Home › Outlander Costuming Discussion Forums › General Outlander Discussion › On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry) › Reply To: On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry)
And this is why we can’t have nice things.
May I suggest we take a break from the Diana comment for a bit? I’m not a moderator, I’m not trying to control the board, but it seems to be a touchy subject. This thread was going at a nice pace with some interesting new discussions and I would I love to see that continue.
Within the 8 hours we’ve seen, there’s been very little actual sex (well, we’ve seen zero actual sex, as this isn’t porn). There’s been sexual tension and build-up, but mostly there’s been an amazing story. Does Starz have so little faith in this show that they feel they can’t market it otherwise?
THIS! So much this. It’s a sexy show, with attractive leads, but overall there hasn’t been that much nudity or sexy times. It could be the whole “female gaze” thing that is sending the marketing team over the edge, and thinking it’s the strongest selling point. I don’t think it is. The SO likes the show as much as I do – it’s got sword fights and guy swagger and guy bonding and hey, he thinks the female lead is attractive, too. Diana’s publishers didn’t know how to categorize the first book, and it seems Starz is having the same issue.
But why not broaden the scope? Why limit yourselves? You can showcase your attractive male lead in a non-creepy way that will still get new people watching. Black Sails has a weaker plot IMO and there’s plenty of things to objectify there but it’s sold as an adventure. It just seems a very narrow mindset to me.