Oppenheimer: A man intertwined with US nuclear policy, both when creating the first nuke, and during the cold war. Political intrigue mixed with science!
I’d personally prefer that if they aren’t allowed to show it they not bother. All this does is make watching with family uncomfortable or possibly if your aware of the scene beforehand prevent watching it with family at all.
Assuming i’m not trying to watch it with family I prefer my content uncensored, like they can say fuck if they want to or fuck if they want or actually be seen nude after a shower instead being censored in some form.
Even when I am watching things with family i’d prefer they just not did things they’d have to censor than taint it with censorship.
The Hayes code sucked, but the way directors needed to be creative to get around it was great. Modern directors could learn a lot about making romantic relationships smolder and using innuendo instead of adding cheap sex.
Lots of people in here talking about how sex scenes suck, and they’re right. But I think we should also consider this: decades of focus on abstinence education and evolving parental and institutional surveillance has been successful at making young people have less sex. And now the olds, having achieved their mission, are confused about why the kids are having less sex and making less babies and the media they are creating and consuming is reflecting that.
I dont think the abstinence stuff is having sn effect, or is as prevalent as you think. Maybe in America, but the rest of the western world don’t really fuck with it I think>nk?
This is a good point! And in fairness, I didn’t actually read the article so I don’t know for sure it’s talking about the whole of western societies. It is the la times though, so that would lead me to believe it’s US-centric.
Regardless, I think you’re totally right. In America we’re continually getting hammered with the idea that having sex before marriage is abhorrent and anyone who does it should be punished for it with STDs or babies.
Germany keeps good statistics on it, the tl;dr is early loss of virginity peaked around the turn of the millennium, and has been steadily going down since then. The sexual revolution never got questioned in Germany once it was through (sadly, you can’t annoy reverends by kissing in front of their church, any more), no “abstinence only” sex “education” to be found anywhere. The by far overwhelming reason kids cited is “didn’t yet find the right one”, only exception being girls with immigrant background, there it’s “am still too young”, though that number is falling towards “didn’t yet find the right one”.
Not on that page but when being given a couple of choices saying “which of these things would be a calamity for you right now, and how bad” something like 99% of girls respond with “pregnancy would be the worst”. Teen abortion rates are still very low (at least for a country not caught up in Catholic morals) but that’s due to low pregnancy rates in the first place combined with extensive support thrown at teen couples.
The younger generation is having less sex despite abstinence only education, not because of it. We have multiple studies showing “abstinence only” education is one of the worst ways to prevent teen pregnancy, yet religious conservatives continue to push for this because they would rather control women than lower teen pregnancy.
You may still be right but this actually doesn’t prove what you’re saying. Abstinence only education having more pregnancies can’t be used alone to indicate if underlying rates of sexual encounters is higher or lower without also knowing other information like rates of condom useage. It can still be the case that rates are lower, but the encounters that are happening are less informed and more risky.
I can tell you haven’t researched this at all, because that’s one of the first data dimensions controlled for. Random first google result www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690810/
That has nothing to do with less children. It’s a known thing in biology that animals are fully aware of critical mass and adjust their mating for the conditions.
Every single industrialized country has reduced birth rates because of child mortality, financial stability, and many other reasons that go with it.
There is no one that didn’t have a kid because of a movie. That’s just ludicrous.
That’s right. If I wanna see that, there’s pornhub etc. In any other movie: skip button. One exception: “The Room”. Makes the cringe complete. Oh, never watch it sober. Of course.
I mean, they try for verisimilitude. When I have sex I of course spend hours under flowing white bed sheets running my hand along my partners body and kind of grinding at them, I mean who doesn’t? But it’s always unrealistic. You never even see the dude you’re paying $5.00 an hour to undulate the sheets, not the dude holding the sheets up so you can stare lovingly into your partners eyes.
Unless you’re watching a romance movie there’s almost zero point to have a romance plotline.
Pretty tired of the horror movies and action movies that just randomly throw in some love triangle or romance plot to try and make the actual plot more exciting, even though most of the time it makes no sense.
I wish I could go tell this to that hack who wrote the “Iliad”. Like seriously you’re going to go and insert some stupid love shot into your kick arse war story? Oh and don’t even get me started on using the name Helen in a fantasy Greek setting, pffft.
Y’all need to go fuck some more. Films like La La Land are really missing something without a sex scene, the chemistry feels really fake and the relationship isn’t believable.
Sex is normal. Sex is good. Sex in films is necessary to convey intensity which a pan from bed shot can never achieve.
Great example: Terminator. Without this scene the whole franchise fails. The film doesn’t have the gravitas when John does die without it. And it’s a highly charged emotional reaction to the harrowing events they have both just been through.
sex isnt necessary for an intense relationship, and if your romantic pairing requires the characters literally porking onscreen to be believable or to read as having any chemistry you did a shit job writing it
99% of sex on film is casual sex and to claim that “casual sex” is normal and good is not straightforward to me.
For example most of the time with a macho male protagonist, they will show him using women for sex like disposable condoms. Another worrying trend on the rise is plot lines that basically glorify cheating.
I am not bothered by the sex or the nudity per se, but Hollywood loves to glorify characters with very problematic characters.
I think you are exaggerating a bit here. Rent levels are skyrocketing past wage growth, sure, but have you considered that used cars are also getting prohibitively expensive relative to the average income? Three of them would be roughly a zillion dollars if my math is correct
Ya can get a used early 2000s/late 90s saburban in my city for about $2000. Mind ya folks trade around cars here like a 1700s brothel traded the clap but still.
Weird. I’m a millennial. I tend to enjoy the movies and shows with more sex scenes. I thought GoT was better when there were more sex scenes (that’s probably not the reason it was entertaining, but it coincided). I find most PG-13 movies uninteresting, like all the superhero crap (except Deadpool, Super, and The Boys). Though, IDK WTF Bridgerton is, but that looks boring as hell. And Euphoria seems kinda sus (since the characters are supposed to be children).
Most movie sex scenes are terrible. They fail as both pornography and as literary devices.
When you put a sex scene, or any other scene in a movie it has to serve some purpose. It can move the plot along, it can show the characters emotions or it can just be there for titillation. If it’s just there because someone thinks that the main characters are supposed to smash, it’s dumb.
I remember that when we rented “Basic Instinct” you knew how often people re-watched the interrogation scene because the old VHS tapes would get worn at that spot and you could see the screen artifacts.
Two things made that worth watching. The whole movie was about sex so it made sense, both in the movie and for the character. The way to get porn at the time was to walk into a store and buy a magazine. And Sharon Stone was hot, OK 3 reasons.
There absolutely are movies where the sex scenes make sense and are important. David Kronenberg’s “Crash” and Kimberly Peirce’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, would have been weird if they didn’t include the sex scenes or just left them implied.
The sex scene in, “Team America: World Police”, worked because it was a satire of sex scenes in movies.
Pornhub works because their scenes are very explicit.
When you have a boring, unironic, semi-artistic sex scene in a movie that’s not otherwise about sex, it’s just a distraction.
Some, but remember that the only way that get real porn was to go to a store and buy a physical thing. Aside from the convenience there was a stigma to buying porn and it’s illegal for kids to buy. For a horny kid in the 80’s, light on-screen T&A and a Victoria’s Secret Catalog was a pretty good substitute.
When you have a boring, unironic, semi-artistic sex scene in a movie that’s not otherwise about sex, it’s just a distraction.
I don’t disagree. But I do see room to expand the definition.
Recently, I’ve been introducing my partner to The Sopranos for the first time (we’re in s3). I think there are legitimate depictions of sex in the series. They only appear briefly to help illustrate what types of people the characters are. They’re quick and out of the way. Like, oh, that guy’s fucking her, now let’s move on to the dialog that happens after. It’s when we see that these are characters who have sex as opposed to seeing the sex that makes the difference, imo.
I want romance in my romance and rom-coms. I do not want it in my action, thriller, history, sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, or biographical movies. Unless, and this is key, unless it legitimately adds to the movie.
latimes.com
Active