If a woman doesn't want her naked body exposed on camera, that's her right, just as it's mine to make the same decision. There's no story here, just basic human courtesy and respect.
Right, absolutely. The linked article almost seems to realise this half-way through, and then charges on anyway.
The only issue here, to me, is if the CGI nudity is used in an attempt to "improve" upon reality, and continues Hollywood's distortion of what a normal human body is meant to look like. Especially since Hollywood tends to select for what it considers more attractive people generally (e.g. see its awful obsession with casting younger women in older roles), and now even these people might be subject to CGI modification. To a point, I have no problem with particularly attractive people being cast (regardless of gender), but there's clearly a line somewhere and I'm not sure when that line is being crossed.
If they believe that something is lost from the use of CGI in the film, that's their prerogative. As with any works of performance art, shouldn't television and cinema come under the same level of critique?
"Not every movie actress is going to want to do a nude scene. Maybe something’s wrong with her body at the time, or maybe some other actress had a better butt, so they use a body double."
As if those are the only two possible reasons for not wanting to do a nude scene. This Jim McBride sounds like quite the a--hole.
This is the most important reason of all: "Not every movie actress is going to want to do a nude scene."
#Edit. Typo.
http://www.ew.com/article/1995/08/18/jeanne-tripplehorn-says...
Of course. But then she should not reap the benefits of stardom and money by pretending it was her naked body on the camera. If you use the fact that "X is naked in Y" in your marketing campaign and X is not really naked in Y then it is dishonest at best.
Just like the hacker-talk, the movies falsely represent other situations, occupations and often plainly lie, have a specific agenda or are simply incompetent in what they present. It's a good thing that you are aware of one small part of it, maybe you'll start researching about all the subtle influences that the movies deliver.
It is also just brilliant in general.
Ask yourself why those are the only two voices besides the author that we hear in the piece.
If they said to a specific woman - say, someone who had previously done double work for Lena on Game of Thrones that she must do the scene then yes that'd be insane. Given the only credit the actress has in Game of Thrones is that scene [0] I'm inclined to believe that's not the case.
I don't necessarily think it's insane that somebody did it, but the expectation of a specific person to would be - whether that's Lena, a regular double or anyone else.
Also on a technical note, somebody else already pointed this out and I can only speculate too but I'm not convinced they'd necessarily have to film the exact same scenes twice. I don't know how they filmed it, but their cgi demo reels are really impressive and it could be very different to how it looks.
[0] I figured I'd look this up, because yea I'd agree there might be an issue if she was a regular and could have been pressured. Her imdb is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7098431/
How come?
If it makes the actors comfortable so we get a better story, then do whatever you need to do. Everything in film is fake in some way, James Cameron has a great line in the documentary "Side by Side" at the 1:13:45 - "I'm betting you've been on a couple movie sets, when was it ever real? There was kind of a wall there and nothing over there; there was 30 people standing around with a guy with a boom mike, another guy up on a ladder with his a## crack hanging out. There's fake rain. Your street, night, exterior, New York was a day, interior, Burbank. What was ever real?"
By the way, Side by Side is an amazing documentary on the evolution and conflict between film and digital cameras.
People have different priorities.