PDA

View Full Version : Sex and Nudity in Films


SuperMax
02-04-2005, 11:48 AM
Why is it there?
Is it needed?
Does it serve a purpose to the story?
Is it used used just to sell the movie?


When i say sex, i mean really hot steamy all bits showing lasting 5 minutes on the screen type of sex. Even when its on screen for less than 2 seconds, is it really necessary to show a womens exposed breast for just those 2 seconds?

An example of a movie where all bts show was Open Waters. There they were sittign in the bed "trying" to get some love happening But it wasnt working. But did they really need to show the womens bits and peices? top and bottom? What purpose does it serve?

Another example is 21 grams with Naomi watts having a fairly intense sex scene?

When actors have hot steamy sex in the movies, do they were condoms? "just incase"

If a director was the leader actor in the movie and there was a sex scene involved with a women, whats the proper way of directing that scene?

How does the female actor know that the director is not taking advantage of the scene and situation for his personall purposes?

How does the director deal with a situation like that?


Is there another way showing erotica and hot steamy love other than actually showing it in a movie?




thanks

Nucleo
02-04-2005, 02:20 PM
Huh.. Sex is crucial to ones life. If film represent life.. You do the math.

Yeah i would say when you deal with human relationships in a film, if the story allows it, you need to have a sex scene of some kind.. they are human after all.

..and yes there are other ways too it all comes from how a director wanna visually enhance its story. E.g. Last of the Samurai, the last scene in the village where the wife of one of the samurais Tom Cruize killed fits the dead samurai's armor at Tom Cruize. I think the rythm and the music of the scene made it look like they were making love but beacuse it was a society with old traditions it didnt fit to the story to show 'sex' scenes in it, but the audience got the meaning, at least thats what it looked to me..

Nucleo
02-04-2005, 02:22 PM
When actors have hot steamy sex in the movies, do they were condoms? "just incase"




They are not making love man they are acting... lol

Vertizor
02-04-2005, 04:55 PM
Original Sin (Angelina Jolie, Antonio Banderas)

My friend told me that Banderas' wife came to the studio every single time they filmed a sex scene with him and Angelina because she was soooo jealous, it looked so real. She wanted to make sure they didn't actually have sex.

gurubvin
02-04-2005, 07:46 PM
couple o things

a) film does not represent life. don't wanna start bash wars here. it doesn't though. otherwise i'd be 30 lbs. lighter, have perfect unblemished skin, and could kill 50 guys with one hand tied to my foot. as i'm killing those 50 ppl, some beautiful lady "accidentally" hits me with her car, rushes me to the hospital, and 3 hrs later we're in bed. We kill another 200 guys, then get married and live happily ever.

i think we probably agree nucleo on that point, it's just ur statement might be a bit misleading.

someone probably has a better definition, but film seems to be the exagerration of the high points and ideals of life. It's not life, but how we'd want it to be. It's really dangerous when we start basing life off movies rather than movies off of life.

b) Sex does not equal relationships. If all you showed was a sex scene then the audience would have absolutely no emotional reaction to it with the possible exception of horniness. maybe not even that. Sex, just like any action in a movie, should help define a point to the audience.

Sex isn't always be put in to show ppl "in love". sometimes it's used to bring out disgust (rape), or pity (a prostitute who needs to feed her 5 siblings), or jealousy (cheating on spouse), etc. Maybe even procreation (national geographic)?

Sometimes it is a necessary part of the story. Usually it is unecessary in the way film makers use it. A man who's known a woman for 1 mos or so does not love her. He may like her, but a sex scene between them does nothing to speak of "love". Now a couple who are married and are going through the struggles of marriage (kids, bills, in-laws, temptation to cheat/divorce) and overcome, then a sex scene there would enhance the depiction of their love for each other.

It's not always necessary to show it. In fact sometimes it is much more effective to imply it than to show it. one example given was the Last Samurai, though they didn't have sex. A movies depiction cannot compete with our imagination. As nucleo has just proved... :) For a rape scene show the man's (or woman's... ewww) face grin, show the victim's face with fear then cut the scene. For a prostitute, show the man putting money on the table, the girl's look of indifference, her clothes fall to the floor, and cut. In those situation showing the sex scene might actually remove from the effectiveness of the scene.

To be really frank, i don't see any benefit for including the actual depiction of sex in enhancing plot unless you're doing porn. In which case there is absolutely no benefit for including plot in the depiction of sex. Can someone come up with a very legitimate situation in which the "actual scene" should be depicted rather than just an implication? if so, why?

jussing
02-04-2005, 08:41 PM
As with violence I think nudity should not be there without reason.

But, that reason can be pretty difficult to judge, because I think an artist's "I felt like it" excuse is enough. -But a Joel Silver-style producer's "we need the eye-candy to sell tickets" reason is NOT enough.

So, when we watch a movie with nudity, how do we judge where the line goes? We can't.

But, having said all that, I have absolutely no problem with the level of nudity in film. It doesn't offend me one bit, and as far as I know, no-one forces these women to drop their clothes. Some unknowns do it to get into the business - that's their choice - and some stars do it, because they get buttloads of money to do it. So there. No crime done.

Besides, nudity in movies is dropping, as far as I'm concerned. Look at action movies: all 80'es action movies had breasts, but the fewest 90'es action movies had them.

In the 80'es, all Eddit Murphy action movies involved asking questions to someone hanging out at the local strip bar. -Breasts! Or, the cliche motel shootout involved stomping through a random door, where there's a couple getting busy on the other side: breasts!

Examples:

Die Hard: When the terrorists arrive, they pull out a couple from an office: breasts
Lethal Weapon: A stoned girl in the opening jumps from a building: breasts
Lethal Weapon 2: Mel Gibson scores Patsy Kensit (yummy!): breasts
The Terminator: Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton git busy: breasts

Switch to the 1990'es:

Die Hard 2+3: No breasts
Lethal Weapon 3+4: No breasts
Terminator 2: No breasts
Beverly Hills Cop 3: No breasts (I think)

There..... that must be enough for today's serious breast discussion. :D

- Jonas

jussing
02-04-2005, 08:44 PM
....the same goes for violence, actually. In 80'es action movies it was much more common for bad guys to whack innocent civilians than in the 90'es and later. Even "fun" movies like Die Hard whacked the desk clerk, the Nakatomi boss, and the sleasy Ellis.

