So if you have no stake in the meta arguments surrounding this film and just want to know if it's worth your while? Yeah, give it a shot, it's a pretty good sci fi action flick with some interesting themes. And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This isn't the only reason to watch Under the Skin but it certainly is one.
The nude scenes in Under the Skin are some of the creepiest and unerotic stuff I have seen in movies in a while.
ScarJo REALLY sells that alien-wearing-a-fake-skin look.
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
What, a world without sexuality?
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+10
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I'm drawn to the new Baywatch movie because of its deep themes of environmental preservation.
I'm drawn to baywatch because I think it looks legit hilarious and not even in a so bad it's good way, like, I actually think that movie could be really good
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
jungleroomx on
+5
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
+4
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure how to parse this. Is saying "this movie tried to appeal to my sensuality, and it succeeded" inherently objectifying?
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
Objectification means more than enjoying someone's physical looks
And if you want to argue someone's being exploited, you're going to have to actually make that case.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+8
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
I don't give a shit about the Conjuring movies, but I really want to see a courtroom drama about proving the existence of ghosts
Exorcism of Emily Rose
Is a despicable little movie that turns the real life villains (priests who starved an epileptic young woman to death because they were super mega sure she's actually possessed) into a heroic figure who did the right thing because demons are real and epileptic seizures aren't. Just to spoil the ending so you don't have to support this garbage with your views, the heroic priest is technically found guilty but is sentenced to 0 days in prison because of bullshit; and the heroic priest's lawyer who starts out as an atheist finds God in the end because demons are real and therefore God is too. Oh and Emily Rose's possession was caused by God so she could be a martyr through whose death the world shall see once and for all that demons are real and so is God.
You didn't ask, but in my opinion she had psychotic epileptic disorder, but it could have been successfully treated by the psychosomatic effect of exorcism if those drugs hadn't blocked the process.
Margot Robbie was also uncomfortable in Wolf of Wall Street. Which, yeah, definitely makes those scenes/movies uncomfortable to watch, and does add an element of exploitation.
That's a different actor, in a different movie.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
reading that NYT article linked in that link, she said she weighed being naked onscreen vs working for Marty Score and even when he said she could wear a robe or cover up in that seduction scene she realized the character wouldn't do that so she went nude. And the same thing seems to appear with Harley's outfit and discussing it with Ayers. These were open lines of communication between two willing individuals, the actor and director/studio.
I think that honestly, in the movie? Johansson looks less human than the anime character does when she's not covered up
Like, she's clearly not fleshy, the texture is wrong. She looks artificial. Fair play to whoever did that bit because they did a good job. Like I said, it's a pretty movie.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
Which is fine but if you believe, for instance, the marketing team chose to highlight her practically nude appearance because the mass market will appreciate the art and aesthetic qualities of her physical form, you are delusional.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
Which is fine but if you believe, for instance, the marketing team chose to highlight her practically nude appearance because the mass market will appreciate the art and aesthetic qualities of her physical form, you are delusional.
She's a beautiful woman and yes, sex sells.
Doesn't mean there was anything exploitative or abusive about it.
Just like there was probably nothing exploitative about Jason Momoa posing as Aquaman with the nips out, showing off them abs.
The nakedness coincides with the stealth scenes which from the anime at least happened in a few big set pieces. And also it's not even remotely a good look.
+1
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
Which is fine but if you believe, for instance, the marketing team chose to highlight her practically nude appearance because the mass market will appreciate the art and aesthetic qualities of her physical form, you are delusional.
She's a beautiful woman and yes, sex sells.
Doesn't mean there was anything exploitative or abusive about it.
Just like there was probably nothing exploitative about Jason Momoa posing as Aquaman with the nips out, showing off them abs.
It still objectifies women and I never said men were immune to this problem.
Unlike a human, the major isn't particularly protective or attached to her own body, which she treats like clothing, so in a way she's never really naked. Her body is actually an object.
But the 2017 major is basically a huge Barbie doll. It's even more tame than a spy kids movie.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+3
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I would go on to argue that if a woman were to agree to appear nude in a film for artistic reasons, when the studios true intent is to make money by objectifying her, that is still exploitative.
If you think this doesn't have a knock-on effect to how women are treated in our society I don't know what to tell you.
And ScarJo is basically naked for a quarter of it, so that doesn't hurt.
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
Which is fine but if you believe, for instance, the marketing team chose to highlight her practically nude appearance because the mass market will appreciate the art and aesthetic qualities of her physical form, you are delusional.
She's a beautiful woman and yes, sex sells.
Doesn't mean there was anything exploitative or abusive about it.
Just like there was probably nothing exploitative about Jason Momoa posing as Aquaman with the nips out, showing off them abs.
It still objectifies women and I never said men were immune to this problem.
And this is where we state that it's objectively bad for humans who enjoy seeing humans naked are wrong/bad
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I would go on to argue that if a woman were to agree to appear nude in a film for artistic reasons, when the studios true intent is to make money by objectifying her, that is still exploitative.
If you think this doesn't have a knock-on effect to how women are treated in our society I don't know what to tell you.
I feel like taking every sexualized instance in films and immediately shoe-horning into the "exploitation" category is helping sex stay taboo.
Many actors and actresses think absolutely nothing about getting nude in public (safely), and I'll argue that it's just a skill you pick up in acting that laymen don't have. Like how health professionals can view and interact with people of either sex and not get aroused.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I would go on to argue that if a woman were to agree to appear nude in a film for artistic reasons, when the studios true intent is to make money by objectifying her, that is still exploitative.
If you think this doesn't have a knock-on effect to how women are treated in our society I don't know what to tell you.
I feel like taking every sexualized instance in films and immediately shoe-horning into the "exploitation" category is helping sex stay taboo.
