Where Have All the Sex Scenes Gone?(freebeacon.com)
freebeacon.com
Where Have All the Sex Scenes Gone?
https://freebeacon.com/culture/where-have-all-sex-scenes-gone/
145 comments
The article touches on this, but in the past three decades movie making has been "optimized" to the point that there has been a great deal of "convergence" of the movie formula down to just a couple major themes. Either you have general audience, big budget, Marvel-type movies, or you have designated Oscar-type fare, which as of late means something extremely depressing that says how bad humans are. "Horny sex" just doesn't fit in either of those two categories.
Not too sad, though, because I feel like the exact opposite has happened with TV, where the rise of streaming services has ushered in a "Cambrian Explosion" of sorts with all types of varied topics and interesting content.
Not too sad, though, because I feel like the exact opposite has happened with TV, where the rise of streaming services has ushered in a "Cambrian Explosion" of sorts with all types of varied topics and interesting content.
>> Not too sad, though, because I feel like the exact opposite has happened with TV, where the rise of streaming services has ushered in a "Cambrian Explosion" of sorts with all types of varied topics and interesting content.
I am worried that soon they will also optimize the hell out of them - platforms like Netflix have all the data: what scene makes you pause and re-watch, what makes you stop watching, God only knows what else they are measuring.
It leaves me wondering to what extent those metrics overlap with the artistic side (whatever that is, but in this context I mean trying to express something genuine, not to please the audience).
I am worried that soon they will also optimize the hell out of them - platforms like Netflix have all the data: what scene makes you pause and re-watch, what makes you stop watching, God only knows what else they are measuring.
It leaves me wondering to what extent those metrics overlap with the artistic side (whatever that is, but in this context I mean trying to express something genuine, not to please the audience).
> […] or you have designated Oscar-type fare, which as of late means something extremely depressing that says how bad humans are.
In the 2020/2021 season, the nominations included The Father about a man suffering dementia (from his perspective) and Sound of Metal about a drummer going deaf.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Academy_Awards
For 2019, we had the best picture nominations include Ford v Ferrari, Little Women, and 1917:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_Academy_Awards
Previous to that, Bohemian Rhapsody:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Academy_Awards
Going back one more year, Dunkirk and Lady Bird:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90th_Academy_Awards
Lastly for this discussion, Arrival, Hacksaw Ridge, Hidden Figures, and La La Land:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_Awards
I think these are good counter-examples to your claim that only two types of movies being made.
In the 2020/2021 season, the nominations included The Father about a man suffering dementia (from his perspective) and Sound of Metal about a drummer going deaf.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Academy_Awards
For 2019, we had the best picture nominations include Ford v Ferrari, Little Women, and 1917:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_Academy_Awards
Previous to that, Bohemian Rhapsody:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91st_Academy_Awards
Going back one more year, Dunkirk and Lady Bird:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90th_Academy_Awards
Lastly for this discussion, Arrival, Hacksaw Ridge, Hidden Figures, and La La Land:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_Awards
I think these are good counter-examples to your claim that only two types of movies being made.
>Not too sad, though, because I feel like the exact opposite has happened with TV, where the rise of streaming services has ushered in a "Cambrian Explosion" of sorts with all types of varied topics and interesting content.
Can we even call it TV anymore? It's all streamed to our laptops our tablets
Can we even call it TV anymore? It's all streamed to our laptops our tablets
Sure, now TV stands for TV-style Video.
and most tv's are computers now as well.
Well, it’s still “tele” and “vision”… (Most laptop ads now focus on using computers as essentially TV sets.)
If we can rewind a Blu-ray, carbon copy someone on an email, and roll up a power window, I imagine we can stream our TV to our tablets just fine.
It saddens me that we live in a culture in which movies showing violence (including torture and murder) are acceptable, whereas ones showing consensual, non-pornographic intercourse - aren’t.
You might argue that on Netflix every second movie have a lot of sex scenes. Yes, must mostly with partial or implied nudity (think of all of these scenes with sex with bra on, waking up clothed, or L-shaped sheets).
At the same time there is no issue with explicit blood, gore, cut-off limbs, etc.
You might argue that on Netflix every second movie have a lot of sex scenes. Yes, must mostly with partial or implied nudity (think of all of these scenes with sex with bra on, waking up clothed, or L-shaped sheets).
At the same time there is no issue with explicit blood, gore, cut-off limbs, etc.
And when we do show sex, it's in ways where it's always "complicated". Sex, according to the mainstream, must involve some sort of transgressive participation. You must be committing adultery, or be "in the closet", or committing incest, or doing it with total disregard for responsibilities, or doing it in inappropriate circumstances, or by committing rape. Unless you're watching a deliberately romantic film, I don't know how anyone can get a positive impression of sex or even associate sex with love by watching what's on streaming services.
That's a different point. People don't show "normal" sex in movies for the same reasons they don't show people eating, going to the toilet and that sort of stuff.
You're taking my point to an extreme that obviously wasn't my intent. I never said that all sex in entertainment must be missionary position under sheets with the lights off between a Christian husband and wife.
First of all, it's rather interesting that you equate sex to taking a shit.
But also, what have you been watching to conclude that they don't show people eating on-screen? It's rather common, especially in film, to have characters eating real food. the primary reason it's not as frequent as in real life is because having actors eat food is actually a complicated thing to with multiple takes while maintaining continuity.
First of all, it's rather interesting that you equate sex to taking a shit.
But also, what have you been watching to conclude that they don't show people eating on-screen? It's rather common, especially in film, to have characters eating real food. the primary reason it's not as frequent as in real life is because having actors eat food is actually a complicated thing to with multiple takes while maintaining continuity.
> I never said that all sex in entertainment must be missionary position under sheets with the lights off between a Christian husband and wife.
I don't think I've said that you said that either? My point was that they mostly show things that are relevant, and that since most movies focus on the extraordinary, regular sex is shown less and extraordinary sex is shown more.
> First of all, it's rather interesting that you equate sex to taking a shit.
Is it? I don't really see how.
> But also, what have you been watching to conclude that they don't show people eating on-screen? It's rather common, especially in film, to have characters eating real food. the primary reason it's not as frequent as in real life is because having actors eat food is actually a complicated thing to with multiple takes while maintaining continuity.
Again, food scenes are show when they are relevant. If you see a movie that happens on three days, you won't see people eat 9 times. You may see them eating once in the morning to show that the father doesn't have much time for his family, or something like that, but you won't see everything. The "ordinary stuff" is a small part of what happens in movies, because most movies aren't made to show it, they are made to show extreme things.
I don't think I've said that you said that either? My point was that they mostly show things that are relevant, and that since most movies focus on the extraordinary, regular sex is shown less and extraordinary sex is shown more.
> First of all, it's rather interesting that you equate sex to taking a shit.
Is it? I don't really see how.
> But also, what have you been watching to conclude that they don't show people eating on-screen? It's rather common, especially in film, to have characters eating real food. the primary reason it's not as frequent as in real life is because having actors eat food is actually a complicated thing to with multiple takes while maintaining continuity.
Again, food scenes are show when they are relevant. If you see a movie that happens on three days, you won't see people eat 9 times. You may see them eating once in the morning to show that the father doesn't have much time for his family, or something like that, but you won't see everything. The "ordinary stuff" is a small part of what happens in movies, because most movies aren't made to show it, they are made to show extreme things.
People eat in movies all the time. Hitting the toilet, no.
Guys don’t think about going to the toilet every few minutes for the majority of adulthood.
People’s hormonal drives don’t push them into social near-life decisions for other sorts of stuff besides sex.
Guys don’t think about going to the toilet every few minutes for the majority of adulthood.
People’s hormonal drives don’t push them into social near-life decisions for other sorts of stuff besides sex.
That's fair, and that also explains why "unregular" sex is shown the most, and not "healthy/regular" sex.
How do you mean “unregular”? Lots of movies are showing consummation of desire, or otherwise healthy sex in maybe risky or unwise circumstances.
Films like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo show maltreatment and restorative sex both. I’ve heard that porn tends to unregular, but I haven’t made time for that research, the porn I’ve seen would be worth aspiring to.
Films like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo show maltreatment and restorative sex both. I’ve heard that porn tends to unregular, but I haven’t made time for that research, the porn I’ve seen would be worth aspiring to.
Doesn't have to be like that, though!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnRLD17Uh8
Perfectly safe for enslaved workers, btw.! :-)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnRLD17Uh8
Perfectly safe for enslaved workers, btw.! :-)
> they don't show
But they do! (And I agree with the general sentiment.)
But they do! (And I agree with the general sentiment.)
Would you find interesting a movie in which people shoot at cardboard figures instead of each other?
To suggest that films must feature graphic violence is like saying that comedy can't be funny unless it involves swearing.
No, but drama does require drama. People having a nice time together is not dramatic.
More than just blood or gore: killing. It is normalized all across genres and cultures.
Most times the "right" to kill comes from things that you can't possibly know, and you are the hero for doing so. And having a gun is a symbol of rightful power, like having money.
And is not just the good boys killing, the bad boys more efficient doing so are shown surrounded by desirable things, power, money, women, charisma.
Most times the "right" to kill comes from things that you can't possibly know, and you are the hero for doing so. And having a gun is a symbol of rightful power, like having money.
And is not just the good boys killing, the bad boys more efficient doing so are shown surrounded by desirable things, power, money, women, charisma.
>> It saddens me that we live in a culture in which movies showing violence (including torture and murder) are acceptable, whereas ones showing consensual, non-pornographic intercourse - aren’t.
I just remembered accidentally seeing the US version of the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service". I was surprised that one scene was cut out - naked ass of a young woman. The scene of brutal massacre where dozens of people are killed and maimed was left there. I still do not get how this came to be. People usually talk about puritanism and such but this does not seem to explain it - why should any culture consider it desirable to watch brutality but not nudity or something sexual?
I just remembered accidentally seeing the US version of the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service". I was surprised that one scene was cut out - naked ass of a young woman. The scene of brutal massacre where dozens of people are killed and maimed was left there. I still do not get how this came to be. People usually talk about puritanism and such but this does not seem to explain it - why should any culture consider it desirable to watch brutality but not nudity or something sexual?
Right. I’d like to amplify this sentiment a bit. Killing, maiming, spilling blood and intestines, are all fine. So many examples. And yet two people making each other feel good in some way (whether horny release, tender support, making a baby, just fun) is immoral, unsuitable for “the children”, whatever.
I think that there is a case for people to be moral. The moralizers who are ok with bloody torture and not sex as part of the human condition discredit the concept of moral teaching.
I think that there is a case for people to be moral. The moralizers who are ok with bloody torture and not sex as part of the human condition discredit the concept of moral teaching.
Not just movies. It looks like most computer games, too, involve fighting and killing. I think there is something there that speaks to human nature.
> And that's too bad. Sexiness and tawdriness are both fundamental parts of the human experience and should be celebrated and explored on the biggest screen possible. There shouldn't be any shame in watching onscreen shamelessness.
I don't think that's true. At least, not the "sexiness and tawdriness" that was shown in most of the "old" movies. The article seem to argue that movies were better when they showed sex on screen, but I don't think that's true either. I think what happened is that we shifted from one warped perception of sex to another. Considering how culture and history tend to work, that's probably a cyclical movement and we may get more sex on the screen at some point in the next ~50 years.
I don't think that's true. At least, not the "sexiness and tawdriness" that was shown in most of the "old" movies. The article seem to argue that movies were better when they showed sex on screen, but I don't think that's true either. I think what happened is that we shifted from one warped perception of sex to another. Considering how culture and history tend to work, that's probably a cyclical movement and we may get more sex on the screen at some point in the next ~50 years.
They've moved to TV shows... Hard to watch any (American) Netflix series without an unnecessary sex scene every 6-8 minutes.
Could you give an example of unnecessary sex scenes? I watch netflix shows often enough and can't think of a show that had a unnecessary sex scenes every 6-8 minutes.
The one "exception" that comes to mind with a lot of sex scenes are Sex Education and Sexify but for those shows the sex scenes are hardly unnecessary given the subject matter.
I'm not trolling or trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely trying to think of series with unnecessary sex scene every 6-8 minutes.
I'm not trolling or trying to be argumentative here, I'm genuinely trying to think of series with unnecessary sex scene every 6-8 minutes.
This isn't really that hard. Bridgerton, for instance.
Now I’m going to watch that. Thanks!
It’s a show about horny confused teenagers being married off to each other in some alternative history. Sex scenes couldn’t be more relevant to this show.
Lol 1 example out of 8,000 series, and you list the one that is explicitly developed for Harlequin romance readers.
If only you had named SexLife ...
If only you had named SexLife ...
Actually, if you look into it, you'll find that it has a lot broader appeal than that. For instance, I watched all of it, and I'm hardly a Harlequin novel reader.
I don't see too much nudity in Netflix shows. Which ones specifically are you thinking about? There are definitely plenty of "bra-on" sex scenes that cut away early in the act, but I don't think that's what the author is talking of.
Uh, bra-on scenes - I hate them, not because I need to see the boobies so much, but because of the intense feeling of fakeness that takes me out of the movie to seeing just two actors pretending something. I hate the bra-on scenes almost as much as I hate the cliché scene where the two in bed are breathing so heavily (to show you they just finished having sex you did not see in the movie) as if they had just finished olympic 400m final.
I didn't mention nudity, so yeah I'm including non-nude scenes where that's obviously what's going on and it's not adding anything useful to the story.
What, pray tell, constitutes "necessary" in art?
People act like the only point of narrative work is to tell a story and advance a plot, forgetting that some of the greatest novels, plays, and movies of all time have creaky plots and barely-there stories, and plenty of "unnecessary" stuff.
People act like the only point of narrative work is to tell a story and advance a plot, forgetting that some of the greatest novels, plays, and movies of all time have creaky plots and barely-there stories, and plenty of "unnecessary" stuff.
I don't think the discussion is around "art", considering the examples given in the article. It's mostly about mass media.
Ok, so they should have asked "What constitutes 'necessary' in entertainment?"
So what? The new question with the approved honest accurate words, not like that original agenda'd deceptive one, still stands.
So what? The new question with the approved honest accurate words, not like that original agenda'd deceptive one, still stands.
> So what?
I think the difference is that "What constitutes necessary in art?" is pretty much a closed debate, as it's related to the nature of art, while for entertainment it's a bit different, as it's often (at least in that case it is) made for mass consumption. Since it's made for mass consumption, you can more easily argue about their moral responsibilities than with "art".
> The new question with the approved honest accurate words, not like that original agenda'd deceptive one, still stands.
It does, and I don't have a good answer to it.
I think the difference is that "What constitutes necessary in art?" is pretty much a closed debate, as it's related to the nature of art, while for entertainment it's a bit different, as it's often (at least in that case it is) made for mass consumption. Since it's made for mass consumption, you can more easily argue about their moral responsibilities than with "art".
> The new question with the approved honest accurate words, not like that original agenda'd deceptive one, still stands.
It does, and I don't have a good answer to it.
True. I guess it's pretty much just product (or should I say "content") that we're discussing, despite all the lip service given to the idea that it's this really creative endeavor.
Aren't there plenty of sex scenes in TV shows these days? So much that I frequently want to fast-forward. So much that I wonder if "sex" has become the ultimate plot device. Strangers? One-night stand, and they are best buddies ever. Angry at each other? Rage sex, and all the animosity gone. Not thinking clearly? Sex with your partner calms you down. Thinking clearly? Sex with a seductive villain dazzles your mind. Seems kinda lazy to me.
> Why bother showing men and women connecting emotionally and sexually when you can rake in billions by having Steve Rogers and Tony Stark punch aliens—or, occasionally, each other?
I don't understand sentences like these. That's like saying "why bother eating oranges when you can eat an apple?" It frames the comparison in a way that suggest erotic movies are more bothersome to produce, which doesn't make sense. Superhero movies are more successful due to many reasons: big budget, proven formulaic plots, fan base, etc. but definitely not because they are less bothersome to produce.
> Why bother showing men and women connecting emotionally and sexually when you can rake in billions by having Steve Rogers and Tony Stark punch aliens—or, occasionally, each other?
I don't understand sentences like these. That's like saying "why bother eating oranges when you can eat an apple?" It frames the comparison in a way that suggest erotic movies are more bothersome to produce, which doesn't make sense. Superhero movies are more successful due to many reasons: big budget, proven formulaic plots, fan base, etc. but definitely not because they are less bothersome to produce.
> Aren't there plenty of sex scenes in TV shows these days?
Very probably.
TFA does not include the string 'TV' or 'television', but has 16 occurrences of 'movie', so perhaps you're arguing against a point that's not being asserted.
> I don't understand sentences like these.
And that's okay.
As TFA points out, China (and elsewhere) are significant markets with specific and (to western culture) peculiar requirements in terms of being culturally palatable.
The question is cogent, concise, and valid -- if you're a movie maker (motivated by money/fame/whatever) why would you try to contend with complex and difficult material if you could instead, as they author asks, more easily rake in billions by having two asexual fictional character punch aliens.
> Superhero movies are more successful due to many reasons: big budget, proven formulaic plots, fan base, etc. but definitely not because they are less bothersome to produce.
It's not so much bothersomeness that's the key criteria, but I'd suggest that big budgets don't guarantee a film's success anymore than a proven formulae (there's only 7 after all) or a large fan base (plenty of fan bases are both enormous and enormously unsatisfied).
Read some of the literature on why Marvel has been so popular in the China market for some context here -- for example this piece (but there's an abundance) : https://variety.com/2019/film/news/avengers-endgame-marvel-u...
Very probably.
TFA does not include the string 'TV' or 'television', but has 16 occurrences of 'movie', so perhaps you're arguing against a point that's not being asserted.
> I don't understand sentences like these.
And that's okay.
As TFA points out, China (and elsewhere) are significant markets with specific and (to western culture) peculiar requirements in terms of being culturally palatable.
The question is cogent, concise, and valid -- if you're a movie maker (motivated by money/fame/whatever) why would you try to contend with complex and difficult material if you could instead, as they author asks, more easily rake in billions by having two asexual fictional character punch aliens.
> Superhero movies are more successful due to many reasons: big budget, proven formulaic plots, fan base, etc. but definitely not because they are less bothersome to produce.
It's not so much bothersomeness that's the key criteria, but I'd suggest that big budgets don't guarantee a film's success anymore than a proven formulae (there's only 7 after all) or a large fan base (plenty of fan bases are both enormous and enormously unsatisfied).
Read some of the literature on why Marvel has been so popular in the China market for some context here -- for example this piece (but there's an abundance) : https://variety.com/2019/film/news/avengers-endgame-marvel-u...
> The question is cogent, concise, and valid -- if you're a movie maker (motivated by money/fame/whatever) why would you try to contend with complex and difficult material if you could instead, as they author asks, more easily rake in billions by having two asexual fictional character punch aliens.
I guess my confusion is stemmed from the fact that I don't think sex scenes are inherently more complex and difficult than alien punching. Perhaps more difficult to sell due to ratings, but that's a given.
I'm not endorsing the way Marvel is making movies; I think it's quite formulaic and intellectually lazy. But on the other hand, sex can easily be just as formulaic and lazy. My opinion is that Marvel didn't include sex in their movies simply because PG-13 has a bigger market and makes more money. If sex would sell better, they'll put sex in there with very little effort, and it wouldn't make those movies any less formulaic.
Of course, I'm anything but a movie expert; sex might really be more difficult to contend with, but the author hardly provided any explanation to support this claim, and thus I remain unpersuaded.
---
And as a Chinese person, I'd suggest that Marvel is successful in China, because as formulaic as it is, it simply produces far better movie than current mainstream Chinese movies in almost every aspect. Chinese film making (mainstream) has been pacing backwards for at least the last decade.
I guess my confusion is stemmed from the fact that I don't think sex scenes are inherently more complex and difficult than alien punching. Perhaps more difficult to sell due to ratings, but that's a given.
I'm not endorsing the way Marvel is making movies; I think it's quite formulaic and intellectually lazy. But on the other hand, sex can easily be just as formulaic and lazy. My opinion is that Marvel didn't include sex in their movies simply because PG-13 has a bigger market and makes more money. If sex would sell better, they'll put sex in there with very little effort, and it wouldn't make those movies any less formulaic.
Of course, I'm anything but a movie expert; sex might really be more difficult to contend with, but the author hardly provided any explanation to support this claim, and thus I remain unpersuaded.
---
And as a Chinese person, I'd suggest that Marvel is successful in China, because as formulaic as it is, it simply produces far better movie than current mainstream Chinese movies in almost every aspect. Chinese film making (mainstream) has been pacing backwards for at least the last decade.
Sure, and I agree that sex scenes aren't inherently more complex / difficult to film than fight scenes (caveats around CGI, green screen, etc complexities that are more likely required in the latter).
As intimated though, the challenge is keeping China happy - there's been a constant series of articles about this phenomenon.
Beyond the acceptance of ultra-violence along with a distaste for sexuality, consider all the political hand-wringing that led Disney to the Iron Man 3 fracas. [0] Or informed their decisions around promoting any films with a non-white protagonist. [1] But really, any web search on 'how are the chinese market cuts of marvel films different' will get you a slew of results.
Aside - about 15 years ago, while in Hong Kong, I picked up a bootleg DVD of Love Actually (a highly popular, but arguably shite, film). Turned out that the local cut of that film excised every appearance of Martin Freeman & Joanna Page.
[0] https://screenrant.com/iron-man-3-china-version-different-sc...
[1] https://qz.com/quartzy/1231764/the-story-behind-the-racist-r...
As intimated though, the challenge is keeping China happy - there's been a constant series of articles about this phenomenon.
Beyond the acceptance of ultra-violence along with a distaste for sexuality, consider all the political hand-wringing that led Disney to the Iron Man 3 fracas. [0] Or informed their decisions around promoting any films with a non-white protagonist. [1] But really, any web search on 'how are the chinese market cuts of marvel films different' will get you a slew of results.
Aside - about 15 years ago, while in Hong Kong, I picked up a bootleg DVD of Love Actually (a highly popular, but arguably shite, film). Turned out that the local cut of that film excised every appearance of Martin Freeman & Joanna Page.
[0] https://screenrant.com/iron-man-3-china-version-different-sc...
[1] https://qz.com/quartzy/1231764/the-story-behind-the-racist-r...
I didn’t read the “why bother” question as an either-or between erotic films and superhero movies. I saw it as an either-or between including a sex scene in a superhero movie or another action sequence.
Considering that choice, a sex scene is more bother because of the two reasons the author offers – commercial and cultural.
Considering that choice, a sex scene is more bother because of the two reasons the author offers – commercial and cultural.
The overseas market, specifically China, probably plays a much bigger role in self-censoring cinema than most people are comfortable admitting. Nobody wants good cinema, movies that dig into and challenge the human condition. They want money. In the last 20-30 years, we have seen the strip-mall-ization of the movie theater. Every city has at least one, they all look the same, and drop in at any time and you'll see the same kinds of movies: cool-looking, easy, bowlderized, with paint-by-the-numbers plots.
I love real cinema. For all intents and purposes it's gone now. We need a new art form to take its place.
A big part of the problem with any commercial art form is the plethora of folks who love to be reductionist in one way or another. Leads in TV shows from the 1950s forward wanted to know and control how many lines they spoke. John Wayne famously gave the advice to another actor that if you're leaving a scene, first move in the opposite direction and then leave the way you're supposed to. Gives you a bit more screen time. (Apologies that I cannot source that offhand)
Once everything becomes reductionist, it's then much easier to argue about some oversimplified version of the art than the contents of the art itself. Were there enough tall people in that film? Did that essay have the right amount of third-grade level adjectives? Is the playwright using a meter for the supporting roles? If so, what is it?
We can go on and on about such things because they are easier to measure, require almost no understanding of the art form itself, and lead to all sorts of debates. Sometimes I think the number one rule of modern media is "I don't care what you're arguing about, just argue about something!"
If we placed the story first, and only created anything in an art form to support and enhance that story, we'd get all sorts of interesting and self-challenging art, depending on which artist is telling the story. Whatever trivial reductionist thing you'd like to experience, there'd be art that let you experience it. But if we try to create and tell stories through art by way of committee and marketing research, it's just going to be more and more bland populist pablum.
The saddest part of all of this is not that businesses are acting in their best interests. The saddest part is what it says about the average consumer. I love modern theater even though it's a completely new art, but I try very hard not to do the "reverse math" and figure out just what the creators think of me. Otherwise I'd get pretty pissed.
I love real cinema. For all intents and purposes it's gone now. We need a new art form to take its place.
A big part of the problem with any commercial art form is the plethora of folks who love to be reductionist in one way or another. Leads in TV shows from the 1950s forward wanted to know and control how many lines they spoke. John Wayne famously gave the advice to another actor that if you're leaving a scene, first move in the opposite direction and then leave the way you're supposed to. Gives you a bit more screen time. (Apologies that I cannot source that offhand)
Once everything becomes reductionist, it's then much easier to argue about some oversimplified version of the art than the contents of the art itself. Were there enough tall people in that film? Did that essay have the right amount of third-grade level adjectives? Is the playwright using a meter for the supporting roles? If so, what is it?
We can go on and on about such things because they are easier to measure, require almost no understanding of the art form itself, and lead to all sorts of debates. Sometimes I think the number one rule of modern media is "I don't care what you're arguing about, just argue about something!"
If we placed the story first, and only created anything in an art form to support and enhance that story, we'd get all sorts of interesting and self-challenging art, depending on which artist is telling the story. Whatever trivial reductionist thing you'd like to experience, there'd be art that let you experience it. But if we try to create and tell stories through art by way of committee and marketing research, it's just going to be more and more bland populist pablum.
The saddest part of all of this is not that businesses are acting in their best interests. The saddest part is what it says about the average consumer. I love modern theater even though it's a completely new art, but I try very hard not to do the "reverse math" and figure out just what the creators think of me. Otherwise I'd get pretty pissed.
I don’t know if hollywood has ever been anything else. I watched a documentary recently on the action movies of the 80s and 90s [1]. The part that was eye opening was the interview of Mario Kassar, who produced some of my favorite movies as a teenager in the 90s: Rambo, Total Recall, T2, Basic Instinct, etc. He talks about what he puts in his films literally like a farmer talks about grain for his pigs.
It has always been primarily a business targeting the lowest possible common denominator of the largest possible audience. And as the developed world expanded, that denominator shrank. Hence everything Marvel now.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8840400/
It has always been primarily a business targeting the lowest possible common denominator of the largest possible audience. And as the developed world expanded, that denominator shrank. Hence everything Marvel now.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8840400/
This is the best rebuttal to my thesis. Thanks.
There is a tension between art and commercial art. Beethoven should have never written that battle symphony.
When done well, I think you can get both. Start with the story and then weave in the commercial aspects. Or start with the story and only choose to finance movies that have both art and commercial value. What you can't do is start with the commercial side and then try to hammer in a good story. There have been a few masters that managed to pull that off, but it's rare. Add in committee-management instead of having an artist's eye and it becomes total crap.
It's in nobody's interest to only have arthouse flicks that nobody watches. Happily it's not an either-or decision. Good drama will draw in the commercial part than can then be exploited. Everybody's happy. What I'm seeing now is that majority of films start with a locked-in fanbase and then try to do their best at creating an n+1 episode. That's how they're getting around the quality problem: they make it moot. They know the locked-in fanbase is coming no matter what they produce, and if it's a real stinker? Well hell, all of the press and arguing about how bad it is will just drive up interest for n+2. Not only is that not trying to mix a good story in with a commercial line, that's putting the story quality pretty far down the list. It's noticeable.
ADD: I'd say that in the heyday of arthouse flicks, say 65-80, you had the peak of movies that covered both bases well. Nobody's doing another Midnight Cowboy.
There is a tension between art and commercial art. Beethoven should have never written that battle symphony.
When done well, I think you can get both. Start with the story and then weave in the commercial aspects. Or start with the story and only choose to finance movies that have both art and commercial value. What you can't do is start with the commercial side and then try to hammer in a good story. There have been a few masters that managed to pull that off, but it's rare. Add in committee-management instead of having an artist's eye and it becomes total crap.
It's in nobody's interest to only have arthouse flicks that nobody watches. Happily it's not an either-or decision. Good drama will draw in the commercial part than can then be exploited. Everybody's happy. What I'm seeing now is that majority of films start with a locked-in fanbase and then try to do their best at creating an n+1 episode. That's how they're getting around the quality problem: they make it moot. They know the locked-in fanbase is coming no matter what they produce, and if it's a real stinker? Well hell, all of the press and arguing about how bad it is will just drive up interest for n+2. Not only is that not trying to mix a good story in with a commercial line, that's putting the story quality pretty far down the list. It's noticeable.
