View previous topic | View next topic

sex scenes in films

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

bobwilson
441396.  Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:40 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
How come sex scenes in films go on so long? They aren't very interesting.


This almost deserves it's own thread in WFHiT. In fact, why not....

Quote:
Re 1., a lot of people think they are interesting, at least for a slightly specialized value of "interesting". These people are often - although by no means always - from that strange segment of the human race called "men".


Not true suze. Men do indeed watch sex scenes of the more explicit variety but in a general film will just skip over them because it's boring and has nothing to do with the film in question. Particularly nauseating are those long passages where girl meets boy and each gazes longingly into the other's eyes/strokes the other's ego with some exchange of salival fluids. It's bloody annoying when you see people in the street cavorting in such a fashion without having it rammed down your eyeballs during a film.

In general, sex / kissing / unnecessary love scenes in films are put in because either the script writers have been too drunk to conjure up a meaningful plot twist or because the actors have insisted that their character needs to be given more "rounding".

Particularly irritating examples of the genre can currently be found in:

NCIS - Tony and his bloody "great love"
NCIS - the ridiculous nerd pathologist and his Benny Hill scenes with the chinese tart
CSI - Sara and Grissom

On the other side, the Sunday Sport used to (and may still) offer a guide to various "naughty bits" appearing on major shows (eg Barbarella - flash of tits at 37 mins, 53 mins - or Secretary - spanking action at 42 mins). Which is quite enterprising.

 
Arcane
441405.  Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:11 pm Reply with quote

To be honest, I find almost "lurve" scenes highly unnecessary. It's aimed at titillation, pure and simple. In comedies/action/drama, do we REALLY need to see anyone get their kit off?! Mostly, I just squirm with embarrassment.

 
bobwilson
441409.  Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:45 pm Reply with quote

my point exactly reddy - except that it's not even tittilating.

I think the only time I thought the "kiss" scene added anything to the story was in The Princess Bride.

As I said - I guess the reason for adding "lurve" scenes to running dramas is because the idiot actors think that their characters need "rounding" (for which read "hey, my friends think I'm gay because I haven't copped off with my photogenic co-star - to which the proper response would be - so, get some real looking people in and while you're at it can we have crime scene investigators properly dressed so they don't contaminate the crime scene?). And as for films - well, it's mostly because the script calls for 90 minutes and the writer's too lazy to fulfil the requirement so some saliva swapping can take up a couple of minutes of screen time.

 
Arcane
441446.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:38 am Reply with quote

Gladiator had one good kiss in it. Although, I guess the lack of nookie was counterbalanced by some rather full on violence.... However, at least the violence was somewhat contextual, and that is on public view; doing the horizontal tango is, erm, usually kept behind closed doors.

 
Neotenic
441463.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:32 am Reply with quote

Blimey, you two don't half sound like a bunch of prudes.

I think a film called 'Gladiator' without any violence in it would be rubbish. It would be like trying to make 'Snakes On A Plane' without any snakes.

Quote:
NCIS - Tony and his bloody "great love"
NCIS - the ridiculous nerd pathologist and his Benny Hill scenes with the chinese tart


Are you an ardent NCIS watcher, or do you just dip in and out?

My assumption is the latter, because both those instances are actually integral to the longer story arcs of the series.

The CSI one is possibly harder to reconcile, but there were allusions to it for a good three or four seasons before anything was made explicit (although I certainly wouldn't call any of the scenes themselves 'explicit'). And again, becomes very important at one stage in the story, straddling the end of series 7 and start of series 8.

I can appreciate that to casual watchers, they may seem unneccesary, but they do make perfect sense in the context of the entire run of the shows.

I too remember those days of renting out 18 certificate films on video in the desperate hope that one might catch a fleeting glance of nipplage (or in the case of Showgirls, a fleeting glance of some clothing) - but hooray for the internet is all I can say now.

Quote:
Particularly nauseating are those long passages where girl meets boy and each gazes longingly into the other's eyes/strokes the other's ego with some exchange of salival fluids


Stop watching Rom Coms is my general advice. I can't think of a single film I'd willingly sit through with scenes like that in them.

 
Fifi
441468.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:54 am Reply with quote

I quite like the programmes I watch to have some sort of recognition of real life in them when it comes to relationships.

They don't have to be accurate, or even grounded in reality in regards the story line, but I like it if you get to see relationships grow and so on, this goes for friendships as well as romance.

If the people in CSI (which I watch, not got into NCIS as yet) never got to know people better, or had evolution in their relationships I'd find that boring - in real life people do meet people and romances can occur, why leave them out of shows and films?

 
djgordy
441481.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:33 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
I think a film called 'Gladiator' without any violence in it would be rubbish. It would be like trying to make 'Snakes On A Plane' without any snakes.


"Snakes on a Plane" would have been much better without any snakes. Or actors. A a plane for that matter.

 
scoot
441483.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:41 am Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
Neotenic wrote:
I think a film called 'Gladiator' without any violence in it would be rubbish. It would be like trying to make 'Snakes On A Plane' without any snakes.


"Snakes on a Plane" would have been much better without any snakes. Or actors. A a plane for that matter.


I've not seen "Snakes on a Plane", what is it about? :P

 
dr.bob
441485.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:46 am Reply with quote

reddygirl wrote:
To be honest, I find almost "lurve" scenes highly unnecessary. It's aimed at titillation, pure and simple.


What's wrong with titillation?

OK, admittedly, if you're watching a film in the company of your grandparents or small children, it might prove embarrassing. But if I'm in company I'm not going to be embarrassed with and I've got the choice between a movie that's funny/dramatic/uplifting* and a movie that's funny/dramatic/uplifting* and titillating, then I'll pick door B every time.

Of course, not all love scenes are titillating. They have to be done well. "Don't Look Now" is widely regarded as having an extremely good sex scene near the end, and I'd thoroughly recommend it. Some people argue that it's integral to the plot, as it shows the love between a husband and wife facing difficult circumstances, but, to be honest, I'd just recommend it as a nice, titillating scene in an extremely good movie.


*Delete as applicable

 
Neotenic
441491.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:12 am Reply with quote

Quote:
If the people in CSI (which I watch, not got into NCIS as yet) never got to know people better, or had evolution in their relationships I'd find that boring - in real life people do meet people and romances can occur, why leave them out of shows and films?


I agree - plus, in general,the series-long story arcs generally take up less than 20% of each individual episode, so they hardly get in the way.

It's quite a clever format really, in that it is entirely possible to just watch the occaisonal episode in isolation without finding it totally mystifying (as you would with something like The Wire or the West Wing, as fantastic as they are) but there is a pay-off for those who do.

 
djgordy
441493.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:18 am Reply with quote

scoot wrote:
I've not seen "Snakes on a Plane", what is it about? :P


It was about Samuel L. Jackson deciding to try for a Golden Raspberry Award instead of an Oscar.

 
CB27
441542.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:07 am Reply with quote

I wonder if we should distinguish between sex and love on films as well?

As a red blooded hetro young(ish) man, I still get titillated by seeing some flesh on screen, but to be honest with you it's not my main reason to watch a film, or even a reason of any type.

My main gripe is unnecessary love scenes where two characters suddenly have to have sex, and you sort of think "How common is this?". And my second gripe is why do all films now seem to need a love story? It seems a bit cheap when we have to have some kind of love in a story because we can't write about men and women without them wanting to liplock and whatever else.

 
NinOfEden
441556.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:22 am Reply with quote

My problem is, they just go on + on. OK, character X + character Y get off with each other, fair enough. I understand people do that sometimes. But why do we need to be shown exactly what happened in slow-motion? Couldn't we get the same amount of information from a couple of seconds?

 
Arcane
441566.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:34 am Reply with quote

Meh. I don't think it has anything to do with being a prude - I also don't like horror movies, mindless car chase type movies or soppy romances. I just feel uncomfortable watching people in love scenes. *shrugs* I think CB summed it up quite well, and so did Nin. What I meant by titillation dr.bob is that almost all of the time it has nothing to do with the plot progression or even the characters, it can even seem like a quick time filler. At times I feel it cheapens the movies, or even cheapens the act. I'd rather see two people work through a situation than resort to a quick bonkfest! Movies are about escapism that I know, but I feel that that's a private thing, hell, it'd be nice to keep bit of mystery about it!

Everyone has a "type" - whether it be breakfast cereal, book, car, potential partner or movie - it's just not something I care for.

 
Neotenic
441569.  Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:38 am Reply with quote

Quote:
And my second gripe is why do all films now seem to need a love story


My current (and blatantly sexist) working theory, especially with action films, is along the lines of 'something for the ladies' so they won't complain too hard at being dragged to the cinema by their blokes to watch the explosions.....

Or, any story needs some form of device to get people to do extraordinary things - and people (in movie-land) are far more likely to plunge into a burning builing to save someone they've got a good chance of bumping uglies with than someone they're mildly indifferent to.

If films depicted actual real-life relationship scenarios, they'd be bed-wettingly tedious (or Mike Leigh films, which in my mind is much the same thing), in just the same way as if movie-land revolvers only held six bullets (except when running out of ammo is vital to the plot)

Quote:
But why do we need to be shown exactly what happened in slow-motion?


Would you care to furnish us with an example? I can't think of one myself, at least, not one that you'd go to see in a cinema outside Soho, anyway...

 

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group