Talk:Showgirls

message: what film studio produced Showgirls?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: MGM David de Paoli—Preceding undated comment added at 16:57, 9 October 2002 (UTC)

text: No, it was definately Nomi! It was the major turnaround in the plot where Nomi's character changes from "innocently involved in a bad world" to "turned bad." It's also the drive behind her conflict with other character for the rest of the movie (She gets into a fight with her best friend Molly over it and there's a good 3 minutes of footage of them arguing over it because Molly saw the dancer who claims that Nomi was nowhere near Cristal when she fell, and that dancer was looking the other way. That dancer, in turn, is covering for Nomi because Nomi covered for her when she threw the beads on the floor and injured the black dancer previously.) Drama! In the final scene Cristal forgives her, saying "There's always someone younger and hungrier coming down the stairs behind you."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.180.113 (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2004 (UTC)

text: Hardly surprising - Europeans are more concerned with violence in movies (as opposed to nudity), whereas the American audience can't stand seeing naked human bodies. --Bicycle repairman 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with this movie wasn't the nudity. The problems were a mediocre plot, terrible dialogue, and bad acting. MK2 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also notable, it infactually states Nomi pushed Cristal down the stairs to get ahead, but that isn't the case. It's a point of plot contention because those who *do* know that Nomi did, in fact, intentionally push Cristal think she did it to get ahead, when in fact it was an un-meditated, rash reaction to Cristal's treatment of Nomi onstage in the preceeding dance number. 151.197.51.96 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Europeans are more concerned with violence in movies..." That's not true, not here in Sweden anyways. We haven't had movie-censorship of any kind since "Casino" (ie 1995). Addicted2Sanity 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the movie was also brutally violent. So how does the movie's content factor into differing reviews in Europe? (Exempting Sweden, of course.) Verminjerky (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is some interesting facts regarding the films NC-17 rating that should be included in my opinion such as:
* It was at the time, and likely still is the most widely distributed NC-17 film in the U.S.
* In order to convince many theaters that normally would not show an NC-17 film to show this one, the distributers offered their own security guards to ensure no minors would be able to enter the theaters where it was showing.
* Some anti-obscenity groups, especially some Christian based groups, picketed some theaters for showing the film. This led some theaters that had been showing the film to withdraw it. 
* Supposedly, the filmakers originally thought they could use this film to show audiences outside major cities that NC-17 films wheren't simply porno films in disguise. Supposedly, the criticism of how the sexual content was treated in the film was said to give the NC-17 rating a negative connotation with many American audiences causing many studios for a time to avoid releasing films with a NC-17. Instead they where such films would be cutting for a R-rating or released unrated. The moderate success of the NC-17 film The Dreamers, apparently made studios more comfortable releasing NC-17 art films again. 
If I find the time I will dig up sources for the above info and ad it myself. --Cab88 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content regarding the films NC-17 rating 

message: I feel like the comments RE: the rape scene need to be referenced or cited, but I'm not sure how. A search on google for "rape scene in showgirls" brings up 21 results, and all of them lead to online discussions which discuss the scene unfavorably. It seems to be almost universally loathed, yet I can find no one authoritative citation of this fact. Pacian 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loathing is an appropriate response to a rape scene. The American audience is too used to seeing rape exploited simply as a plot point in an entertainment, so it's refreshing--if disturbing--to see a rape scene portrayed as horrifically as it is in Showgirls. See "I Spit on Your Grave" for another example of a film that makes it abundantly clear that the rape scene is not intended for entertainment. As brutal as the rape scenes are in these movies, it's clear that both of them are anti-rape movies. So the scene has fulfilled its purpose. (Frankly, I'm a bit repulsed when someone suggests that the rape scene in Showgirls should somehow be softened.)lissener 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape Scene 

message: Hilariously the version of this I am watching on TNT right now has bras and other clothing "drawn on". I feel like I'm watching some warped version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  Haven't seen any nudity whatsoever. 70.189.213.149 09:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version on TNT 

message: Sorry, I saw this movie many years ago and it was so bad that I "escaped" far before the end... But it seems to me that there were a character not cited in the plot section of the article... he was a black boy, friendly with her, that told her he studied a new dance just for her. They almost have sex, but she quits -her "problems", what a good taste for a movie! Bah!-. Later in the movie she returns to this friend and she finds him with another woman, telling her he created a new dance just for her (only to have sex...).  Is it right? Is this part of this movie? If yes, although only a sub-plot, it completes the picture of a false and cruel entertainment industry, so I think it should be included in the article. Bye! --151.27.7.179 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Character? 

message: The following bits o' trivia were removed from Showgirls entry. I'm posting them here on the remote chance someone can justify their inclusion.
*In The Simpsons episode Brother's Little Helper, Marge and Homer see the movie on their date.
*During a The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air episode, Will goes to see the movie eight times with one time being on a date.
*In an episode of Family Guy called Hell Comes to Quahog, Peter says that cable always ruins things. Then a cut-off shows Peter laying on his bed watching TV when an announcer says "And now back to Showgirls... on TBS", which disappoints him.
*In the Family Guy album Live in Las Vegas, fictional reporter Tom Tucker describes his association between Las Vegas and Showgirls; specifically, his fantasy of "Elizabeth Berkley and Gina Gershon having girl-on-girl sex". Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section removed from entry 

message: I cannot understand why this film is so mocked. Sure there is a *lot* of nudity but once you get past that the acting's not so bad nor is the script so terrible. There are plenty worse films. I think it has a certain kitschy charm. Any comments?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. My feeling is that the average american movie-goer simply doesn't want to cope with movies that present certain facets of life without sanitizing them in the ritualistic manner which have become commonplace in most films. The 'kitschy' aspect is certainly there, and has eluded most moviegoers completely. Just as much as what happened with Verhoeven's other movie, Starship Troopers. They're both essays on violence: Showgirls deals with sexual and interpersonal violence, Starship Troopers deals with militaristic violence and institutionalized xenophobia (against an alien species). But both appear to promote that violence, at least at first sight; most people could not get past that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.19.198 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The article is obviously sympathetic toward the movie, trying hard to show that it wasn't such a failure, it was the NC-17 rating and "controversial" sex subjetc the one to blame for the poor performance in theaters (not the script, or the acting, or etc) and (like practically all bad movies and box office bombs in Wikipedia) is regarded as a "cult film". It has became a fashion to brand as "cult film" all failure films in Wikipedia--Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the article says three times that the film made $100 million from video rentals and became one of MGM's top 20 all-time bestsellers who wrote this? Verhoeven? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the film so poorly regarded? 

message: I don't understand how distilling this film down to the single adjective 'sexploitation' really communicates to the reader what Showgirls is. I don't doubt that some people have seen the film because of the nudity and sexuality, but I think they are the disappointed, they are the ones who label it bad.
The reason Showgirls has achieved cult status is that audience 'gets' it for what it is -- for what all Paul Verhoeven's (American) films are -- ironic comedy, camp. 
Gina Gershon has been widely quoted as saying that she played her role so that drag queens would want to dress as her on Halloween.
I think the term 'sexploitation' is misleading, and limiting, and I think it should be removed.
BigJohnSF (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Sexploitation' Label 

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
*—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: Andrew tries to get closer to Nomi. She introduces her friend. Andrew participates the rape, but does not penetrate her himself. This happens just after Kristal has been hurt. This sounds revenge to me. They wanted to hurt Nomi, but could not get together with her, so they decided to hurt her by proxy. Just my toughts...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive of the rape ? 

message: I could have sworn I have seen some writing about this film comparing it to the works of Russ Meyer, in particular his Beyond the Valley of the Dolls which when compared in broad strokes does touch on many of the same notes as Showgirls. I can't find the source so I can't add this to the article, but I'm putting this here in case anyone else is able to find such a citation. With the film being reevaluated as a "serious satire" (to quite the article), it isn't unrealistic to compare it to Meyer who made similar films that were as much about satire and social commentary as they were sexploitation. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reevaluation section 

message: How does one create a category for films that are rated NC-17 on Wikipedia? I feel that there should be one. If anyone has any information on how this category can be created, please share. Thanks very much.Frschoonover (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A category for R-rated films was previously created and deleted, so I suspect that one for NC-17 films would eventually be deleted. There is a List of NC-17 rated films article, though, which may serve a similar function. Trivialist (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one create a category for NC-17 rated films 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Showgirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mgm.com/title_title.php?title_star=SHOWGRLS
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715104249/http://www.porktartare.com/sight/sight_reviews.html to http://www.porktartare.com/sight/sight_reviews.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118040753/http://jabootu.com/acolytes/brandiweed/showgirls.htm to http://www.jabootu.com/acolytes/brandiweed/showgirls.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This deep and readable consideration of the film looks at the views of it as, distinctively, camp, awful, great, satire and accurate, and could power much of this article: How Showgirls exposed the rot of our misogynistic culture, BBC. - Onanoff (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major source 

message: Couldn't find enough independent coverage primarily discussing the soundtrack itself to justify keeping it separate. This article from Billboard is a start, but everything else I saw only mentioned the soundtrack briefly among other discussion of the film overall. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support merging it since there isn’t enough coverage. @QuietHere Spectrallights (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Showgirls (soundtrack)]] into [[Showgirls]]