DominicCobb

So this is apparently set seven years after ROTJ with all new characters and etc.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I guess, but everyone does their jobs to further themselves. They may think that it’s degrading, but I think taking calls or working customer service is about fifty times more degrading but us commoners do it because we don’t want to starve to death.

Just because you don’t think it’s potentially degrading and objectifying doesn’t mean it isn’t. And agin you’re implying all actors aren’t “commoners” which is fucking ridiculous.

There are common actors but they still have a better job than most people. Pretending to be happy in order to please customers or being nice to mean people and just praying to get tipped is so fucking degrading that it makes me sick. Do I have to be offended by restaurants and stores and places like that? No. Is anyone else offended on their behalf. Not really. I think this nudity issue is less degrading than what most people are subjected to in their jobs but for some reason this one is supposed to be more exciting and more outrageous than others, but I’m not buying it.

Most actors go months without work and are forced to do the exact kind of jobs you mention.

When it comes to nudity being degrading, I feel like we’ve drifted from the point here. The issue is objectification. Art has an impact on the mindsets of people who consume it. Women are often objectified in media via nudity. Whether that objectification is made by a man or woman doesn’t matter. The fact that women “agree” to do nude scenes does not absolve those scenes of any objectification, because that’s not how that fucking works.

moviefreakedmind said:

I guess, but everyone does their jobs to further themselves. They may think that it’s degrading, but I think taking calls or working customer service is about fifty times more degrading but us commoners do it because we don’t want to starve to death.

Just because you don’t think it’s potentially degrading and objectifying doesn’t mean it isn’t. And agin you’re implying all actors aren’t “commoners” which is fucking ridiculous.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think someone should be opposed to appearing nude in a big blockbuster film if they want to be a big actor. I’ve done far more degrading jobs than appearing nude in a movie.

So you agree it can be degrading and that they might only make the choice because it’s helping their career and not because they’re “okay” with being objectified?

moviefreakedmind said:

They all have the ability to choose and they’re more privileged than me because they have a better job and get to create things for a living.

Not if they never get hired.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think my big disconnect is actually that I just can’t accept that I need to be offended that some of the most privileged people on Earth (actors) are getting paid to do things that I don’t see as that big of a deal. I’ve complained before about how offended I get when the .01% expects us plebs to join their causes while still dealing with all the other shit that we have to deal with that they’re completely ignorant of.

The fact that you think all actors are privelged proves how little you understand about the issue. Also whether or not a nude scene will be portrayed in an objectifying way is not really something the actors have much power over.

They’re more privileged than I am. And they have the power to appear in the scene or not.

Not all of them. In fact, not most of them.

moviefreakedmind said:

I think my big disconnect is actually that I just can’t accept that I need to be offended that some of the most privileged people on Earth (actors) are getting paid to do things that I don’t see as that big of a deal. I’ve complained before about how offended I get when the .01% expects us plebs to join their causes while still dealing with all the other shit that we have to deal with that they’re completely ignorant of.

The fact that you think all actors are privelged proves how little you understand about the issue. Also whether or not a nude scene will be portrayed in an objectifying way is not really something the actors have much power over.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

It shouldn’t, although it’s important to note that typically that movement refers to women deciding for themselves to go shirtless, whereas in film/TV it’s often all males making those decisions (which is where the objectification issue can arise).

Last I heard, actors choose which roles they take. I criticized situations where the subject was mistreated, but apparently almost all female nudity is an offense to some moviegoers.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

It shouldn’t, although it’s important to note that typically that movement refers to women deciding for themselves to go shirtless, whereas in film/TV it’s often all males making those decisions (which is where the objectification issue can arise).

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t know what movies you guys are watching, but there isn’t a lack of male nudity, partial or otherwise, in cinema.

What on earth are you talking about?

I mean are you talking about the occasional ass shot? There’s still far more female ass shots, and then don’t even get me started on frontal nudity. How many dicks have you seen recently?

A fair amount. In terms of frontal nudity, there’s definitely more shirtless males than females.

Shirtless males doesn’t count.

Why?

Because the society we live in considers a shirtless female nude and a shirtless male not.

The society we live in is stupid.

I don’t disagree.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t know what movies you guys are watching, but there isn’t a lack of male nudity, partial or otherwise, in cinema.

What on earth are you talking about?

I mean are you talking about the occasional ass shot? There’s still far more female ass shots, and then don’t even get me started on frontal nudity. How many dicks have you seen recently?

A fair amount. In terms of frontal nudity, there’s definitely more shirtless males than females.

Shirtless males doesn’t count.

Why?

Because the society we live in considers a shirtless female nude and a shirtless male not.

snooker said:

Nudity in film and TV makes me uncomfortable. I get why it’s there, but that doesn’t stop me from wincing.

When I see it it’s usually the writers trying to make something that pretentious people will call ‘art’.

“Pretentious” is a word that is far too overused/misused.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t know what movies you guys are watching, but there isn’t a lack of male nudity, partial or otherwise, in cinema.

What on earth are you talking about?

I mean are you talking about the occasional ass shot? There’s still far more female ass shots, and then don’t even get me started on frontal nudity. How many dicks have you seen recently?

A fair amount. In terms of frontal nudity, there’s definitely more shirtless males than females.

Shirtless males doesn’t count. If you honestly think the there isn’t a disparity you’re fucking nuts.

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t understand why anyone is bothered by nudity in 99% of instances.

Do you know any women? Any women who are sick of the endless bombardment of naked or essentially naked women in all different circumstances over and over and over, no matter if there’s any reason for it or not? Any women who are sick of the constant objectification of women and mistreatment of women?

I do.

Bring balance to the buff. Show more naked men.

Yep.

Possessed said:

I hate nudity in almost any instance unless it’s in person or im actually watching porn. It doesn’t offend me, but it always brings me out of the movie.

That’s weird. You’re weird.

TV’s Frink said:

I give up, you guys have your opinion on it and I have mine. The scene could have played just as convincingly without those specific shots.

The impact wouldn’t have been the same.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Given the scene, definitely not uninhibitedness or seediness. Possibly innocence or vulnerability, but the point is you can still communicate that quite easily without showing the actual body parts, and showing the actual body parts multiple times.

It often doesn’t communicate it as well, or as viscerally.

STFY

Does that stand for “Suck that, fuck you”?

Yes.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Given the scene, definitely not uninhibitedness or seediness. Possibly innocence or vulnerability, but the point is you can still communicate that quite easily without showing the actual body parts, and showing the actual body parts multiple times.

It often doesn’t communicate it as well, or as viscerally.

STFY

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

^That.

Tell me how that scene needed it.

I can think of at least two pretty good reasons.

There is a difference between showing a naked woman and showing nudity. Unless I missed something that would spoil the upcoming hour-and-a-half, can you explain why the later was necessary, rather than the former?

There is a certain effect that it conveys. It’s in your face. It’s an uncomfortable scene for the character and it’s an uncomfortable scene to watch and the nudity is part of that. In that way, you sympathize with her and her exposure and exploitation (and, ultimately murder). It’s not sexual in any way. It’s gross, and that’s the point.

TV’s Frink said:

^That.

Tell me how that scene needed it.

I can think of at least two pretty good reasons.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’d like it better if it wasn’t photoshopped. Neat idea though.

Is it?

yeah, they covered up the actual bookend brace that holds the books up

actually looking at it again, it’s possible that the first book is closed around the brace

Exactly.

TV’s Frink said:

I’d like it better if it wasn’t photoshopped. Neat idea though.

Is it?

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

It’s basically like grouping “people of color” together. They all have different experiences but the general goal is the same (tolerance, acceptance, etc).

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

The same thing with trans actors goes for disabled people too.

The sexual orientation thing isn’t really as pressing a concern (as you do see gay actors play straight roles fairly often) but I do think it’s fair in general that people are somewhat miffed when non-hetero characters are played by hetero actors, only because gay characters are still somewhat rare.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve always wondered why trans folk are then lumped into LGBT since it’s such a different thing. Not that I have a problem with it, I’m just curious.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. It’s all about sex/gender. The “norm” is cis male/female relationships. Whether you’re homosexual or transgender, you’re breaking gender “norms.”

I think they’re too very different issues. Other than life in the closet, the experiences seem completely different to me.

They are, but I don’t think lumping them in one acronym implies they aren’t.