This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"It turns out massacres are a lot like sitting through God Father 3, once is enough."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 24 October 2014




Tweet







November 25 2005

Keeping it On: SMG does not and will not do nude scenes. Brief article in NY Post; apparently she's been offered significant money and has turned it down (reg req).

1. God damnit!!

2. Reg required

3. *further expletives*

:P
Here:
November 25, 2005 -- SARAH Michelle Gellar will not show her breasts and she doesn't care how much money Hollywood offers. We hear that Gellar, married to Hollywood hunk Freddie Prinze Jr., has been offered roles for "major money" but turned them down because the part would require her doffing her top. A rep for the actress said, "Sarah doesn't do nudity, period. It has never been her thing."

Yes, I'd like to see her naked, what man who tells the truth wouldn't, but I respect her decision just as I respect Charisma's decision to pose for Playboy...different points of view and equally valid imo!
Exactly how many actresses over the years have thrown out the old "no nudity EVER" line only to renege completely on that years later?

I'm not casting stones here, but it seems we here this far too often from actresses eager for some sort of credibility/respectability, only to abndon that if they think they can get something out of it - especially if it involves that Oscar guy, or some kind of career jumpstart. It would be nice if SMG stayed true to her word... but I guess we'll only see if that's the case in about a decade from now.
Sorry about the registration...I didn't know...I read the NY Post on line (along with a bunch of other papers), and I don't even remember ever having registered, but I guess I must have done so at some point.

Thanks, IMMORTAL, for posting the full text of the brief item (which appeared in the paper's Page Six gossip column.)
Haven't this story been posted before in some shape or fashion?
SMG naked........i dunno she was way hotter during Season 1 of Buffy and pretty much before the 4th season.
Simon, I remember SMG said this very thing to the press a few years ago.
Simon, You're probably thinking of the version of this story in the other direction , that she was willling to do nudity to get roles.

I think ,since I haven't heard of her doing any new interview where this might have come from, that this just the tabloid press trying to keep the story going in another form.
I kind of remember that, garda39, that she was hinting the other direction.
I'm pretty sure she said she couldn't imagine doing any kind of nudity in a film, but that she'd never say never since there are films where it genuinely is used to further the plot and/or character (I'm paraphrasing).
Next week's revelations (invisble texted for those who don't want to be spoiled for next week's headlines at Whedonesque).


NOOOOOO Not Parker!!!!!!
I'd write a Parker sequel. Yep. I'm THAT good at writing. Arm the oscars.

A British tabloid reported Sarah was going nude for Southland Tales a few months ago. However, they made the story up. Surprising, I know, get the heart pills.

In unrelated news, I see The Grudge 2 has entered production..
Crap, I read Simon's post. Guess I can pretty much stay away from whedonesque the coming week now ;-)

With regard to this story: it just kinda tires me, really, the whole nudity issue. Who honestly cares if she does or doesn't do it? Is SMG a good-looking woman? Yes. Do I respect and like her as an actress? Yes. Is any of that going to change if she does or doesn't do a nude scene? Nope. So, honestly, for me it's just a non-issue.
I'm not really fussed if SMG goes nude or not. All power to her if she doesn't want to.
My position has always been that it's more of a distraction..."Is that what her ass really looks like" and such. I'm firmly convinced that any story can be powerfully and forcefully told without resorting to nudity.

I always like this question: Would "Casablanca" have been better if it had contained an explicit sex scene between Rick and Ilsa?

One man's opinion, obviously.
Sexy doesn't always equate to nudity for me. Cruel Intentions, hello?
I agreed with GVH and Gossi about SMG's nudity and I think that her decision it is appreciable, in Hollywood is so much more easy to make a career without your clothes on
Chris, I agree many many movies can be just as effective without nudity (I haven't even seen it, but I understand Halle Berry going topless in Swordfish was 100% gratuitous, and she even got paid specifically for that.). But any story can be told as well without nudity? Casablance doesn't need nudity, but I would say Sin City does, or Fight Club. It can legitimately be part of creating a world, telling a story.

