that hits very close to home because I feel, legit, like a nobody. like I could disappear and very few people would notice.
i think. or at least i tell myself. this is the case for many people and it is okay. because you're definitely a somebody. maybe not touching the world on the scope you'd like but you can't deny that there's a shark there.
+1
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Also Jacob, you owe me a Hong Kong Action movie style.
0
Options
ChelleYeahMrs. LudiousLiving it up in Cinderella's CastleRegistered Userregular
though i think the makeup artist might have layered it with something else. there was an article i read about it somewhere.
I feel like porn is going to bleed over into Hollywood at some point
Like in the year 2050 all James Bond movies will have hardcore sex scenes
i mean these days your average person has watched 400,000 sex acts being performed online and so how long will it be before filmmakers start going hey i like hollywood cinema and hey i also like seeing private parts go into other private parts I should combine these 2 things
honestly at this point the only real hold-out is theatrical adherence to the MPAA, and the way it's fucked up standards bleed over into other things that don't even really need to abide by them (like HBO?)
for example, the MPAA hates erect penises. You cannot show them in film or you get an auto NC-17, which is the "porn rating" and pretty much the death knell to wide distribution in America (more and more movies are shaking their hard cock at the MPAA and just manually doing small distribution anyway so whatever)
like, Jonah Hill's cock that appears when he jerks off in Wolf of Wall Street? It's a fake rubber cock. Not just because maybe Jonah Hill didn't want his exposed hard cock on screen for real (I don't know, maybe, maybe not) but because it let the film keep an R rating instead of the dreaded NC-17 because it's not a real hard cock.
Soft cocks are okay though, even if they're like literally post-coitus and no healthy man should be deflating that quickly. Because the MPAA is a weirdly patriarchal organization that is threatened by a hard cock but not by a soft one.
You also can't show vaginal penetration, like things (including wieners) actually going into a lady's vagina. This includes dicks, but also includes non-dick objects like dildos. This is why Stanley Kubrick had to digitally add extra people to an orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut that would've literally shown Tom Cruise stickin' it to Nicole Kidman (his wife at the time). There were just like, digitally added people obscuring parts that just made it okay enough for the MPAA, because you can imply that a woman is gettin' her cooter rootered, you just can't show it.
Same thing with ejaculate. You can show semen, and you can show people gettin' spooged on, but you can't show spooge comin' out of a wiener (see also: rule concerning hard dicks)
The MPAA is really fucked up about this shit, and so long as their standards remain fucked up and as long as theaters keep adhering to those fucked up standards, films will have to keep doing it too, if they want wide distribution
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
It would also help if the MPAA wasn't wildly inconsistent. And just weird. Like The Hills Have Eyes 2 had it's first poster rejected because it showed a woman bounding a burlap sack with her hand clawing at the ground. The approved poster also shows a woman being dragged but her feet are exposed this time.
I feel like porn is going to bleed over into Hollywood at some point
Like in the year 2050 all James Bond movies will have hardcore sex scenes
i mean these days your average person has watched 400,000 sex acts being performed online and so how long will it be before filmmakers start going hey i like hollywood cinema and hey i also like seeing private parts go into other private parts I should combine these 2 things
this has been tried a couple of times!
in the 70s there was a big movement on both sides (from the Hollywood and the porn side) to blur the lines between Hollywood moviemaking and pornography, and it gave us some pretty interesting results. I mean, you have a giant fiasco like Bob Guccione's Caligula movie, which had this fantastic cast of Royal Shakespeareians rubbing elbows (so to speak) with Penthouse Pets, and that was famously terrible, but on the other hand you got stuff like the famously sexually explicit scene between the married couple in Nicholas Roeg's horror movie Don't Look Now.
And as you probably know from Boogie Nights, at the same time, porn producers were trying to jazz up their movies with stabs (however sad or shabby) at storytelling and character development. And there were even a few gems from that side, like Russ Meyer's movies, which now enjoy a reputation as kitsch classics or a species of outsider art.
VHS killed that movement dead from the porn side. Videotape is cruder and cheaper-looking but you can shoot it with a camera guy and a sound guy and go pretty much anywhere, even outdoors, instead of being confined to a studio surrounded by lights and equipment. The nature of the medium discouraged storytelling but rewarded pornongraphers who just got in and shot their footage cheaply and efficiently, guerilla-style, without a lot of muss and fuss.
But I don't know why Hollywood got so much more squeamish about sex. Some people blame the movement to PG (or later, PG-13) blockbusters that started in the late 70s with Jaws. Other people blame the 80s turn to conservatism and the Moral Majority and all that - but even in countries that are comparatively more liberal, it's not like they are cranking out hundreds of "Blue is the Warmest Color"s every year. So I don't know, really.
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
I feel like porn is going to bleed over into Hollywood at some point
Like in the year 2050 all James Bond movies will have hardcore sex scenes
i mean these days your average person has watched 400,000 sex acts being performed online and so how long will it be before filmmakers start going hey i like hollywood cinema and hey i also like seeing private parts go into other private parts I should combine these 2 things
this has been tried a couple of times!
in the 70s there was a big movement on both sides (from the Hollywood and the porn side) to blur the lines between Hollywood moviemaking and pornography, and it gave us some pretty interesting results. I mean, you have a giant fiasco like Bob Guccione's Caligula movie, which had this fantastic cast of Royal Shakespeareians rubbing elbows (so to speak) with Penthouse Pets, and that was famously terrible, but on the other hand you got stuff like the famously sexually explicit scene between the married couple in Nicholas Roeg's horror movie Don't Look Now.
And as you probably know from Boogie Nights, at the same time, porn producers were trying to jazz up their movies with stabs (however sad or shabby) at storytelling and character development. And there were even a few gems from that side, like Russ Meyer's movies, which now enjoy a reputation as kitsch classics or a species of outsider art.
VHS killed that movement dead from the porn side. Videotape is cruder and cheaper-looking but you can shoot it with a camera guy and a sound guy and go pretty much anywhere, even outdoors, instead of being confined to a studio surrounded by lights and equipment. The nature of the medium discouraged storytelling but rewarded pornongraphers who just got in and shot their footage cheaply and efficiently, guerilla-style, without a lot of muss and fuss.
But I don't know why Hollywood got so much more squeamish about sex. Some people blame the movement to PG (or later, PG-13) blockbusters that started in the late 70s with Jaws. Other people blame the 80s turn to conservatism and the Moral Majority and all that - but even in countries that are comparatively more liberal, it's not like they are cranking out hundreds of "Blue is the Warmest Color"s every year. So I don't know, really.
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
i think lindsey lohan is cinematic poison at this point in her career
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
Bad example. Haven't seen it but what I have heard wasn't good. It did give us a great article about how it was made and they need to make that shit into a movie, I'd watch it.
I feel like porn is going to bleed over into Hollywood at some point
Like in the year 2050 all James Bond movies will have hardcore sex scenes
i mean these days your average person has watched 400,000 sex acts being performed online and so how long will it be before filmmakers start going hey i like hollywood cinema and hey i also like seeing private parts go into other private parts I should combine these 2 things
this has been tried a couple of times!
in the 70s there was a big movement on both sides (from the Hollywood and the porn side) to blur the lines between Hollywood moviemaking and pornography, and it gave us some pretty interesting results. I mean, you have a giant fiasco like Bob Guccione's Caligula movie, which had this fantastic cast of Royal Shakespeareians rubbing elbows (so to speak) with Penthouse Pets, and that was famously terrible, but on the other hand you got stuff like the famously sexually explicit scene between the married couple in Nicholas Roeg's horror movie Don't Look Now.
And as you probably know from Boogie Nights, at the same time, porn producers were trying to jazz up their movies with stabs (however sad or shabby) at storytelling and character development. And there were even a few gems from that side, like Russ Meyer's movies, which now enjoy a reputation as kitsch classics or a species of outsider art.
VHS killed that movement dead from the porn side. Videotape is cruder and cheaper-looking but you can shoot it with a camera guy and a sound guy and go pretty much anywhere, even outdoors, instead of being confined to a studio surrounded by lights and equipment. The nature of the medium discouraged storytelling but rewarded pornongraphers who just got in and shot their footage cheaply and efficiently, guerilla-style, without a lot of muss and fuss.
But I don't know why Hollywood got so much more squeamish about sex. Some people blame the movement to PG (or later, PG-13) blockbusters that started in the late 70s with Jaws. Other people blame the 80s turn to conservatism and the Moral Majority and all that - but even in countries that are comparatively more liberal, it's not like they are cranking out hundreds of "Blue is the Warmest Color"s every year. So I don't know, really.
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
It gets kinda weird and it's less about the moral majority then the legal issue for them. If I get my film rated by the MPAA then they agree that if someone goes after me for violating obscenity laws, then they are going to involve themselves heavily in my legal defense. Which is a pretty big hammer to have on your side if you're going against some county DA. So you tend to see spikes in tightening the rules during periods where obscenity charges are more likely.
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
Bad example. Haven't seen it but what I have heard wasn't good. However, it did give us a great article about how it was made and they need to make that shit into a movie, I'd watch it.
i think there will be more and more films that just go "Fuck you, MPAA" though, with regards to distribution and being rated and all that
digital delivery as a content distribution method, for example, and nowadays with email and social networking and stuff it's easier for scrappier guys to get wider distribution to locations that don't give a fuck about MPAA ratings or will happily show NC-17 films that they know aren't actually porn
when I lived in Toronto it was really easy for me to find theaters that showed a LOT of limited release films, many of which were not rated by the MPAA. These weren't even necessarily indie joints. Some of them were being done by subsidiaries of larger studios and stuff, they were just getting limited distribution because they weren't going to play ball with the MPAA's rating system or they were saying fuck it to getting a NC-17 and the studio and the distributor were standing by the film as is.
but that was Toronto, being something of a hub with TIFF and all
nonetheless, it's easier nowadays for filmmakers in that regard and I think that's a market that will grow
whether that will ever translate into James Bond blowing a load on a girl's face in a summer blockbuster, I am pretty skeptical.
They didn't really make it anymore interesting, either.
this is something that @surrealitycheck and I have talked about re: sex in movies
I think sometimes a frank depiction of sexuality is important for like character reasons or larger political reasons but it can also just be a big fucking (haha) waste of time that adds very little to the experience
The sex scenes were not what was wrong with The Hills. They didn't really make it anymore interesting, either.
The article is by far the most enjoyable aspect of that movie.
Do not watch The Hills.
It's The Canyons, dogg. Not the movie with Kate Beckinsale.
are you sure it's not Beaches
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
And that does include NC-17. It's one the big, long running fights the MPAA had. They didn't want X to exist (it's not an official rating in the US) but film makers weren't gonna completely concede the ground. So in the early 90's the NC-17 came into existence. The MPAA feared releases of X rated films would encourage Congress to start regulating the industry themselves.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
God, my mom lovedBeaches when I was a kid. We watched it so much that I developed Stockholm Syndrome with the thing.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The Comics Code Authority was a fucking plague on the comics industry for years, but you could always find small press and indie guys who shook their dicks at it and didn't give a fuck about it. Those guys never got carried at newstands or in Walgreens or whatever, but you could always find them in your Android's Dungeon type comic book shops n shit.
That's how it was for years. Marvel and DC (and Image) played ball with the CCA and the indie guys and the small presses sorta case-by-cased it. Over time, though, Marvel in particular started playing fast and loose with the code until finally saying fuck it to the whole thing in 2001 and just doing whatever the fuck they wanted.
DC didn't abandon the fucking thing until 2011, because lol DC Comics
but even though Marvel abandoned the CCA, it didn't mean you suddenly saw Wolverine whipping his dick out or something. They restricted their more "adult" stuff to their MAX imprint, and adhered to their own internal set of standards that still played nice with retailers and so on
so even if there's no external censoring or restricting agency involved in an industry, an industry may self-police anyway for its own best business interest and artistic reasons
+2
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
And that does include NC-17. It's one the big, long running fights the MPAA had. They didn't want X to exist (it's not an official rating in the US) but film makers weren't gonna completely concede the ground. So in the early 90's the NC-17 came into existence. The MPAA feared releases of X rated films would encourage Congress to start regulating the industry themselves.
NC-17 is so much less provocative sounding than "X"
RATED NC-17 BY AN ALL-WHITE JURY just doesn't have the same ring to it
+1
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Saying fuck it to the MPAA in the US is hard. If at any point you're working on film and it goes to a studio, say for distribution, or money or anything else, that studio is likely an MPAA member. So pressure is going to be applied to you to come into line. Which is a double edge sword because if the studio really believes in something or a director fights hard enough they studio can put pressure on the MPAA.
