When a sex scene is necessary, that means it is warranted by the plot and is the best way to achieve the effect the film is going for. I expect every scene in a movie to be thematically relevant.
There’s a reason I chose the term thematically relevant. The creator of that movie gets to decide what those themes are. Different things will work in that movie depending on what kind of movie you want to make. I don’t like or dislike sex in movies. I just want it to be there or not be there for a good reason.
I just finished season one of “The Boys” and they did a fantastic job of implementing “necessary” sex scenes and excluding or “cutting to black” on ones that aren’t. Just a few examples:
spoiler
They only show the lead-up and follow-up of the oral-rape scene with The Deep and Starlight. We don’t need to (or want to) watch the actual encounter because the important info is what led up to it and how Starlight reacted; the audience wouldn’t gain anything additional by watching the actual act.
However they do show the scene where The Deep gets gill-raped, because it’s weird enough that the act itself needs to be shown to be understood by the audience, and watching The Deep’s reaction to what is happening while it’s happening is important (the pain, the powerlessness, the confusion). Starlight realizes what is happening before the rape itself; The Deep only realizes while in the midst of it, because as a man/abuser he doesn’t expect to be on the receiving end of what he’s been remorselessly fishing out (autocorrect turned dishing into fishing and I’m leaving it).
The sex scenes between Stillwell and Homelander are weird and uncomfortable, but a respectable implementation of show-don’t-tell of their complicated Oedipal relationship (as we learn that during intercourse Stillwell treats Homelander like her young child, presumably as a calculated way to control him and secure the loyalty of an incredibly dangerous loose cannon). Given the theme of a child raised without a mother, and Homelander’s eventual murder of Stillwell, I accept the artistic decision to include scenes of their intimacy so that the audience better understands their bizarre relationship.
Generally the sex scenes aren’t titillating and don’t last longer than necessary to convey whatever plot/character development the writers want to reveal to the audience. This is another reason why I think their inclusion is highly calculated, and arguably “necessary.”
Replace “sex scene” with “action sequence.” There are plenty of movies where the action sequence is engaging, “thematically relevant” (as another commenter phrased it), and enhances the movie. Then there are Michael Bay-type movies, where the action sequence is over-the-top, gratuitous, and feels like filler that you have to get through before the actual movie can resume… in other words, an “unnecessary” action sequence. There’s nothing wrong with movies with gratuitous action scenes existing; there is a place in cinema for Rambo and the MCU, just like there’s a place for smut. But much like how I don’t want to have to sit through a gratuitous CGI-heavy action sequence in the middle of a historical drama, I think it’s legitimate to question the addition of sex scenes in movies/TV where you wouldn’t expect it (or wouldn’t expect it to be so long/graphic), especially if it doesn’t feel like the scene added anything to the movie other than titillation.
I think there’s an actual guy on Pornhub who posts videos of him subverting all the pervy tropes by just playing them straight without the transition to sex, and it became such a meme that actual porn stars began showing up in his videos to also play the pervy tropes straight.
It’s basically Ned Flanders being told to act out the initial dialogue in a porno and it’s absolutely hilarious.
On the other hand, I think a lot more people would notice how often sex scenes actually are simply gratuitous and taking up air time that could be better spent elsewhere if they were all gay sex scenes. Because goddamn, seeing the same boring straight sex scene hamfisted into a bunch of movies gets old real fast if it’s not sexy to you.
“We’ve”? You may internalize whatever you’d like, but I don’t think judging sex scenes by necessary or unnecessary is even a realistic metric at all. Movies are an art form. That’s like saying, Renoir had to many extra people in his paintings, not all of them were necessary. I personally prefer more explicit sex scenes woven into movies about intimate relationships and I think watching something like a tiger disembowling someone is in my opinion less than necessary. Just show the tiger and then maybe a body bag or something. But that’s completely just a personal preference, no we shit.
I disagree that a lot of society has “internalized this”. Perhaps Lemmy and other social media bubbles may lead you to believe this, but the sample sizes are ridiculously skewed. It’s like saying a lot of people love Arch Linux. Well, yeah, on Lemmy they do! But that’s not the real world.
I just think we statements broadcast to a bunch of strangers on the internet are a bad idea in general.
They’re just being puritanical or shy with their movie watching company.
Or asexual and sex repulsed, or sexually traumatized. Why do you jump straight to calling people reactionaries when there are perfectly good legitimate reasons for their behaviour? It’s almost like you don’t believe in asexuals.
I watch movies alone or with my hot transbian gf 🥵 that I often have sex with during those movies (on pause and some music playing in the act though) and we still think those are unnecessary as fuck.
I think implied sex is okay if it’s strongly needed by the plot, but otherwise if I wanted to see sex I’d either watch a porno or just actually have sex lol.
I feel like the only people who argue for ooga booga booba in movies and TV are boomer sex pests who probably used to jack off the the theatre and miss the community
Some action scenes are absolutely unnecessary to the story being told. Some sex scenes are unnecessary to the story being told. Some dialogs are unnecessary, redundant, or ruin the impact of a movie.
