I don't know where to begin with this show. What a disaster for Netflix. The painfully stiff dialogue, countless asian stereotypes and cliches, a vast sea of gratuitous female nudity beyond anything the Tudors ever aspired to, zero attractive men outside of Marco, and some genuinely BAD acting.
Why, at a reported budget of 90 million dollars could Netflix not afford to funnel part of that into a decent writing team?
Still. The budget shows in the sets, costumes, and atmosphere. The general plot-line is at least mildly interesting despite its convoluted presentation. Should I keep watching?
You just reminded me of "I make my own destiny" - Scorpion King :))
To continue your line: Make your own destiny. Ignore the crowd with small plasma screens and tiny minds. Get yourself the 50" one. Victory is at hand :)))
Sex and nudity doesn't in itself make something bad. Believe it or not, some ancient and modern cultures weren’t or arn't all uptight about sex like modern America. "Gratuitous sex" shouldn't even be a term! Are you frigid?
Sex and nudity isn't bad. It is when it has no meaning and is boring--violence, same thing. Don't make this an America vs. Europe thing. We have all seen porn.
The nudity in these types of shows brings nothing to the table aside from cheap thrills. If you can even nudity for the sake of nudity thrilling. Game of Thrones was no different. That stuff with Littlefinger and his working girls brought the show down a notch in my opinion.
That is my biggest gripe with the show. The writing and pace is just fine. Incredible how people are beating on this show but are cool with the Walking Dead. That show spins its wheels far more than Polo.
Yes, some of the dialogue is stiff and some of the acting is sub-par, but it's mostly from a select few, notably the actor playing "Kublai Khan," which is a shame since he's such an important character. There's certainly a lot of nude women in this show, but as a female viewer I find myself just laughing at it. Sexual intrigue has long been a part of history and I rather enjoy seeing a show that's about adults and for adults.
I do disagree about the attractiveness of the cast. Kublai Khan's son is a very pretty young man; the finance minister is gorgeous; the cricket/preying mantis Song chancellor isn't conventionally handsome but has a certain attractive badassery aura about him, and Polo's martial arts instructor is elegantly handsome. As for the Asian stereotypes, nobody's a 13th century version of the computer nerd or depicted as sexless and emasculated, and the Asians aren't depicted as one monolithic group sharing the same culture, tastes, attitudes, etc. Overall, I think this is an interesting show that has potential to grow.
I love historical fiction, yah, allot of the dialogue is crap -- but the sets, costumes, flavor, sets are where the money went to. Marco the Actor is a bore, unfortunately.
You do know it's possible to appreciate the beauty of a naked female without being *ahem* heavily aroused? Nudity itself isn't sexual, but it does bring an air of romanticised beauty with it.
Furthermore, I think it's quite obvious that this show is aimed at men. It's called market segmentation, and anyone with a basic knowledge of economics would be aware of it.
So the solution, which was rightly pointed out by Panic100, is simply not to watch it if this doesn't appeal to you. It is only right that a piece of art be judged by its target audience.
I do not go on the Twilight boards and complain about the lack of female nudity or the unappealing love story, as that movie is not aimed at myself; a 21-year old, university-educated male. Similarly, I think this board should be free of complaints about the choice of target audience, which is pretty much akin to trolling, given that unless you make a mediocre jack-of-all-trades movie which doesn't offend anyone, you will have a group who are not happy with your work.
By all means, members of the target audience (not people who want to push certain sociopolitical beliefs) make your opinion known; but complaints from people who do not fall into this category serve no real purpose rather than to depress those of us who understand how economics works, and annoy the target audience.
You have a university education but you get depressed by people who don't agree with your views? In addition, you tell these people they should not express their opinion so they dont't upset the "majority"?
wow! that's some quality education you've got yourself!
Oh no, I love hearing other opinions. One of the best ways to build knowledge is to hear and try to tackle counterarguments while maintaining logical coherence.
