Quote:
|
Originally Posted by piratehunter
That's what I'm saying. At what point are you selling too much? Is better box office really worth a scene you may regret later?
|
You're talking about two different financial perspectives. From a revenue generation standpoint,
anything that can generate revenue is a good thing. Corporations (including the studios) want to maximize profit and to do so, they need to rake in the cash.
From an income perspective, if the actor can get paid more for doing the scene, it might be worth it to satisfy their personal financial wants or needs.
Quote:
Maybe to some, but to an extent I think it's a myth that nudity will make for better bank.
Look at Domino. The nude scene did not help the film because it didn't do that well, but Pride and Prejudice did very well given its release scope and there was barely even kissing.
|
I think this is a poor comparison, since Kiera Knightly isn't
that hot and the nude scene was basically her baring her breasts, which is no big deal these days. Halle Berry has done it (and she's arguably much hotter than Ms Knightly) and others have done it. Replace Kiera Knightly with Jessica Alba and we might be having a different discussion.
Additionally, the nature of the nudity must be considered as well.
Lastly, it's not the nudity itself that leads to potential increased revenue as much as it's the interest generated in seeing someone people admire (word loosely used) sans clothes and the controversy the nudity generates. As long as people go to see what the hub-bub is about regarding some nude scene, the studios love it since you're spending money.
Quote:
|
I think that, at times, pressure is put on filmmakers to "show some skin" because they think it'll draw a crowd.
|
I agree. The same goes to some actors as well.
Peace...