ADD: I'd say that in the heyday of arthouse flicks, say 65-80, you had the peak of movies that covered both bases well. Nobody's doing another Midnight Cowboy.
On the China thing: Why don't we let the ones who want to censor movies just do it on their own instead of precensoring them? This used to happen a lot. Is it really that expensive to cut out a few shots or use compositing to obscure things?
I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment.
I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment.
Good question. To clarify, in China any company or business enterprise has to have political officers sprinkled throughout. This makes sure that the organization is following the party line appropriately.
So when I said the problem was China, I didn't mean the Chinese market, I meant that a huge amount of money currently being spent financing film entertainment comes from groups like this. They kill these kinds of things before they ever get financed.
Most folks don't talk about the money side of movies. It's nothing like talking about which star is in rehab or where the MCU is heading with its reboot. But at the end of the day, that's the thing driving content creation.
So when I said the problem was China, I didn't mean the Chinese market, I meant that a huge amount of money currently being spent financing film entertainment comes from groups like this. They kill these kinds of things before they ever get financed.
Most folks don't talk about the money side of movies. It's nothing like talking about which star is in rehab or where the MCU is heading with its reboot. But at the end of the day, that's the thing driving content creation.
> On the China thing: Why don't we let the ones who want to censor movies just do it on their own instead of precensoring them?
Because its more cost effective to consider the whole market when making the movie to start with.
> I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment
In-flight entertainment isn't way down the list of money drivers. “Chinese first-run sales” is a lot higher. So the power of the latter on how movies are initially crafted is big, while the former is negligible.
Because its more cost effective to consider the whole market when making the movie to start with.
> I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment
In-flight entertainment isn't way down the list of money drivers. “Chinese first-run sales” is a lot higher. So the power of the latter on how movies are initially crafted is big, while the former is negligible.
I think in a lot of "markets", uselessly drawn out sex scenes were just never there. In fact, I find this trait of Western movie and TV making highly annoying. Because those sex scenes are always the same. If you have seen a few, you've seen all of them, more variety only to be found in real porn. After N repetitions, TV and movie tropes just become boring rehashed mechanics. At that part, might as well leave it out if you can imply in a different way "and then they had sex".
Having sex scenes in cinema does not make good cinema at all just because of it.
Having sex scenes in cinema does not make good cinema at all just because of it.
I'd mostly concur, but had to think of at least two movies which stuck, and weren't that scripted conforming to mainstream rules, no B-Movies either.
One would be The Limits of Control from 2009
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/
another I Origins from 2014
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2884206/
I'm sure there are more, but can't remember right now, or don't care that much.
One would be The Limits of Control from 2009
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/
another I Origins from 2014
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2884206/
I'm sure there are more, but can't remember right now, or don't care that much.
This article is just a bunch of anecdata. Has the proportion of theatrical releases containing sex scenes indeed declined in recent years? What about streaming releases? Neither of these questions is quantitatively answered. The “evidence” that sex scenes have become taboo because they embody the “male gaze” and are therefore problematic comes from some un-cited hypothetical tweet. Assuming this tweet is even real, is it actually reflective of the majority opinion, or just a Twitter echochamber? Again, the author does not even attempt to answer this question.
It's an opinion piece in the culture section of the Free Beacon - what kind of article were you expecting (beyond 'bunch of anecdata').
FWIW I found it a hugely entertaining, and spectacularly well written piece.
As to your concern about the un-cited hypothetical tweet, a) on my reading of the article it was very much NOT ascribing much evidence to this phenomenon, and b) your favourite search engine will quickly reveal your answers if you ask for 'Laura Mulvey male gaze'.
FWIW I found it a hugely entertaining, and spectacularly well written piece.
As to your concern about the un-cited hypothetical tweet, a) on my reading of the article it was very much NOT ascribing much evidence to this phenomenon, and b) your favourite search engine will quickly reveal your answers if you ask for 'Laura Mulvey male gaze'.
I expect opinion pieces opining on objectively verifiable facts to support their statements with objective evidence. This piece simply asserts with zero evidence that sex scenes are less frequent in recent movies, and then speculates at great length why this might be. But because the piece has done nothing to prove its initial assertion (i.e. sex scenes are less frequent), any further discussion predicated on this assertion being true is inherently meaningless.
I read the article and didn't have your reaction! Or, I long since, for years, often had your reaction and finally for nearly all media gave up!
Soooo, instead of your reaction I just backed off and decided to regard any and all statements in such media content as, call it, "conjectures that some people want to pass out guessing that maybe some other people will agree".
That is, we get a lot of conjectures! I can like getting some of the conjectures since commonly they are not ones I would think of -- so, maybe there is some value there, e.g., not that the conjectures make any real sense but, say, just that they are maybe (another conjecture!) that some people would entertain in which case we might get some insight into some people! See, if strain enough, bend over backwards and twist self out of shape, discard nearly all sense of rationalism and critical thinking, can find a glimmer of value!!
Then the article mentioned Anya Taylor-Joy: Never heard of her, so did a fast Google search and got caught up. Yup, of the several pictures of her one of them to my eyes did have "almost-alien beauty"; that picture, if only from some lighting, seemed to have the part of her nose between her eyes unusually wide.
Besides, have to give a little value for the rough, guesstimate conjecture:
"(Congrats: You're caught up on the last 30 years or so of the theatrical exhibition business.)"
Maybe some such thing is true, maybe!
Net: It's easy to read such media criticism -- just set aside all rationality directly on the content and look, instead, at the content as maybe some insight into what some people might believe! That is, we should have some good insight into what nonsense some people might believe, that is, we might be learning about the people, not the nonsense! It's not difficult; you can do it, too!
Soooo, instead of your reaction I just backed off and decided to regard any and all statements in such media content as, call it, "conjectures that some people want to pass out guessing that maybe some other people will agree".
That is, we get a lot of conjectures! I can like getting some of the conjectures since commonly they are not ones I would think of -- so, maybe there is some value there, e.g., not that the conjectures make any real sense but, say, just that they are maybe (another conjecture!) that some people would entertain in which case we might get some insight into some people! See, if strain enough, bend over backwards and twist self out of shape, discard nearly all sense of rationalism and critical thinking, can find a glimmer of value!!
Then the article mentioned Anya Taylor-Joy: Never heard of her, so did a fast Google search and got caught up. Yup, of the several pictures of her one of them to my eyes did have "almost-alien beauty"; that picture, if only from some lighting, seemed to have the part of her nose between her eyes unusually wide.
Besides, have to give a little value for the rough, guesstimate conjecture:
"(Congrats: You're caught up on the last 30 years or so of the theatrical exhibition business.)"
Maybe some such thing is true, maybe!
Net: It's easy to read such media criticism -- just set aside all rationality directly on the content and look, instead, at the content as maybe some insight into what some people might believe! That is, we should have some good insight into what nonsense some people might believe, that is, we might be learning about the people, not the nonsense! It's not difficult; you can do it, too!
[deleted]
It seems odd that this article did not touch on the role of actors in the situation. There have been a few female actors who have come out to say they felt pressured to act in nude / sex scenes against their will. Because of this actors now have tend to have more opportunity to refuse to do sex scenes if they don't want to. This surely must play a role as well.
Exactly. We live in a society with severe social stigma around sexual content/nudity. Even in the 21st century, or more liberal places like Europe, nakedness or sex are not to be shown as “daily human things” like cooking, for example.
As such, actors and especially actresses are of course averse to it. Not only because they grew up in our society, but because it often leads to the fetishization of their image. Do you want to be recognized for the acting you worked hard to learn, or for the 2 minutes of almost-explicit sex with a random person, being watched on-stage by several middle-aged men? One of this options celebrates your talents and hardwork, while the other puts you on the spot in an uncomfortable position with potential negative repercussions for your career.
As such, actors and especially actresses are of course averse to it. Not only because they grew up in our society, but because it often leads to the fetishization of their image. Do you want to be recognized for the acting you worked hard to learn, or for the 2 minutes of almost-explicit sex with a random person, being watched on-stage by several middle-aged men? One of this options celebrates your talents and hardwork, while the other puts you on the spot in an uncomfortable position with potential negative repercussions for your career.
Movies in general have been in decline for a while and theaters have of course not had a lot of business in the last two years. But even before Covid, a lot of the business was changing and it has more to do with economics than with morals.
A few things stand out:
- DVD sales and rentals are no longer a thing. In the top days of rental videos, and straight to video movies, Sex was a key way to compensate for otherwise mediocre production; that and outrageous action. Preferably both. Also DVD sales were the bulk of movie revenue. So even the stuff that was shown in the cinema was actually optimized for that. With all that gone, it's just a lot less attractive and necessary to spend money on spicing up movies a little as that used to be mostly about beefing up rental and dvd sales.
- A lot of that stuff has now moved to streaming. There are now award winning movies that go straight to Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. And of course streaming services still provide access to plenty of on screen sex. Sex sells and when half your audience is male and the other half has their own needs on this front, basically you get specialized material for both groups. Netflix uses a data driven approach to figuring out what to serve. Apparently, sex sells ... monthly subscriptions.
- We've had the whole me-too movement and a large amount of scandals around abuse of actresses in the movie industry in recent years. So, naturally the cost and risk of on screen sex has gone up a quite a bit. There are ways around this of course.
A few things stand out:
- DVD sales and rentals are no longer a thing. In the top days of rental videos, and straight to video movies, Sex was a key way to compensate for otherwise mediocre production; that and outrageous action. Preferably both. Also DVD sales were the bulk of movie revenue. So even the stuff that was shown in the cinema was actually optimized for that. With all that gone, it's just a lot less attractive and necessary to spend money on spicing up movies a little as that used to be mostly about beefing up rental and dvd sales.
- A lot of that stuff has now moved to streaming. There are now award winning movies that go straight to Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. And of course streaming services still provide access to plenty of on screen sex. Sex sells and when half your audience is male and the other half has their own needs on this front, basically you get specialized material for both groups. Netflix uses a data driven approach to figuring out what to serve. Apparently, sex sells ... monthly subscriptions.
- We've had the whole me-too movement and a large amount of scandals around abuse of actresses in the movie industry in recent years. So, naturally the cost and risk of on screen sex has gone up a quite a bit. There are ways around this of course.
I was watching The Beastmaster on Prime and commented this to my girlfriend as we watched it. It’s a great movie from the 80s that of course has some sex and nudity. Hollywood is completely terrified of sex and nudity now. It alters people’s brains in ways we don’t understand I think. We still hold what we see on the silver screen as a cultural reference point. There’s nothing dirty or wrong about the human body or sex but if you never see it on the big screen you might start thinking that way.
Fortunately we still have lots of violence, death, and torture. Because those are totally ok and normal things to be thinking about.
Ug! Sex and love. that stuff is just too dangerous to let into the public imagination.
Ug! Sex and love. that stuff is just too dangerous to let into the public imagination.
[deleted]
I don't think it's repressed because it's dangerous or immoral. Constant casual sex devalues a monogamous relationship. Many in our culture still place a lot of value on a monogamous relationship, so you see it reflected in media.
I'm not religious and do not care at all about how other's live their lives. But I see value in a monogamous relationship, and see attitudes toward casual sex as a decent indicator in helping me select a partner with the same values. This is not a moral judgement by any means. This is also not saying a monogamous relationship is better or worse.
I'm not religious and do not care at all about how other's live their lives. But I see value in a monogamous relationship, and see attitudes toward casual sex as a decent indicator in helping me select a partner with the same values. This is not a moral judgement by any means. This is also not saying a monogamous relationship is better or worse.
Sex depicted in movies needn’t be casual or promiscuous. Not sure how those got brought in here.
I had suspected it was the opposite: sex is boring now that it’s more normalized than ever.
Once you get a series of BDSM-themed books and a movie that are socially accepted in regular discourse, a sex scene in a movie is just less risqué.
Once you get a series of BDSM-themed books and a movie that are socially accepted in regular discourse, a sex scene in a movie is just less risqué.
I see it as two different things pulling on the human mind in opposite directions, you can find all manner of porn if you try on the internet, yet you never see the "normal" people do it or be nude in a movie anymore. I think this can cause some issues.
Even the 50 Shades sex scenes in the movies were bizarrely tame and Puritan. Like if a pre-teen imagined what sex was like but had never really actually done the deed.
Even the 50 Shades sex scenes in the movies were bizarrely tame and Puritan. Like if a pre-teen imagined what sex was like but had never really actually done the deed.
Somehow we created a society where violence is acceptable to watch but sex is not.
It's okay to watch a human being realistically murder another one YET a penis appearing on screen or a penis entering a vagina/rectum is somehow a mind-blowing event we can only handle in small and censored amounts.
Mostly new life come out of sex while mostly death comes out of violence.
It's okay to watch a human being realistically murder another one YET a penis appearing on screen or a penis entering a vagina/rectum is somehow a mind-blowing event we can only handle in small and censored amounts.
Mostly new life come out of sex while mostly death comes out of violence.
> It's okay to watch a human being realistically murder another one
Is it? Most movies are unrealistic with their plots. I wouldn't call most action movies "a human being realistically murder another one", they are stories, not real, so the violence is okay because it's not real.
> Mostly new life come out of sex while mostly death comes out of violence.
I think that's an oversimplification. You can use violence to protect people.
Is it? Most movies are unrealistic with their plots. I wouldn't call most action movies "a human being realistically murder another one", they are stories, not real, so the violence is okay because it's not real.
> Mostly new life come out of sex while mostly death comes out of violence.
I think that's an oversimplification. You can use violence to protect people.
Well is fairly normal to see someone being shot in a movie. That is a realistic way to die. An unrealistic way to die to me is someone saying the Avada Kedavra curse in Harry Potter.
Even action movies for kids are relatively realistic in the way someone dies. Just to put things in perspective, think about the amount of blood you see in movies versus the amount of semen seen in movies.
But let's skip movies for kids. Let's talk about adult movies:
No Country for Old Men Rated R 17+: the villain strangles a policeman from behind. That scene is as realistic as they come. It haunts my dreams.
> You can use violence to protect people.
You can also avoid a fight by de-escalating or just walk-away which is the best option in real life but is barely portraited in movies.
> You can use violence to protect people.
You can also avoid a fight by de-escalating or just walk-away which is the best option in real life but is barely portraited in movies.
It is realistic to die by getting shot, but most fights where people get shot that you see in movies are unrealistic, that was my point.
The violence often relates to the plot, and drives the story forward. The sex scenes generally add nothing.
Movies are supposed to be SHOW DON'T TELL.
