Enough Sex?
Geez, There's alot. I know that some of it is needed, character development and all, but I have no idea how this is rated R. I would've cut back a little on the Sex & Nudity, but oh well. Great movie nonetheless
shareCut back on sex and nudity???
Are you out of your mind? I just wish Candy Clark was cuter and firmer. I also wish more chicks had been in this movie - as nudes.
Why waste an R rating if you cannot get some gratuitous nudity? May as well go PG.
We need a grass roots movement to bring back more nudity (females of course) into movies and stop wasting an R rating on violence and language.
females of course?
...
chauvinist
it's all preference you worthless she-devil.
share[deleted]
there's obviously some part of you that doesn't get it;
do you see alot of dicks in maintream movies? Uh... no.
Do you see entirely naked woman in most movies? Um, yeah. Very much.
So before calling me a bitch, take a look at your average movie and take into consideration that "full frontal" is just that: full frontal. Sorry for you, women's "full frontal" happens to be pubic hair. They're not gonna start creeping up between their legs just so you can see the inside. Please.
And i stand by what i said: why should there be naked woman just to please males? I'm aware that it's heterosexual, but the way it was formulated made him sound like yet more girls should get undressed for the viewing pleasure of men. And frankly, that's just not something i agree with.
Sorry if I didn't say it right, i can see you're much more polite.
I'm a straight male, and even I see that there is something wrong, and I've tried explaining this very position to many people. It is so difficult to get them to see the problem, or to admit it might even exist, without reacting as if you're asking them to admit homosexuality or something. How can a simple empathy for female movie-goers be so easily misunderstood? How can the situation still be so clearly uneven when there is so much PC-mindedness happening around us? Maybe I'm having too much of a man's point of view here thinking that women want to see dongs just as badly as I want to see T&A? I've heard many forms of that hazy myth about women being more chemistry/love-oriented while men are more physical, but I have to assume they get something out of seeing a naked man that is more than just acknowledging equal representation. It is quite simple, if the male demographic is considered with this sort of fan service, the woman demographic should be as well. To freak out at the sight of a dong is a little silly when you know women endure their own anatomy being shown on the big screen the other 90% of the time.
I am not trying to accuse kevin_jane of this sort of insensitivity, but I must acknowledge pinkicity's frustrations with cinema being largely male-centric.
----------------
----------------
My favorites:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur7568922/lists
while watching this, i kept thinking "come on, with so many tits we're seeing, we better get a glimpse of Bowie's junk," and I'm a lady - so yeah, i guess girls do get some cheap thrill out of seeing the opposite sex's member. but i think a reason why we don't see so many dicks on the screen while we still see T&A is because there are more guys who are made uncomfortable when they see a nude male while fewer ladies are nervous around bare breasts. for example, i went to see The Watchmen with a sort-of friend of mine (more like an acquaintance) and he kept cringing and making stupid noises whenever he saw that blue guy's schlong and had the gall to tell me that my tits were nicer than the girl's during one of the love scenes. and he's older than i am. so, needless to say, i'm no longer friends with him, but i think he's not the only guy in the world who has that sort of train of thought while watching a movie consisting of nudes.
In this country, all Americans deserve equal rights… appletini.
while watching this, i kept thinking "come on, with so manyI think if you squint, you can just make out the silhouette of his sampan. share
tits we're seeing, we better get a glimpse of Bowie's junk
More than that. They show it twice, although briefly, during the gun/sex scene. Rip Torn's, too.
shareAt least two penises can be seen... Rip Torn's and David Bowie's.
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
The penis is a reproductive organ, just as the vagina is.. you don't see very many shaved vaginas in movies either; showing breasts is more akin to showing a man's chest - you can't reproduce with breasts
..or maybe not, lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksiuYD1bYM
But it sure helps.
sharefemales of course?
...
chauvinist
lol, is that the new word for heterosexual?
why would a straight man want to look at other men naked?
but then again, i'm not so sure, lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSVP9LuRhU
What was the point of the lecturers sex scenes, Was it just to say he liked his students a little too much.
Captain Jack:. ‘....Savy’
He's going through a mid life crisis and getting jaded in his job. It was a reason for him to leave the university and work for World Enterprises.
Note that two of the women also compare him to their dad... very Oedipal!
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
No. Healthy hetero male.
shareya dude, that would be so f'ing cool. We need to like make rules and sh*t where like chicks in movies always had to be naked. No naked dudes though. That would be totally gay.
*shakes head* woah, sorry. My 13 year old self just took control and started posting.
Exactly.
This is called desensitization to the female body.
The female body is amazing
Wonderful.
Beautiful.
Not a piece of meat for 14-year-olds and drunk college kids only to lust over. I say there should be more nudity in movies only if it is at least somewhat artistic.
Most of the sex was cut for the original US release which is how it got its R rating. Since the uncut version has been released I think the "R" quoted on many websites (including this one) and even on some of the home video releases is dubious; if the uncut version were resubmitted for rating it would almost certainly get a (strong) NC-17. However, the sex is also done for the most in an artistic manner and does not seem, to me, gratuitous
shareI understand you, and yes, some is artistic, but some of it does just seem unnecessary, or too long
shareI thought the sex in this movie was actually very well done. It was artistic and truly integral to the plot. Bowie sees visions through his eyes and the first sex scene between him and Mary Lou is something that he longs for, intimacy, but knows he'll probably never get the chance.
Candy Clark was/is a beautiful girl. She was very beautiful in the movie. Bowie, of course looked great, although at the height of his coke use, which is definitely noticeable at parts, which only makes his portrayal of Newton all the more believeable.
I agree, elven path! I mean, it's a matter of personal preference, I guess. But I think the sex scenes in the film are very well done. They are pretty graphic even by today's standards, but a graphic sex scene can work to a film's advantage if it's done right. I thought the scenes were essential to both character and plot development, and in particular I thought the scene between Candy Clark and David Bowie during younger, happier times was beautiful and touching, while the later one with an older Candy and a more drunk and defeated Bowie illustrated how degenerated they had become. If you want to see how graphic sex can fail miserably in the context of a film that's intended to be "daring", "artful", and "intellectual", watch 9 Songs. With no plot, no point, and an extremely unlikeable (though physically attractive) female lead, that movie amounts to the world's most pretentious porno.
shareI'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point. The phrase "graphic even by today's standards." Considering that today's standards are far more puritanical and retardedly prudish than they were in the sixties and seventies and that we've gone BACK in time when it comes to acceptance of sex and nudity, well... that's my point right there. People today are morons when it comes to the natural human body and the natural things you do with it. Torture and violence is all well and good, but are there BOOBS in it oh noez!!
- - -
Whether they find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet.
To be honest I think films were better when the violence and gore were far less and you had to use your imagination more.
sharehang on a sec, now i'm curious. i just watched a version of this film that i rented from blockbuster that was marked with an R rating. I thought it contained quite a bit of sex, but is there another uncut version with even more sex?
share
'hang on a sec, now i'm curious. i just watched a version of this film that i rented from blockbuster that was marked with an R rating. I thought it contained quite a bit of sex, but is there another uncut version with even more sex?'
All DVD versions are complete but any American VHS tape of The man who fell to Earth from before 1989 is cut, badly. It still has sex in it but it's missing the gun scene (you'd know what I'm talking about if you saw it) as well as scenes that were actually important to the story.
And yes, there is no sex in the novel. Betty Jo (Mary Lou in the film) tries to seduce Thomas Jerome Newton but it doesn't work in the novel.
The sex scenes in Nicholas Roeg's films always impress me. They always evoke an intimacy that feels natural, I think.
shareyep - I thought something like that might have happened! hehehe
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Ditto!!
That's just my two cents.