MAD MEN on AMC - Seasons 7(a) & & 7(b)

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/tech/game-of-thrones-sex-and-nudity-the-complete-collection-517397015

Oz had plenty but sex was a major thing in the story. I still think it's their best show.

I was right, that Video only covers 3 seasons but the majority was from season 1, which had annoyingly contrived scenes that the later ones generally lacked. The majority of the nudity is with prostitutes and brothel scenes. So I still think you're exaggerating.

amateurist is never gonna fuck right off, is he

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:43 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can you laugh at yourself even a little bit? c'mon, being curtly dismissive of some popular and entrenched pop-cultural phenomenon is something you do all the time, surely even you must recognize that.

I was right, that Video only covers 3 seasons but the majority was from season 1

it may have been worse in season 1 sure but I defy you to name me an episode from the series with zero nudity

I remember there was a s4 episode where The Following Program Contains... didn't have nudity in it, which was shocking enough that I still remember it

*cough*

ok so they skimped on the nudity for a handful of episodes

*eats hat*

The next to last of season four? Wasn't it all about the wall, where it's way too cold to take your clothes off?

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/67638-interview-with-director-neil-marshall/

I can only imagine how much pressure there would have been to make the Joan-sleeps-w-car-exec scene even grosser if Mad Men was on HBO

Maybe most episodes have nudity but beyond the first season and some of the second it rarely feels forced. An occasional brief topless woman or man's ass barely has the kind of presence to make it worth mentioning. The violence, dialogue, locations, cgi and political aspects all have a constant presence.

In Oz, asses and rape are definitely worth mentioning because they were always in the show and never detracted from the brilliance.

As far I can can remember, Roger's ass is the only thing that might be considered proper nudity in Mad Men.

c'mon, Oz was a fucking sensationalist homoerotic soap

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

If you continue to talk about Mad Men and Joan and nudity on the same thread, I'm going to helplessly go all Robert Christgau on you.

Oz also boasted more feces than any other similar drama. I don't think they overdid anything. Sure, the scene with Keller spreading his asscheeks wasn't crucial to the story but it was funny and it helped show you he was the sort of guy who didn't mind doing that in plain view.
Oz was fucking amazing, everybody watch it if you haven't.

I know nothing about Christgau and I don't fancy that thread.

last season of game of thrones literally had an orgy in it

The rapes at Craster's place?

being curtly dismissive of some popular and entrenched pop-cultural phenomenon is something you do all the time

not a prime factor, i'm also dismissive of tedious student films by Wim Wenders

you probably shouldn't take my advice as to which screenings to attend!

guys please, not in the game of thrones nudity thread

Mad Men is a great show btw

Will you still be saying that after SEASON 7(B): ALL NUDE HARRY, ALL THE TIME

assuming some kind of torture is involved... maybe

i think season 7(b) is the one where they give pete's toupee its own voice-over

Hell toupe

"it was a quarter to six and already i was swimming in flop-sweat."

My main problem with the show is that I don't think Pete would be tolerated let alone be a successful businessman. It's not like he has any conspicuous talents that might lead people to overlook his awfulness. It just never rings true. Also, the actor is quite bad.

I like the show well enough not to dump it at this stage but I do think there are a lot of false notes in it and there haven't been that many great moments in later series, aside from its production design.

there have been a few plots that point to pete's talents, although because of the way the actor plays pete, those always seem more notional than real.

i don't know whether the acting is "bad" or "good". i think he plays pete in a more stylized way than some of the other actors, and you're right that he doesn't seem credible as a successful businessman b/c he telegraphs his cravenness too clearly. but it's still very watchable which is at least as reasonable a litmus test as "realistic."

Pete is totally credible in a world in which the likes of Roger are successful businessmen.

is he credible in the sense of "the bundle of traits assigned to this character is credible" or "the actual texture of this man's personality as conveyed by speech patterns/body language/etc. is credible". i feel like those things are contingently separable.

An unpleasant, underqualified person ... in accounts/sales?!

A lot of forgetting about the "Old Boy Network" of connections >>>> talent in this thread.

are you saying we're untalented?

yeah I don't get these complaints about a boorish, childish, relatively talentless rich white guy floating to the top of his profession somehow being unrealistic

I was only part of the business world for about 5 minutes 30 years ago, so I have no idea if people like Pete naturally rise to the top--instinct says sure, but I don't know. (Roger at the top makes sense to me--he's funny and likeable.) But I'm with jed: I just don't like the actor or the performance very much. He seems to working in some rhythm that belongs to a completely different show than everyone else.

Roger is at the top because his Dad cofounded the company.

man I dunno his line readings are so funny - "Not good Bob!" makes me laugh just thinking about it

Pete is where he is because his family has been in Manhattan since 1661.

yeah the guy who plays pete is terrifically entertaining!

Pete is where he is because his family has been in Manhattan since 1661.

― polyphonic, Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:45 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that really only answers 50% of the question (well, maybe 65%)

enduring this entire show was worth it just for "not good, Bob"

Yes, that's true of Roger. I'll amend that to say that I think he'd be successful anyway, because--well, because I like him.

https://themindlessphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/not-great-bob.gif?w=300&h=164

Roger did say at some point that Pete was keeping accounts, so he was good for the company despite disliking him a lot. Pete basically said his own job was ass kissing clients and you do see him being more careful with them than some of the other guys are willing to be.

Realistic, good actor or not, I love him without reservation. He's my favourite character in the show by a long way.

Like, I'm actually going to miss Pete when this is over and I really hope I see Kartheiser in good stuff after this.

lookit this lovable douchebag

http://media.giphy.com/media/tBb19fjelFEnjSHfkNq/giphy.gif

Love it so much.

http://media.giphy.com/media/KXD1pSzGb3Khi/giphy.gif