What I am saying is that people criticising titles which are not aimed at them is never going to lead to fruitful debate by the very nature of such a situation. By aiming a movie at some people, you make choices which others will inevitably find disagreeable, and so invite predictable criticism.
An appropriate analogy would be the blacksmiths criticising the axes made for the woodcutters because they are not very good at forging iron. Such debate just doesn't benefit society in any way, and it's a little ridiculous.
That doesn't mean that media cannot be judged of course. We can assume general target audiences for media based on general themes (which are morally supported by some and opposed by others) and then judge it based on delivery. Marco Polo might be too gratuitous in nudity, even for its target audience (who may want something a bit more tasteful), but arguing that male nudity is needed in something clearly aimed at men is a bit silly (I don't have a problem with it, but a fair few other men do). The movie might also suffer from predictable plotlines and the lack of any gripping stories. It might also have a poor pacing or bad cinematography. There may even be plot holes. These sorts of things we can use to judge a movie regardless of its morality.
For example, I feel that Orientalism is a benevolent concept, and that movies should make cultures appear more alien and exotic to give them a compelling air of mystery; a rich visage concealing greater depth. The ethnocentric "stereotyping" (viewpoint) must be present to ground such beliefs in perceived authenticity.
Now you may disagree with my belief completely and at its very core; this is because we would represent completely different, almost opposing, consumer forces. Commenting on each others' movies about morality would be pointless. Making points about bad story*telling* (as long as the morality itself is accepted, whether genuinely or not, by in the comment) is fine. Making points about "bad" morality is not (though I suppose positive, philosophical, and constructive discussions can be beneficial also.
First of all, is not about morality, at almost double your age, I think I have seen it all. Is about how nudity it is presented. In this case, don't you think it is weird only women are shown naked? If it was more *realistic*, both genders would be featured. Then you have the sex scenes themselves, women pleasuring eachother, dildos, woman naked sword fighting... really? There is better places to get your porn needs without messing history up.
Then you say that the series is not aimed at me; I'd like to know where is the warning saying that the show is aimed at a young male audience, and that those who don't fit the profile should abstain or risk disappointment.
If that was the case, I would have abstained from wasting an hour of my time, because I would have expected just that.
But since the series was available to all Netflix subscribers, was promoted as to have a great theme and budget, and since I am passionate about history, I tried it.
Now, based on that experience, I will not waste my time again to watch the rest of the series. And I agree with you there, that it is my wise prerogative not to do so given the experience.
But since I invested that hour, and since there is an open forum, I will, out of principle and not practicality, express my opinion as I wish so.
And here it is again (stop reading here to avoid disappointment): Great story, great budget, great photography, and amazing costumes, but a wasted chance to make quality entertainment happen. All because of a porn obsessed production aiming to sell sex. (You can tell it's a catch because the porn bits are only shown at the end.)
Well, I sort of agree with you to the extent that the nudity is largely gratuitous. It's been thrown in as eye candy to appeal to a certain demographic, and that's about it.
But I am surprised at your evaluation that this was the deal breaker in the series, specially as you claim to be "passionate about history".
This series is about as far from history as you can get. First, there is the fact that Marco Polo's "Travels" is a pretty strange amalgamation of facts and tall tales with tall tales predominating so strongly that it takes historians years to tease out the tiny little bits of fact buried under layers of *beep* And if that wasn't enough, this series departs from the "Travels" to spin its own yarns about court intrigues, Kung Fu, jewel thieves, all with Marco Polo playing a leading role as confidante of Kublai Khan. This is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous. Marco Polo himself never claimed such a prominent role for himself, even when he was telling tall tales.
In short, this is a costume drama, with a few historical characters thrown in, set amidst semi-historical situations. They don't even bother with the historicity. Kublai Khan killing his brother in single combat with the armies arrayed on both sides and Marco Polo watching? In reality, the civil war between the two brothers ended long before Marco Polo even arrived in China, and Kublai's brother was banished, not killed.
So while I can understand that you personally don't like to see so much female nudity (or would tolerate it only if they also showed an equivalent number of penises), it kind of seems silly that you would otherwise have enjoyed it due to your passion for history. This isn't history, this is fantasy in fancy dress.
I would suggest just watching it as an action/adventure story, with the bonus of exotic locales and costumes. A bit of nudity isn't so bad. If that's gratuitous and unbelievable, so are all those scenes of women wrestling with men and tossing them around like sacks of grain, or little waif-like girls killing half a dozen professional soldiers. None of it is realistic, it's just eye candy.
Couldn't agree more. I am a woman and I enjoyed the show. However if I were the producer I would go with what will bring in the most numbers. I found the nudity tasteful and in keeping with the story line. I am not upset at the fact that a bunch of floppy penises were not present to mar the beauty they were seemingly portraying of the asian womans grace and beauty. I think they may have a few jealous wives that ban their husbands from ever watching the show but I encourage mine too!
As a straight woman I totally agree. Rather see a naked woman than a floppy wiener:-) There is something so beautiful and elegant about a woman's body. There was a little more nudity than I personally needed, but I'm ok. Also, they did show male nudity and penis in the scene where Marco got high with the Old Man in the desert - I think it was season 1 ep 5 :-)
"There is better places to get your porn needs without messing history up. "
The sheer ignorance of posts like this is nothing short of staggering. As if to suggest that anyone who likes nudity in films or tv, or any other art form for that matter, are simply looking for porn or cheap arousal from such material. Its nothing short of ludicrous. I myself am a professional photographer and I have done my fair share of nude photography and I can say with 100% absolute certainty that it had absolutely nothing to do with sex, or cheap arousal like you see with porn. It was simply a study dealing with light and the beauty of the human figure.
And even if a film does include gratuitous sex or nudity.....who cares! there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity or sex. In fact, nudity and sex are as natural as drinking and eating or walking and talking. Just a bunch of whiny prudes running around that have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about nudity or sex, lol. All the violence and blood and gore....well, that is perfectly fine, but show a nude body or a sex scene and oh uh, you better look out as that kind of content is just unacceptable, lol. Only in a society as fuc*ed up as ours do you see this kind of a*s backwards thinking.
Indeed. And although I'm obviously being anti US culture here, this does seem to predominate in the US an awful lot; the portrayal of violence is absolutely fine, but the slightest bit of nudity and there's uproar.
There seems to be quite a different (and I'd argue) healthier attitude to nudity in Europe.
Which is odd because much of Western Europe is classically Protestant.
But then Western Europe is far more secular and liberal than the US in general I think. Mention of religion would make it harder for a politician to get into power in the UK (Tony Blare is a Christian like George Bush, but carefully never mentioned it), while in the US I think it'd be impossible to get elected without being overt about being Christian? Seems nuts to people over here. That's a turn off.
Anyway.
The female form is beautiful. A subject of study, the muse of artists.
Haven't seen the show yet, and imagine it does have gratuitous nudity. But that's like saying chilli is gratuitous. Some may not like it, it's not necessary to add it your dish, but it ads some extra spice.
Anyway, it's a bonus. If they destroyed the story or acting to insert nudity, that'd be cause to complain. If they simply sprinkle it in, why the heck not?
Personally I find it annoying when there isn't nudity. E.g. you see love scenes etc and there's no nudity. Why not? It hampers the suspension of disbelief. If you see a couple in bed, etc, you'd expect to see some nudity. E.g. when the woman carefully covers everything when getting out of bed etc. Sometimes some people do that a bit perhaps, especially if shy, in real life, but really, it seems unrealistic.
Sex and nudity are a normal daily thing. Killing and maiming aren't. Killing was more normal in e.g. medieval periods, but still. People calling out perversion are perverted. It's the wrong way round.
You argue your points relatively well but your attempt to silence your opponent is distasteful. If you are so good at argumentation, your point shouldn't be "don't argue because you are not the target audience." You should stick with your other points, which have some validity.
Your post makes no sense, since we are on a message board. Its main purpose is to discuss things. If I didn´t respond to opinions different than mine, the concept alone of the IMDb message boards would be pointless.
the only thing they dont show for men are penises dangling around. You get to see everything else all the time.
Most of the time the only real nudity they show for women is their breasts and not their vagina. And honestly, women are just more beautiful. Complaining about not getting enough male nudity is just a horny person who wants to see some penises lmao. its like someone complaing there isnt enough complete/spread-eagle and well-lit nudity of women lol.
"You don´t hear men complaining about seeing Fassbender´s or Harvey Keitel´s dick in some of the movies they have made either."
LOL Please. So that's like what, two, three movies?
My husband and I watched the first episode last night and barely made it through that. I couldn't help but think that somehow the drawn out sex scenes made viewers think that these women wanted it and asked for it, rather than the reality that they were all slaves and probably none of it was truly consensual. Is there any context in the series (since I doubt we'll watch any more of it) that accurately explains this?
"None of it" is not true. A couple of the wives genuinely love their husbands, and a couple of love interests also love or feel attracted to their prospective partners.
Now, the concubines and harem women of course were either trying to survive or climb socially through sex or were slaves compelled into it. However these are factual in terms of the history of those populations, where kings and emperors did have a harem, so I don't understand your point about lack of a context. Yes, the context is that in the court of Kublai Khan the usual sex slaves and harem did exist, and since the series depicts the inner happenings in that court, it is not out of line when it shows the women who were in that position.
... men used to have 500 women, like Genghis Khan for example, and used to run Empires that stretched over many thousands of miles. Look at the map where Mongolia then look where the Balkan Peninsula is, the Mongols had conquered all the land between those two points on the map, they ruled the largest state that has ever existed in history of mankind, and they achieved that in mere 70 some years. Do you really think that those men back then really cared about some 21st century "political correctness"?
Read my posts carefully Borislav, I am not opposed to nudity as long as it is done realisticly.
Why are you all so angry? If this series is so great, you have nothing to worry about; it'll do well, break audience records, and more like it will come out. What worries you so much? I am but one persone with one opinion.
Because most women are into both men and women, and most men are just into women, so they're playing a numbers game. Too many dicks on TV = low ratings. Titties = big numbers. It's a no brainer.
Women might be just more open-minded on average. The fact that you wrote what you wrote shows that you're either secretly a gay (and afraid of it) or just a narrow-minded misogynist. As unfortunately there are enough of uneducated misogynists around (who have too much spare time and spend most of it posting/voting on IMDB), more male nudity does often translate into lower IMDB ratings.
I don't see why you are making all these wild assumptions about the person you're replying to. He/she merely mentioned a market reality: movies showing female breasts sell more tickets than movies showing penises. It's a market reality, so, many directors will go for it, to enhance their profits. Remember, movie-making is a for-profit business.
Really it should be topless woman compared to topless men.
If both are topless, then there's male nudity too. Sa'll good.
Okay, you can argue for some strange reason that female top nudity is greater than male top nudity (I'm not sure it should be if we're being fair and equal - they're both just bare chests), but if people want to see penises, then we need to see vaginas too!
Seen a few male butts and 1 penis at least so far.
And I think you're more prone to seeing breasts in "brothels" (or whatever the name is in this series...?)
But yeah, I suppose they could even it out a bit, but I haven't seen it as something that's really forced.
And definitely don't view the nudity in this show as "porn" like you reply to one person here about their porn needs... The nude short fight scene so far has been one of the best scenes yet. And not because "Hehe, T'n'A" - but because nudity just... I don't know.. it's natural and still somehow a bit primal. One of the most memorable male nude scenes for me (a straight male) has been Viggo Mortensen fighting naked in the Eastern Promises. That scene was epic!