It depends on what the story is, the context of the rest of the movie, and the way everything is portrayed. And where exactly the line on the spectrum is will largely be up to personal taste and preference, but there are absolutely two sides of the spectrum.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
When a sex scene is necessary, that means it is warranted by the plot and is the best way to achieve the effect the film is going for. I expect every scene in a movie to be thematically relevant.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
There’s a reason I chose the term thematically relevant. The creator of that movie gets to decide what those themes are. Different things will work in that movie depending on what kind of movie you want to make. I don’t like or dislike sex in movies. I just want it to be there or not be there for a good reason.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
I just finished season one of “The Boys” and they did a fantastic job of implementing “necessary” sex scenes and excluding or “cutting to black” on ones that aren’t. Just a few examples:
spoiler
They only show the lead-up and follow-up of the oral-rape scene with The Deep and Starlight. We don’t need to (or want to) watch the actual encounter because the important info is what led up to it and how Starlight reacted; the audience wouldn’t gain anything additional by watching the actual act.
However they do show the scene where The Deep gets gill-raped, because it’s weird enough that the act itself needs to be shown to be understood by the audience, and watching The Deep’s reaction to what is happening while it’s happening is important (the pain, the powerlessness, the confusion). Starlight realizes what is happening before the rape itself; The Deep only realizes while in the midst of it, because as a man/abuser he doesn’t expect to be on the receiving end of what he’s been remorselessly fishing out (autocorrect turned dishing into fishing and I’m leaving it).
The sex scenes between Stillwell and Homelander are weird and uncomfortable, but a respectable implementation of show-don’t-tell of their complicated Oedipal relationship (as we learn that during intercourse Stillwell treats Homelander like her young child, presumably as a calculated way to control him and secure the loyalty of an incredibly dangerous loose cannon). Given the theme of a child raised without a mother, and Homelander’s eventual murder of Stillwell, I accept the artistic decision to include scenes of their intimacy so that the audience better understands their bizarre relationship.
Generally the sex scenes aren’t titillating and don’t last longer than necessary to convey whatever plot/character development the writers want to reveal to the audience. This is another reason why I think their inclusion is highly calculated, and arguably “necessary.”
Replace “sex scene” with “action sequence.” There are plenty of movies where the action sequence is engaging, “thematically relevant” (as another commenter phrased it), and enhances the movie. Then there are Michael Bay-type movies, where the action sequence is over-the-top, gratuitous, and feels like filler that you have to get through before the actual movie can resume… in other words, an “unnecessary” action sequence. There’s nothing wrong with movies with gratuitous action scenes existing; there is a place in cinema for Rambo and the MCU, just like there’s a place for smut. But much like how I don’t want to have to sit through a gratuitous CGI-heavy action sequence in the middle of a historical drama, I think it’s legitimate to question the addition of sex scenes in movies/TV where you wouldn’t expect it (or wouldn’t expect it to be so long/graphic), especially if it doesn’t feel like the scene added anything to the movie other than titillation.
Imagine porn without any sex scenes.
Go on…
He fixes the cable.
Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
No no, Comcast actually doing something useful would be highly erotic and fantasy of the highest order
He hands over the pizza and gets a $3 tip. Then the pizza buyers are disappointed that there isn’t enough sausage.
James Gunn’s PG Porn.
I had forgotten this existed and I thank you for reminding me of it.
I think there’s an actual guy on Pornhub who posts videos of him subverting all the pervy tropes by just playing them straight without the transition to sex, and it became such a meme that actual porn stars began showing up in his videos to also play the pervy tropes straight.
It’s basically Ned Flanders being told to act out the initial dialogue in a porno and it’s absolutely hilarious.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
deleted by creator
On one hand, I think you’re broadly correct.
On the other hand, I think a lot more people would notice how often sex scenes actually are simply gratuitous and taking up air time that could be better spent elsewhere if they were all gay sex scenes. Because goddamn, seeing the same boring straight sex scene hamfisted into a bunch of movies gets old real fast if it’s not sexy to you.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
“We’ve”? You may internalize whatever you’d like, but I don’t think judging sex scenes by necessary or unnecessary is even a realistic metric at all. Movies are an art form. That’s like saying, Renoir had to many extra people in his paintings, not all of them were necessary. I personally prefer more explicit sex scenes woven into movies about intimate relationships and I think watching something like a tiger disembowling someone is in my opinion less than necessary. Just show the tiger and then maybe a body bag or something. But that’s completely just a personal preference, no we shit.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
I disagree that a lot of society has “internalized this”. Perhaps Lemmy and other social media bubbles may lead you to believe this, but the sample sizes are ridiculously skewed. It’s like saying a lot of people love Arch Linux. Well, yeah, on Lemmy they do! But that’s not the real world. I just think we statements broadcast to a bunch of strangers on the internet are a bad idea in general.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Or asexual and sex repulsed, or sexually traumatized. Why do you jump straight to calling people reactionaries when there are perfectly good legitimate reasons for their behaviour? It’s almost like you don’t believe in asexuals.
I watch movies alone or with my hot transbian gf 🥵 that I often have sex with during those movies (on pause and some music playing in the act though) and we still think those are unnecessary as fuck.
I think implied sex is okay if it’s strongly needed by the plot, but otherwise if I wanted to see sex I’d either watch a porno or just actually have sex lol.
I feel like the only people who argue for ooga booga booba in movies and TV are boomer sex pests who probably used to jack off the the theatre and miss the community
Sir this is a Wendy’s
Exactly. That’s why movies don’t need them.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
They literally are though. Read fireweed’s comment
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Some action scenes are absolutely unnecessary to the story being told. Some sex scenes are unnecessary to the story being told. Some dialogs are unnecessary, redundant, or ruin the impact of a movie.
It depends on what the story is, the context of the rest of the movie, and the way everything is portrayed. And where exactly the line on the spectrum is will largely be up to personal taste and preference, but there are absolutely two sides of the spectrum.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas