Real Sex in Cinema! (Not to be confused with porn)

Do you believe it's alright to use real sex footage in a non-pornographic film?

Yes.	60.5%	[ 69 ]
No.	28.1%	[ 32 ]
No opinion.	11.4%	[ 13 ]
Total Votes:			[ 114 ]

[The Willow Of Darkness]

wasabichan

The20

Jenny Talia

The20

If porn is art me blowing my nose should be considered art, too.

Again it's subjective.
And you blowing your nose could be art like if you were using an American flag instead of a tissue.

Are you one of those people who consider (almost) everything to be art?

Although I sometimes feel that the term "art" is used too loosely I'd say intent matters a great deal. Whether it's what I'd call "good" art is another question.

That is correct. It is intent that matters(although for it actually to be described as art by anyone but the artist it needs to communicate the message-unless the message is how you feel about the artwork itself, which is something that is often found in abstract art- to another individual).

[The Willow Of Darkness]

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

If so, then they can, back-stage.

I meant that the actors might prefer to do real sex than simulated sex, meaning that the above is not applicable because it is not that the actors desperately want to have sex with each other, but because they have an aversion to doing simulated sex over real sex.

THAT is just an excuse to cheat on your spouse.

And about faking an orgasm, if you can't fake one of those, then maybe you shouldn't be in a movie where your character HAS one.

That assumes that one is in both that the people in question have spouses and are in a totally closed relationship. Neither of which are always the case.

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

[black_wing_angel]

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

If so, then they can, back-stage.

I meant that the actors might prefer to do real sex than simulated sex, meaning that the above is not applicable because it is not that the actors desperately want to have sex with each other, but because they have an aversion to doing simulated sex over real sex.

THAT is just an excuse to cheat on your spouse.

And about faking an orgasm, if you can't fake one of those, then maybe you shouldn't be in a movie where your character HAS one.

That assumes that one is in both that the people in question have spouses and are in a totally closed relationship. Neither of which are always the case.

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all possible outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job. If you have no interest in faking that scene, then you have no business being in that kind of movie.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree or disagree to do something like that, But that's the EXTENT of their influence. They don't have the final say in it, except "I'm not doing that!". The decision belongs to the director, and the director alone. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

THAT is just an excuse to cheat on your spouse.

And about faking an orgasm, if you can't fake one of those, then maybe you shouldn't be in a movie where your character HAS one.

That assumes that one is in both that the people in question have spouses and are in a totally closed relationship. Neither of which are always the case.

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

[black_wing_angel]

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

THAT is just an excuse to cheat on your spouse.

And about faking an orgasm, if you can't fake one of those, then maybe you shouldn't be in a movie where your character HAS one.

That assumes that one is in both that the people in question have spouses and are in a totally closed relationship. Neither of which are always the case.

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

True, I suppose.

But there's still the fact of it being ultimately pointless. Unless you see actual penetration (which would generally qualify it as pornography), there's no reason for the actual sexuality.

Again, it's like sending an actor to driver's ed, to learn how to do stunts in the movie, that he won't even be seen doing. If it's not going to be seen, there's no point in wasting extra time and money, to make it real, when a stand-in, or a "faking" would produce the same exact footage.

Maybe it'd make for a more fun "behind the scenes" story, but still not actually worth anything. Wasted time and money. And Movie producers tend to hate both.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

True, I suppose.

But there's still the fact of it being ultimately pointless. Unless you see actual penetration (which would generally qualify it as pornography), there's no reason for the actual sexuality.

Again, it's like sending an actor to driver's ed, to learn how to do stunts in the movie, that he won't even be seen doing. If it's not going to be seen, there's no point in wasting extra time and money, to make it real, when a stand-in, or a "faking" would produce the same exact footage.

Maybe it'd make for a more fun "behind the scenes" story, but still not actually worth anything. Wasted time and money. And Movie producers tend to hate both.

Well, the point in my situation was simply: the actors prefer it. There was no other reason production wise for actual sex to occur.

Very true, I was never suggesting that would be a common occurrence; although, I could definitely see, in certain a situations, some filmmakers going along with it or the actors having enough bargaining power to demand it.

[black_wing_angel]

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

Either way, there's absolutely no way it's necessary, except in porno.

What if one of the actors feels that he should ACTUALLY kill the guy playing the villian, to make it more realistic? There's no reason to allow for it.

Apples to oranges, as killing someone has far different consequences than consensual sex. A more appropriate comparison would be an actor who wishes to do his own stunts.

Certainly not necessary, but what people prefer to do often exceeds necessity.

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

True, I suppose.

But there's still the fact of it being ultimately pointless. Unless you see actual penetration (which would generally qualify it as pornography), there's no reason for the actual sexuality.

Again, it's like sending an actor to driver's ed, to learn how to do stunts in the movie, that he won't even be seen doing. If it's not going to be seen, there's no point in wasting extra time and money, to make it real, when a stand-in, or a "faking" would produce the same exact footage.

