logo Sign In

Post #523801

Author
xhonzi
Parent topic
What's with Roger Ebert and... sex... recently?
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/523801/action/topic#523801
Date created
17-Aug-2011, 12:45 PM

TV's Frink said:

Did he forget that movies are often cut down to (just barely) PG-13 to make more money?

I don't think so.  He blames the PG-13 nature of the movie for depriving him of the boobs.  I think he literally thinks: "Damn!  This movie would have the boobs in it if it weren't PG-13!  Damn you PG-13!"

He can also find plenty of boobs on the internet.  Hell, he can probably find pictures where he has boobs on the internet.

Hence why I said famous boobs in the OP.

Which also leads me to this thought, which might be better suited for another thread (on another site, but I digress)... but does nudity/seeing a sex scene somehow make the relationship deeper or more intimate?  (In a movie.  I, of course, acknowledge the need for nudity in real relationships. :) )  I've always been perfectly satisfied with a little saxophone music telling me all I need to know.  It tells me what's happened to the characters individually and what's changed in their relationship.  I don't need to see any more than that.  Just like I don't need to see these people on the crapper.

Watchmen, I'm looking at you.  (for the explicit sex scenes, not the crapper scenes)