Sex for many people is the culmination of love and many other feelings. You are depriving the audience the view of one of the most fundamental events of human life.
Maybe I am strange, but while I am a heavily sexual person IRL, I never quite got the point of those long sex scenes in movies. On the contrary, always found it gratuitous and slightly annoying.
Sex scenes annoy me too. It may be that I've seen too much porn with real sex which makes movie sex scenes feel too simulated.
I always assumed that sex scenes were there to help couples have sex especially when they are older.
We are in our 40s, it takes a lot to get in mood for sex. We don't watch porn or actually look for ways to get in the mood. We plan to have sex after date nights but those are rare with young kids in the house.
Over last few years, most of sex happened when we were watching a "real" movie with a good sex scene/s. I understand why superhero movie should not have sex scenes but we need more adult movies with a good stories. There is demand for it. My wife's book club even recommends steamy movies to watch with your partner, unfortunately, some of those are really cheesy like 365 Days.
We are in our 40s, it takes a lot to get in mood for sex. We don't watch porn or actually look for ways to get in the mood. We plan to have sex after date nights but those are rare with young kids in the house.
Over last few years, most of sex happened when we were watching a "real" movie with a good sex scene/s. I understand why superhero movie should not have sex scenes but we need more adult movies with a good stories. There is demand for it. My wife's book club even recommends steamy movies to watch with your partner, unfortunately, some of those are really cheesy like 365 Days.
It's so easy to see female breasts online that you won't get horny men to go out of their way to see your mediocre film because it features breasts. Given those facts you are possibly better off pretending like you are an artist with integrity and not someone trying to rope people in with gratuitous nudity.
That said, HBO shows have lots of sex so I suspect the premise of the article is generally false.
That said, HBO shows have lots of sex so I suspect the premise of the article is generally false.
Dumbed down to superhero-movie plateau, PG rating for families, publishing in the PRC.
Money.
Money.
Where did you get that idea? The proportion of films rated R and also PG-13 has been steady over the past 15 years. The proportion of films rated PG has increased, but at the expense of G. https://m.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings
Those ratings are weird - but the Chinese basically hacking the US cultural export thing is a big influence. Many movies have subtle elements that are present for the purposes of sucking up to the PRC.
That’s definitely true - and many of the elements are not even subtle at all. But I don’t think that explains the sex scenes, as those could be easily cut for Chinese releases.
[deleted](1)
Increasingly in Hollywood, the creative assets for movies are being produced before the scripts are even written. So e.g. for a movie that they know will have a fight scene, they just go in and capture a bunch of different sequences with different outcomes. Anyway it could be kind of weird to have the same done with sex scenes.
I would also love to hear more about this. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who work in film and TV and I've never heard of this.
Can you share any links?
Can you share any links?
That’s fascinating. Can you share some more information about this process, where filming happens before the script is done?
It seems to be that there might be a parallel with software dev practices, ie waterfall model (write script, shoot script, edit film) and a more lean/agile model (writing, shooting and editing in whatever order it takes to build up the film)
It seems to be that there might be a parallel with software dev practices, ie waterfall model (write script, shoot script, edit film) and a more lean/agile model (writing, shooting and editing in whatever order it takes to build up the film)
Message #3 in this email thread:
https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/8SE7gM0xRkGI2taSIFBJhw/rensa-g...
https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/8SE7gM0xRkGI2taSIFBJhw/rensa-g...
> Black Widow was fully created with motion capture ("pre-visualization") before a script was even written.
That sounds very unlikely and I'd need a better citation. And pre-visualization doesn't really mean what they seem to be using it to mean here.
Edit: It seems like this is you trying to promote your Hollywood startup, rather than an accurate assessment of how things are currently done in Hollywood.
That sounds very unlikely and I'd need a better citation. And pre-visualization doesn't really mean what they seem to be using it to mean here.
Edit: It seems like this is you trying to promote your Hollywood startup, rather than an accurate assessment of how things are currently done in Hollywood.
"It seems like this is you trying to promote your Hollywood startup"
Not my startup, I don't have any connection to them other than via my co-founder. I do run FWD:Everyone though.
Not my startup, I don't have any connection to them other than via my co-founder. I do run FWD:Everyone though.
Apologies. It seems like your link is your co-founder trying to promote his Hollywood startup, rather than an accurate assessment of how things are currently done in Hollywood.
I mean he is promoting the startup, it's an investor pitch. I don't read what he's saying as being inaccurate though.
It's an obviously absurd claim.
It literally says in the video I linked to that they're using the pre-vis to determine what the plot should be. If that's possible, then I don't see anything even remotely absurd about the idea of creating a market to license pre-vis.
Now obviously you're not going to be able to user Spider-Man pre-vis if you're making something like Schindler's List, but exploring and facilitating different licensing models seems absolutely worth doing.
Now obviously you're not going to be able to user Spider-Man pre-vis if you're making something like Schindler's List, but exploring and facilitating different licensing models seems absolutely worth doing.
Whatever. Black Widow was not "fully created with motion capture before a script was even written." Obviously.
So your reference is something else you wrote?
I'd love to see some other references if have any.
It's a bold claim (from the linked article) to say that:
> Black Widow was fully created with motion capture ("pre-visualization") before a script was even written
I'd love to see some other references if have any.
It's a bold claim (from the linked article) to say that:
> Black Widow was fully created with motion capture ("pre-visualization") before a script was even written
> So your reference is something else you wrote?
I didn't write it, that's my co-founder.
And plus there is a full article about it here if you just Google it: https://www.insider.com/marvel-plans-movies-action-scenes-ye...
"While previs used to be used for just one or two tricky action scenes, Marvel has embraced the approach of visualizing entire movies, including quieter beats and dialogue scenes."
"The first visualizations of a Marvel film will often begin before the script's fully finished."
"Occasionally, rough previs might be underway even before the cinematographer or director has signed on to the project, a practice that can be controversial in Hollywood. Director Lucrecia Martel said she turned down the offer to direct the upcoming "Black Widow" movie after Marvel told her not to worry about the action sequences."
I didn't write it, that's my co-founder.
And plus there is a full article about it here if you just Google it: https://www.insider.com/marvel-plans-movies-action-scenes-ye...
"While previs used to be used for just one or two tricky action scenes, Marvel has embraced the approach of visualizing entire movies, including quieter beats and dialogue scenes."
"The first visualizations of a Marvel film will often begin before the script's fully finished."
"Occasionally, rough previs might be underway even before the cinematographer or director has signed on to the project, a practice that can be controversial in Hollywood. Director Lucrecia Martel said she turned down the offer to direct the upcoming "Black Widow" movie after Marvel told her not to worry about the action sequences."
Ok sure..
"Before a script is fully finished" is a long way from "before a script was even written".
Script rewrites happen throughout the whole process, even well into post-production sometimes (with re-shoots etc)..
That's not at all the same thing as "before a script is written".
"Before a script is fully finished" is a long way from "before a script was even written".
Script rewrites happen throughout the whole process, even well into post-production sometimes (with re-shoots etc)..
That's not at all the same thing as "before a script is written".
[deleted]
Does sex scene even sell a movie these days, the internet is saturated with porn.
When I grew up as 90s kiddy porn was hard to get by no one had acceptable internet.
Porn tv channels were all scrambled to pretty much white noise with sometimes a glimpse of a boob and a nipple.
We would get excited if a movie had like a nip slip in early puberty. After like 2004 almost everybody had decent internet and access to porn. Only exciting thing was maybe a leaked celeb sex tape.
I cannot imaging gen x or z even getting excited about a nip slip or boobs in a movie.
We would get excited if a movie had like a nip slip in early puberty. After like 2004 almost everybody had decent internet and access to porn. Only exciting thing was maybe a leaked celeb sex tape.
I cannot imaging gen x or z even getting excited about a nip slip or boobs in a movie.
It's a good idea to target your product to the sensibilities of your consumer.
American Millenials and Gen Z are having less sex than the generations before them.
They've also grown up with frequent mass school shootings and the "tactical", "everyday carry", amateur-soldier, military worship culture that really got rolling after 9/11.
No wonder sex scenes squick them out -- it's a world that's distant, unfamiliar, and uncomfortable for them.
Violence, though? Pile it on. Now you're speaking their language.
American Millenials and Gen Z are having less sex than the generations before them.
They've also grown up with frequent mass school shootings and the "tactical", "everyday carry", amateur-soldier, military worship culture that really got rolling after 9/11.
No wonder sex scenes squick them out -- it's a world that's distant, unfamiliar, and uncomfortable for them.
Violence, though? Pile it on. Now you're speaking their language.
There are plenty of sex scenes on cable/streaming though. It is just the big Hollywood blockbusters which need to play it safe by alienating as few demographics as possible.
[deleted]
I'll give the dissenting opinion: not every story needs to be a love story, unless the movie is about sex it shouldn't have a sex scene. It was infuriating how "love story" and "sex scene" were mandatory tick boxes on every single movie in the 80s and 90s, regardless of if the plot called for it or not.
What looks eerie to me is that watching TV series becomes more and more like simply watching others people live their lives: them having sex; sleeping; talking while in bed; having breakfast; brushing their teeth; sitting on a toilet… (And, these days, all of that without letting the phones out of their hands, of course.)
There's actually one really interesting point in here: Zoomers are incredibly "puritanical" and anti-sex. It seems extremely weird that one of the most liberal generations ever is so sex negative.
I don't think that was the point of the article. The point of the article was that they are against sex on camera unless there is a good reason for it. The article tried to explain it with feminism, which could be a cause.
I don't buy this. A gen-X friend returned to college to change careers, and if anything sex and sexuality are much more present than when he was at the same school 20+ years ago.
> There's actually one really interesting point in here: Zoomers are incredibly "puritanical" and anti-sex.
It might depend on the country. I find them way more liberals than my generation. I mean, maybe there is more backroom in nightclub now than 10 years ago (or less?), but i've witnessed more public sex people in 2017-2019 than i ever did before. We might need data on this. Also, i have the impression that my generation restarted the "menage a trois" that i thought disapeared in the late 70s, but that might be because i became close to a LGBTQ+ community in my mid-20s that was way less impressed by sex than i was.
It might depend on the country. I find them way more liberals than my generation. I mean, maybe there is more backroom in nightclub now than 10 years ago (or less?), but i've witnessed more public sex people in 2017-2019 than i ever did before. We might need data on this. Also, i have the impression that my generation restarted the "menage a trois" that i thought disapeared in the late 70s, but that might be because i became close to a LGBTQ+ community in my mid-20s that was way less impressed by sex than i was.
Any data to back up the claim about zoomers?
I am a zoomer and none of the people around my age I know are anti-sex. If anything, we are all for (safe) sex without the constraints of social pressure/puritan morality.
I am a zoomer and none of the people around my age I know are anti-sex. If anything, we are all for (safe) sex without the constraints of social pressure/puritan morality.
It’s a twitter thing, which probably points to sec negative zoom era being more vocal perhaps.
It always makes me laugh that dead bodies are a common vision on US media, but a nipple is something that makes people throw up their hands in horror.
They have not gone anywhere, not by any measure. You just need to go to the right place in the store. Mainstream (i.e. non-indie) movies are packaged food - they come with a long list of nutrition facts and warnings. This is industry, not art, we are talking about here.
One answer to this is "Bridgerton"; see also Game of Thrones. Sex certainly hasn't vanished frim media in general, or even HBO.
GoT is explicitly mentioned and is used to make the author’s point.
Sex is what sells, so maybe by limiting the supply they just want to prevent it from becoming a cheap commodity?
Anyone know why piholes default config has this site on the deny list?
I would be surprised if this list is on a default config, but it seems to be on this fake news list: https://github.com/Entree3k/Pi-hole-Block-List/blob/master/F...
Yes yer right I did add that. Thanks
My PiHole doesn’t block this site and I didn’t fiddle much with the config
Guessing the word beacon in the url?
Never go full Scunthorpe etc.
Never go full Scunthorpe etc.
Art imitates life
> What did we think would happen when we spent decades screaming about The Male Gaze and how film's treatment of women inherently objectifies them
This is not true, the affinity of latest generations for postmodern asexuality is a preference, not catechism
> What did we think would happen when we spent decades screaming about The Male Gaze and how film's treatment of women inherently objectifies them
This is not true, the affinity of latest generations for postmodern asexuality is a preference, not catechism
I thought the male gaze was more about unnecessary panning on ass/tits in a scene that has nothing to do with sex, not even to reflect the protagonist falling in love or feeling lust for the person. And honestly I always found those annoying.
You say that with confidence. Do you have research to share?
what, that young people are having less sex ? i think it's well documented https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/2020...
Right-wingers complaining about there not being enough "sex" scenes in entertainment are so pathetic.
The fact is there are are MORE sex scenes now than there ever were in the 80s and 90s, it's just that they've migrated more to streaming TV series that are too sophisticated for right-wingers to be viewing them en masse.
Not to mention, of course, that there's also about 100x the availability of porn now, and Washington Free Beacon readers are no doubt consuming a lot of that, just like almost all of us are.
So really, this piece doesn't pass the laugh test, just like most right-wing social commentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon
The fact is there are are MORE sex scenes now than there ever were in the 80s and 90s, it's just that they've migrated more to streaming TV series that are too sophisticated for right-wingers to be viewing them en masse.
Not to mention, of course, that there's also about 100x the availability of porn now, and Washington Free Beacon readers are no doubt consuming a lot of that, just like almost all of us are.
So really, this piece doesn't pass the laugh test, just like most right-wing social commentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon
> they've migrated more to streaming TV series that are too sophisticated for right-wingers to be viewing them en masse.
A quick overview didn’t turn it up, but I recall a recent study that showed that people who self-identified as “right wing”, when asked to describe the beliefs of the “left wing”, were significantly more accurate than their “left wing” peers asked to describe “right wing” beliefs.
Your comment strikes me as exactly this sort of fallacy. It seems that you have built up a caricature that you believe to be true.
A quick overview didn’t turn it up, but I recall a recent study that showed that people who self-identified as “right wing”, when asked to describe the beliefs of the “left wing”, were significantly more accurate than their “left wing” peers asked to describe “right wing” beliefs.
Your comment strikes me as exactly this sort of fallacy. It seems that you have built up a caricature that you believe to be true.
Feel free to actually test my knowledge of right-wing beliefs at your leisure. But until you have done so, kindly stick to the topic instead of incorrectly speculating about what I supposedly "believe".
Link: https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/
Discussion (674 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26381377