Maybe it'd make for a more fun "behind the scenes" story, but still not actually worth anything. Wasted time and money. And Movie producers tend to hate both.

Well, the point in my situation was simply: the actors prefer it. There was no other reason production wise for actual sex to occur.

Very true, I was never suggesting that would be a common occurrence; although, I could definitely see, in certain a situations, some filmmakers going along with it or the actors having enough bargaining power to demand it.

I can't see a single situation where the actor would have such bargaining power. They may have an easier job than you or I, but they're still not self-employed. They play ball with the director, and more importantly, the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER (the absolute head hancho), or they're cut, replaced, and all their work is for nothing, because they won't see a penny for any of it. No one wants to risk doing a lot of work, for nothing, so the actor has very little actual bargaining power, aside from making suggestions, which can easily be overruled.

Yes, there are some actors that might be famous enough to be mistaken as "irreplacable", and even specifically hand-picked for the role. But even they aren't irreplacable, if things don't work out.

Take, for example, the TV show "Married...With Children". The role of Al Bundy was HAND DEVELOPED for comedian Sam Kinison. But in the end, his pervasive personality and such, ruled even HIM out as a possible cast member, and the role was given to Ed O'Neil.

Actors are never untouchable.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

True, I suppose.

But there's still the fact of it being ultimately pointless. Unless you see actual penetration (which would generally qualify it as pornography), there's no reason for the actual sexuality.

Again, it's like sending an actor to driver's ed, to learn how to do stunts in the movie, that he won't even be seen doing. If it's not going to be seen, there's no point in wasting extra time and money, to make it real, when a stand-in, or a "faking" would produce the same exact footage.

Maybe it'd make for a more fun "behind the scenes" story, but still not actually worth anything. Wasted time and money. And Movie producers tend to hate both.

Well, the point in my situation was simply: the actors prefer it. There was no other reason production wise for actual sex to occur.

Very true, I was never suggesting that would be a common occurrence; although, I could definitely see, in certain a situations, some filmmakers going along with it or the actors having enough bargaining power to demand it.

I can't see a single situation where the actor would have such bargaining power. They may have an easier job than you or I, but they're still not self-employed. They play ball with the director, and more importantly, the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER (the absolute head hancho), or they're cut, replaced, and all their work is for nothing, because they won't see a penny for any of it. No one wants to risk doing a lot of work, for nothing, so the actor has very little actual bargaining power, aside from making suggestions, which can easily be overruled.

Yes, there are some actors that might be famous enough to be mistaken as "irreplacable", and even specifically hand-picked for the role. But even they aren't irreplacable, if things don't work out.

Take, for example, the TV show "Married...With Children". The role of Al Bundy was HAND DEVELOPED for comedian Sam Kinison. But in the end, his pervasive personality and such, ruled even HIM out as a possible cast member, and the role was given to Ed O'Neil.

Actors are never untouchable.

I was thinking of a situation where a production desperately wanted specific actors, while such a situation is certainly rare, it would be silly to say that it never exists.

Plus, there is always the case of the executive producer-director-actor trifecta(or possibly just the executive producer-actor).

[black_wing_angel]

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

Actually, it's not apples to oranges. People have been, so I've heard, convicted of attempted murder (or possibly "manslaughter", whichever), for spreading STD's to a partner. So the over-all outcome is still pretty much the same. Just not quite as sudden.

And to prevent this, there are STD tests, and s**t, that take a good amount of time and money, and simply are not worth it, for 1 scene.

Just ******** fake it, and be done with it. If you're an actor, faking s**t like that, is your job.

Not to mention the fact that it's really not up to the actor. They may agree to do something like that, but aside from possible objections, they don't have the final say in it. That's the director. What the actor wants, is generally unimportant.

Well no, because the likelihood of an STD causing a death is far lower than the likelihood of death as the result of someone deliberately killing a person. I must say that your straw-grasping is rather impressive though.

The cost of several STD tests would be rather a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget of a lot of films, certainly it would mean that the budget may not be as cheap as it could have been, but it wouldn't be far fetched to consider that there would be occasions where the production would be willing to bare the cost. Not to mention that the actors may elect to pay for the tests themselves.

I am, of course, talking of situations where the actor does have a say.

True, I suppose.

But there's still the fact of it being ultimately pointless. Unless you see actual penetration (which would generally qualify it as pornography), there's no reason for the actual sexuality.

Again, it's like sending an actor to driver's ed, to learn how to do stunts in the movie, that he won't even be seen doing. If it's not going to be seen, there's no point in wasting extra time and money, to make it real, when a stand-in, or a "faking" would produce the same exact footage.

Maybe it'd make for a more fun "behind the scenes" story, but still not actually worth anything. Wasted time and money. And Movie producers tend to hate both.

Well, the point in my situation was simply: the actors prefer it. There was no other reason production wise for actual sex to occur.

Very true, I was never suggesting that would be a common occurrence; although, I could definitely see, in certain a situations, some filmmakers going along with it or the actors having enough bargaining power to demand it.

I can't see a single situation where the actor would have such bargaining power. They may have an easier job than you or I, but they're still not self-employed. They play ball with the director, and more importantly, the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER (the absolute head hancho), or they're cut, replaced, and all their work is for nothing, because they won't see a penny for any of it. No one wants to risk doing a lot of work, for nothing, so the actor has very little actual bargaining power, aside from making suggestions, which can easily be overruled.

Yes, there are some actors that might be famous enough to be mistaken as "irreplacable", and even specifically hand-picked for the role. But even they aren't irreplacable, if things don't work out.

Take, for example, the TV show "Married...With Children". The role of Al Bundy was HAND DEVELOPED for comedian Sam Kinison. But in the end, his pervasive personality and such, ruled even HIM out as a possible cast member, and the role was given to Ed O'Neil.

Actors are never untouchable.

I was thinking of a situation where a production desperately wanted specific actors, while such a situation is certainly rare, it would be silly to say that it never exists.

Plus, there is always the case of the executive producer-director-actor trifecta(or possibly just the executive producer-actor).

I get what you're saying. I'm just saying, don't count on ever seeing that happen. Despite how movies set INSIDE Hollywood tend to portray the director-actor relationship ("NO! YOU CAN'T LEAVE! YOU'LL RUIN EVERYTHING! I'LL BE BACK FLIPPING BURGERS AT MCDONALDS! PLEASE JUST....DON'T LEAVE, OK?!" wink , I don't think there are many (if any) situations where they're completely willing to bow to the actor's will. They might be willing to bend, a bit, to preserve the project, but flat out bowing down, just doesn't happen.

The closest situation in film history, that I can think of, where an actor had the kind of influence you're talking about, was in one of the Indiana Jones movies. Ford was scripted to fight this big arab guy with a sword, in an "epic battle", but it was too ******** hot, and he was too tired, and when told "ACTION!" he just whipped out his pistol, and shot the guy, who just followed suit, and "died" (remarkable improving, on that guy's part!). The director liked this so much, that he decided to make it the final cut, for that scene. But of course, he could easily have just demanded a retake. It just happened to be hilarious and impressive enough, that he couldn't help but love it.

[De Kelley]

black_wing_angel

De Kelley

black_wing_angel

well if you're not getting the full visual, then what's the value of it being real?

Hollywood COULD use real explosions, in movie scenes where the hero stands in the flames, while s**t behind him explodes. But why?

Simulation is just as good, and SAFER!

Hollywood used to real use explosions... I think in a lot of cases real explosions are still used, but are "superimposed" into the film... rather than actually literally being feet from the actors like before. People got injured in the old stunts.

Quite aware of that. But my point is that, if you can get the same point across, with alterations, and camera magic, why bother doing the "real deal"? What's the value in knowing that it was made "real", when the same shot could be done with camera magic?

That's like putting an actor through 6 months of advanced driver's ed, for the benefit of 1 scene, where his face isn't even visible. Just use a stand-in....

You make a good point. The only way I can see real sex on camera being of any use is:

1) They want to show actual intercourse in the film, bringing it to an adult and most likely pornographic level (it's hard to show intercourse without it being porn) and/or
2) I would think actual intercourse would make it more real for the actors... but we're called actors for a reason. We're supposed to be able to simulate events without them actually happening.

[De Kelley]

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

The Willow Of Darkness

black_wing_angel

De Kelley

black_wing_angel

well if you're not getting the full visual, then what's the value of it being real?

Hollywood COULD use real explosions, in movie scenes where the hero stands in the flames, while s**t behind him explodes. But why?

Simulation is just as good, and SAFER!

Hollywood used to real use explosions... I think in a lot of cases real explosions are still used, but are "superimposed" into the film... rather than actually literally being feet from the actors like before. People got injured in the old stunts.

Quite aware of that. But my point is that, if you can get the same point across, with alterations, and camera magic, why bother doing the "real deal"? What's the value in knowing that it was made "real", when the same shot could be done with camera magic?

That's like putting an actor through 6 months of advanced driver's ed, for the benefit of 1 scene, where his face isn't even visible. Just use a stand-in....

Well, the actors might prefer to do the real thing.

If so, then they can, back-stage.

I meant that the actors might prefer to do real sex than simulated sex, meaning that the above is not applicable because it is not that the actors desperately want to have sex with each other, but because they have an aversion to doing simulated sex over real sex.

in my mind... that's a piss-poor actor who can't act, but instead needs to actually do said thing (whatever it is, not just sex). This reminds me of actors who can't work with puppets of green screens.

[Jon quitted]

Do those movies do not contain "Hot slutty" women?

Because those things are hideous.