Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elwood731
As I've noted earlier, I am not even against nudity in films. I just think for the most part it can be avoided and probably 90% ore more of the time when it is there it's simply there for titilation. Here's an example of where it WAS needed--the Terminator films. They travel through time and only things cover in flesh make it so they lose their clothes. There's really no other way to show that happening to show some nudity, but really all three films did it tastefully without having to zoom in on Arnold's penis. Compare that to the example Moogle was ranting about concerning a woman in bed after sex with the covers pulled up. You know she just had sex. What's the point of showing her breasts? Can you reason any? The truth is that it wouldn't be that odd for her to be under the covers, or pulled up against the man (also hdiing her breasts). To have her simply lying on her back with her breasts exposed is fairly pointless. It doesn't contribute to the story in any fashion. It's done to show tits.
|
There are films like "The Lover" that are a study and meditation of sex that require the nudity and then there are those films that throw nudity in under the guise of making it more "real," which, in my opinion, is BS.
Great post Elwood.
-PH