irixith wrote:Would you be equally as offended if a penis was CGI'd? Pecs?
I would be. It's not about seeing the nudity for me. I'm just bothered by the fact that people like this force a huge expenditure on CGI so that they don't have to get naked on camera when most of the audience isn't even going to know the difference in the completed product.
I suppose if she has some odd defect or a third nipple or something that she doesn't want to show and would be distracting in the movie, then it doesn't bother me, but if it's just modesty about having people see you naked, I don't really get the point: most of the viewing audience will think they have seen you naked either way.
I'm not boycott level angry, I just think it's a weird decision on her part and the director's that is unnecessarily expensive.
J T wrote:
I suppose if she has some odd defect or a third nipple or something that she doesn't want to show and would be distracting in the movie, then it doesn't bother me, but if it's just modesty about having people see you naked, I don't really get the point: most of the viewing audience will think they have seen you naked either way.
I'm not boycott level angry, I just think it's a weird decision on her part and the director's that is unnecessarily expensive.
I was gonna post something to this effect. What's the point? Everyone's gonna think she was naked anyhow, it's not like she's saving any kind of face.
brunoafh wrote:I am extremely confused by all of this.
Luke is upset because she's a fake who doesn't honor her agreements and everyone else who is responding is basically ignoring his point because they don't like nudity in movies. There's the whole thread in a nutshell
Boom. Correct.
I mean, stunt doubles (and stunt asses *this reminds me of Orgasmo*) have been used since movies have been around (sorry guys, almost any body shot in PRETTY WOMAN is a stunt double). But getting paid for something and not going through with it is just b.s
And yeah, I would be equally offended if a guy agreed to showing off his wang and then "changed his mind" more than once about it. It's just bush league. I mean Ewan McGregor didn't wuss out in TRAINSPOTTING nor did Rogan in SARAH MARSHALL. They had the balls to pull it off.
irixith wrote:Would you be equally as offended if a penis was CGI'd? Pecs?
I would be. It's not about seeing the nudity for me. I'm just bothered by the fact that people like this force a huge expenditure on CGI so that they don't have to get naked on camera when most of the audience isn't even going to know the difference in the completed product.
I suppose if she has some odd defect or a third nipple or something that she doesn't want to show and would be distracting in the movie, then it doesn't bother me, but if it's just modesty about having people see you naked, I don't really get the point: most of the viewing audience will think they have seen you naked either way.
I'm not boycott level angry, I just think it's a weird decision on her part and the director's that is unnecessarily expensive.
These are more or less my sentiments. It's highly unlikely that the audience will even know if her boobies are real or not. If the actress in question is trying to send a message, i.e., "I'm just not that kind of girl." Well then she has failed.
Gamerforlife wrote:and irixith thinks he's being sexist. There's the whole thread in a nutshell
I don't think he's being sexist, I think he's being ridiculous. The subject title says "boycott", for a complete non-issue. As I said in my first post, so what? You're going to get boobs either way.
