"I do agree, though, that when a female gets baked on screen it should actually be that actress and not some lousy body double. That's like hiring an actress to be in a musical but then they dub in another singer's voice. If an actress can't or isn't willing to do the job, don't hire them."
Totally agree, those snooty actresses ought to be smoking the reefer themselves rather than leaving it to some body double!
I totally agree with you guys, if the girl isn't willing to show herself naked on screen for the sake of her character who does appear naked, then she shouldn't be hired to do the job, it's like actors who use stuntmen instead of risking their lives and health themselves
Come on guys, there's nothing beneficial for a girl to appear naked on screen herself, it doesn't add to the story and doesn't detract from it either. We're not talking about an actress who mumbles her lines or has bad acting skills (both of which detract from a movie), we're talking about her merely getting a body double, how is that different from a stuntman? How does it impact the movie or its story? If we were talking about an olympian who did his strut in front of the crowd and gave them a bow but didn't actually do any of the sports and had someone else do it, THEN I understand, THAT is something entirely different since we're rooting for the participant. In a movie, we're supposed to be rooting for the CHARACTER, it doesn't matter who the actor is, as long as they don't mess up the character's portrayal with bad acting or mumbling (which by the way is the reason I now watch most of my stuff with subtitles, people in the 60's to the mid 90's were VERY audible (damn Geoffrey Hughes(sp?) was very clear in black adder but he mumbles a LOT in house)).
I'm sorry, but honestly I see no reason for a woman not to show her naked body on screen. There's nothing wrong with being prudish and refusing to go nude in a movie, it may not be professional, but sometimes a person has to ask themselves if it's worth it to be that professional.
reply
share
HenryCW
12 years ago
Your argument is based on a typical case of inappropriate comparison. The choice of an actor is based on his ability to play a particular character, which does not often come with the ability to perform dangerous stunts. Also, the insurance costs etc. would be too high. Similarly, the best stuntmen are not usually good or even acceptable actors.
By contrast, everyone has a body. It is alright if you are prudish and don't want to show it - that is your personal preference. But then you should not go for a role that requires the character to be nude 30% or more of the time.
Your comparison would be more appropriate in the case of a stunt(wo)man who uses a body double when he/she is required to show nudity. In practice they never do this. There are numerous people who don’t mind showing nudity and at the same time are able to perform the stunts.
reply
share
cybermastah
12 years ago
I won't deny that for a role that requires so much nudity that the actress ought to find a job elsewhere. I'm watching some HBO stuff right now and MAN, if those women weren't comfortable with showing some skin they'd probably never get half as much airtime as body doubles.
I guess I mainly find disagreement with people who complain when a movie features only one or two nude scenes and the woman refuses. In this movie I do agree that nudity appears a tad often.
reply
share