They didn't really make it anymore interesting, either.
this is something that surrealitycheck and I have talked about re: sex in movies
I think sometimes a frank depiction of sexuality is important for like character reasons or larger political reasons but it can also just be a big fucking (haha) waste of time that adds very little to the experience
It was actually one of the less awkward parts of the movie, interestingly enough.
And that does include NC-17. It's one the big, long running fights the MPAA had. They didn't want X to exist (it's not an official rating in the US) but film makers weren't gonna completely concede the ground. So in the early 90's the NC-17 came into existence. The MPAA feared releases of X rated films would encourage Congress to start regulating the industry themselves.
NC-17 is so much less provocative sounding than "X"
RATED NC-17 BY AN ALL-WHITE JURY just doesn't have the same ring to it
Which is the greatest tag line in a movie poster of all time. Seriously. But yeah, it does sound less scary and that's the point.
Like, here, I'll give you the TL;DR version of The Canyons: Everyone in LA is an asshole, what a bunch of shallow assholes, there people are rich garbage. There, you've seen the movie.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Posts
i think. or at least i tell myself. this is the case for many people and it is okay. because you're definitely a somebody. maybe not touching the world on the scope you'd like but you can't deny that there's a shark there.
honestly at this point the only real hold-out is theatrical adherence to the MPAA, and the way it's fucked up standards bleed over into other things that don't even really need to abide by them (like HBO?)
for example, the MPAA hates erect penises. You cannot show them in film or you get an auto NC-17, which is the "porn rating" and pretty much the death knell to wide distribution in America (more and more movies are shaking their hard cock at the MPAA and just manually doing small distribution anyway so whatever)
like, Jonah Hill's cock that appears when he jerks off in Wolf of Wall Street? It's a fake rubber cock. Not just because maybe Jonah Hill didn't want his exposed hard cock on screen for real (I don't know, maybe, maybe not) but because it let the film keep an R rating instead of the dreaded NC-17 because it's not a real hard cock.
Soft cocks are okay though, even if they're like literally post-coitus and no healthy man should be deflating that quickly. Because the MPAA is a weirdly patriarchal organization that is threatened by a hard cock but not by a soft one.
You also can't show vaginal penetration, like things (including wieners) actually going into a lady's vagina. This includes dicks, but also includes non-dick objects like dildos. This is why Stanley Kubrick had to digitally add extra people to an orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut that would've literally shown Tom Cruise stickin' it to Nicole Kidman (his wife at the time). There were just like, digitally added people obscuring parts that just made it okay enough for the MPAA, because you can imply that a woman is gettin' her cooter rootered, you just can't show it.
Same thing with ejaculate. You can show semen, and you can show people gettin' spooged on, but you can't show spooge comin' out of a wiener (see also: rule concerning hard dicks)
The MPAA is really fucked up about this shit, and so long as their standards remain fucked up and as long as theaters keep adhering to those fucked up standards, films will have to keep doing it too, if they want wide distribution
It's probably not for me.
Every evening dog walk a crisis.
i can always wear a leather jacket.
success.
this has been tried a couple of times!
in the 70s there was a big movement on both sides (from the Hollywood and the porn side) to blur the lines between Hollywood moviemaking and pornography, and it gave us some pretty interesting results. I mean, you have a giant fiasco like Bob Guccione's Caligula movie, which had this fantastic cast of Royal Shakespeareians rubbing elbows (so to speak) with Penthouse Pets, and that was famously terrible, but on the other hand you got stuff like the famously sexually explicit scene between the married couple in Nicholas Roeg's horror movie Don't Look Now.
And as you probably know from Boogie Nights, at the same time, porn producers were trying to jazz up their movies with stabs (however sad or shabby) at storytelling and character development. And there were even a few gems from that side, like Russ Meyer's movies, which now enjoy a reputation as kitsch classics or a species of outsider art.
VHS killed that movement dead from the porn side. Videotape is cruder and cheaper-looking but you can shoot it with a camera guy and a sound guy and go pretty much anywhere, even outdoors, instead of being confined to a studio surrounded by lights and equipment. The nature of the medium discouraged storytelling but rewarded pornongraphers who just got in and shot their footage cheaply and efficiently, guerilla-style, without a lot of muss and fuss.