[ edited by jam2 on 2005-11-26 01:08 ]
As Gossi has mentioned, the "story" a few months back that Gellar was actively seeking roles allowing her to go nude (supposedly because she wanted to be taken more seriously) was a complete fabrication started by the British tabloid press. As others have mentioned, this latest piece of gossip is just the same thing in reverse. It is simply intended to fill up a couple of column inches and serves no other purpose at all.

Gellar has stated on several occasions that she's not interested in taking on roles requiring her to go naked. That's it, basically. Is it important? For myself, I wouldn't think so. It doesn't seem to me to be something that either requires her to be commended or criticised for her actions. It's simply her choice to make.

Gossi, you mentioned that 'The Grudge 2' has gone into production. Are you sure? There is no indication of this at the Ghost House Pictures website and I've not read anything elsewhere to suggest this is the case.
dashboardprophet - it's been scheduled with the UK FDA (Film Distributors Association) for release, which is generally a good sign.

Just for information, I think nudity (and also sex) used in the right place - as in, as part of the story, is fine. River emerging from the box, naked and vulnerable - literally - worked. There wasn't anything sexual in that moment. There wasn't meant to be, I suspect. You don't see lots of wallpapers and fans obsessing over that moment. But that was Summer Glau - who is, by the way, beautiful - naked. Naked naked naked(ish). And nobody tends to mention it. Which, to me, says it was for the project. So if SMG chose to do something like that, all power to the girl. If not, all power to the girl equally.
dashboardprophet: Stephen Susco (the writer) has discussed how things are going with TG2 on the forum at his site - stephensusco.com. He's written the script and was flying out to Japan this week or so for final discussions. Shooting is scheduled to begin in January, which would seem to suggest that SMG won't be involved since she'll be shooting The Air I Breathe, but he has also hinted that not all of the filming will be done in Japan. So who knows... there could be a cameo or something. Sony I would imagine would definitely like to have her involved. Final casting details will be released in the very near future.

[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-26 02:27 ]
Gossi, She was indeed quite sexy clothed in Cruel Intentions, and even more so in Harvard Man. The latter's scene on the fallen tree with her and Adrien Grenier involved enough grinding together of "nethers" (albeit without batteries) that I would think some actresses might find it more objectionable or embarrassing than simple non-touchy nudity. But perhaps not. I respect her choices either way.
Well, good for her. It makes me that much more sure that I've thrown my allegiance behind the right actress.
gossi, I like the River example. Then, of course, there's Mal's butt in Trash. That's comedy gold!
I can honestly say I do not wish to see her naked. Now Nathan Fillion...theres another story. Meow. (lol)
It's obviously up to each actress whether or not she wants to go topless, for their various reasons. Personally, if I had a decent body and the nudity furthered the story or made sense, and wasn't just pointless 'boobage', I'd probably do it. Just last night hubby showed me The Outlaw Josey Wales, and we see Sandra Locke's bare behind and a breast. Now it makes sense, because a band of louts are tearing at her clothes to rape her. So seeing some nudity in this instance is rather expected. Now having some sex scene just to show bouncing boobs...I've never been a fan of. Yes, it make sense to see boobs and other bits when people have sex, but sometimes it's obvious the only point is to be showing skin. I find that as ridiculous as intricately placed sheets and clothes to hide nudity. I find no reason to focus on nudity anymore than taking great pains to hide it. Nudity happens.

Kind of like with the Janet Jackson thing. I'm not impressed at whatever they were trying to accomplish with the 'wardrobe malfunction', but again, it was just a boob, and I didn't have a meltdown over it. Personally, I was more disappointed over the fact that it was made obvious that it's perfectly okay to show our kids adult men smashing and bashing each other, but a bit of nipplage is an outrage. Makes me wonder about American values sometimes...

