Hacker News Reader

> Maybe because you are comparing r-rated action movies with super hero film made by disney.

Yes, but that's an artistic and commercial choice in and of itself. Why? One argument is the making of movies for export to China and India, with their censorship, encourages making a sort of internationally compliant pre-censored film.

But the argument doesn't hinge on graphicness; you don't have to be R-rated to imply sexual chemistry. It's one of the things that "pre-code" 1930s movies were good at - and of course got slapped down by American "voluntary" censors for. You don't have to _show_ anything to imply that two characters had sex offscreen, or even that they desire one another.

I would argue that something similar has happened to the Hays code slapdown. The 1980s movies were particularly "objectifying" in their treatment of sex. It was very much a time when female characters were often (not always!) only there for their bodies to be a reward for the male hero and the (male) audience.

(big exception for Sarah Connor in Terminator, of course)

So in the 21st century we've internalised that that was a bad, reductive way to handle sexual relations. But we've failed to _replace_ it with a new set of cinema conventions, or original characters, instead preferring to duck the issue entirely.

I think it’s just a cheap cherry picked argument. Iron man is largely about humility. His relationship stuff is mostly not even off screen, but between films entirely.

The MCU has a fair chunk of horny characters (horniest being overt sexual chemistry, not sex scenes). The horniest off the top of my head being Garfield’s Spider-Man (more Sony, but still), She Hulk, Captain America, most of the guardians of the galaxy, etc.

Top Gun is the emblematic stupid sexual chemistry for no reason film of the 90s for me. It’s dumb. It’s forced. It’s behind the scenes shameful.

Sexuality (not sex scenes) should not be a taboo trait for a character, or a person. It's still PG13 to be human. Looking at past films and TV shows, even those aimed at children, you can clearly see some characters being flirty, some characters falling in love or being very attracted to the obviously attractive counterpart. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is probably the most extreme example, but almost everywhere, from Looney Tunes to Terminator, it was OK to be attracted to a beautiful character.

The gist of this post is that this is mostly gone from MCU-like movies, and this makes sense because little kids want explosions and references instead of human connection. I tend to agree although there are still movies today that don't fall into this category.

> little kids want explosions and references instead of human connection

Another hint from extremely fandom-orientated movies like this: just as kpop bands aren't allowed to have boyfriends/girlfriends, maybe the relationships are taken away from the characters to allow the fans to develop the more intense parasocial relationship with the character/actor without any onscreen partner "getting in the way"?

Superhero films don't have to be sexless, even if kid-friendly. The dating scene between Lois and Clark in Superman (1978) (PG) contains more sexual energy and tension than many scenes in modern streamer series where the sex is shown on-screen in a manner explicit enough to have been considered softcore porn in the 80s and 90s. You can see the desire in Lois's eyes as she thirsts up Superman, and under that gaze Clark becomes nervous and off his game even in his more confident Superman persona. He fancies Lois enough to test her desire (by appearing to her as both Superman and Clark in the same night) and to become tempted to reveal his identity to her. Lois gets way more ribald ("what color underwear am I wearing?") than a late 1970s career woman would with a stranger, especially one she's interviewing for her job. She literally can't help herself.

The whole scene hits way, way different as an adult than when I first saw it as a kid. And nobody even gets undressed.

Millennials would probably have seen the films on TV where some scenes might have been cut.

Sure but after that they went to the internet to watch what the Wild West back then provided

Ghostbusters was PG

And Terminator was M (in Australia), which means "recommended" for 15 years and older, but not restricted.

Ghostbusters is probably the one my argument is the weakest for - but still, its not about the rating but who the most targeted audience is. Ghostbusters is a comedy aimed at adults (or teens at least) which can also be suitable for kids. Super hero movies tend to be aimed at kids first while also being enjoyable by adults (or at most equally aimed. After all so much of the money comes from toy sales).

i think a more fair historical comparison would be original star wars trilogy to current marvel movies.

> original star wars trilogy

Famously, Lucas insisted on Carrie Fisher not wearing a bra in some scenes in the white flowing dress, and also put in the somewhat gratuitous bikini scene. You wouldn't get away with that today.

Probably not. But gratuitous depictions of women is not the same as showing sexual chemistry.

To be sure, the PG-13 rating[1] wasn't introduced until shortly after the 1984 film[2] was released.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters

it was a deleted scene. also, maybe people forget these things, but it was common for many people to watch these old movies on TV, where they were heavily edited.

Exactly. And big-budget movies are trying to maximize their audience, that's all that's happening.

If you want something adult and horny, there's plenty for you on HBO and so forth. Euphoria, Game of Thrones, The Idol...

Glad Oppenheimer didn't shy away from those aspects of his life. Help really humanize him, in both good and bad ways even if the relationship(s) weren't necessarily a vital part of history outside of "oh his wife was a communist before he met".

It's just interesting because even 2000's superhero movies did this. Society changes quickly when a trillion dollar corporation azures a studio I guess.

90s Batman and original Spiderman were super hero films and has lot more sexuality than what we have now.

> Maybe because you are comparing r-rated action movies with super hero film made by disney.

It's comparing mainstream action movies with mainstream action movies. The fact that those mainstream action movies used to be r-rated and are not anymore is the whole point of the article.

Wasn't Ghostbusters a movie for kids though?

It has appeal for kids (I loved it as an 80s child) but it was created, written, and performed by a group of comedians with SNL and other sketch comedy backgrounds. It also has a scene that implies Dan Akroyd is receiving a blowjob from a ghost.

> Of course there’s sex in a movie. Isn’t there always?

> > The answer, of course, is not anymore—at least not when it comes to modern blockbusters

In todays gender fluid world, holding back on details, creating more innuendo enables viewers to project their own thoughts into those plot voids when watching tv or film, and obviously it allows more plot twists in future story lines.

Look at the furore thats generated over the TV SciFi character Dr Who kissing companions.

Another way to look at previous tv and films, is, were they more conformist and thus dictatorial to the viewer and society in general?

> Kids watch terminator and adults love super heroes. But the principle target audiences are different.

So are you saying that terminator is filling in as a father figure in psychological terms?

I think people watch films for the entertainment value as well, not thinking too hard to what is going on, partly because there is alot of detail to take in, its a bit like reading a text book through one sitting, you dont take everything in, but what is taken in and then gossiped about face to face or online, becomes interesting because its meta data for what people think is important.

I watched parts of Silence of the Lambs again the other night, and the FBi Starling portrayal of Buffalo Bill, is arguably academic conformism. This time, I was left wondering how much his childhood messed him up, in particular authority figures, which I dont think gets too much focus in the popular press or law enforcement circles.

The scene with the senator using the persons name broadcast to the hostage takers, to "humanise" the victim, instead of making "it" an object, I think hides the objectification of academia, the law and the state on the populous.

tl;dr authority figures influence the cognitive process, reducing the ability of people to think for themselves, which might not be a good thing.

> holding back on details, creating more innuendo

The article argues that modern movies don't do that. It's not more subtle, it's not present.

I didnt read the article, I read the previous comment and gave my own opinion. I've seen movies before, old and new. I can form my own opinion.

Why are you commenting your opinion on the comments of the article then? Obviously users are going to take the context of the discussion into account in the discussion.