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.