in that direction a bit more.  Quick flashes of Egwene and/or Nynaeve full-frontal when they're stripped for their Accepted's test, for example.  Ass shots of the boys, and a few of the girls/side characters like Aviendha when she flees from Rand, Melindhra when she and Mat jump out of bed upon being attacked by Darkhounds, or Perrin after waking up buck naked in Berelain's tent.

 

In my opinion, I'm fine with that.  US TV and movies have gotten way too culturally accepting of graphic violence and gore, while remaining very prudish, indeed getting moreso, regarding ritualistic or casual, i.e., non-sexual nudity.  I don't have any problems with my kids seeing that kind of brief nudity, as long as it's not just gratuitous or distracting, and I'm there with them.  There's nothing "wrong" or "dirty" about the human body, after all.  Graphic depictions of sex, on the other hand, would make that quite a bit more uncomfortable.  Sex is for adults.  And while I'm fine with them knowing about sex in general, there's a lot more they need to learn and understand before they're ready to be titillated in that way.  Besides, watching sex scenes, even obscured and tame ones, with one's parents is never very comfortable for anybody.  Even if the kid is old enough to be watching such things.

 

Whether you see it or not the question was asked and answered at timestamp 1:22:20 as I pointed out in this livestream from July 22, 2020 less than 2 weeks ago, to be clear Sarah Nakamura works on the Wheel of Time on Prime and she was one of the people who answered the question about the show rating. I trust her when she says there will be versions available for those who are concerned with on screen depictions of nudity sex and violence and honestly it makes sense to reach as wide an audience base as possible.

 

[Thrasymachus]

Her answer didn't say anything about their producing multiple versions to appease ratings.  She said that she doesn't know what the rating will end up being, because there's a whole process for it to go through to be assigned a rating.  And she said that if there are any "problematic" scenes, that internet fan sites will be able to identify them fairly quickly, so that a viewer can "ask the internet" if there's something that needs to be skipped.  She really didn't tell us much at all.  She also didn't say whether they were aiming for TV-14 rating, or would accept a TV-MA rating or whether there was any producer-level concern about the rating.  Mostly, it seemed as if she just didn't know.

[Dovie'andi se tovya sagain]

Fair enough but it says something that the discussion brought up if you are concerned about mature content and want to watch the show w/out being exposed to mature content, which leaves me with the impression that if you want/need to avoid mature content than you're probably watching a show with mature content. This all in response to concern about being able to watch the show if it is TV-MA and not TV-14. I doubt the show will be TV-14 there's enough graphic violence to push it to TV-MA within 10 chapters of The Eye of the World excluding the prologue. Yes the people in charge could choose to not portray these scenes as they read in the books however I think this mild censorship would be slightly offensive in particular to the authored works and their creators and a mistake to boot.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Dovie'andi se tovya sagain

[Thrasymachus]

Please quote the "graphic violence" from the Eye.  How graphic any of the violence is, especially in the Eye, has more to with one's imagination of the scenes described than with their descriptions.  Even the Green Man killing Balthamel, perhaps the most graphic death of the first book, is hardly graphically described.  There's no bursting organs or splattering blood or crunching bone as the Green Man makes vines and fungus grow through his body.  Ratedreads.com, a website which offers guidance on books for parents and others regarding the depictions of violence and sex, lists tEoTW as "mild." Even the worst gore in this series is mild compared to some of the stuff you'll get in Steven King or Martin.  I think too many people mistake the intensity and atmosphere of some scenes for their graphicness, and substitute their imaginations for what's actually written.

[johnnysd]

25 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

Please quote the "graphic violence" from the Eye.  How graphic any of the violence is, especially in the Eye, has more to with one's imagination of the scenes described than with their descriptions.  Even the Green Man killing Balthamel, perhaps the most graphic death of the first book, is hardly graphically described.  There's no bursting organs or splattering blood or crunching bone as the Green Man makes vines and fungus grow through his body.  Ratedreads.com, a website which offers guidance on books for parents and others regarding the depictions of violence and sex, lists tEoTW as "mild." Even the worst gore in this series is mild compared to some of the stuff you'll get in Steven King or Martin.  I think too many people mistake the intensity and atmosphere of some scenes for their graphicness, and substitute their imaginations for what's actually written.

 

EoTW is definitely less explicit than other books. In fact the books become more explicit as the characters grow and become more adult. For a TV show though they need to choose a tone and level of content that they will use throughout the series.

[Thrasymachus]

I do not disagree, that is, after all, what this thread is largely about.  I don't know that I would consider tEoTW to be less explicit, though.  While more violence occurs later, the level of detail and the nature of the descriptions of nudity, sex, violence and gore remains pretty consistent, and when judged dispassionately against other series describing similar events, is pretty tame. 

 

Which isn't to say they aren't still gripping and compelling portrayals.  Jordan is a master of atmosphere and intensity, making us feel like we're witnessing the events he describes.  But he doesn't do that with incredibly graphic descriptions of what's happening.  Instead, he focuses on character emotions and reactions, atmosphere and mood, in such a way as to enable the reader to fill in the gaps of the details with their own imagination.  That's a strength of the series, but it's one that enables the series to be much closer to a YA fantasy series than a Mature Audiences Only fantasy.

 

Someone mentioned the series "Cursed" above, and I have only just started watching that two days ago.  Leaving aside how bad that show is (terrible editing, bad acting, a plot that seems all over the place, and incredibly cheesy in a bad way), that would be about the level of graphic violence I would hope they stick to for the WoT show.

[SinisterDeath]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the first chapters of EoTW include Tam & Rand taking a Bath before getting attacked by Trollocs? (Potentially a full-frontal/ass scene)

We may not get "explicitly detailed" acts of violence and nudity, (Something can be said about letting the reader fill in the details) but since this is going to be a TV Show, those details are going to be filled in, via camera work & CGI.

So we don't need to read about entrails spilling from flayed corpses, we'll bloody see it. While the focus is on the characters reactions to whats going on around them.

All-in-all, I'd expect most of the nudity within the first season to be incidental/bathing related, while most of the gore to be based in horror, chase scenes, and segments straight out of a Vietnam film with PTSD inducing explosions caused by lightning. There's also something to be said about keeping a lot of the incidental nudity within the series non-sexual, and the sexual scenes early on, showing off just how prudish two rivers folks are until about the time we hit the Aiel.

[Thrasymachus]

My point is that we don't even really need to see it, at least, not in the incredibly graphic ways that modern TV-MA series, particularly the more graphic ones like GoT, The Boys, etc.  Focusing on character shots and their reactions to events.  Focusing on Rand working to maintain his composure at Dumai's Wells, Min burying her face in his coat, while Perrin heaves in the middle-ground, and in the blurry background explosions and the shadowy hints of bodies flying around, rather than having the shot centered on Aiel warriors being disintegrated, flayed and pulverized.  The former would be far more in line with the flavor and maturity level of the books as written.  The latter is what many fans imagine, and want visually inserted into the story.

 

I'm expecting most of the nudity to simply be not explicit, if they follow the tone of the books.  Back-shots of topless women, for example, rather than full-frontal.  Sex is non-existent in the books until Mat starts hooking up with Melindhra.  The early nudity is either incidental or ritual, and neither require any kind of explicit showing.  Put it this way: the books never tell us or describe to us in any way to allow us to infer from those of the women whose breasts were definitely exposed, which has the biggest nipples.  Or the smallest.  Or whose sag when unsupported and whose are perky.  Or whether they point out, or down or up.  Or if anybody has one boob a different size or shape than the other.  We don't know how well any of the men are endowed.  Or what the state of their pubic or body hair is.  There's nothing anywhere that would allow us to make educated guesses about any of that. 

 

If the books don't have it, the show doesn't need it.  If they put it in, it's just gratuitous fan-service.  

[johnnysd]

42 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

My point is that we don't even really need to see it, at least, not in the incredibly graphic ways that modern TV-MA series, particularly the more graphic ones like GoT, The Boys, etc.  Focusing on character shots and their reactions to events.  Focusing on Rand working to maintain his composure at Dumai's Wells, Min burying her face in his coat, while Perrin heaves in the middle-ground, and in the blurry background explosions and the shadowy hints of bodies flying around, rather than having the shot centered on Aiel warriors being disintegrated, flayed and pulverized.  The former would be far more in line with the flavor and maturity level of the books as written.  The latter is what many fans imagine, and want visually inserted into the story.

 

I'm expecting most of the nudity to simply be not explicit, if they follow the tone of the books.  Back-shots of topless women, for example, rather than full-frontal.  Sex is non-existent in the books until Mat starts hooking up with Melindhra.  The early nudity is either incidental or ritual, and neither require any kind of explicit showing.  Put it this way: the books never tell us or describe to us in any way to allow us to infer from those of the women whose breasts were definitely exposed, which has the biggest nipples.  Or the smallest.  Or whose sag when unsupported and whose are perky.  Or whether they point out, or down or up.  Or if anybody has one boob a different size or shape than the other.  We don't know how well any of the men are endowed.  Or what the state of their pubic or body hair is.  There's nothing anywhere that would allow us to make educated guesses about any of that. 

 

If the books don't have it, the show doesn't need it.  If they put it in, it's just gratuitous fan-service.  

 

They could do that. With nudity being required even of the main leads it is very very very unlikely you get that. It is much more likely for it to be on the GOT side of the spectrum than the TV-14 side you want. It is likely to be multiple versions and if there is only one version you can choose whether you want to watch or not. But the Amazon side probably wants it to be more adult. The 2 really successful fantasy shows that garnered a lot of media attention was GOT an The Witcher. Not hard to do the math

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, Thrasymachus said:

Put it this way: the books never tell us or describe to us in any way to allow us to infer from those of the women whose breasts were definitely exposed, which has the biggest nipples.  Or the smallest.  Or whose sag when unsupported and whose are perky.

Correct.
But it did tell us everything about every color of thread in a tunic, the button placement...

Quote

We don't know how well any of the men are endowed.  Or what the state of their pubic or body hair is.  There's nothing anywhere that would allow us to make educated guesses about any of that. 

 

If the books don't have it, the show doesn't need it.  If they put it in, it's just gratuitous fan-service. 

Just because it doesn't describe the exact number and shape of testicles Mat has, or the Firmness of Nyneave's breasts, doesn't mean they can't "show" it, when it's spelled out that "oh, and she's topless" or "oh, and he's running around in the buff".

Nudity can be shown, and still not be sexual, even full frontal shots.
Is it fan-service? Perhaps? But the whole show is fan service.

Hate to say it, but there's actually lots of tv shows these days, that show a plethora of nudity, including dongs. And sometimes it's completely non-sexual.

Depending on if they do multiple rated versions, one for Prime, one for Cable TV, this can either be done with multiple/alternative shots, or blurring.

If you recall the FX Drama "Nip/Tuck" from a decade ago. They did a LOT of shots that completely skipped any nipple.
But if you go and watch it on Hulu, you find out that they actually did shoot it with nudity.

[mistborn82]

I say make it TV-MA just for freedoms sake but knowing that the first season is closely to the low end. From season 2 on, which hopefully they have, it's a hard TV-MA. e.g. if you show any of the torture of Egwene, even though not graphic, I think warrants higher ratings and you get more into the close combat after EotW. You can't use camera tricks or lighting every battle and you certainly can't do the horror of Dumais Wells with other than TV-MA.

[johnnysd]

2 hours ago, mistborn82 said:

I say make it TV-MA just for freedoms sake but knowing that the first season is closely to the low end. From season 2 on, which hopefully they have, it's a hard TV-MA. e.g. if you show any of the torture of Egwene, even though not graphic, I think warrants higher ratings and you get more into the close combat after EotW. You can't use camera tricks or lighting every battle and you certainly can't do the horror of Dumais Wells with other than TV-MA.

Dumai Wells is the one thing I hope they don't show. I hate that part of the books (well aware for some reason its many favorite) but that can be shown better by sound and reaction that NC-17 gore. And anyone that thinks they will not show Egwene being tortured is deluding themselves.