Discussion in 'Dancing on TV' started by lacubs, Apr 9, 2011.
That made me recall the "dancing with dignity" thread:
Dancing With Dignity (Changing Room Issue)
Thanks. I'll take a look.
The question has arisen as to whether this is, or amounts to unlooked-for (with this clause I sidestep outright speculation), a publicity stunt for the show.
My point is not that DWTS has been a paragon. If the show, having always featured scantily-clad women (and men for that matter) is now seeking more ratings through less clothing -- there's not much left to remove, so I have my doubts as to how much mileage that strategy could afford them.
Can you think of another example in which an amateur or a pro on the show violated contractual terms (if indeed this has happened in this case, which I guess we can't know for sure) and network execs subsequently turned a blind eye?
When I was a teenager, one of my youth pastors got on a tear about the "immorality" of daytime soaps. I used to love those shows. And he was right. Back then (in the eighties) those shows were full of extramarital sex and lots of other "unChristian" stuff. (Maybe they still are. I don't know. No time to watch.) So I was ready to repent and stop watching ... until he said "And blah blah blah blah" show is the worst one." How the heck did he know, other than by watching them for himself?
Like it or not. Whatever controversy is generated by this will likely lead to higher ratings, at least for this season. *shrug*
I don't think we can speculate on Karina's future plans... nor the wishes of the producers and show.
No point in any case. There's no way to know. *shrug*
What I don't get is why the mere suggestion of nudity is such a big deal. It's a big don't-care for me. And no, I don't walk the streets of Dallas in the buff. :shock: :lol:
I just don't see why anybody cares. We're all naked at some point during the day, pretty much every day (I hope. Showers and whatnot. Ya know. ) So who cares? Psshh!
Unless you want to tie this into a bigger argument about art versus obscenity, this is no big deal that I can see. And even then ... Off to the dancing with dignity thread. :car: :wink:
You have not established that Smirnoff has violated any terms, contractual or otherwise.
Kendra didn't do her Playboy posing while being on the show.
I think the timing is the issue, not the fact that she is planning to do it. And possibly the breach of contract, if there was indeed a contract which said that all other media appearances must be approved by ABC.
The article pasted at the top of the thread suggests it. I have no first-hand knowledge. I took care to hedge my post.
By the same token, you have not established that the execs have disallowed anything or taken punitive action. <shrug> I guess we have to wait and see.
Somebody once said that any publicity, even bad publicity, was good. Keeps her and DWTS high on the MSN / Google search lists...
Whoa! I'd pay to see *that*. LOL!
Yes, but would you pay to see it *again*?
(I wonder whether the "jump the shark" reference carried the meaning I intended to everyone.)
Seriously. Why is actually naked all that different from in flesh toned bra and panties? And why is the media imposing American-style, prudish values on non-American, bohemian-lifestyle people? (I say bohemian without judgment. I did the whole musician/music major thing for years. Artists are different in a good way, IMO.)
I think I got it. Next naked dancer = dead dance show?
At least that's the double entrendre I took away.
Here's a link to Wikipedia's treatment of it:
The article implies it's an issue of a morals clause in a contract. The fact that they hired Brooke, who has posed for Playboy, and have on the show this season someone who did a lot more than pose **** and have had one of her...uh...cohorts...on in the past, suggests that morals clauses actually aren't the issue, as they don't have a moral problem hiring someone who posed or having celebs who've gone farther with Playboy AND they didn't feel the need to un-invite Chris Brown after his temper tantrum (or his having, you know, punched his girlfriend in the face).
However, it's possible she didn't get approval and/or the magazine is pitching it as a "DWTS Star Dancer!" (And let's face it, that's Karina's claim to fame to the general public.) They might have a clause about that.
I didn't take that meaning. It said there was likely an issue with getting the network's permission for the media appearance. Also, the article used a lot of sensationalist language to talk about nudity and whatnot.
I don't know what to say about the stuff in the middle. I think probably it's mostly beside the point.
I bet the marketing language around this will be chosen carefully by both Playboy and DWTS.
I spent a few years working in PR. Yes to this. IMHO, the only people surprised by this are the public.
Incidentally the writing in the article does not cause me to assume high journalistic standards by its publisher. Perhaps the standards are higher than I might assume; but my impression from reading it leaves me somewhat skeptical as to its actual information content.
I never claimed that they have. I've simply pointed out that DWTS is not wholesome family entertainment anyway and hand-wringing over the possible effects of one of the pros showing the little bit of skin that she hasn't already displayed is pointless.
Suppose, for example, that what many (but not I) would consider the worst possible scenario occurs and DWTS suffers a drop in ratings as a result of Smirnoff's photo shoot. So what if it did? Would that mean the end of ballroom? Of course not.
Ballroom existed for a century before DWTS aired and it will last far beyond the run of that show.
I was referring to this:
I just mean to say that perhaps it's too early to call anybody a hypocrite.
The article makes a lot of hay but it's not really clear (to me) what all the facts are.
<thought better of a comment here>
I tend to agree that it likely wouldn't affect the ballroom industry as a whole in any substantial way.
Separate names with a comma.