But I don't know why Hollywood got so much more squeamish about sex. Some people blame the movement to PG (or later, PG-13) blockbusters that started in the late 70s with Jaws. Other people blame the 80s turn to conservatism and the Moral Majority and all that - but even in countries that are comparatively more liberal, it's not like they are cranking out hundreds of "Blue is the Warmest Color"s every year. So I don't know, really.
William Friedkin (a great director from the 70s) recently tried to kind of revive the Hollywood/porn dream with The Hills, whose troubled production you may have heard about - an erotic thriller penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring James Deen and Lindsey Lohan, who you'd get to see boning in amazing cinematic detail! But the movie came out and didn't really light the world on fire and idk. I don't know if the demand is just not there, or if that was just a really poor example, or what.
i think lindsey lohan is cinematic poison at this point in her career
i don't think that helped anything
Bad example. Haven't seen it but what I have heard wasn't good. It did give us a great article about how it was made and they need to make that shit into a movie, I'd watch it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/magazine/here-is-what-happens-when-you-cast-lindsay-lohan-in-your-movie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It gets kinda weird and it's less about the moral majority then the legal issue for them. If I get my film rated by the MPAA then they agree that if someone goes after me for violating obscenity laws, then they are going to involve themselves heavily in my legal defense. Which is a pretty big hammer to have on your side if you're going against some county DA. So you tend to see spikes in tightening the rules during periods where obscenity charges are more likely.
That was not an enjoyable movie to sit through.
I think HBO and such have a greater role in the latter
yeah, that article was amazing
The article is by far the most enjoyable aspect of that movie.
Do not watch The Canyons.
digital delivery as a content distribution method, for example, and nowadays with email and social networking and stuff it's easier for scrappier guys to get wider distribution to locations that don't give a fuck about MPAA ratings or will happily show NC-17 films that they know aren't actually porn
when I lived in Toronto it was really easy for me to find theaters that showed a LOT of limited release films, many of which were not rated by the MPAA. These weren't even necessarily indie joints. Some of them were being done by subsidiaries of larger studios and stuff, they were just getting limited distribution because they weren't going to play ball with the MPAA's rating system or they were saying fuck it to getting a NC-17 and the studio and the distributor were standing by the film as is.
but that was Toronto, being something of a hub with TIFF and all
nonetheless, it's easier nowadays for filmmakers in that regard and I think that's a market that will grow
whether that will ever translate into James Bond blowing a load on a girl's face in a summer blockbuster, I am pretty skeptical.
It's The Canyons, dogg. Not the movie with Kate Beckinsale.
this is something that @surrealitycheck and I have talked about re: sex in movies
I think sometimes a frank depiction of sexuality is important for like character reasons or larger political reasons but it can also just be a big fucking (haha) waste of time that adds very little to the experience
are you sure it's not Beaches
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
james bond could touch a bond girl sexually on film, for instance
(except that it won't happen because of the intersection of action films and the lucrative chinese market)
That's how it was for years. Marvel and DC (and Image) played ball with the CCA and the indie guys and the small presses sorta case-by-cased it. Over time, though, Marvel in particular started playing fast and loose with the code until finally saying fuck it to the whole thing in 2001 and just doing whatever the fuck they wanted.
DC didn't abandon the fucking thing until 2011, because lol DC Comics
but even though Marvel abandoned the CCA, it didn't mean you suddenly saw Wolverine whipping his dick out or something. They restricted their more "adult" stuff to their MAX imprint, and adhered to their own internal set of standards that still played nice with retailers and so on
so even if there's no external censoring or restricting agency involved in an industry, an industry may self-police anyway for its own best business interest and artistic reasons
NC-17 is so much less provocative sounding than "X"
RATED NC-17 BY AN ALL-WHITE JURY just doesn't have the same ring to it
It was actually one of the less awkward parts of the movie, interestingly enough.
ugh
the lucrative chinese market
what a worrisome thing
they got actual censors there bro
Which is the greatest tag line in a movie poster of all time. Seriously. But yeah, it does sound less scary and that's the point.
a couple years ago people would have paid good money to see lindsay lohan's hills
Yeah im sad about that, I wanted SD2 not some no doubt f2p pc game
i know
it's gross
there are few things concerning china where my reaction isn't
"gross"
Meth is a hell of a drug.