Agreed, but I'm not doing that, if that's what you are inferring.
I feel like people should be free to say that they went to a movie just because of somebody's butt
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I would go on to argue that if a woman were to agree to appear nude in a film for artistic reasons, when the studios true intent is to make money by objectifying her, that is still exploitative.
If you think this doesn't have a knock-on effect to how women are treated in our society I don't know what to tell you.
I feel like taking every sexualized instance in films and immediately shoe-horning into the "exploitation" category is helping sex stay taboo.
Agreed, but I'm not doing that, if that's what you are inferring.
How are you not though? You're saying promoting a movie based on it having sexy stuff in it is inherently exploitative and harms society as a whole. So... you're against sexy stuff in movies, yeah? Seems straightforward?
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think you guys know I could say a few words on this, but I'll keep it brief for now.
This is very similar to the "cheesecake" argument from comics. If something/someone is put on display at the behest of a third party for reasons not textually or metatextually pertinent to the subject and/or imparting of information but for the expressed fetishization of the subject (sexual or otherwise), I think that can be said to be objectification.
I feel I should chime in, since I started this whole tangent.
I don't feel that ScarJo's nudity in the film was in any way treated exploitatively or abusively. When she was naked, there was a narratively justifiable reason for it. It wasn't gratuitous or gross or anything.
Truth be told, I was mostly being facetious, in that I wouldn't actually go see a movie just because it has naked people in it. There are easier and cheaper ways to see naked people! But it's also silly to pretend that, as a guy who is attracted to women, I don't enjoy seeing a super hot woman in a skin tight suit, or that ScarJo isn't super hot.
I mean, if I'm being honest? The fact that Ryan Gosling is super hot doesn't hurt my propensity to watch all his movies, and I'm not even gay.
So basically, I'm sorry i started this tangent, but I'm not sorry for enjoying hot women being portrayed in a non-exploitative fashion in movies.
Edit: goddammit, autocorrect.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This may be inappropriate to ask on a pg-13 forum, but where do you go to see mashed people?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Posts
The nude scenes in Under the Skin are some of the creepiest and unerotic stuff I have seen in movies in a while.
yeah that movie is shit
This is gross and objectifying and I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't an effective motivator to get people to watch movies.
What, a world without sexuality?
It's the tits for me.
Just kidding, nothing draws me to the film.
So, the original GiTS falls under this category as well, only there she has nipples.
I can't wait until we can stop being so puritanical about any type of nudity or sexual things. (This goes all ways, I'm not just cis-male-ing it up)
I know it's been said, but our movies can have violence, drug abuse, mass murder, extinction, and all kinds of horrific shit... but all it takes is some boobs or a wang and suddenly people are flipping their lids.
No.
I agree, though I am not "flipping my lid" just because there is "some boobs or a wang."
Seeing an attractive person as attractive and saying it's a +1 in a visual medium isn't "gross".
That isn't the problem. Objectification and exploitation is the problem.
I'm not sure how to parse this. Is saying "this movie tried to appeal to my sensuality, and it succeeded" inherently objectifying?
Objectification means more than enjoying someone's physical looks
And if you want to argue someone's being exploited, you're going to have to actually make that case.
I'm not sure I can believe that one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood has no agency in the movies she makes.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-exorcism-of-emily-rose-2005
That seems like it's right there on objectification or exploitation.
That's a different actor, in a different movie.
Like, she's clearly not fleshy, the texture is wrong. She looks artificial. Fair play to whoever did that bit because they did a good job. Like I said, it's a pretty movie.
Which is fine but if you believe, for instance, the marketing team chose to highlight her practically nude appearance because the mass market will appreciate the art and aesthetic qualities of her physical form, you are delusional.
She's a beautiful woman and yes, sex sells.
Doesn't mean there was anything exploitative or abusive about it.
Just like there was probably nothing exploitative about Jason Momoa posing as Aquaman with the nips out, showing off them abs.
It still objectifies women and I never said men were immune to this problem.
But the 2017 major is basically a huge Barbie doll. It's even more tame than a spy kids movie.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you think this doesn't have a knock-on effect to how women are treated in our society I don't know what to tell you.
And this is where we state that it's objectively bad for humans who enjoy seeing humans naked are wrong/bad
I feel like taking every sexualized instance in films and immediately shoe-horning into the "exploitation" category is helping sex stay taboo.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Agreed, but I'm not doing that, if that's what you are inferring.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
How are you not though? You're saying promoting a movie based on it having sexy stuff in it is inherently exploitative and harms society as a whole. So... you're against sexy stuff in movies, yeah? Seems straightforward?
This is very similar to the "cheesecake" argument from comics. If something/someone is put on display at the behest of a third party for reasons not textually or metatextually pertinent to the subject and/or imparting of information but for the expressed fetishization of the subject (sexual or otherwise), I think that can be said to be objectification.
I don't feel that ScarJo's nudity in the film was in any way treated exploitatively or abusively. When she was naked, there was a narratively justifiable reason for it. It wasn't gratuitous or gross or anything.
Truth be told, I was mostly being facetious, in that I wouldn't actually go see a movie just because it has naked people in it. There are easier and cheaper ways to see naked people! But it's also silly to pretend that, as a guy who is attracted to women, I don't enjoy seeing a super hot woman in a skin tight suit, or that ScarJo isn't super hot.
I mean, if I'm being honest? The fact that Ryan Gosling is super hot doesn't hurt my propensity to watch all his movies, and I'm not even gay.
So basically, I'm sorry i started this tangent, but I'm not sorry for enjoying hot women being portrayed in a non-exploitative fashion in movies.
Edit: goddammit, autocorrect.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
r/long pig recipes
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods