Do you get to see David Bowie's shlong in this movie?
Not that I'd intend on getting it just for that reason.
share[deleted]
Oh babeh... *drifts off into perverted thoughts* Thanks!
share
MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) Discussion > Do you get to see David Bowie's shlong i...
Not sure.
You definitely see someone's. but I can't recall if Bowie's face was in the shot with it, so it might be a a body double.
Cheers...
It wasn't massive.
Captain Jack:. ‘....Savy’
I don't think so. Of course, I've never seen Bowie's (not that I really care to) so hard to say. Still thank God I'm still a virgin.
shareThere were a couple of shots with Bowie's full body, including his face where you could see it. A lot of the more graphic shots pan up to his face too- so it's definitely him- Unless they had the technology to put bowie's head on somebody else's body.
shareWell... the shot was reasonably wide because it showed most of his body (it was not a body double), so for this reason, even though it's on a large screen, it looks a bit unimpressive. It was also completely flacid. I guess Candy just wasn't doing it for him... then again, there was a bloody big film crew watching.
So just to prove that he does have a decent size "shlong", please feel free to perve at this photo: But do so at your own risk.
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq312/ChinchillaChinchilla/Photos/H uge.jpg
[deleted]
[deleted]
Film crew didn't seem to bother the folks in 9 Songs (2004)...
I think an actor needs to get it up, if that's what would be happening in the scene.
It's likely that the film-makers wanted to go with a 'safer' shot of Bowie in the buff, (i.e. not in an 'aroused' state), so as to avoid the dreaded X rating.
shareit can be seen briefly in the gun scene
shareBut remember fellas, if there weren't vaginas there wouldn't be any penises (or is it vice versa?).
shareI sure did (hey, I was 18)! My mother of course was shocked, embarrassed, yadda. I would consider this scene soft-porn. This is the naughtiest movie I ever saw.
shareWe've been seeing naked men and women in film for around the same time, but I'd say the reason penises aren't so 'taboo' as vaginas is that up until maybe 20, 30 years ago, vaginas were totally engulfed by pubic hair! Like that scene in The Life of Brian, where a naked Judith defends Brian from his mum, and they could get away with this nudity because her hair covered her breasts, and her pubes covered everything. Only since women have started grooming like they do now have vagina shots been as 'graphic' as penis shots. You could never really see them before.
share"You could never really see them before."
Exactly, the female upper half is more obviously sexual, and the male lower half is more obviously sexual.... perhaps...
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
Using the logic you apply in your repeated ad-hominem attacks against me;
This reveals that Nephihaha lusts after ladyboys! Such a sexually repressed mormon.
"While they show a lot of penises, the vagina is still a taboo".
A bit easier to show penises, since they stick out.
On the other hand, one sees a lot of topless women in old films of the period.
Just as these days, it's almost obligatory for good looking women to get off with each other in tacky Hollywood blockbusters, but you'll hardly ever see two men get it on...
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
[deleted]
Yes, it is his junk. David Bowie using a body double? The man was drop dead gorgeous and off his head on drugs, he wouldn't have bothered.
Lucky lucky Candy Clark, how I do envy you!