So I only view nudity as a thing they describe the times (or universe they've created) with.. But I guess you can spoil the fun by thinking it's just there to attract more juvenile or perverted viewers.. It's just no-where near how I view it.
Agreed. The nude fight scene was beautiful, and it wasn't gratuitous: her intention was to disrobe and distract them with her nudity and then suddenly strike. She couldn't do that and then say "wait a moment", stop the fight, and go put her clothes back on. She used her nudity to her advantage in a fight in which she would otherwise be outnumbered and out-armed.
The dialogue isn't really stiff in context... you're dealing with characters that are stiff... it wasn't a liberal era... you are dealing with people who had a very specific way of life, and asian cultures are generally hard for western cultures to absorb and understand properly...
But you are a perfect example of why projects like this are a risk... cause some people will just completely miss the vibe of the show... much like you did...
As far as the nudity... they used to to make people understand a certain aspect to the culture... and then as the series progresses they don't really lean on it much at all anymore...
By the way I don't find Kublai Khan's actor all that bad. He is supposed to be a bit cold and stiff (unless he is enraged). Now, the Marco Polo actor is truly bad and a major downer. It is actually a pity that show called Marco Polo has as the title character one of the most uninteresting and boring actors in recent memory.
Having a better actor in the title role is the single most important improvement this series needs.
Completely agree. Moreover, zero attractive men sounds a bit racist. I personally find Mahesh Jadu and Remy Hii exceptionally attractive, though I am a white European female. Without diminishing the above mentioned by many positive aspects of the series, I take liberty to mention that the it boldly follows the path whose slogan is "sex and violence sells".
well seeing as how I'm a man, I don't care to see a bunch of models...leave them for the soap operas. I want actors. I hate shows where all the male actors look and act like it's a soap opera.
Then you, probably, will enjoy watching Exodus in which half-way through the film characters act and speak like our contemporaries. Allow me to remind you that this is the 13th century's, completely different from Western, culture. Even Old English spoken during the same time period is strongly incomprehensible for modern English speakers, let alone other cultures and other languages. So we can only guess how Mongolian courtiers spoke and acted.
Here is an excerpt from a famous Old English narrative, just to make a point.
Ohthere sæde his hlaforde, Ælfrede cyninge, þæt he ealra Norðmonna norþmest bude. He cwæþ þæt he bude on þæm lande norþweardum wiþ þa Westsæ. He sæde þeah þæt þæt land sie swiþe lang norþ þonan; ac hit is eal weste, buton on feawum stowum styccemælum wiciað Finnas, on huntoðe on wintra, and on sumera on fiscaþe be þære sæ.
Is it comprehensible? And can you guarantee that, bound by the rules of a certain expected behavior, 13th century court did not act and spoke like models? The concept of realism in films is rather controversial. BTW, having been through the 5th episode, I can't help thinking that 50 Shades.. will probably look like a bed-time story in comparison with Marco Polo sex epic.
I wish I knew what you where talking about dude. You almost seem to be making some really good points (which are hard to come by as I decide rather or not to renew my Netflix subscription) but you're replying to someone who simply stated that they don't want to see nude guys and a cast of male actors who look like fashion models... I want to think you're defending the show and bringing up some really good points, but you're just all over the place, you make a good point and then you veer off and ground it in something that makes no sense.
"bound by the rules of a certain expected behavior, 13th century court did not act and spoke like models? "
What?..What does this mean? Do you know what the word model means? Does he think that 13th century Asians behaved and spoke like lousy soap opera actors who where only cast because they look like this: http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/publ ic/soap-opera-EJ_6.jpg ? I don't think that's what he was saying, no.
Oh well. I just wish I knew what in the unholy *beep* you are talking about.
I've watched the entire first season, and honestly, there really isn't that much nudity. There are two scenes where there is a lot of nudity for a period of time, and that's it. The OP is acting like it's plastered all over every episode and in every scene. Just because it is prominent here and there doesn't mean it's everywhere.