this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
74 points (85.6% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2147 readers
3 users here now

This is a community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Keep discussion civil and on topic.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So I'll mention this first as it feels fairly relevant, but the article talks about how successful Game of Thrones was, though I'm not sure I'd attribute that success to the fact it had sex scenes.

As it is, Game of Thrones is a fantasy with lots of dramatic elements to it, and seemingly good writing for the most part, until whatever happened towards the end that ruined that for a lot of people. If they wanted sex to be part of the story, they could do so without ever really showing it on screen, but still being significant and more than just mentioned to have happened.

It could be implied through another character who found some indication of it after, or if no signs of it could be found, through the characters involved themselves, but just before or after it was done. And by doing that, you get the information of how the characters feel about it by how they react and respond, without just blatantly having all the complications of a sex scene included.

To me, showing a sex scene feels like the opposite of the phrase "show, don't tell", despite it quite literally being showing. It's just showing that it happened, almost like it's "telling" us directly that it did, rather than "showing" that it happened through interactions with the characters or environment before or after, which opens up so many more story and writing opportunities than just "telling" us it happened by just showing the sex that looks mostly like every other sex that has ever happened.

And the times a direct sex scene is actually good for the writing and story? Not everyone might understand what's being communicated with the sex scene, either because they'd rather not see sex in the first place, or because the body language and other tells are more subtle than what you can accomplish without sex in the first place.

So back to my original mentioned point, the success of Game of Thrones really doesn't seem like it entirely hinges upon the fact you see characters having sex lots of times, but rather mostly the writing, with which the sex scenes can be rendered unnecessary to convey the same story, without excluding parts of the audience that don't want to see sex in their fantasy drama for whatever reasons they might have, of which there's many possible reasons.

And all that without even getting into the problem of genuinely bad sex scenes that either don't contribute anything at all to the plot or development of characters, or even pointlessly harm the actual plot and development just by being there.

And of course, something else the article talks about that I agree with, you don't have to have characters immediately jump to having sex from the moment they start liking each other, you can have emotional or platonic bonds that form without that, and without which it just feels significantly more meaningless. Sex isn't some central point from which all relationships universally revolve around, and you can have characters enjoying time with each other, including in a bed together, without it consistently becoming yet another sexual moment mostly in an attempt to appeal to the viewers rather than the actual characters themselves.