Today, it's more common to have the only innocent deaths be soldiers or cops, who are more expendable than civilians (The Rock), or even have movies be completely void of innocent deaths (True Lies).

We're in the ultimate Political Correctness era of movie making, and sometimes it's too much. Here's to more senseless violence and nudity. :beer:

- Jonas

jussing
02-04-2005, 09:04 PM
Can someone come up with a very legitimate situation in which the "actual scene" should be depicted rather than just an implication? if so, why?
A Danish moviemaker of the Dogma style once critizised Titanic by saying "if it is really necessary to show the ship sinking, the story can't be very good!". And all the artsy-fartsy journalists in the room nodded in agreement.

Well, BS, I say! Movie is a visual media, not a radio play. I you wanna show the ship sinking, show it! If you wanna show the breasts, show 'em!

Granted, sometimes it is more efficient to "hint" than to "show". I totally agree. But not always. Sometimes you must show. Titanic was powerful for me, because of the intense depiction of the sinking, and the movie experience and the impact of the story just wouldn't have been the same with only a "hint" at a sinking ship, instead of those intense images. And the same goes for sex and nudity, as far as I'm concerned.

In some situations it may work best to hint, but sometimes you should go the full monty. The artist will have to choose. Just be an artist about it, and not a Joel Silver. :)

My final point in this case: Nudity stills is a highly respected art form. Some times for juicy erotica, to get our juices flowing, sometimes for beautiful depiction of a human body, and sometimes for completely different purposes.

Well, those purposes can be directly translated to the movie media. Showing a human body can evoke something in people that hinting can't. And if that's what the artist wants, then that's what he or she needs to do.

- Jonas

Nucleo
02-04-2005, 11:15 PM
couple o things

a) film does not represent life. don't wanna start bash wars here. it doesn't though. otherwise i'd be 30 lbs. lighter, have perfect unblemished skin, and could kill 50 guys with one hand tied to my foot. as i'm killing those 50 ppl, some beautiful lady "accidentally" hits me with her car, rushes me to the hospital, and 3 hrs later we're in bed. We kill another 200 guys, then get married and live happily ever.

i think we probably agree nucleo on that point, it's just ur statement might be a bit misleading.

someone probably has a better definition, but film seems to be the exagerration of the high points and ideals of life. It's not life, but how we'd want it to be. It's really dangerous when we start basing life off movies rather than movies off of life.




Yes you are right if you are talking about Hollywood films, but there are other kind of films out there too like 21 grams and a lot more that do try to imitate life and some succeed. It depends on how you see it.

Nucleo
02-04-2005, 11:24 PM
To be really frank, i don't see any benefit for including the actual depiction of sex in enhancing plot unless you're doing porn. In which case there is absolutely no benefit for including plot in the depiction of sex. Can someone come up with a very legitimate situation in which the "actual scene" should be depicted rather than just an implication? if so, why?


Well iam not sure if there is a benefit but what iam thinking is that the audience shouldnt feel the camera thats why i said if the story allows it an brought the Last Samurai example, The moment the audience feels there is a camera the game is lost and by not showing certain elements of the logical steps in the progression of life (or ones story) then it loses the freedom it should have. I know that iam aginst cencorship beacuse its just another form of facism, but iam not sure exactly if thats what we are talking here :)

Nucleo
02-04-2005, 11:39 PM
Jussing i totaly agree with you and i saw your animation it was fantastic (where did you get your insipiration?!), the pyramid with the bridge is awesome!! and iam off to find me an avatar ^^

SuperMax
02-05-2005, 01:26 AM
They are not making love man they are acting... lol

yeh i know. but sometimes you see both actors fully nude sleeping on each other. Surely there must be some kind of protection there?


Sometimes i get the feeling the actors are actually doing it. I wouldnt be suprised if there are some that actually went the whole way and did it without telling the directors. Cheeky Cheeky


Sometimes like 21 grams where the sex scene was just too intense and too much closeups made me feel uncomfortable. Plus it doesnt help when guys from different areas of the cinema start cheering and making loud comments when theres nudity on screen.








before anyone mentions it, this discussion is not about being a male and enjoying whatever nudity u get on screen and if u dont like it, ur gay sort of thing. just wanted to add that. :)

gurubvin
02-05-2005, 03:27 AM
good points u guys made. i understand the point of trying to eliminate the camera. Though i guess if it added to the movie... let em know there's a camera. right?

don't know about movies mimicing real life... last thing i saw that was somewhat like that was bill murray movie... umm... Lost in Translation.

i found it really boring. that's me. there's a bunch of ppl who said it was great. i mean i don't really want a movie that mimics real life. i'd prefer to live it. i dont see nothin wrong with "hollywood movies" so long as they're just movies. and ppl don't start expecting it to happen in their life. real life's not hollywood. sometimes it's tons better. maybe just slower in progression.

that being said, i've never seen 21 grams. wat's it all about?

no offense but "do nething in the name of art" is overused. If you show breasts for the sake of showing breasts, then it isn't much different from showing breast to sell tickets. Showing breasts or watever else should add to the movie in some way.

take a poem as an analogy. when a poet writes a poem he carefully chooses each word, cuz he knows the word or phrase will evoke a certain feeling or idea behind it. It's the same thing with a movie. the music, lighting, camera work, and ultimately the plot and direction (sex scene for our example) should add to the feeling or idea that the movie is generally trying to invoke.

i guess we're not really talking about censorship, politics, or ethics here. we're talking about it as art. and yea, i'm not one to tell some1 wat's good and bad art. art's merely human beings expressing themselves, whether it be through a ballet, sculpture, or cleaning a toilet bowl. the problem comes in when a certain element doesn't add to the point that's being expressed... or worse if there is no point.

thanks.

--arvin

sundialsvc4
02-05-2005, 03:47 AM
I remember that the first time I watched The Name of the Rose,[i] the entire sex-scene was entirely omitted because it was broadcast TV. And, imho, it was a much better movie because of it.

When I rented the video many years later, well, all that I can say is that they left [i]nothing to the imagination. It was probably the most explicit sex-scene I've seen in a movie, and (it may seem a little strange for a male to say this?) it went on for-ever. It would have made a great instructional video, I guess. But it did nothing for the movie.

