Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reapersaurus
You just went WAY, WAY, WAY out there.
You are saying that there is a difference in wank-ability between stills of a movie where the nudity was gratuitous, and when the nudity is called-for in the context of the film.
As far as the internet is concerned, a naked still is a naked still, man - you know this! If a guy's gonna rub one out, you know he doesn't give a shit whether the nudity came from an art-house favorite, or a low-rent schlock-fest.
|
What are you talking about? When did I say that a still from a non gratuitous film was any different from a still from a gratuitous one? Read the post again. That’s statement has to do with the actors feelings on the nude scene.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reapersaurus
I SO beg to differ, it's not even funny.
Jessica's so smoking hot, her nudity would make ANY movie better.
But disregarding that Fact-of-the-Universe, a gritty movie like Sin City featuring a celebrated STRIPPER in the seediest city around, who DOESN'T TAKE HER CLOTHES OFF is one of the silliest over-the-top rationalizations because of the actress I can imagine.
|
Well, fell free to disagree, but I don’t feel Sin City would have been any better with the nudity. And as we discussed about, it would have most likely become a distraction from the innovation of the film.
-PH