But back on topic, if nudity isn't SMG's thing, that's her choice. I don't think we should expect just because someone is an actress that we should get to see her goodies. I'm pretty sure I'll never see James Marsters' lil' Spike, and I'm pretty sure it's not expected of him to show it. (Though I know he's shown it in a play, I assume he decided it made sense in that context.) I'm also certain we'll never have discussions about how shocking it is that James isn't willing to show his willie.

"Sarah doesn't do nudity, period. It has never been her thing."

All I gotta say is, poor Freddie! :~P

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2005-11-26 05:57 ]
You know I never really understand the big deal either way myself. If Sarah doesn't wanna go nude, she shouldn't. There's plenty of actresses who had fine careers without showing their bits. And actresses that do show their bits too often run the risk of just becoming T&A. So I can see it. Or maybe she just doesn't relish being naked in front of strangers which I can certainly understand too. But I don't really see why I should either admire or not admire either choice.

As my wife pointed out, if nudity is functional and not exploitative, I don't have a problem with it, and certainly not with the actress that does it. If people deliberately hold sheets up to hide themselves from no other character than the one they've been naked with all night, then it looks ridiclous so I'd prefer some realism then.

But also, you can enter the 'gratuitous' or 'exploitative' areas easily without showing your bits. As I said, I don't know why Sarah doesn't want to do it and it's none of my business, but her sex scenes in Harvard Man were certainly graphic and gratuitous (And may I say I loved the hell out of them) without her showing boobs. This tells me that A: absence of naked doesn't have to mean absence of sexy, so naked is certainly not always necessary even to spice up sex scenes. And B: If gratuious sexual content IS her problem (Which it may not) why is showing a nipple a big no-no for her, but gyrating her butt extensively on a guys crotch in the woods is no problem at all?

Again no judgement either way because I don't care either way, but it's interesting. And may I say again how much my pervy self enjoyed those scenes! Seriously, Sarah does great sex scenes without nudity, both in HM and BtVS S6 and I certainly didn't need her to get naked in there for it to be sexy so more power to her. But I can't really get a bead on why she has trouble with certain things, and not with others.

(I'd love to ask her but if I ever came face to face with her I'd probably rather die a thousand deaths than actually do that! I think I'd rather just drool, hem, haw and ask for her autograph like the rest of us....;-)
Scoff. What do you mean by lil, rogue?
Scoff. What do you mean by lil, rogue?

I seem to recall James saying something about wearing a 'little sock' to cover himself! :~P
But I guess I need to do a bit more crotch watching before I can make an educated assumption.

*off to watch da Marsters' crotch*
I also refuse to take off my clothes for money. Don't even ask.

OK. Maybe just this once...
It seems to me that sexual content isn't her problem so much as being naked onscreen, and I can personally understand that. I think it's one thing to act out sexual content while having the important parts covered, but doing it while nude or semi-nude is just taking it a step further. You firstly have to be okay with a room full of virtual strangers seeing you naked, and then you have to deal with being in a fairly intimate position with a guy (or girl) while they too are nude or semi-nude. Regardless of the issue of sexual content, I can understand why some actresses would make the choice to only be in positions like that with their real significant other. Equally, if my husband was doing a love scene in a movie, I'd find it a lot easier to deal with if he and the other person weren't naked. Maybe there isn't a huge amount of difference when you look at it objectively, but I know it'd make me feel better. While I make no judgements on those who are willing to reveal themselves in films, it doesn't surprise me at all that some would want their real partners to be the only people to see them naked.

FWIW, SMG has also commented before about not necessarily being all that confident when it comes to her body. Remember Buffy vs. Dracula where she talked about making sure she could wear a sarong and being amazed that others (presumably meaning Emma) were confident enough to wear nothing but a bikini? It seems that she is perhaps more confident these days, but if someone has any issues with their own bodies (no matter how minor), again it's understandable that they wouldn't want to be shown in all their glory on a cinema screen. Not to mention all of your friends and family possibly seeing you naked since they'd presumably see the film at some stage. I think the issue is more about her just not wanting to do it, but it's still a consideration.

Lastly, no matter how "in character" the nudity is, the fact remains that there would be people in different parts of the world screencapping those scenes and wearing out their pause buttons. There's already an insane amount of fake SMG porn out there (as she herself has joked about during an interview with Leno). So if she was to actually do any real nudity, I don't think it would help. I can't imagine finding that thought anything other than creepy.

I don't think SMG herself is judging others for either doing or not doing nude scenes. It seems to me that it's a very personal decision that each actor or actress has to make for themselves. She has clearly decided that she'd prefer not to do them. Fair enough.

[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-26 13:16 ]
A bit late in the day - and off topic - but thank you to Gossi and Impossible for the information about 'The Grunge 2'.
I thought there was an interview with SMG fairly recently where she said she wanted a chance to have a nude scene to show how she is a serious actress? Does anyone else remember that?

But personally I respect her decision not to do nude scenes, if in fact that is her current position. I think there's so many young "actresses" who are only famous for their "assets" and how much they are willing to show. Yes, nudity where appropriate can be part of a good performance, but mostly these days it's completely gratuitous just for titillation and doesn't add anything to the story.

I think Sarah is a phenomenal actress and doesn't need to get naked to show us how great she is, so more power to her. But I do respect actresses who do it for the right reasons.
Razor: That was made up by the British tabloids.
Yeah, after watching Harvard Man, it was pretty clear that she wouldn't do any even partially nekkid scenes, but she was okay with being in some unusual positions. I don't get the fuss over whether or not she's going to strip, though. I, uh, sort of liked her more when she had a little bit of roundness to her in Season 1.

Since we are mentioning Carpenter, let's not forget the "other Buffy" photoshoot for Swanson.
I don't think nudity per se is the issue. It's the inequality. If men were seen in the buff as much as the women, there would be no problem. NYPD Blue handled the issue well back in the day -- everybody was fair game. But when the issue is always one-sided, then it becomes an issue. Look at all the complaints JM has made about his nude scenes, because of the one-sidedness of it. But, generally speaking, if a male actor refuses to do nude scenes, who gives a darn? Most male actors go through entire careers without ever having to face the issue. Their refusal certainly would not merit an article, nor a thread here. But let it be a woman, and -- well, here we are.
Off topic:
Simon just deleted an article that appeared briefly as a Whedonesque headlined item. The title of the article was:

"Afghan Editor who put Buffy on cover of Women's Mag jailed. Mohaqeq Nasab, who started Women's Rights magazine in Afghanistan, has been sentenced to two years in prison for blashphemy." ( http://xrl.us/iyfy )

Simon's comment was: "Not exactly front page news for Whedonesque." And then he deleted the post.

I disagree, I think the article is interesting and very relevant. Much of Joss's writings are about female empowerment and the injustices that sometimes surround it. It's rather eerie when the real world come crashing in and drives that point home. Epecially when the editor used Joss's writing and characters as an example of women's rights. (Presumably, since I haven't read the article that got the editor jailed.) It think that's worthy of front page news on Whedonesque.

So, I'm kindly requesting that Simon change is mind and repost the article.
Drat. Registration required for the Afgan article.
Damn!... I mean Good for her!!! ;)
Of course it's all about context isn't it? Harvey K and Holly H were both beautiful in The Piano...it's hard to imagine that scene where Harvey is stroking the piano without the full frontal. But, an actor has to consider artistic context for the long term because that's one decision that will never fade from view.

I saw that production of The Tempest that James was in at the Goodman years ago...and not only was he nakitidy a la nude--he was spreadeagle on a wheel and rolled on stage like the third dimension extention of Da Vinci's perfect man. Now, James is beautiful and the image was perfect, it worked, he looked like that anatomy drawing, perfect man bod and long Da Vinci curly hair hanging from the head like dread locks; but I gotta say that image was burned onto my brain so well I can remember it even now and so yeah, every decision an actor makes stays with them FOREVER.