The broadcast censor made an excellent editorial "cut." We start with the young woman sidling up to the young monk and she starts loosening the top of her shirt. CUT TO: EXT. COURTYARD, DAY: The monk walks hurriedly up to join his master, who looks at him with a knowing expression. With the briefest of exchanged glances between them we know the whole truth: he knows, and he knows. The story clips right along without fifteen minutes of needless interruption.

jussing
02-05-2005, 07:27 AM
One awesome example of showing less for a bigger and better effect is Fahrentheit 911 (ok, it's not sex, and it's not fiction, so it may be totally off topic, but I'll bring it up anyway :) )

After the opening, with the election campaign stuff, and Bush's initial months as president, Michael Moore says "and then, everything changed"....

And the screen fades to BLACK, and we hear the sounds of 9/11. We hear airplanes roaring over our heads, explosions, and screaming. The screen is pitch black... except, in our minds it isn't; each aurience member is re-experiencin his or her individual 9/11 up on the screen, and THAT is a thousand times more powerful than showing us the actual 9/11 footage which we have all seen too many times.

And after that, he cuts to a montage of people standing on the streets, looking up in horror. He never shows us the buildings, the planes, the fire or the smoke, but we KNOW what they're looking at.

There, I hope I made a point. :)

Cheers,
- Jonas

rendermania
02-09-2005, 12:44 AM
I remember that the first time I watched The Name of the Rose,[i] the entire sex-scene was entirely omitted because it was broadcast TV. And, imho, it was a much better movie because of it.

I find it incredibly silly to sensor movies for 'broadcast'. TV is a dumbed down enough medium as it is. Censoring nudity or sexuality out of films for 'broadcast' makes me respect television even less than I already do. If you're gonna screen a film, keep it intact.

gurubvin
02-09-2005, 01:47 PM
@jussing- cool example. i personally haven't seen 911, but it sounds like an interesting use of camera work. i think ppl have seen the two towers thing soooo much that showing it again would dumb down the effect. not to be sacreligous but alot of ppl are tired of looking at it.

It was probably the most explicit sex-scene I've seen in a movie, and (it may seem a little strange for a male to say this?) it went on for-ever. It would have made a great instructional video, I guess. But it did nothing for the movie.

hahahaha. funny, but great point.

about censorship on broadcast:

t.v. is to the general public. it's like a billboard, or magazine on a store rack. u have to censor it, cuz everyone sees it, and some ppl don't like to see it. it's infringing on their freedom just as much as it would infringe on yours if you couldn't rent the movie u wanted with nudity. porn or otherwise... :D

actual disussion:
We've had a few examples of stuff being better cuz the scene was edited out. Are there any examples where including sex, or nudity, really added to the plot or emphasis of the movie?

Ilikesoup
02-09-2005, 08:30 PM
actual disussion:
We've had a few examples of stuff being better cuz the scene was edited out. Are there any examples where including sex, or nudity, really added to the plot or emphasis of the movie?

Well, without the sex and nudity "9-1/2 Weeks" would have been about 15 minutes long. :)
Did "Yentl" have a nude scene at the end? If not, then "Shakespeare in Love" had an appropriate nude scene -- the idea of women masquerading as men and hiding their sexuality, then revealing themself to the man they love. :love:

On the other side of the coin, "sex, lies and videotape" and "American Pie" were all about intercourse but got their messages across quite clearly with (I think) only one nude scene between them.

jmBoekestein
02-16-2005, 01:01 AM
There wouldn't be life without sex! And movies are generally about life/survival and a struggle in it. Sooner or later you're gonna encounter it. I also think that there's nothing wrong with it. What if everybody was awkward with it and it was all banned. Then no one would learn to accept it. Then we'd be in a bigger shithole then we are now. It's an integral part of life, it should not be hidden but overdoing it is the same as with anything else. Often the audience wants to imagine some things for themselves, but often they'd like to see it all.

A good editor will know what to do with it, but I suggest that you shoot the scenes anyway. Most movies have a hundred hours of more before it's cut into the eventual form.

And lastly I think most people enjoy sex, and it is a humanising factor I think. We are usually atracted to people which are healthy and would be a good partner, either as part of the pack or a mate. Basic biology and good thinking. I think it's a problem when people can't deal with it.
Just my opinion.

lulaassassina
02-16-2005, 01:07 AM
If there are films about love, about thoughts, about human questions, why not sex?
Not meaning to offend you, SuperMax, pudic thoughts develop neurosis, and that's one of the most common ways of formating lines of thought.

If sex in films makes you unconfortable, question yourself why it does, why do you have a traummatic reaction to it.
luv

jmBoekestein
02-16-2005, 01:14 AM
LOL,

looks like there's a lot of people around who don't deal with the subject well! Firehead!

Cheers mate!:beer:

lightwolf
02-16-2005, 01:29 AM
Not OT, but what the heck...
One awesome example of showing less for a bigger and better effect is Fahrentheit 911 ....
After the opening, with the election campaign stuff, and Bush's initial months as president, Michael Moore says "and then, everything changed"....

And the screen fades to BLACK, and we hear the sounds of 9/11...

Actually, my favourite shot done like that is a bank robbery in Aki Kaurismäkis (sp?) Ariel (I think).
Two guys drive a car in front of the bank, one of them gets out, drops his gun, picks it up, runs into the bank.
*cut to black*
The guy comes running out of the bank, with two bags of money, drops one of them while he jumps into the car. The car drives away.

...It kept me laughing for minutes...

Cheers,
Mike

lightwolf
02-16-2005, 01:39 AM
O.k., on topic thiis time.
I guess first of all you have to differentiate between nudity and sex.
Heck, the nude scene in the shower of Starship Troopers actually made it clear (for me) what Verhoeven was actually trying to imply with the movie, and it made the whole difference between yet another dumb alien slaying action flick (it would have been bad at that - and yes, there are some that I like), or a social satire, which it did well. (Mind you, 99% of the movie goers went to see it for the action).
Another one that I thought was quite important, was Bruce Willis naked butt in Pulp fiction? Whay, may you ask? Because it instantly turned him into a your type of guy who is pretty open minded and at ease with himself. I could imagine John Travolta not taking of his boxers until the lights go out, not BW (well, in that flick). A small detail, but it imho served a purpose (and the girls liked it ;) ).
But (this is going to end up like the frogs penis debate ;) ), there are differences in culture and taste across the globe. What is seen as hot and raunchy in a Hollywood flick might just make a french movie goer yawn (and probably vice verse as far as action is concerned, with the exception of Luc Besson). Then again, hot sex in a Bollywood movie might just make all of us yawn ;)

But, basically, if it serves the story, why not? Could stories be told without it? In most cases yes, but the same goes for action movies and violence as well (...and in many cases you'd be dissapointed of what's left after the fun bits have been removed ;) ).

Cheers,
Mike

jmBoekestein
02-16-2005, 03:21 AM
It's an incentive, drama, things we understand about life wether we acknowledge it or not. Experiences and so on, most of us probably had dramatic experiences regarding sex. But had we dealt with some issues before, we might have had less dificulties, so yeah sex and nudity should be there. Stop pushing the blame around and deal with it. Then maybe you'll enjoy it too, like the characters in the stories. Maybe the characters do do it out of love for eachother, why is that something to hide?:shrug:

Trojan123
02-28-2005, 05:56 AM
There was a time when I thought that movies needed more sex and nudity. Heck, I thought real progress would be made if we made porn with real acting and story.

But I was also a perv looking for some gratification; however, I "justified" it with the whole "art vs. life" thing. Just a reminder: urinating and defacation are also a part of life; but where's the push for its inclusion?

Or, are people still uptight with the attitudes of watching something as healthy and natural as feces being ejected from someone's rectum?

One example was Open Water. IMHO, it was completely unnecessary, and did nothing with advancing the plot. How often have we seen similar scenes with a simple nighty? Fact is, it was a low budget movie, and seeing a beautiful set of nipples and a fleeting glimpse of pubes (remember, I'm a perv who takes full advantage of the DVD remote) will sell more tickets.

Yes, we see more skin and sex now; is it really progress? How many fine examples of cinema from before 1970 (heck, even now) are successfull works of art without resorting to the skin show?

A Night to Remember vs. Titanic. Did the sinking and tragety become any more moving because of Kate Winslet's boobies?

SB

jscheel
03-01-2005, 06:11 PM
Carey Grant & Doris Day

Two sex symbols of cinema's more glorious days. NO boobs and NO butts, but still sex symbols. There is a level of propriety that filmmakers today have forgotten. I am a very strong proponent of censorship of all forms of obscenity, but my views a small voice in a world of hedonism, unfortunately.

Trojan123
03-01-2005, 08:03 PM
I don't think I'd go quite as far... but I will bring up Schindler's List when it aired on NBC. NBC did not omit any of the naked jews in the concentration camps, but it did edit out the sex scenes (which showed a little boob).

I guess it's a matter of context.

SB

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 10:43 AM
I honestly have no idea what this fuss is all about, bit I guess this is because I come from a different cultural background.
While on the one side it seems to be no problem to slo-mo how somebody gets his head blown off, broadcasters get fined for a nipple and a real life documentary gets *beeped* because real-life soldiers curse. Weird to me.

As for Cary Grant and Doris Day... Remember that was a time that was much more prude, and they both played scenes that were considered shocking at the time. Heck, every "kiss with closed lips" in those old moview makes me grin, and tells you a lot about the time.

Also, as a side note... Why is the topic Sex _and_ Nudity? Do they necessarily have to be linked up?

Cheers,
Mike

SkorpioN
03-02-2005, 12:28 PM
What are you , a boy scout ?!
They give those scenes to films for you ! The great human market out there who'll devour every fantasy , every lie that can give them 5 mins of pleasure , pain or thrill ( depending on your inclinations ofcourse) to supposedly compensate for the 24 hrs. of misery that comes from being a human and not a character thought up by a rather imaginative fellow and rendered out in XSI or enacted by Pierce Brosnan.

gurubvin
03-02-2005, 01:57 PM
Just a reminder: urinating and defacation are also a part of life; but where's the push for its inclusion? SB

Hhahahahahah! Never thought of this... but interesting point for all the "sex is part of life comment".

It might be a bit exxagerated, but I suppose there are other "parts of life" not quite as silly that are excluded, and no one wants to put in. I guess it's the same in regards to excess violence...

I think to degree, I agree with the movies are catered to our culture comment. To push that a bit... it seems that movies are catered to what we as a culture would buy... er.. watch.

Just a reminder: I think the original reason for starting the topic was whether or not it was necessary to include the scenes, not so much in regards to censoring or what not.

--Arvin

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 02:06 PM
Just a reminder: I think the original reason for starting the topic was whether or not it was necessary to include the scenes, not so much in regards to censoring or what not.
Well, let's take this to an extreme: A movie that is so PC that is doesn't include anything that might be offensive to any culture, and then see what is left of it.

Of course you don't need nudity in most films to tell the story ... nor do you need brutality, alcohol, pork, holy cows or female actresses showing their hair and faces (and to cater for other societies, nor should male actors show their faces) to tell a story. ;)

...now where do you draw the border?

Cheers,
Mike

jussing
03-02-2005, 02:18 PM
Imagine Schindler's List without the brutality, or Basic Instinct without the sex.

Clearly those elements are crucial to the movies as a whole, and if they are edited out, the movies are destroyed.

The sex in Schindler's List is different, because it CAN be edited out without affecting the movie greatly - however, it's quite ridiculous to have a movie where hundreds of jews are seen murdered, including children, but spare the audience for a sex scene (insert mandatory Janet remark here).

- Jonas

X96
03-02-2005, 03:08 PM
I think we all just need to revert to a 1950's style of living. And produce a similar style of moral value in films. Hollywood is full of too many Egotistical children who have to be babied and worshiped every second of every day Ie. collen ferell. I think quality cinima and film making needs to take on more of a multigenerational style in creating films that all people of all ages can understand and appreaciate. Indyana jones is a great example of this because when you were a kid you idolized him as a hero as a teenager it was the carisma and action. and as an adult it's his flaws and relationship's and politics. yet there's sex and violence while still maintaning a pg to pg-13 rating. and everyone loves those films. showing off breasts or depicting sex acts on film is just an excuse to demean women and be vulgar in the name of " art "

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 03:11 PM
I agree with X96 if your going to show sex in a film it should be rated nc 17 No children under 17 Reguardless if a parent is there or not. addiction to porn it starts young and it hast to be stopped young.

._ and as for where you draw the line it should be where the artist accecpts an nc-17 rating in order to tell the story he wants. Or where the artist is willing to sacrifice the telling of the story by removing the questionable aspects of the story in order to earn a R rating or pg-13 so he can make more money by reaching a larger audence.
Ither way I feel that the rating system in holywood needs a strict revamp. and Titanic should have earned an R rating.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 03:18 PM
Huh...???
Did you guys just manage to go from breasts to sex to porn in three sentences?
I don't know how your mind works, but these have generally nothing to do with each other...

Breasts are just, well, a part of the human body (I demand all earlobes to be banned from TV ;) ).
Sex is an intimate action between two (or more) people (heck they can even be dressed !)
Porn might contain both of the above, but is not defined by them (imho)...

X96 and grundelboy... you're being sarcastic, right? You're joking, you must be... :banghead: :cry:

Cheers,
Mike

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 03:20 PM
._ and as for where you draw the line it should be where the artist accecpts an nc-17 rating in order to tell the story he wants.
This might work in _your_ society, but certainly not in others. So, again, where do you _universally_ draw the line, and who's moral standard do you want to impose?

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 03:21 PM
It's all connected buddy. and No I'm not joking. I think it's gone too far. and we need to look at the message that is being put out there for the youth.
_Can you honestly say that film and tv is not influencing youth?

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 03:39 PM
It's all connected buddy. and No I'm not joking. I think it's gone too far. and we need to look at the message that is being put out there for the youth.
_Can you honestly say that film and tv is not influencing youth?
Well, the message you're implying is that nudity is something only for adults, which makes it even more interesting for the youngsters (not that I'd mind, but counterproductive to what you have in mind).

Of course film and TV is influencing them, not only them though, the whole media in our society are. The problem is though that if you lock something awaym it won't _be_ away. If you look at the fact that the lack of sex-ed leads to _more_ teenage pregnancies for example, it should be quite obvious.
On the other hand, I'd rather see 15 year olds explore each others bodies, than shoot each other...
Also, looking at what current teens go through, and do, and NC-17 for a nude body is very much over the top.
Then again, I come form a society where there isn't much fuss about nudity...
Cheers,
Mike

X96
03-02-2005, 04:28 PM
Then again, I come form a society where there isn't much fuss about nudity...
Cheers,
Mike
Not to mention controled by one of the most evil forces to ever grace the planet. The hitler youth ( consisting of 12 - 17 year old )were encouraged go on retreats, be naked and engage in sexual intercourse. Most european countries were influenced by the axis regieme and it's no wonder that certin ideal's weren't let go.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 04:29 PM
Thats a low blow man! Total cheep shot! Not Cool!

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 04:31 PM
But I do agree ( not with the hitler youth crap!). I view the nude human body as similar to a fire arm. It can be a powerful tool used correctly and it can help propigat the species but misused it can distroy us.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:35 PM
Not to mention controled by one of the most evil forces to ever grace the planet. The hitler youth ( consisting of 12 - 17 year old )were encouraged go on retreats, be naked and engage in sexual intercourse. Most european countries were influenced by the axis regieme and it's no wonder that certin ideal's weren't let go.
Ouch... I wonder where you got that from. Next you want to tell me that nude prisoners in concentration camps were undressed to make them more arian... This is _way off_ the mark my dear...

As a matter of fact, in the 20ies you had a movement in pretty much all of Europe about going back to nature which did involve nudity ... but was considered as being un-arian by the Third Reich and thus persecuted by the regime...

Now this is he first time I've every heard that kind of nonsense about the HY (or the BDM for that matter), and I do know people that were members (not to hard around here). But basically this is like saying the KKK was a bunch of pot smoking free love hippies ;)

Also, I'm quite sure that none of the other countries in Europe, which handle this matter even more freely, were influenced by that regime (France, Scandinavian countirs, Holland etc...).

Ouch, we're getting very OT now...

Cheers,
Mike

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:36 PM
Thats a low blow man! Total cheep shot! Not Cool!
Thanks. I wouldn't consider it a low blow thoug. B.S. is more like it ;)

Cheers,
Mike

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:38 PM
I view the nude human body as similar to a fire arm. It can be a powerful tool used correctly and it can help propigat the species but misused it can distroy us.
Well, if you see it this way, then I'd say... not only the body, but the mind as well (actually, mainly the mind). Ban everything that makes us think and we're safe ;)

Cheers,
Mike - who wonders what contortions you go through if you take a shower - lol, scnr, just kidding' ;)

X96
03-02-2005, 04:38 PM
actualy almost 2/3 of Scandinavia was indebted to germany in WWII and fought till the debt was paid.

X96
03-02-2005, 04:40 PM
light wolf are your parents devorced?

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:44 PM
actualy almost 2/3 of Scandinavia was indebted to germany in WWII and fought till the debt was paid.
So, do you think that makes it more likely for them to conform to the ways of their supressors? So you know how german/skandinavian "bastards" were treated in those countries until recently? (Not blaming anyone here, after all, we're still dealing with the remains of WWII).

X96
03-02-2005, 04:44 PM
...On the other hand, I'd rather see 15 year olds explore each others bodies, than shoot each other...
Cheers,
Mike
Wait you want to see two 15 year old's getting it on. no wonder your Pro-porn in movies.
And yes I do know how those countried were treated I have parents from Finnland and Germany. My grandmother was rapped at the hitler youth camp by a teen aged boy who was going to inlist when he was older. So she gave the baby up for adoption. She told me all about what really happened there So don't you dare tell me it's BS.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:45 PM
light wolf are your parents devorced?
What if? Would it make any difference if I said that I know just as many people that don't have divorced parents but share the same ideas?

Cheers,
Mike

X96
03-02-2005, 04:49 PM
Well it would make more sence to me if you worshiped your father and he cheated on your mother it might warp your views a little.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 04:50 PM
Dude! Stop With The Cheep Shots!

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 04:55 PM
Huh, I don't get it? ... WTF?

grundelboy, can we continue the discussion please? :D

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 04:57 PM
What ever I think x is just trying to get to you on an emotional level because he has no real argument.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 04:59 PM
And to be honest I don't see R rated films because I don't want to subject myself to that kind of negitive influnces. Mostly I see pg-13 and pg's with the occasional g kids movie when my kids visit. ( yeah I'm devorced X96) and I agree with you OOH! SHOCK!

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:00 PM
What ever I think x is just trying to get to you on an emotional level because he has no real argument.
No worries, I'm cool & relaxed ;)

I guess this is proof of Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :(

Cheers,
Mike - who'd rather have a civilized discussion

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:03 PM
And to be honest I don't see R rated films because I don't want to subject myself to that kind of negitive influnces.
Now, this is an honest, curious question. What do you consider as being a negative influence?

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 05:05 PM
Well for me I consider a negitive influnce to be a Gratuitous violence or nudity that has no artistic meret.
Basicaly I try not to subject myself to anything that I would'nt have a problem showing to a six year old.
Sure It sounds like a sugar coated existance. and for the most part it is. I'm alot happier. because of it.

X96
03-02-2005, 05:11 PM
I do have a valid agrument! I'm trying to get to the root of why lightwolf is trying so hard to make us all into a bunch of sodimites.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 05:13 PM
Sush X96! can you just sit and hold your coment's till the end please?

X96
03-02-2005, 05:17 PM
No! I wont be silenced! the Media can't get away with what they are doing to the world. And the Media here in the US. is the worst of them all, with shows like th OC. and who want's to sleep with my dad. stop it now your very sole is at stake!

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:18 PM
Well for me I consider a negitive influnce to be a Gratuitous violence or nudity that has no artistic meret.
Basicaly I try not to subject myself to anything that I would'nt have a problem showing to a six year old.
Sure It sounds like a sugar coated existance. and for the most part it is. I'm alot happier. because of it.
Well, are you sure it isn't the Prozac ;) <- note, jesting, kidding, not being serious, hope it makes you grin too!

Well, I guess the definition of artistic merit is again very subjective (there is a similar thread here about a japanese artist with very, erm, vivid renders, circling around that topic).
I find that even in movies such as, hm, Starship Troopers (Shower), or Pulp Fiction(Bruce Willis) the nude scenes are an integral part of the story (as is the violence, in both cases), and both movies would be a lot less effective if it wasn't for those scenes.

What however puzzles me is that people actually get disturbed by nudity... I see why people get disturbed by seeing a guy getting his face shot off ... well, you catch my drift... but nudity? I mean, nudity to violence is like (turning it around) a cop with a revolver in his holster is to a rape scene...
Which (for me) imples that if you're offended by nudity, you should just as easily be offended by the next cop you run across.
And then we have a cultural context coming into play again I guess...

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 05:20 PM
Holy crud man just take a valum and calm down. No one likes to be preached to I don't care who you are. all your doing is alienating your self from everyone else.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:21 PM
I do have a valid agrument! I'm trying to get to the root of why lightwolf is trying so hard to make us all into a bunch of sodimites.
Not sodimites ... vegemites! :bounce:

Cheers,
Mike - who thinks both terms are equally appropriate for this discussion i.e. not at all.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 05:31 PM
... Well, I guess the definition of artistic merit is again very subjective (there is a similar thread here about a japanese artist with very, erm, vivid renders, circling around that topic).
I find that even in movies such as, hm, Starship Troopers (Shower), or Pulp Fiction(Bruce Willis) the nude scenes are an integral part of the story (as is the violence, in both cases), and both movies would be a lot less effective if it wasn't for those scenes.....

Cheers,
Mike
Yeah it is very subjective that's why I just avoid anything with an R rating like Starship Troopers and Pulp Fiction. however I do like to go to the art gallery and look at the nude sculptures there because there is artistic merit in those nude figures and I can appreacte them and I have taken my children in hopes that they will be educated by the experance. As a parent I would be lacking in my duties if I did not educate them. But to pop in a porno or an R rated film showing a graphic sex act would be moraly Irresponsible and legally they call that contributing to the delinquency of a minor and it is a crime.
Can you see the line? It might be blurry to some but it's there.

jussing
03-02-2005, 05:33 PM
Huh...???
Did you guys just manage to go from breasts to sex to porn in three sentences?
I don't know how your mind works, but these have generally nothing to do with each other...Huh.....???

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:49 PM
However I do like to go to the art gallery and look at the nude sculptures there because there is artistic merit in those nude figures and I can appreacte them and I have taken my children in hopes that they will be educated by the experance. As a parent I would be lacking in my duties if I did not educate them. But to pop in a porno or an R rated film showing a graphic sex act would be moraly Irresponsible and legally they call that contributing to the delinquency of a minor and it is a crime.
Can you see the line? It might be blurry to some but it's there.
Yep, I can see it. And you do seem to draw
a) a line between nudity and sex
and
b) don't seem to give movies the same credit for being an art form as a painting or statue in a museum.

Not that I agree, but I see your point. I still think there is a big difference between pornography and a "graphic" sex act (especially as seen on major motion pictures).
I wonder if you should teach your kids about sex and pornography too (and I think you know how I mean it), because sooner or later they will be confronted by it (but that is none of my business).

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 05:51 PM
We have already had that talk. And a friend of mine on the forum (Azozel) works at this place www.netsmartz.org (http://www.netsmartz.org/) It's a great place for teaching kids about the internet and e-mails and I used it to segway in to our talk about pornography. my kids are smart and they got it.
When they went back to my Ex-wife's house she asked them " what did you do with dad over the weekend?" kids: " learned about porn"
yeah that was a fun phone call....

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 05:53 PM
Huh.....???
I guess I wasn't clear enough...
Nudity does not imply sex (as in intercourse)
Sex does not imply pornography
...and vice versa.

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 06:02 PM
See I'd disagree about the (depiction of )sex not = pornorgaphy part but that ties into my religious belifs and let's leave religion out of it. However if there is a topless women in a movie wich has no bering on the story and is there purely to sell tickets I see it for what it is a shamless ploy. And I avoid it. regardless of the rating.

And if it has a bering on the story it's most likely a film I do not wish to see.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 06:15 PM
However if there is a topless women in a movie wich has no bering on the story and is there purely to sell tickets I see it for what it is a shamless ploy.
Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with nudity then, does it? If an actor does a stupid publicity stunt to sell tickets (like visit a Talkshow...), and I don't agree, I don't go to see the movie either, after all, this is a free market. In that case we just have different criteria to "boycot" a production.

But, what still basically puzzles me is the fear of nudity. I just have no idea of what should be bad about seeing a nude human body, anywhere. I still don't get it, sorry to say :sad:

Which explains why, from _my_ point of view, I'd find it just as justified to discuss the removal of all, whatever, Camels from movies. Or, if we talk about a member of a society being potentially offended, pigs.

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 06:28 PM
....But, what still basically puzzles me is the fear of nudity. I just have no idea of what should be bad about seeing a nude human body, anywhere. I still don't get it, sorry to say :sad:.....
Cheers,
Mike
It's to pushing of a product or an ideal by using sex (and genneraly the female body) as a mode of enticement that I am agenst not the human body itself. Going back to the statue in the museum I'm sure that there is some guy who get's aroused by looking at that. That's there issue that they have to work out for themself to them that's porn because it causes arousal. for me I see somthing else I see talent and skill, a devotion to the subject and the sole of the artist. But A playboy on the news stand is " selling somthing or pushing an ideal on me " where as the statue does none of those thing's. No one is selling anything. Where as nudity used as a selling device in a movie is somthing I am opposed to. So if there is an agenda behind the nudity I view it as porn.
_ For you it might be difrent. Like the guy in the museum with the hard0n for the statue that's his issue and everyone is diffrent. And everyone can choose forthemselvs. But it seams that enough people agreed on what was accectible for movies to form the federal film comition.

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 06:46 PM
I hate Beer comercials aswell and yet I drink beer but I know that 90% of them are a total lie.
And they use sex to sell them. well that dosn't really apply for me because I drink sam addams....
And I don't see how anyone could find him remotly attractive.

jussing
03-02-2005, 07:12 PM
I guess I wasn't clear enough...
Nudity does not imply sex (as in intercourse)
Sex does not imply pornography
...and vice versa.

Cheers,
MikeWell, you just said they had "nothing to do with each other".

And sex and breasts in movies have a whole lot to do with each other I'd say, and to jump from softcore sex in movies to hardcore sex in porn is not far off, I think.

Oh well. I don't agree with the other guys either, I have absolutely no problem with explicit violence and sex in movies. :D As long as it has some kind of narrative purpose, even if only the mood or tone of the film.

Cheers,
- Jonas

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 07:18 PM
That's good. Good for you if viewing that kindof stuff works for you that's ok. I'm not going to push anyone into doing anything they don't want to do. ( unless your my kid) (No sarcasim is intended)

jussing
03-02-2005, 07:21 PM
OK, I'll elaborate (hmm, I have a deja-vu, maybe I said this before in this thread.... oh well, too lazy to go back and look).

Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List: I have no problem with that violence. It happened that way in real life, it was horrible, and the scenes in the movie are not "action" or "fun", they're honest to the real horror. That's not distasteful.

Dobermann (French action movie): THAT is disgusting violence. Audience members are expected to cheer as the "hero" and his buddies shoot up cops, blow the head off one with a hand grenade, etc. One of the worst movies I have ever seen, not because of the graphicness of the violence, but because of the TONE. It's just sick.

Hmmm.... I wanted to mention an example I've seen, of equally disgusting use of sex in a movie, but, guess what - I can't think of any! Showing Kate Winslet's boob in Titanic was essential to the erotic mood of that scene, which is in essence a love-making scene, even though they don't physically do it. The breast is to show the intimacy Jack Dawson is feeling at that moment.

I'll mention one of the best sex scenes, though, which is the sex/nudity scene in The Terminator. Not only is it the "first sex" between the couple (which is usually what sex in movies is), it's the birth of John Connor, the origin of the phophecy, the virgin Mary metaphor, and the knot that ties future and present. So there. That's as justified as a sex scene gets.

- Jonas

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 07:23 PM
See now I saw titanic on tv and all that stuff was cut and I did'nt feel I missed anything.
But I did'nt see any of the other films you mentioned.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Well, you just said they had "nothing to do with each other".

And sex and breasts in movies have a whole lot to do with each other I'd say, and to jump from softcore sex in movies to hardcore sex in porn is not far off, I think.
Yes, not implicitly. An example is imho Starship Troopers, where you seen nude males and females take a shower together, but there is absolutely no sex implied.
The same goes for sex, which in a "mainstream" movie may be used to depict the emotional state of a couple (an alternative might be a Woody Allen style narrative, but then you might just as well read a book ;) ), whereas porn concentrates on arousing the viewer. To use my other example, I don't think that was Quentin Tarantinos intent (to arouse the viewer) when he showed Bruce Willi's naked butt.
And yes, there are movie that I wouldn't classify as porn where sex scenes are supposed to arouse the viewer too, if it makes sense in the context to get the viewer closer to the protagonist(s). After all, good movies _should_ evoke emotions in the viewer. (Either that, or be pure pop-corn fun :D ).

Cheers,
Mike

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 07:29 PM
It's to pushing of a product or an ideal by using sex (and genneraly the female body) as a mode of enticement that I am agenst not the human body itself. Going back to the statue in the museum I'm sure that there is some guy who get's aroused by looking at that. That's there issue that they have to work out for themself to them that's porn because it causes arousal. for me I see somthing else I see talent and skill, a devotion to the subject and the sole of the artist.
But, on a contrary point, a nude body in a movie is something that you seem to equate to sex, while you manage to make that distinction in a museum. Is it a moving nude that you have "problems" (for a lack of a better word, nothing implied here, sorry) with? Any why only the female body? If it were a full frontal male then you wouldn't make the same connection to sex? (Which is not that obvious, agreed, since we both live in a societys that exploit females more than males, and are male dominated).

Cheers,
Mike

grundelboy
03-02-2005, 07:31 PM
...And yes, there are movie that I wouldn't classify as porn where sex scenes are supposed to arouse the viewer too, if it makes sense in the context to get the viewer closer to the protagonist(s)......
Cheers,
Mike
See I'd disagree with this point again, due to my religious belifs. (Just so you can understand the where I am comming from I'm not trying to conver anyone) My religion belives that "Sex is a tool of creation and used to express love and deviotion we call this sex. And it is to be held as sacred between a married couple. And intimate and sexual relations are to be only between them: any third party's (ie. film crew's) participating or whitnessing of sexual acts is in direct violation of gods law. Unmarried people are to abstain from sexual relations including petting untill they are wed before a person who has recived athority from god."
That is more or less what I belive. My priest gave me this pamphlet to read to my kids and that is excerpt from it. I summerized alot of it. I hope I didn't Offend I mearly wish to illustrate where I'm comming from.

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 07:36 PM
See now I saw titanic on tv and all that stuff was cut and I did'nt feel I missed anything.
But I did'nt see any of the other films you mentioned.
Well, that makes it hard to argue about those points then if you're not familiar with the examples.
I may add that over here we might have violence cut ( 1. scene protagonist takes a swipe with a sword - cut - 2nd scene protagonist walks away, you see a corpse in the background - missing scene: Head cut off with sword), that kind of stuff. But even those 8 o'clock tv movies have nude scenes, and it doesn't really bother anybody (which is what I mean by social/cultural background).

...but, watch the news, and you'll notice that the world is a place much worse than what is depicted in movies (and yes, even in places that don't have movie theatres...).

Cheers and Respect,
Mike

lightwolf
03-02-2005, 08:01 PM
I hope I didn't Offend I mearly wish to illustrate where I'm comming from.
No offense taken on my side (Even though I'm an atheist...), and I hope it doesn't kill the thread (it shouldn't).

..and no, I won't comment on it either.

So, back to the original question:


Why is it there?
Is it needed?
Does it serve a purpose to the story?
Is it used used just to sell the movie?
I think if the third question is answered with a yes, then it is needed (and I believe there subjects where it has a purpose).
If it is just used to "sell" the movie, blame the producer ;)

As for the purpose, I'd go as far (leaning out of the window here), if you reject that sex may have a purpose in a particular move, that movie may just not be the right movie for you in the first place and nor is the topic of that movie.
Now rip it apart ;)

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. I still don't get this:
When i say sex, i mean really hot steamy all bits showing lasting 5 minutes on the screen type of sex. Even when its on screen for less than 2 seconds, is it really necessary to show a womens exposed breast for just those 2 seconds?
Talking about hot steamy sex, and then two seconds of an exposed breast as if they were the same thing...

Simon
03-02-2005, 08:54 PM
In general discussion there is a post about nudity in art, and having to post "nudity" on posts etc.

Luckily I'm not easily offended, I'm not religious, but most sex scenes in films I ignore now. We used to joke about there being a "token black guy" in films or whatever. Now I think its turned into the token "sex scene".

I ignore them because there is no passion in it(directors passion). Its very much cheapening something that should maybe be kept special.

Maybe thats where western civilisation has failed. its cheapened everything. Nothing is left sacred.

Thats my input to a long and tension-full thread. People shouldn't get so wound up about this!

Cheers guys

-Simon

SuperMax
03-03-2005, 01:14 PM
I think ive forgotten what this thread was about?


Can we get some answers on Directing sex scenes?
Whats involved?

Lets take a very heated sex scene for example, 21 grams with Sean Penn and Noami Watts going for it.

Do they sign a contract saying that both will be having sex with each other?
Are both actors blood tested for diseases?
Are condoms worn?

Does the director sit behing the camera shouting "OKAY NOW TOUCH HER BREASTS!! OK THATS GOOD!! NAOMI COULD U START MOANING PLEASE!! OKAY THATS EXCELLENT< SEAN NOW START EATING HER NIPPLES!! OHH THATS GREAT!!! NAOMI GRAB SEANS HEAD AND PULL HIS CLOSER!! DO IT!!! etc etc etc u get my point.

Or are actors allowed to go for it by themselves? Sometimes that might be a good idea for realism allowing the actors to just go for it, Its conseual sex so might aswell enjoy yourselfs.

Explain to the wife of husband and kids back at home that ur just acting.

pongball
03-11-2005, 06:53 AM
Methinks Supermax's original questions were never even really explored in this thread..lol.
Here's my answer to your questions bro!

Do they sign a contract saying that both will be having sex with each other?
Are both actors blood tested for diseases?
Are condoms worn?

No, the contract is usually their original contract in the beginning of the film where they sign on for production, after having viewed the script. They have their agents and lawyers watching over printed word if need be. They don't really have intercourse, if that's what you're asking. No they aren't tested for disease, b/c like I mentioned, there is no intercourse. The condom question is interesting, men usually wear fitted and skin toned applications that will cover them up tightly, and women will too, to prevent any accidents. Have you ever seen a camera show the actual parts? Ok then ;) .

Does the director sit behing the camera shouting "OKAY NOW TOUCH HER BREASTS!! OK THATS GOOD!! NAOMI COULD U START MOANING PLEASE!! OKAY THATS EXCELLENT< SEAN NOW START EATING HER NIPPLES!! OHH THATS GREAT!!! NAOMI GRAB SEANS HEAD AND PULL HIS CLOSER!! DO IT!!! etc etc etc u get my point.

If the director has a vision in establishing a certain mood, then yes, he/she will direct it out. Many times there is dialogue involved between the two parties, so that calls for direction of some sort. Remember, this isn't one fluid camera sequence, there are many cuts because as you notice, the camera likely moves according to the golden editing rules on cuts/pans/tracks/etc.

Or are actors allowed to go for it by themselves? Sometimes that might be a good idea for realism allowing the actors to just go for it, Its conseual sex so might aswell enjoy yourselfs.

If the director sees spark between the two actors (note, i said actors, and not "people", in the end, it is merely a play), then they will let their acting dictate the scene and the mood.

I hope this has cleared up quite a few misconceptions for you!

sundialsvc4
09-10-2005, 12:12 AM
"Seriously overrated."

There's always going to be a market among horny (especially) males for this kind of picture but there aren't very many good examples of a picture that was actually made better by sex, or nudity, or even handled it well.

I remember watching The Name of the Rose on network-TV one night. In one scene, a nymph from the town starts to seduce a young priest. On television, it was CUT TO the next morning, exterior, day, where the priest looks guilty and the older priest (Sean Connery) looks knowing. It worked. Only many years later did I discover that there was a fully-explicit fully-ten-minute sex scene in there which left you absolutely sure what body-part was going where. :rolleyes: If you didn't know how to have sex, this film would show you. And, it didn't work.

Incidentally, most of the successful photographers for Playboy are happily-married, heterosexual women...

CGTalk Moderation
09-10-2005, 12:12 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.