No Nudity Clauses in Contracts

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I say total D. The world would be so much less troubled if Michelle Pfeiffer had popped 'em out in the past and imagine that Wild Things scene if Neve Campbell AND Denise Richards had disrobed.

So I say NO to these clauses. Sarah Michelle Gellar should have definately had a nude scene in The Grudge.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 09:43 (twenty years ago)

Lee J Cobb should have got his cock out in 12 Angry Men

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 6 January 2005 09:46 (twenty years ago)

Man that would've been HILARIOUS.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 09:47 (twenty years ago)

I thought that this would be about job contracts, and that perhaps I would need to reconsider my career.

― tissp! (the impossible shortest specia), Thursday, 6 January 2005 09:48 (twenty years ago)

What i really dont get is studios allowing their femail leads to talk about the no nudity contracts. It ruins it for them, cos' the lonely nipple hungry male has significant quantitys of spare cash he is willing to spend on a seat. It ruins it for us, becasue we know that if our GF drags us along to said movie, we aint gonna see nothing, and will thus have to 'engage' with the characters for entertainment.

― lukey (Lukey G), Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:06 (twenty years ago)

To obtain tax money ever rom com should have to include at least one gratuitous nude sequence lasting no shorter than 5 minutes and, thus, making the film more bearable. Unless it stars Martine McClutheon in which case she can keep them on.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

romcom Meg Ryan?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:47 (twenty years ago)

tax money?

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:50 (twenty years ago)

Yes tax money. Usually rich people's tax money. Or rather their money that should go into tax until a legal swindler gets them to channel it into production. You know where a lot of film money comes from?

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:57 (twenty years ago)

from enormous media firms like god intended.

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:02 (twenty years ago)

Uh... not always. Especially not over here.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:03 (twenty years ago)

where? the 17th century?

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:04 (twenty years ago)

What is your opinion of the way the british film "industry" is funded, calum? I would actually really like to know.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:14 (twenty years ago)

It's a disgrace and needs to be regulated far better. Many films are made through tax incentives that are terrible and never distributed but there are various "no risk" incentives. Some of the people that are involved in the UK film industry, and who have made or been involved with in many films you will never hear of or see, are so mindless it beggars belief.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:22 (twenty years ago)

I pretty much agree w/that and would add that for me that if yr going to finance films that are obviously not going to be "big", why is so much of the material being financed so crassly "populist"? "populist" + "doesn't actually need to turn a profit for everyone to get paid" = probably rubbish. It's surely the worst formula for filmmaking ever.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:29 (twenty years ago)

well i don't mean to distract you calum but no amount of tax overhaul will get denise richards' kit off in a british film, so no sense worrying.

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:33 (twenty years ago)

So you'd close the tax loopholes and cripple the film industry in this country? Every time a rich person or finance company puts money into a film, several talented, professional people get another job. Writers, directors and everyone else on the production line gets a chance to further their careers, increase their experience, earn a living. Once in a while one of these films will be great; once in a while one of these films will be successful.

And I point blank disagree with your assertion that populist = bad, Norm. Arty/inaccessible/obscure can be bad too. And you won't find many people, tax avoiders or otherwise, who want to put money into something they already know is going to attract a minimal audience.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:34 (twenty years ago)

Populist bad, populist usually = poor.

It usually gets translated as the pitch "Hey its 4 weddings meets trainspotting" kinda poor.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

Well Mark, you sure said a mouthful and I believed this once too. I'd say get involved with the industry for yourself if you want your perceptions shattered. The problem is that the tax holes exist largely to benefit the wealthy, who are able to write off their tax into a film. On paper this might sound good, but it has acted as a vortex for financiers to become involved in movies and financiers – with a financial background – don’t know a hell of a lot about movies. The result is usually disasterous, with a crew made up largely of people who are ‘friends of friends’ rather than real time filmmakers with a great future. I do think that there is a place for tax incentives in the industry Mark but it has to be policed by a proper film council made up of filmmakers and experienced film producers who can – to some extent – see that the money is well spent. Too many Brit films are made (often as co-productions with other countries and shot abroad where labour is cheap so if you think UK crews are getting work from a film that’s liable to be shot elsewhere then you’re wrong) and fail to be distributed (and some of the distributors are morons too). The big problem I find is that too many folks in the industry are simply not nice. What steps I have made, including attaching myself as a producer to a few really promising projects and tying financing into them, have been made simply by being friendly and, honestly, having an interest and passion in movies.

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:46 (twenty years ago)

so just straight titties then, no bullshit?

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

I did not assert that "populist = bad" barry. The last film I saw was "The Incredibles", which was very populist, and I thought it was very good.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

That was me (I think)

Populist? The increds was Popular. Populist = chasing a format that will succeed a bit by covering too many bases to be truly great.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:51 (twenty years ago)

or am ah rang?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah. No. Perhaps. Whatever. Do you want this dvd copy of "rancid aluminium"?

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

No idea.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:54 (twenty years ago)

Is it any good?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:54 (twenty years ago)

I don't actually have a dvd copy of "rancid aluminium". I was only kidding!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

Calum, I don't disgree with you hugely and I do think that regulation of the financing of movies does need to be revamped. But I thought you knew that I do work in the industry and indeed have done for the best part of the last decade; that I work on a daily basis with writers, producers, directors, script editors, development execs, lawyers, studios and distributors and myriad assistants and lackeys, and the vast majority of these are committed, dedicated people who live to see films made and released.

The morals concerning the motivation of the financiers (which comes down to: MAKE MONEY MAKE MONEY MAKE MONEY, as it does in every field of life) is a concern but it's far less important than the wellbeing of all the good, talented and enthusiastic people I'm lucky enough to work with. Every industry, every walk of life has its arseholes and its parasites. Maybe you've been unlucky to have come across so many.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:56 (twenty years ago)

I can't stand the regular discourses about rockism/populism so I'm not going to get into it. Norman, your assertion that small films should for some reason be "worthy" because they're not going to make money anyway was the root of my disagreement, I think - of course I'm not suggesting films for the masses will always be bad.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:57 (twenty years ago)

Is that your email addy? Can I contact you because - seriously - I have some really cool people that might be interested in increasing connections...

― CC72, Thursday, 6 January 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I can't be bothered w/rockism vs popism either. I think it's mainly that the kind of british films I like don't really seem to get made at all, or if they are, I never get to hear about them.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

If you get the chance, go and see "Dear Frankie" - it's just the kind of small British film that we're talking about, and it's sad, soppy, accessible, sweet and has Emily Mortimer in it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:02 (twenty years ago)

I'm not a great networker Calum, so it's probably not worth your while.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

I've dropped you an email anyway. Doesn't matter if you're not a good networker. I am, and have lots of contacts.

― CC79, Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:09 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

No Nudity Clauses in Contracts - C or D?