So I guess it can work for you or against, depending on context. If I remember correctly, I think Bob Falls was directing and I think James has said that no one can say no to the Goodman--which is true. If you are naked at The Goodman--that's kudos to you. It's like earning the right to be naked VS selling yourself at a peep show.

So I have no problems with nudity--I've even done a semi nude scene myself in context to a larger concept. But when nudity is combined with slash, then the sensual reaction from one image is being intermingled with another and yeah, I think that's socially irresonsible. We've got enough problems in our culture without stimulating that kind of confusion ON PURPOSE.

So maybe Sarah is just saying a blanket 'No' to all--because of the loss of control an actor can have in the overall process.

To do nudity or the semi even--requires a great deal of faith in the producer and director, because it has a huge emotional impact on the actor and the audience and...it is a very, very long term commitment.
I respect SMG's position.

The Parker DVD I'd buy. I'm that desperate.

OTT: That Afghan article does sound very interesting and indeed relevant. In my humble opinion, anyway. Damn the registration, bugmenot aside.
But when nudity is combined with slash, then the sensual reaction from one image is being intermingled with another and yeah, I think that's socially irresonsible. We've got enough problems in our culture without stimulating that kind of confusion ON PURPOSE.


I guess I'm not understanding what this means. Are you implying that if we'd seen Tara's nipple in Seeing Red, there would be more lesbians than there are now? Or maybe I'm way off base about what you're saying, but it seems like you mean we should only have nudity in context of 'straight' love scenes and not homosexual? I'm probably missing something here, so apologies if I'm totally off.

For those of you trying to get to the Afghan article, use this:

login: je_suis_un_punk_rocker@yahoo.com
password: bugmenot
That's how I interpreted it as well, Rogue. A clarification would be nice...
SMG has also commented before about not necessarily being all that confident when it comes to her body.

That was one of my options. Shows no matter how beautiful people are, they can be just as insecure about their looks as the rest of us. And when your looks are so linked to your job... It's understandable.

Lastly, no matter how "in character" the nudity is, the fact remains that there would be people in different parts of the world screencapping those scenes and wearing out their pause buttons.

Uhm, no offense, but.....so? How is that any worse than staring at a picture of an actress in a sexy outfit in Cosmo?? If actors don't want that, don't ever be filmed or photographed because someone will find you attractive and that someone might get off on even the most innocent of pictures of you.

Or are we just worried about the state of pause buttons? Just wondering;-)

There's already an insane amount of fake SMG porn out there (as she herself has joked about during an interview with Leno). So if she was to actually do any real nudity, I don't think it would help. I can't imagine finding that thought anything other than creepy.

Again; so? How does that harm anyone? And as you say yourself, they're already doing it, without any real nudity of her around, so it doesn't matter. And if she can joke about it what's the problem? Frankly, if I was an actor and people were NOT making fake porn out of me, I'd be depressed and worried about my career;-)

Simon's comment was: "Not exactly front page news for Whedonesque." And then he deleted the post.

I disagree, I think the article is interesting and very relevant. Much of Joss's writings are about female empowerment and the injustices that sometimes surround it. It's rather eerie when the real world come crashing in and drives that point home. Epecially when the editor used Joss's writing and characters as an example of women's rights. That Afghan article does sound very interesting and indeed relevant.

I have to say I would agree with that.

That's how I interpreted it as well, Rogue. A clarification would be nice...

Yeah how did this go from talking about Sarah's decision to not do nudity in her work to preaching against homosexuality?? Reaally curious about that one.
Frankly, if I was an actor and people were NOT making fake porn out of me, I'd be depressed and worried about my career;-)


The humour to one side, am I the only one who thinks this state of affairs is a little sad?

Returning to the specific topic, there have been many interesting opinions expressed here, but in the end surely Gellar is simply making a personal decision about what she wishes to do. I don't think it is intended to be a profound statement of intent.

Regarding the post by BforBeth, I might be completely wrong and obviously I need to allow her to respond, but I think her comment may have been misinterpreted.

(Edit to slightly amend the second paragraph to make it clearer.)

[ edited by dashboardprophet on 2005-11-27 02:43 ]
Lastly, no matter how "in character" the nudity is, the fact remains that there would be people in different parts of the world screencapping those scenes and wearing out their pause buttons.

I agree with Ed--it doesn't really matter. After all, people can just photoshop her head on a nude woman's body and have a party that way too. The only thing that offends me about it is the double standard. It's okay for women to do nude scene but men don't do it nearly as much. And if a woman's morals aren't on the line for this type of thing, then why does it pay so good? This opinion varies from person to person, of course. But in many cases I find it gratuitous. But hey, if Sarah wants to take it off, atleast we know she'll walk away with an Oscar.

Yay Hollywood.


Also, "Yeah how did this go from talking about Sarah's decision to not do nudity in her work to preaching against homosexuality??"

^^Still not sure. But I wouldn't mind going back to talking about James' full-frontal :)
Oh god, no--Rogue--that is not what I meant at all.

I had to think for a moment as to how you made that conection--and I went back and re-read and then 'bing.' It was the word: 'slash.'

When I said slash--I didn't mean the fanfic phrase--but slash as in the old school context; (maybe some of my grey hairs are showing here; and this is a generation gap thing.) I was thinking of slash flics, as in destroy the flesh, ripping women in two while they run screamming in scant clothing. The combination of violence with nudity stimulating two different emotional centers and then combining them into one confused sensation.

I can't see how films that do that are helpful in this world--unless it's a movie like American Psycho--that is talking specificly about that issue as one of it's themes. Using the trick of mix and match sensual combo platter but commenting on it at the same time. That is brilliant. I guess the distinction would be--how do I respond to this? What is this making me feel? Can I endorse this movie? Would I want my kids to see it and at what age? That simple guide tells all about what is a slash (meaning violent) flic Vs a social commentary.

In my opinion, the sexual orientaion of people and what they do in common consent is all good. Love is love and if two people regardless of sex can find a way to love each other in this world; then I'm all for it.

I'm talking about how some films use nudity to stimulate a physical reaction and then take this sensual reaction and lace it with violent images with an end toward creating an all together different response in the viewer.

The naked body is very stimulating to the eye and senses and is a powerful medium in any storytelling. It is a powerful catalyst that can be used to hotwire directly into our human vitals and so I think should be recognized as such and respected as such.

Most actors understand about the power of storytelling and prefer to be responsible for what they contribute their energies to; at least the actors I know, feel that way. And so when actors make decisions about nudity, they understand that they are making a decision that will effect a lot of people and something that will be out there for a long time.

Hope that helps.
Oh. Wow. Sorry, totally missed that option! I read fanfic daily, so that was the first thing that came to mind!! I thought it was an odd, out of the blue thing to say!

Thanks so much for the clarification, and my apologies for jumping to conclusions!!

As for what you actually meant, I agree. Besides the totally unnecessary 'bouncing boobs of doom' in those horror movies, I 'love' how it ties sex with a gruesome punishment!
When I said slash--I didn't mean the fanfic phrase--but slash as in the old school context; (maybe some of my grey hairs are showing here; and this is a generation gap thing.) I was thinking of slash flics, as in destroy the flesh, ripping women in two while they run screamming in scant clothing.

Ooooohhhhhh okay. Gotcha, gotcha. Man, I was so wondering where you were coming from with that stuff! Serial killer horror films. Not gay sex. Okay. I think those are usually called 'slasher films' rather than 'slash films' though. Aren't they? Man, talk about a slight miscommunication there, hehe. Words do change meaning don't they? Of course, even the word 'gay' itself just used to mean 'happy'.... ;-)

Anyway, yeah I would agree with you there, BforBeth. I never liked the idea that we should be turned on by naked girls, and then get a kick out of watching them get nakedly butchered. That's indeed a weird combo that can't be doing the teenage mind a lot of good.

Funny thing though is that the guy who kind of started the genre, John Carpenter with Halloween, never intended a lot of the perceived elements in that film. That whole idea of the 'naughty' teenagers getting killed while the 'good virginal' teenager survives became a cliche of sexual activites being 'punished' in those films. Carpenter said in interviews that was about the opposite of what he intended. To him, those teenagers were just engaging in normal teenage behaviour. His idea was that Jamie Lee Curtis' character was a little different, more of a loner with a tougher, dark side and that that is what helps her survive the killer. And he actually hardly showed any nudity or blood ironically enough. So it's always difficult putting out something because people can misinterpret the hell out of things ;)
Haha. Okay, I just laughed for about five minutes straight. Thanks for that BforBeth. Your point of view reminds me of my mom's when it comes to those things. She doesn't watch Law and Order and all of those shows because she's sick of the images of dead women raped to death being imprinted in people's minds. It's all that's on tv lately (even though I liked the Inside...)
JeremyN or anyone else if you disagree with what an admin or mods says, conduct it via email. Don't discuss it on site. Thank you.
Well I'm glad they discussed it on site as I am now aware of a interesting article.
I wish to remind people how forunate we are to have this room. It's a gift from Caroline and it should be appreciative as such. Another thing Caroline provided were the best Mods under the sun. So, here's the point. In agreeing to be a member, you accepted these Mods. Accept their saying or go elsewhere.
I think back on the final moments of Requiem for a Dream and am not sure if I would've gotten the same revulsion if the "sex" scene was taken out. Its not pleasing to the eye and is very uncomfortable.
The only thing I'd say on the jailing of the person article is that there's been no news items here for 24 hours, so in my opinion it should go out. That said, I also thought Doom would do well at the box office, so I am clearly insane and/or stupid. Plus, it's a story buffy.nu probably wouldn't bother copying and pasting for once, since it's about important stuff like oppressive governments and equality (subjects close to a writers heart - I think his name is Joss Hartnett or some such) and not if SMG will go nude.

Edit: Mrs Gossi agrees if I ran my own site like this it would be called BringingYouJosssPainAndSuffering.com. Which is why I don't run a site like this :o)

[ edited by gossi on 2005-11-27 03:04 ]
Madhatter I think that was a tad harsh. The Mods, whether I agree with them or not, spoke for themselves.

Anyhoo, I dislike gratuitous nudity as it tends to be a lame cover for a lack of imagination on the whole. It's fine if it's in context etc, no problem there. But I wont condemn any actor or actress for either doing those scenes or refusing to do them. It is their right to do what they feel is best for them.
Um guys, there is no discussion about moderators' decisions on the site. Yet it is persisting at an alarming pace. If you have issues, email us.
Just a friendly bit of advice, the whedonesque library is always up and running for different articles, etc...


also, this is quite a slow day for us :)
Again; so? How does that harm anyone? And as you say yourself, they're already doing it, without any real nudity of her around, so it doesn't matter. And if she can joke about it what's the problem? Frankly, if I was an actor and people were NOT making fake porn out of me, I'd be depressed and worried about my career;-)


Of course it doesn't harm anyone, but that's certainly not the approach I was taking to this topic anyway. I was suggesting a few reasons why SMG might not be keen to appear nude in a film, and I think it's a fair point that some people may not be comfortable with lots of people around the world getting off while looking at them naked. I wasn't suggesting that SMG was hugely offended by the fake porn out there, so whether or not she can joke about it isn't really relevant (although just because you're able to joke about something doesn't mean you're not offended by it). I would be tempted to suggest that she can joke about the fake porn because it's just that; completely fake. Trying to place myself in her position for a minute or two, I'd feel there was a huge difference between pictures with my head photoshopped onto another body being available on the internet, versus real pictures of me naked. Maybe others wouldn't and that's fine. Again, I was simply speculating with regards to her feelings on this issue.

[ edited by Impossible on 2005-11-27 06:11 ]
I feel that a lot of the negative comments made about SMG's choice of not doing nudity stems from the fact that some people here dislike her as a person, even though they have never met her. Regardless of whether you like her or not, it is still her decision so you have to respect it.
Trying to place myself in her position for a minute or two, I'd feel there was a huge difference between pictures with my head photoshopped onto another body being available on the internet, versus real pictures of me naked. Maybe others wouldn't and that's fine. Again, I was simply speculating with regards to her feelings on this issue.

Sure I understand what you mean, and you may be right. I guess I just personally doubt it's a big thing for her. I could of course be completely wrong, but Sarah seems to have a very level head about being a famous actress and the stuff that comes with it. And if she did do nude scenes, she would not have a problem with her real naked body being seen on screen, so I doubt it would matter much if those shots were used in the fake porn.

And as you say from what I've seen, most of it is SO fake it's more funny than anything else. What I found more disturbing in a strange way is that on Ebay you can actually buy prints of Sarah and Eliza and other actresses photoshopped onto other women's bodies. It's not porn, (mostly FHM style cheese cake shots but just a little more raunchy than the actresses have done themselves) and they're called 'Fantasies'. At least he's not pretending they're real, but he's still just making money off of actors and I'm not sure how you can do that on a prolific site like Ebay without getting slapped down.

Oh and I once came across an auction there of a 'picture of Sarah Michelle Gellar'. It wasn't fake. It simply wasn't her. Even slightly. Just some 'girls gone wild'-type blonde in a wet tshirt that didn't even remotely resembled Sarah. But people were bidding....The net's a funny thing.
I'm a man, but sometimes I just don't understand men. Why would you pay money for something you know is fake? The world may never know...
Why would you pay money for something you know is fake?

I think paying for something that is fake is the backbone of the movie/tv/book industries! :~P
Buffy The Vampire Slayer wasn't real?! Shit! Next you'll be saying santa was fan fic.
No need to get cute. You knew what I meant. Fake porn. Dirty nasty fake porn. Buffy the Vampire Slayer fake porn to be exact.
I don't think nudity per se is the issue. It's the inequality. If men were seen in the buff as much as the women, there would be no problem.

Palehorse, Ewan Mcgregor. Now there's a fella who has no problem getting his old fella out for the ladies! ;)
'Velvet Goldmine', funny, silly , Iggy Pop style. Yay...Free Willy!
'About Adam', almost porn...? Well, no, but enough to make my eyes bug out!


Oh and the pause button may have gotten a little damaged that night. ;)
Not sayin anything! (heh heh)
Madhatter I think that was a tad harsh. The MODs, whether I agree with them or not, spoke for themselves.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just wanted the room to respect our MODs. I wish to apolgize if this was a problem.

Now, on this topic of SMG in the nude. Hmmm, as a straight human male still breathing, I would climb several theater seats to get a closer look. However, in all honestly, I really don't care on her choice of the matter. It also doesn't change how I feel about her acting abilities. She's a wonderful actress, whether I see her boobs or not, 'hello' still listening.

I'm sorry, knew I shouldn't have plugged into this topic.
BforBeth wrote:
"I saw that production of The Tempest that James was in at the Goodman years ago...and not only was he nakitidy a la nude--he was spreadeagle on a wheel and rolled on stage like the third dimension extention of Da Vinci's perfect man. Now, James is beautiful and the image was perfect, it worked, he looked like that anatomy drawing, perfect man bod and long Da Vinci curly hair hanging from the head like dread locks; but I gotta say that image was burned onto my brain so well I can remember it even now and so yeah, every decision an actor makes stays with them FOREVER."

BforBeth? Is there anyway we could do some kind of a quick Mind meld kind of thing? Draw me a picture? Oh well.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home