"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:f5pl35xj68.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
>> > AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Of course, this is sparing the pornographic versions of the big movies
>> >> that would be cool to watch. ;-)
>> >
>> > You can watch Caligula and/or some of the recent Digital Playground
>> > films to see why porn and big-budget films shoud not mix.
>>
>> No, what Caligula proved was that a porn maker shouldn't make movies.
>> Now picture Fellinis movies without the false modesty...
>
> Possibly. OTOH, I doubt they'd be any good as porn(/masturbatory
> material)
> at that point.

Nope, probably not as strictly wank material, but I imagine them to be quite
interesting.

AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> >> > AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Of course, this is sparing the pornographic versions of the big movies
> >> >> that would be cool to watch. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > You can watch Caligula and/or some of the recent Digital Playground
> >> > films to see why porn and big-budget films shoud not mix.
> >>
> >> No, what Caligula proved was that a porn maker shouldn't make movies.
> >> Now picture Fellinis movies without the false modesty...
> >
> > Possibly. OTOH, I doubt they'd be any good as porn(/masturbatory
> > material) at that point.
>
> Nope, probably not as strictly wank material, but I imagine them to be quite
> interesting.

I'm sure they'd be quite interesting, and potentially very good art; I'd be
curious what a lot of good directors would produce if explicit sex were
routine and allowable.

But that said... I don't think it would have *any* value as wank material
per se, let alone as "strictly wank material."

So... *shrug*... explicit it might be, but to my mind, good porn it would
not.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
posting domain | Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." (Groucho)

"Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:kh8n35xugc.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
>> > AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
>> >> > AJ <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Of course, this is sparing the pornographic versions of the big
>> >> >> movies
>> >> >> that would be cool to watch. ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > You can watch Caligula and/or some of the recent Digital Playground
>> >> > films to see why porn and big-budget films shoud not mix.
>> >>
>> >> No, what Caligula proved was that a porn maker shouldn't make movies.
>> >> Now picture Fellinis movies without the false modesty...
>> >
>> > Possibly. OTOH, I doubt they'd be any good as porn(/masturbatory
>> > material) at that point.
>>
>> Nope, probably not as strictly wank material, but I imagine them to be
>> quite
>> interesting.
>
> I'm sure they'd be quite interesting, and potentially very good art; I'd
> be
> curious what a lot of good directors would produce if explicit sex were
> routine and allowable.

Thats what I was hoping for. A more natural view of human sexuality in film.
It would be refreshing to watch that.

Of course, the flip side is the world where all the stars and starlets we
have ended up in conventional porn.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:10:42 -0400, "AJ" <torturedartist@gmail.com> wrote:

>Of course, the flip side is the world where all the stars and starlets we
>have ended up in conventional porn.

Because, Brave New World style, it's the only sort of movie around?

Jasper