Nudity?
- Thread starter the_silver_addiction
- Start date
you won't get very far, sooner or later you're bound to run into the sky *audience - kick her ass jerry*
i know........
/
This is so weird. I was catching up on what I said in this thread, and now someone else has posted in it. Were you spying on me, Guided?
The reason I was rereading my posts is because I have been toying with the idea of planning to go direct to video with my first feature that I plan on shooting next winter. And on the info provided to me by a number of sources, I know that having some nudity in the film will help it when it comes to DVD distributors. I don't think my opinion on general nudity in films has changed, but in the past I felt that I would more than likely never have nudity in my films, and that has changed.
I also stated in this thread that my spouse's opinion of nudity was a strong contributing factor to how I would approach nudity in my film. That's still an issue, but it's less of one now.
I guess I will still strive to keep the nudity as tasteful as possible, but at this point I don't think it will be sex under the covers or bare back only nudity.
Poke
The reason I was rereading my posts is because I have been toying with the idea of planning to go direct to video with my first feature that I plan on shooting next winter. And on the info provided to me by a number of sources, I know that having some nudity in the film will help it when it comes to DVD distributors. I don't think my opinion on general nudity in films has changed, but in the past I felt that I would more than likely never have nudity in my films, and that has changed.
I also stated in this thread that my spouse's opinion of nudity was a strong contributing factor to how I would approach nudity in my film. That's still an issue, but it's less of one now.
I guess I will still strive to keep the nudity as tasteful as possible, but at this point I don't think it will be sex under the covers or bare back only nudity.
Poke
I strongly agree with Ridley Scott here (on why he does not have sex scenes in his movies) > "Sex is boring unless you're doing it."
If it makes the movie better though, it's all good.
scott spears also brough up a good point: actors that are willing to do nude scenes are usually not very good actors.
If it makes the movie better though, it's all good.
scott spears also brough up a good point: actors that are willing to do nude scenes are usually not very good actors.
I think this more a no/lo budget filmmaker's problem. I think when actor's are working on deferred payments then asking for nude scenes is often a favor too far and the only people willing to go for it in general aren't the strongest performers.
Once you're in a position to pay SAG/Equity rates for the job the conversation changes, because it's no longer about the actor (male or female) feeling like they are giving it away.
I think like all of these debates it's not about nudity right or wrong but about how it's used. If it tells you more about the character and moves the story forwards it's a good thing, if it's just getting some breasts into the film to push up your DVD sales, then it's another matter.
I also think that from a directorial POV you have to have very clear ideas of why you are doing it and be completely honest and professional with your actors. If they sense any doubt in your ability to take care of them, it will look awful on screen.
However, saying that, I have a friend who wanted to put a sex scene into his dreadful horror film and only had two guys in that day, so he persuaded them that if they did the sex scene, he'd get a girl to do cut aways separately so it would look like a guy and a girl. Of course he had no intention of doing that and it remains the funniest four minute sex scene I've ever seen in my life. The acting was dreadful. Of course this is the same guy whose distribution plan is to rent films from Blockbuster and then substitute his own film into the box when he returns it.
clive said:
What if you go into it knowing that nudity will help you getting DVD distribution, but at the same time you only allow the kind of nudity/sex that moves the plot forward?
clive said:
Do you think it is wise to tell them, "Hey, do a nude scene so we can sell this thing." or do you mean let them know that you have their interest at heart as well as your own?
clive said:
That's hilarious. How pissed were the actors when they saw the final product of their "labors?"
Poke
I suspect that if watching sex was as boring as Mr. Scott says, the porn industry wouldn't outsell mainstream almost 3/1.DirectorX said:
But I understand what he means.
directorik said:
Is that true? Because I've never bought a porn and have bought tons of Mainstream movie tickets and DVDs. That's the case with everyone I know too, unless they own like one or two porns. So...that can only be true if there's a few pervs out there buying billions of porns.
Last edited:
LOGAN L Productions said:
That brings up another point, what is everyones view of porn... is it an artform in itself? or just cheap trash.... i havnt watched too much myelf (i can just hear the "yeah right" from the rest) but it is a part of the film industry and funnily enough they do have directors....
-Walt
directorik said:
LOGAN L Productions said:
I would have to say I know some folks that frequent XXX video stores but rarely go to the theater - although I am sure they visit mainstream video stores, but some of those rent porn.
The ratio 3/1 seems unrealistic if we're talking volume. Maybe their profit margin is a 3/1 ratio, because after all it is very inexpensive to make a porn and they usually sell for close to Twenty bucks a pop.
Walter_Smidge said:
I think some porn is done artistically. I don't watch many porn movies either (I think 3 in my entire life), but recently I did see a porn that was shot on 24p HD and you could tell the DP was a bit more into the composition of the shots than I imagine the average porn DP. With that said, is it considered artistic simply because the shots are composed well? I mean the intent of the porn industry and thus the porn director by default is not art but titilation.
Poke
Walter,
I think that's an excellent question. I don't necessarily equate nudity with porn, so perhaps the definition of porn should be considered first before a work (of porn) can be classified art or not. Webster's defines porn as writings or pictures attempting to arouse sexual desire (and I'm sure there is a plethora of legal determinations of porn). George Bernard Shaw labeled any 'work of ART which CAUSES the viewer to want to posssess it', as pornographic. Arousal to possession, and I'm sure anything in between could be considered pornographic depending on who the viewer is.
mysticalmike said:I LOVE NUDITY IN FILMSSomeone had to say it guys, I'll take the fall ...
In many ways, it's a guy thing. Whom among the guys doesn't remember Jamie Lee Curtis taking off her top in a totally gratuitous shot from Trading Places?
I don't really have a problem with it -- hell, I probably first saw a naked woman in film (it may have been The Stuntman).
In the end, i don't think it really matters. The way I see it, there are a few reasons why you'd put nudity in... 1) Commercial appeal -- this one's obvious; see Skinamax films. 2) Character development -- in a way, you could argue this is the reason why Jamie Lee Curtis took off her top in trading places, to highlight her cavalier attitude toward sex in relation to Lewis' uptightness. 3) It's a movie about sex -- see Unfaithfull. If you don't put nudity in that movie, you're taking away from the realism (which I guess fall under the "artistic nudity" category).
There's also hybrids (Again Jamie Lee in Trading Places -- Gratuity + character development; Fast Times' masterbation scene -- gratuity and comedy.)
I don't know, that's all I really have to say about it.