Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:46 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses" 
Author Message
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
ed_metal_head wrote:
Is it alright to do CG nudity without an actor's permission?


Nope. Does there need to be a discussion? :P


Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:31 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3136
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Dragonbeard wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
Is it alright to do CG nudity without an actor's permission?


Nope. Does there need to be a discussion? :P


Actually, it probably is "okay," at least from a legal standpoint. It doesn't violate the "standard no nudity clause" (which I have read). It's like any other CG body work done, such as adding a limb in a science fiction movie or adding a tattoo or so on... (Granted, most of these things are done with the participant's permission.)

On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, I can't see it being done any time soon (especially with an established actress) without her permission. How better to alienate someone? And it would also brand the director as being untrustworthy.


Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:45 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
I figure that somewhere down the line all actors are going to be digital creations anyway, so what's the big deal?


Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:39 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
The deal is that this strikes me as more of an issue of privacy than anything else. If an actress doesn't want to appear nude/naked in a movie then using her likeness in the context of said nudity/nakedness, even digitally, goes against her wishes. Okay it isn't actually 'her' that can be seen but nobody in the world is going to not associate the two, mentally, unless the editing is utter shit (which it wont be).

We seem to forget that we don't have the right to see/hear/know anything when it comes to another person and their private business.


Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:49 am
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
A lot of movies feature actresses playing characters whose nude scenes are performed by body doubles. There is something that strikes me as wrong about using computer graphics to "fake" the actress in a nude scene, but I'm not sure it's different from the body double scenario.

Perhaps it veers into an issue of the accuracy of the likeness. What do the artists do? Is it permissible for them to go online and do research on illegitimate paparazzi nude photos of the actor? Does it become okay if the computerized nudity is sufficiently different from the real deal?


Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:41 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Ken wrote:
A lot of movies feature actresses playing characters whose nude scenes are performed by body doubles. There is something that strikes me as wrong about using computer graphics to "fake" the actress in a nude scene, but I'm not sure it's different from the body double scenario.

Perhaps it veers into an issue of the accuracy of the likeness. What do the artists do? Is it permissible for them to go online and do research on illegitimate paparazzi nude photos of the actor? Does it become okay if the computerized nudity is sufficiently different from the real deal?


Look at Beowulf. My understanding is that the artists went to great pains to "study" Angelina Jolie's previous nude scenes to construct her "nudity" (albeit nipple-less) in that CGI effort.


Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:25 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Beowulf, though, is an interesting case in which the nudity was done in computer graphics for reasons other than the actress not wanting to be photographed in the buff.


Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:11 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 403
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Not sure that I understand the thesis of the article as there is some reason to believe there is real nudity and fake nudity divide.Filmmaking like all other art is fake and false.Orson Welles made that point in his odd documentary F for Fake.His opinion was artists are magicians and illlusionists that use fakery to entertain their audience.An example if you can not tell a forged painting or sculpture from the real one does that lessen your enjoyment of it.

Films are all lies and fakery.The writers think up of something on their typewriter.CGI artists turn day into night and summer into winter on their computers.The directors storyboard a made up story and the actors act out false emotions and behaviors.Yet we believe and react to it as if it was real and laugh at it when it is done so badly and we see how fake it is.We have no problem believing that the planet of Pandora is a real place but we object to the artistic airbrushing of the nude figure.I think it is a non issue as it is all a part of the long artistic tradition of artistic creation and manipulation.The only real issue is the legal one where all parties have to agree to what will or will not be shown much like releases when models do other pictures.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:27 pm
Profile
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Brian De Palma, is that you?


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:45 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
oakenshield32 wrote:
Not sure that I understand the thesis of the article as there is some reason to believe there is real nudity and fake nudity divide.Filmmaking like all other art is fake and false.Orson Welles made that point in his odd documentary F for Fake.His opinion was artists are magicians and illlusionists that use fakery to entertain their audience.An example if you can not tell a forged painting or sculpture from the real one does that lessen your enjoyment of it.

Films are all lies and fakery.The writers think up of something on their typewriter.CGI artists turn day into night and summer into winter on their computers.The directors storyboard a made up story and the actors act out false emotions and behaviors.Yet we believe and react to it as if it was real and laugh at it when it is done so badly and we see how fake it is.We have no problem believing that the planet of Pandora is a real place but we object to the artistic airbrushing of the nude figure.I think it is a non issue as it is all a part of the long artistic tradition of artistic creation and manipulation.The only real issue is the legal one where all parties have to agree to what will or will not be shown much like releases when models do other pictures.


Dude, get an imagination...


Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:58 am
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 403
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Thanks for the well thought out and imaginative rebuttal. I am not sure what it means other than to be pointlessly sarcastic,rude and ad hominem. I will try to imagine the point your making that you can't quite think out. A movie can be made totally fake with CGI but I want Italian neorealism with my nudity.Okay but why? Nudity in movies is usually pointless and gratutious like Peter O'Toole in the Stuntman where he adds nudity in his new movie for no reason but to hide how bad his movie is by getting the audience worked up.Was Showgirls and 9 Songs any better for all the skin they showed? No it actually they were both boring after 15 minutes.So why should we care whether they treat nudity like another special effect in the movie when it is the least important element in all filmmaking.It is like having cheerleaders at football games.They are completely useless in creating a winning team but the fans feel they are indispensible to the game but when your 0-16 they can't even bring fans to the park.


Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:28 pm
Profile
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Not to derail the discussion or anything, but in light of a certain, recent, most excellent photo leak*, perhaps we could include a few thoughts about the trend of celebrities' private photographs and videos being exposed by technology. Willful marketing ploy? Foolish indiscretion? Invasion of privacy?

(*The actress in question shall remain anonymous. We'll call her S. Johannson. Wait, that's far too obvious. We'll call her Scarlett J.)


Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:43 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
Ken wrote:
Not to derail the discussion or anything, but in light of a certain, recent, most excellent photo leak*, perhaps we could include a few thoughts about the trend of celebrities' private photographs and videos being exposed by technology. Willful marketing ploy? Foolish indiscretion? Invasion of privacy?

(*The actress in question shall remain anonymous. We'll call her S. Johannson. Wait, that's far too obvious. We'll call her Scarlett J.)


That's shameful Kenneth. I'm so disappointed that you'd seek out those photos of that poor woman. She is a victim! There's no reason to admire the way she captured that image of her butt in the mirror or to gaze at her glorious mammaries while she lies in bed. Shame on you!

In this case the story seems fairly straightforward. The actress in question took said photographs herself and kept them on her phone which was hacked into. Sounds like a clear invasion of privacy. And some foolish indiscretion. This is not the first mobile phone to be hacked and it won't be the last. If you're any kind of prominent figure it's silly to keep such private pictures on such a device. Actually, that goes for everyone. No nude pics on your phone. They might not hack into it, but you may have to carry it for repairs someday.

That said, I firmly believe that other leaks have been "leaks". Kim Kardashian has somehow built an entire career out of a "leaked" adult video.


Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:43 pm
Post Re: August 15, 2011: "Barenaked Actresses"
I did not seek them.

They were magicked down from the heavens to my hard drive.


Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:49 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr