What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Justice and Rule]

I feel like you're really working extremely hard here to try and make a differentiation to rationalize your own personal biases, rather than making a genuine argument.

Have you ever thought that you also have personal biases that may be at work here and that you're rationalizing them in certain ways that make you maybe ignore things? I feel like your commentary on LGBTQ+ misses a lot of what is actually going on right now.

"Sexy art" doesn't mean actively erotic art, i.e. pornography or the borderline of it, either - the sexlessness absolutely is entering into fantasy art in the West, and indeed it's been an increasing part of things for a decade, easy, maybe two. You have a lot of people who are beautiful, but they're making a huge effort not to be hot. God forbid anyone be hot. But you trying to isolate this as "erotic art" is representative of the problem. It's a continuum, a spectrum, not an either/or situation.

And the deeply involved thing is 100% irrelevant to this argument re: art, not sure why you're even bringing it up except to try and move on from a debate where your position doesn't make much sense.

No, I think this sort of expansion of the topic is not what was being talked about, but is also actively damaging to your own argument. I'll be honest: I don't feel like there's really much change in the art outside of less outright cheesecake, but if you want to expand it to just "sexlessness" in general... that's absurd. It feels like sexiness, romance, and other such things are way bigger now than they were 10 year ago. There are more games based around that, more adventures trying to do that, more content based around that. Again, Critical Role stands in stark relief to this, where they were actively doing randy naughty word all the time (and continue to do so in their Amazon Prime cartoon) and made romance. If anything, I think we're in the sexiest time of RPGs, unless if your only definition of such things is chainmail bikinis.

Now, I think maybe you'd be right if we're just talking about Wizards or Paizo (but even then I'm not sure I really agree), but that's not the entire industry nor the market. Players interact with games in such a different and more active way than fans of movies, and have a whole lot more influence because its something being played, not just being watched. That they don't delve into that stuff is closer to par for the course compared to what happened to movies over time, so it feels like this whole argument just doesn't work: the mediums are different, the environments are different, and it feels like if you expand out beyond just the art, the idea that RPGs have become sexless just comes off as absurd.

The weird thing, is nobody is asking for books to be crammed to the brim with innuendo, lewd art, or anything of the like. One of the few people I have blocked here cannot seem to help himself from posting that stuff and it IS largely inappropriate.

However that is not what is being asked or looked for, not in the slightest.

What is being stated is "Maybe what you think is a fact, isnt remotely the case, and actually Conan is fine, and so would a female Conan be fine."

Instead we get mental gymnastics, statements of opinion as objective fact, and denial of a shift that is weirdly familiar to a moral panic, over an art direction that is nearly dead amongst multiple other points of discussion, and certainly is dead when one looks at the gorilla in the room that is Wizards. Which is the equivalent of Disney, and turning "Action Hero's into Action Figures." to paraphrase the article linked is exactly what they are doing to RPGs.

Its just such a weird time, when we have all these different forces/views/groups all pulling and pushing with or against the tide, sometimes in conflict, sometimes agreeing, but seemingly unwilling, or unable, to actually step back and see the forest for the trees and they call it progress.

Going to be wild when the wheel turns.

I think @Sepulchrave II 's link to subject/object was pretty good at hitting why people have problems with certain things, particularly more revealing art as well as why just making a "female Conan" isn't really a solution.

Also that's just Red Sonja, that literally already exists.

 

[Scribe]

Also that's just Red Sonja, that literally already exists.

Unless I'm confusing characters (and very possible) I didnt mention Red Sonja as there are some pretty problematic elements to the character well beyond appearance.

Then again, I could be mistaken on which character.

 

[MGibster]

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Not that my group ever explicitly role plays such things, when the DM asks me what my young, physically fit character flush with gold who makes his living putting himself in mortal danger on a regular basis is doing in his down time my answer is very often, "I'm spending 500 gold on hookers and blow." My character is having a good time at various drinking establishments buying random people ale, wine, or whatever it is they want to drink, food, and spending some time with women of negotiable affection. We even had a game of Apocalypse World where my character had sex with a sentient dolphin from outer space played by another PC. Nothing explicit of course.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Unless I'm confusing characters (and very possible) I didnt mention Red Sonja as there are some pretty problematic elements to the character well beyond appearance.

Then again, I could be mistaken on which character.

Read the new Gail Simone run.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The article you post really isn't about "sexy art", though. The examples they mention can be sexy, but largely speaking it's about the sexlessness of things, that there just isn't sex in mainstream movies anymore when it used to be incredibly prevalent. I think the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese as great examples being used: they aren't in skimpy outfits, but the act of having sex helps humanize them and help make them feel like relatable adults. That's why Marvel films feel so weird: no one seemingly entertains romance, no one feels sexy despite being beautiful. But to do these things, you don't need what people are referring to as "erotic art" necessarily, and erotic art won't necessarily do it right, either.

Kyke Reese and the terminator are both naked at the start of the film though. I think the sex in terminator is also unique because if it’s actually an essential plot element (movie doesn’t make sense if they don’t have sex)

 

[Justice and Rule]

Kyke Reese and the terminator are both naked at the start of the film though. I think the sex in terminator is also unique because if it’s actually an essential plot element (movie doesn’t make sense if they don’t have sex)

I disagree. The arriving naked is less about sexiness and more about vulnerability: Kyle doesn't look or feel sexy in his nakedness, he feels weak and vulnerable. It leads into the police chase where he goes from being vulnerable to being clever and resourceful. It also serves a double purpose as showing off his scars and wounds. Like, his nakedness is not nearly as much a point as Arnold's. And with Arnold, I think you could maybe make a sexiness argument, but I think that scene is more about power: even nude, he is invulnerable. He has nothing to fear, hence him demolishing the punks without anything on him. Also, it's more arguable that it sets up a contrast to his body being of sexy to him being the opposite because he is just explicitly sexless.

Secondly, you don't need Kyle to have sex with Sarah. She could find another man and the plot would still work. It'd have less impact and meaning, but it'd still be able to work.

At the end, the sexiness is not a result of showing off bodies, but rather them feeling like emotional human beings with needs. Their romance feels emotional and passionate, and that's a big part of what is missing in modern movies today. When you talk about Marvel romances, they are all quirky relationships that share in jokes and a chaste kiss. There's no emotional drive or passion, there's no magnetism or chemistry creating pull or sparks. It feels like a checkbox and not something real. With Kyle and Sarah, you understand why they emotionally bond and how that turns into love. You can understand their passion, their attraction, all that. And they don't need to be the sexiest people on the block to make it work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't feel like there's really much change in the art outside of less outright cheesecake, but if you want to expand it to just "sexlessness" in general...

We're talking about the art, specifically.

And yeah, the art has changed - more over the last 20 years than the last 10, but the last ten have certainly doubled-down on it.

I feel like your commentary on LGBTQ+ misses a lot of what is actually going on right now.

Yeah, I'm aware, but I don't want to turn this into a politics thread or something. And I think your vagueness here means I'm not missing anything particularly relevant, or you'd have brought it up.

It feels like sexiness, romance, and other such things are way bigger now than they were 10 year ago. There are more games based around that, more adventures trying to do that, more content based around that. Again, Critical Role stands in stark relief to this, where they were actively doing randy naughty word all the time (and continue to do so in their Amazon Prime cartoon) and made romance. If anything, I think we're in the sexiest time of RPGs, unless if your only definition of such things is chainmail bikinis.

None of which is remotely reflected in the art (except the fan art goddamn), and again, you're showing own bias by trying to make everything about "chainmail bikinis", and yeah, you say "Well check your own bias" but dude, I have, and I can see that mine and it is pretty straightforward. Also, I think I have a good basis for what I'm saying given my education - I was trained as a "fine artist" and painting people was always my one real artistic talent, and I've been very interested in the history of figure painting - and have always been interested to see how that applied to RPG art.

Now, I think maybe you'd be right if we're just talking about Wizards or Paizo (but even then I'm not sure I really agree), but that's not the entire industry nor the market.

I'm definitely right talking about them - Wizards more than Paizo, but Paizo is heading the same way, only the fact that Reynolds is from earlier artistic mindset (which does go a bit chainmail bikini I admit - indeed I've criticised his art for being a little sexist - I'm not sure he's ever really drawn a "hot dude" for example - I live to be proven wrong of course - but definitely has drawn some sexy wizard-ladies and so on) is really stopping Paizo going there. However I feel like Paizo would draw back sooner if they really considered this, as I think they like to keep things a bit more real and corporeal.

I agree 100% it's "not the whole industry". Loads of art in indie and small press games is much more, especially but not only LGBTQ+ oriented ones. Gubat Banwa, for example, I was reading yesterday, and it absolutely is NOT afflicted by this sexlessness/Funko Popitude. This isn't a bottom-up thing really - it's a top-down one. But there people out there, sadly on both sides, yelling their support for the top.

And industry leaders are industry leaders and small press is small press. And if the industry leaders keep pushing for sexless plastic people, they will certainly become the default.

And they don't need to be the sexiest people on the block to make it work.

Again with the extremes. You're not helping your case. Plus Michael Biehn is staggeringly hot in T1. Come on. Have you seen him?

Pictured - a dude who is apparently "not the sexiest":

Yeah wow I wish I was "not the sexiest" like that guy lol jesus. Not just the bod either, his face is incredible, and those eyes - but I can't fill this entire thread with thirst-pics of Michael Biehn.

And the whole "Well you don't need to show hot people for things to be sexy!" is an absolute and total red herring. Yeah, you don't need to - but often you do want to! Looking at good movies it's very easy to see that. And it's particularly noticeable how much worse movies have got about romance and sex since the whole sexlessness paradigm came in. There was movie made recently where the two main characters were supposed to be in a strong sexual relationship, but they didn't have have the actors kiss for real, they CGI'd it, and it looked awful and awkward, and there no chemistry between them at any point in the movie. Anyway, your point here is a red herring.

EDIT - Also lol looking to see if there was an essay on sexuality in Terminator 1 I found this book and I really want to read it but it's way expensive even on Kindle dammit.

Queering The Terminator: Sexuality and Cyborg Cinema: Amazon.co.uk: David Greven: 9781501322341: Books

Buy Queering The Terminator: Sexuality and Cyborg Cinema by David Greven (ISBN: 9781501322341) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Bedrockgames]

Secondly, you don't need Kyle to have sex with Sarah. She could find another man and the plot would still work. It'd have less impact and meaning, but it'd still be able to work.

Will respond to other points when I have more time (on my way out) but the whole story changes if they don't have sex and she has a baby with another man. The love story is the heart of the movie, Him being set back in time by his father to his mother is what makes it a perfect time loop ( and I would even argue a perfect film)

 

[Justice and Rule]

We're talking about the art, specifically.

And yeah, the art has changed - more over the last 20 years than the last 10, but the last ten have certainly doubled-down on it.

Yeah, I'm aware, but I don't want to turn this into a politics thread or something. And I think your vagueness here means I'm not missing anything particularly relevant, or you'd have brought it up.

Okay, and I think that completely misses the point of what the article is going for and that you are desperately trying to damn hard, then.

None of which is remotely reflected in the art (except the fan art goddamn), and again, you're showing own bias by trying to make everything about "chainmail bikinis", and yeah, you say "Well check your own bias" but dude, I have, and I can see that mine and it is pretty straightforward. Also, I think I have a good basis for what I'm saying given my education - I was trained as a "fine artist" and painting people was always my one real artistic talent, and I've been very interested in the history of figure painting - and have always been interested to see how that applied to RPG art.

Not everything is about chainmail bikinis, but that's what a lot of us are referring to. Not everyone is just about taking anything remotely sexy out of RPGs and it's a complete strawman to think as such. There's a difference between sexiness and cheesecake and you can be plenty sexy without having to resort to cheesecake.

I'm definitely right talking about them - Wizards more than Paizo, but Paizo is heading the same way, only the fact that Reynolds is from earlier artistic mindset (which does go a bit chainmail bikini I admit - indeed I've criticised his art for being a little sexist - I'm not sure he's ever really drawn a "hot dude" for example - I live to be proven wrong of course - but definitely has drawn some sexy wizard-ladies and so on) is really stopping Paizo going there. However I feel like Paizo would draw back sooner if they really considered this, as I think they like to keep things a bit more real and corporeal.

I think Paizo still has plenty of stuff that would be considered sexy, I just think it's less, er, blunt force as it used to be. Things aren't exactly old school Seoni anymore. Just from Mwangi Expanse...

I could argue more, but I was looking at people who felt like they had a look to them that say they were actually down for something compared to just people looking like people.

I agree 100% it's "not the whole industry". Loads of art in indie and small press games is much more, especially but not only LGBTQ+ oriented ones. Gubat Banwa, for example, I was reading yesterday, and it absolutely is NOT afflicted by this sexlessness/Funko Popitude. This isn't a bottom-up thing really - it's a top-down one. But there people out there, sadly on both sides, yelling their support for the top.


And industry leaders are industry leaders and small press is small press. And if the industry leaders keep pushing for sexless plastic people, they will certainly become the default.

I think yes and no? I think that the fans are way more important in generating content at a certain level and I don't really think that the industry leaders are expected to do this in the same way movies used to have this. More than that, I don't think the fans feel quite as stifled by it and that certainly shows in a lot of fan works and in how a lot of newer players play (at least, from what I've seen). I just don't think that Wizard being dull in their art matters as much because, at the end of the day, people put in the sexiness one way or another. It not happening on the big screen is different for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the fans don't really have the same sort of power to influence the industry.

Again with the extremes. You're not helping your case. Plus Michael Biehn is staggeringly hotin T1. Come on. Have you seen him?


Pictured - a dude who is apparently "not the sexiest":

View attachment 279440

Yeah wow I wish I was "not the sexiest" like that guy lol jesus. Not just the bod either, his face is incredible, and those eyes - but I can't fill this entire thread with thirst-pics of Michael Biehn.

lol I don't think that's in the movie. I think that's a production still? Because I'm watching the opening scene and I can't find it. Instead, you get shots like this.

Spoiler: Just to be safe.

And here's the thing: I'm not going to say he's not sexy, not at all. But the camera absolutely does not treat him as such. He looks beat up. He moves like he's a hurt animal. The camera doesn't ogle his abs. He doesn't give off that vibe, nor does he act it in those moments. He comes off as the reverse of Arnold, which is intentional.

And the whole "Well you don't need to show hot people for things to be sexy!" is an absolute and total red herring. Yeah, you don't need to - but often you do want to! Looking at good movies it's very easy to see that. And it's particularly noticeable how much worse movies have got about romance and sex since the whole sexlessness paradigm came in. There was movie made recently where the two main characters were supposed to be in a strong sexual relationship, but they didn't have have the actors kiss for real, they CGI'd it, and it looked awful and awkward, and there no chemistry between them at any point in the movie. Anyway, your point here is a red herring.

Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with looks or dress. Most of the Terminator doesn't show off Kyle Reese's body, nor is he meant to be the sexiest thing out there. That's Arnold. The point I was making is that the Terminator does it through passion and emotion, which is what is lacking: if you don't have that, all you have is beautiful people who hold hands. And that's the point of the article, that their looks matter less than writing and what's going on beneath it all. You neuter the human experience when you take it away and it's why something like The Suicide Squad or Peacemaker feels fresh when the characters actually feel like human beings with human needs.

Will respond to other points when I have more time (on my way out) but the whole story changes if they don't have sex and she has a baby with another man. The love story is the heart of the movie, Him being set back in time by his father to his mother is what makes it a perfect time loop ( and I would even argue a perfect film)

I think those parts make the film better and it's why I like T1 more than T2. But again, the film and plot would function without them. That was the point.

 

[Maxperson]

This might help explain the depth of difference between personal preferences in types of gaming and the unwelcoming message sent by the inclusion of slavery in gaming materials.

Not really. And I say that as a Jewish man(My great grandparents were from Eastern Europe) who wasn't offended or made to feel unwelcome by Dark Sun's genocides.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay, and I think that completely misses the point of what the article is going for and that you are desperately trying to damn hard, then.

I'm definitely not missing the point, and again, it really looks like you're trying to use an argument you don't really believe in - also your last point doesn't even make sense.

Not everything is about chainmail bikinis, but that's what a lot of us are referring to. Not everyone is just about taking anything remotely sexy out of RPGs and it's a complete strawman to think as such. There's a difference between sexiness and cheesecake and you can be plenty sexy without having to resort to cheesecake.

Sorry mate, I've been around too long to fall for this one.

Loads of people call anything remotely attractive "cheesecake", so there's no meaningful difference because the term is misused so extremely widely. Some of the images you list below have been called "cheesecake", for god's sake.

I think Paizo still has plenty of stuff that would be considered sexy, I just think it's less, er, blunt force as it used to be. Things aren't exactly old school Seoni anymore. Just from Mwangi Expanse...

Uh-huh, and like I said, they're less bad, but I'm still concerned they'll head that way, and apart from the first image they definitely actively trying to avoid being hot - which isn't necessarily a big problem, unless you do it all the time. I also note they still have a bit of a sexism issue - I mean you found a handsome guy at least, but he's wearing a goddamn poncho, one of the least attractive garments ever devised - only Clint has ever really successfully werked it.

I think yes and no? I think that the fans are way more important in generating content at a certain level and I don't really think that the industry leaders are expected to do this in the same way movies used to have this. More than that, I don't think the fans feel quite as stifled by it and that certainly shows in a lot of fan works and in how a lot of newer players play (at least, from what I've seen). I just don't think that Wizard being dull in their art matters as much because, at the end of the day, people put in the sexiness one way or another. It not happening on the big screen is different for a variety of reasons, not the least of which the fans don't really have the same sort of power to influence the industry.

I just don't even slightly agree that fans doing their own art makes up for WotC going full Funko Pop-wards. And I fear Paizo and others following WotC.

lol I don't think that's in the movie. I think that's a production still? Because I'm watching the opening scene and I can't find it. Instead, you get shots like this.

It's not on streaming atm, so I can't check, but you're looking too early - he has pants on, so it would need to be after he gets pants.

Either way he's an extremely beautiful guy, in his figure, his face, and the way he moves (including his face). He is definitely one of the sexiest people on the block.

I agree re: how the camera treats him, but that's not as totally desexualized as you seem to think. You're drawing that puritan on/off line re: sexuality. There's no line.

I think those parts make the film better and it's why I like T1 more than T2. But again, the film and plot would function without them. That was the point.

100% disagree and you're proving my point re: the weird puritan line people - especially Americans - like to draw. Follow the link to the book I listed - the entire thesis there is absolutely that the movie WOULD NOT work without that, not as a genuinely great movie. It'd just be a dumb mediocre story. And I agree with that thesis.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Loads of people call anything remotely attractive "cheesecake", so there's no meaningful difference because the term is misused so extremely widely. Some of the images you list below have been called "cheesecake", for god's sake.

I don't think anyone here is making completely all or nothing arguments like that, and that you're trying to make mine into comes off as weak.

And when I think cheesecake, I think Mortal Kombat 9. These are closer to... Mortal Kombat 11, which has sexiness but isn't skeevy about it. You can look those up if you like, but I think you'll get the gist pretty quick.

Uh-huh, and like I said, they're less bad, but I'm still concerned they'll head that way, and apart from the first image they definitely actively trying to avoid being hot - which isn't necessarily a big problem, unless you do it all the time. I also note they still have a bit of a sexism issue - I mean you found a handsome guy at least, but he's wearing a goddamn poncho, one of the least attractive garments ever devised - only Clint has ever really successfully werked it.

I didn't include everyone. I was mostly looking for women, to be honest, since I think that's more being debated. I also didn't want to turn the debate into the sexiness of dwarves.

Also, you wrong about ponchos, but that's okay.

I just don't even slightly agree that fans doing their own art makes up for WotC going full Funko Pop-wards. And I fear Paizo and others following WotC.

I don't? Like, I just don't see the same sort of thing happening. What I see is less of bra-less Seoni and more just general sexiness without being completely skeevy about it.

It's not on streaming atm, so I can't check, but you're looking too early - he has pants on, so it would need to be after he gets pants.

You can literally just look up the scene online, dude. It's on YouTube. The scene also never has lighting like that, so I'd wager it's a production still.

Either way he's an extremely beautiful guy, in his figure, his face, and the way he moves (including his face). He is definitely one of the sexiest people on the block.

I agree re: how the camera treats him, but that's not as totally desexualized as you seem to think. You're drawing that puritan on/off line re: sexuality. There's no line.

I'm not trying to completely desexualize him as much as point out that what makes the whole thing sexy is not how they look at his body, but how they frame the passion of their relationship. Linda Hamilton is a beautiful woman but is wrestling with some insane 80's hair in that movie and that doesn't hurt things at all.

100% disagree and you're proving my point re: the weird puritan line people - especially Americans - like to draw. Follow the link to the book I listed - the entire thesis there is absolutely that the movie WOULD NOT work without that, not as a genuinely great movie. It'd just be a dumb mediocre story. And I agree with that thesis.

What the heck are you even talking about? The movie would still function without it, I didn't say it'd be great or even good. What makes it great is that's how things wrap around. You're so busy trying to make this about puritan Americans that you're completely missing the context of what we were talking about with this.

 

[Kaodi]

That was an interesting article.

All of those pictures of "sexy" Mwangi character bring to mind an altogether different issue in RPG art: we might call it "the tokenization of artwork" . There is so much artwork that is made to make for presentable game tokens, which the cartoony look excels at: it is discrete and had high definition but for the most part lacks any action or stakes. It does what it is supposed to extremely well but it also kind of limiting.

Mwangi also might be a good point to introduce another point I have been thinking about: "inclusiveness" is always bounded somehow in the real world. A no-nudity policy is not necessarily actual inclusive of anyone who is from a culture with different expectations than ours; i.e. a lot of peoples depicted in National Geographic over the years (and let me be sure to add the disclaimer that how NG has chosen to present these peoples has often had a skeeviness to it). Certainly most or all of those people may be extremely marginal as potential consumers of RPGs but they exist and maybe they should be at least considered before being dismissed.

Anyway I highly doubt it could ever be financially viable but I kind of wonder what it would be like if any RPG product had multiple versions with art direction geared towards different audiences. I would not include one that is a wholesale throwback to the art of previous editions, but just one that is "for adults" in that it can show a little intimacy and sexuality in candid moments with realistic characters. It could be interesting to compare and contrast two different art directions for the exact same product.

 

[Thourne]

I also note they still have a bit of a sexism issue - I mean you found a handsome guy at least, but he's wearing a goddamn poncho, one of the least attractive garments ever devised - only Clint has ever really successfully werked it.

Why you gotta make Back to the Future era Michael J Fox sad. He did his best!

 

[Bedrockgames]

100% disagree and you're proving my point re: the weird puritan line people - especially Americans - like to draw. Follow the link to the book I listed - the entire thesis there is absolutely that the movie WOULD NOT work without that, not as a genuinely great movie. It'd just be a dumb mediocre story. And I agree with that thesis.

I just watched it again a couple of weeks ago (should have a podcast if a conversation about it up soon), and I Agree strongly with your point here (and sounds like I agree with the book’s thesis). Without that element, the movie loses what makes it do great. It would also be very ungainly if they had here have a son with a different person. The finale completely loses its power if they don’t make love and the the revelation that he is John Conner’s father is absent.

It is such a great movie. I don’t think they needed to do any more after the first one because it is all so self contained. I didn’t fully appreciate when I saw it as a kid in the 80s (on video at a friend’s), but as I got older it really has struck me as an amazing live story, woven seamlessly into a relentless action film about being stalked by a killing machine (giving a movie like that such a vibrant heart, really is impressive the more I reflect on it). And it’s all done so efficiently. It is a very well edited movie

 

[Umbran]

I was thinking more of Temple of Doom.

Sure, but Temple of Doom is built on tropes from the '40s and '50s. And they weren't new then.

 

[Umbran]

Hence, "something to think about" instead of "a serious problem".

You asked, "When does it stop being a problem?" Perhaps what you meant by "it" is a touch vague.

If you included a bunch of racy art in the 2024 PHB, it would be a serious problem for that book. So, in that sense, it hasn't stopped being a serious problem. As soon as it is present, it'd be a problem.

Is the current level of sexism in the art of the current WotC D&D core books a problem? Probably not, insofar as I don't think we see much complaint about the current art. If they kept similar art direction, I don't expect it would be an issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I disagree. The arriving naked is less about sexiness and more about vulnerability: Kyle doesn't look or feel sexy in his nakedness, he feels weak and vulnerable. It leads into the police chase where he goes from being vulnerable to being clever and resourceful. It also serves a double purpose as showing off his scars and wounds. Like, his nakedness is not nearly as much a point as Arnold's. And with Arnold, I think you could maybe make a sexiness argument, but I think that scene is more about power: even nude, he is invulnerable. He has nothing to fear, hence him demolishing the punks without anything on him. Also, it's more arguable that it sets up a contrast to his body being of sexy to him being the opposite because he is just explicitly sexless.

I don’t disagree with many of your points here. The nudity is about a lot more than sexy. But these elements aren’t just one thing. Vulnerability is a part of it, establishing that Reese is human, feels pain, etc. but I think Reese is definitely given sex appeal in that scene. He is very fit, athletic, and a handsome guy. What he isn’t in that scene is glamorous. He is literally wearing the pants of a homeless man the entire movie. I am sure if we started a Is Kyle Reese sexy poll, we’d get a lot of affirmative responses

And Arnold is a presentation of power, of man as machine. But I would say the way they show off his physique has a sexual element for sure.

At the end, the sexiness is not a result of showing off bodies, but rather them feeling like emotional human beings with needs. Their romance feels emotional and passionate, and that's a big part of what is missing in modern movies today. When you talk about Marvel romances, they are all quirky relationships that share in jokes and a chaste kiss. There's no emotional drive or passion, there's no magnetism or chemistry creating pull or sparks. It feels like a checkbox and not something real. With Kyle and Sarah, you understand why they emotionally bond and how that turns into love. You can understand their passion, their attraction, all that. And they don't need to be the sexiest people on the block to make it work.

One thing terminator does well is everything us in the movie for a good reason, and all the elements work together to elevate it. So yes, you believe in them as human beings with emotional needs. It works because there is passion and live there. But it is still sexy. It is shot in the sensual style that many 80s movies employ but stands out because it has done a lot of work to make that scene believable. It is still two beautiful people making live though.

But not all movies are trying to achieve what terminator achieves, or being as successful at it when they do. Sex and nudity will be used for different effects in different movies.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I

I'm not trying to completely desexualize him as much as point out that what makes the whole thing sexy is not how they look at his body, but how they frame the passion of their relationship. Linda Hamilton is a beautiful woman but is wrestling with some insane 80's hair in that movie and that doesn't hurt things at all.

Her hair is perfect. It was the 80s. That was what sexy looked like at the time

One thing I think the movie does is show us Reese through her eyes. When he first shows up we don’t know if he is a good guy or bad guy. So I do think the camera looks at him differently over the course of the film to reflect that.

But he is still running around naked, then commando and shirtless, then in a trench coat with a naughty word gun. Again might not be glamorous, he may even be presented as dangerous, but there still is an intentional sexy element to it I would say

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don’t disagree with many of your points here. The nudity is about a lot more than sexy. But these elements aren’t just one thing. Vulnerability is a part of it, establishing that Reese is human, feels pain, etc. but I think Reese is definitely given sex appeal in that scene. He is very fit, athletic, and a handsome guy. What he isn’t in that scene is glamorous. He is literally wearing the pants of a homeless man the entire movie. I am sure if we started a Is Kyle Reese sexy poll, we’d get a lot of affirmative responses

I mean, I never said he wasn't sexy, I just don't think that was largely the intent of the scene. That's just not what it's there for. I'm sure people would say Kyle is sexy, but I think that's carried less by the appearance and more by the performance.

Which isn't to say he isn't sexy; he absolutely is. But there's a difference between being sexy and shooting a scene to be sexy. I don't think Kyle Reese gets many "sexy shots" as much as his sexiness shows through his roughness. That's part of the appeal to the movie, in my opinion.

And again, I think that's why it's such a great contrast to what the article talking about: he's not the clean cut, spotless Chris Evans Captain America. I mean, that dude could be sexy and he is in the first one (or at least, Peggy Carter acknowledges him as such at one point, which is more than most post-Disney Marvel films ever do). But he's not because he's not allowed to be after a point. That whole article is about how it doesn't matter how pretty you are, there's something extra that needs to be there to be actually sexy. Otherwise you're just beautiful people in spandex holding hands and quipping.

And Arnold is a presentation of power, of man as machine. But I would say the way they show off his physique has a sexual element for sure.

Sure, but I think that's also meant to contrast him as a cold machine. He is absolutely, undeniably meant to be sexy in those scenes, and is filmed that way. But obviously his actions contrast with that. It's still there, but I suppose I don't see it as the focus as much as a tool for the scene.

One thing terminator does well is everything us in the movie for a good reason, and all the elements work together to elevate it. So yes, you believe in them as human beings with emotional needs. It works because there is passion and live there. But it is still sexy. It is shot in the sensual style that many 80s movies employ but stands out because it has done a lot of work to make that scene believable. It is still two beautiful people making live though.

But not all movies are trying to achieve what terminator achieves, or being as successful at it when they do. Sex and nudity will be used for different effects in different movies.

And I'm not saying it's not sexy. In fact, I'm literally saying the opposite: it is an incredibly sexy film. I don't think the camera tries to bring that out of the characters, but rather it just relies on the actors to make it work.

Her hair is perfect. It was the 80s. That was what sexy looked like at the time

I just call 'em like I see 'em. Again, don't think she looks bad, but I don't think she's meant to be just absolutely dead sexy. She's meant to be a cute waitress. That's her schtick, her deal at the start.

One thing I think the movie does is show us Reese through her eyes. When he first shows up we don’t know if he is a good guy or bad guy. So I do think the camera looks at him differently over the course of the film to reflect that.

Sure, and I think that kind of works to that idea that she's not meant to be drop-dead gorgeous, even those most of us wish we could look as good as she does. Again, there's an energy in the performance that helps convey that. She's not shot as being "sexy", but she's still allowed to be on her own.

But he is still running around naked, then commando and shirtless, then in a trench coat with a naughty word gun. Again might not be glamorous, he may even be presented as dangerous, but there still is an intentional sexy element to it I would say

I think you could maybe say those scenes become sexier in retrospect, but I just never got that vibe from them. Again, it's not that the film isn't sexy, I just don't see those scenes as such.