Reading this thread got me thinking. Why do are celebrities willing to basically get naked in front of a photographer, and a room full of people, but not actually for the photo’s, and how has there not been a problem with someone sneaking a camera, or video camera into one of those sets, and taking some “unauthorized” pictures. I’m sure we’ve all seen tons of stars that have posed provocatively on covers of magazines, or even done photo shoots inside that showed more than a little skin, and that they were obviously naked for. I distinctly remember LeAnn Rymes on one cover, buck naked. And I think I recall one of the actresses from Blue Crush stating that her suite came off so many times during filming, that she just didn’t care anymore. So I’m just wondering:
Why they just don’t go ahead and do a playboy shoot. I mean, heck, there’s been 20 strangers that saw them naked already
Speaking of “Playboy,” why do women bother appearing in the magazine fully clothed? The people who approve of the magazine will just be disappointed, and the people who don’t approve will hold it against them.
Maybe a staff photographer or art director for a magazine could help us out on this.
I would guess that whomever took the DC pix for EW didn’t see any naughty bits or even nipples. The Chick probably posed in some kind of flesh colored body suits. All the skin we saw was just air brushed in.
I’m not an art director but I’ve run all sorts of publishing stuff.
Yes, I’ve sat in for ‘risque’ photo shoots. Nothing on God’s green earth is less erotic.
And you get to see the models in all their glory. Some of the less experienced ones are nervous at first but when they’ve had people walking in and out and talking on cell phones and looking at negatives it just ends up blowing their mind.
They get dressed (typically bathrobe) if there’s a break in the shoot but that’s about it.
I won’t speak to what the Dixie Chicks did this time. It could be different for all I know.
Someone over in the other thread I linked to said that during a radio interview, one of the Chicks admitted that they actually were naked. I don’t know…just curiouse about it for a while now. Especially with TV getting bolder and bolder, I wonder at the logic behind saying “Well, even though I’m naked in front of 20 strangers on a sound stage, at least none of my actual fans get to see me naked”. Just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
The “strangers” are professionals who are used to doing this and who don’t get a sexual thrill doing it (see Jonathan Chance’s post). The fans (who are strangers also) can’t be counted on being that detached.
Also the photographers work to put the women at their ease as part of their job.
Uh, because they don’t just shoot these pictures out in the open. They’re in a closed studio with security guards to keep out anyone but the people who are getting paid to be there…and precious few of them would be willing to risk losing both their jobs and a lawsuit by taking sneaky photos.
I remember one Fear Factor episode in which people had to take their clothes off & walk down a runaway. There were alot of photographers taking pictures too. But they never showed the photos. Nuts.
Isn’t this a bit like asking, “Hey, if people take their clothes off in front of a doctor, why don’t they just give away nude pictures of themselves?”
There is a big advantage for a female performer to NOT being seen naked. People are attracted to mystery. People are sexier when you can leave something to the imagination.
Think about all the ‘sexiest’ women out there. How many of them have posed nude? And of those who did, what happened to their careers afterwards?
What happened to Demi Moore after ‘Striptease’? How about Sharon Stone after ‘Basic Instinct’?
Playboy nude photo spreads seem to me to be a way for women who’s careers are already on the way down to try and generate some publicity and hopefully revitalize them. It worked for Farrah Fawcett, but she would have never posed nude at the height of her popularity - and if she had, it would have hurt her.
Beavis and Butthead Do America was a masterpice man - Don’t be dissin’ :D.
Actually she did G.I. Jane for $11,000,000. It was the combination of that perceived failure, combined with the earlier failure of Striptease ( an excellent book ruined ), for which she got $12,500,000, that weakened her career. I honestly think flashing her boobs in Striptease had no particular effect - She’d posed nude when she was younger and had been partially unclad in films before. Her decline was due to a poor choice ( or perhaps just a poor implementation ) of projects, that failed to due much boxoffice.
Since she had a mediocre career before Basic Instinct, I’m not particularly shocked she had a mediocre career afterwards, either. But in fact her salary skyrocketed from the $750,000 she got for BI ( heh, what a fortuitous abbreviation ), to $6,000,000 a picture. Again, bad choices ( and in this case, weaker talent ) have hurt her more than anything else. Actually, far and away her best work was in Casino, for which she reportedly worked on the cheap for the chance to do it.
Oh, I’d agree on that. Also up-and-comers ( I remember - oh, so vividly - Kim Basinger posing in some artsy softcore mag very early in her career ), though these days Maxim and its ilk seem to be the venue of choice for that sort of thing.
I’d just disagree that being nude in film is necessarily equivalent to a Playboy shoot in those terms.
Tamerlane. that was Playboy that captured Kim Bassenger so well. I remember they billed her as up and coming young starlet from Texas, and her hair was down to her hindquarters. They were beautiful pictures-I did one of them in charcoal as an art project to pad my portfolio for an advertising job-got the gig, too! I’ll always be grateful to Kim for being my model.
Just because it was the weekend, I’ll bump this for those that don’t read over Saturday and Sunday.
Ok, I was a bit tacky in my wording of the OP, let me perhaps state it differently.
By posing semi-nude for the cover of a magazine, or layout of one, will celebrities already be irritating some fans? i.e. “I can’t believe such talents as the Dixie Chicks would stoop to posing like that just to get some attention”
And I don’t think the analogy with a doctor is the same at all. In most cases, there will be maybe 2 people that will see you unclothed in a doctors office. Whereas I’m sure there has to be at least a dozen people for a professional photo shoot. Also, you develope a relationship with your doctor over time, where the photographer will mostly likely remain a stranger.
As for Playboy, there have been stars that posed where it did not detriment their careers. Drew Berrymore, I believe Shannon Dougherty, Cindy Crawford…I don’t remember that their spreads caused much outrage or damage to their careers.
It’s image control. PR. Hell, how many women are there out there who haven’t been photographed naked by a lover or husband? To judge by the Internet, very few. Being photographed naked is not a big deal, even if by strangers. It’s how those photos are seen, and in what venues, that makes all the difference. Most women are comfortable with having their naked photos seen by someone who loves them. Many are comfortable with having their naked bodies seen having sex so long as their faces aren’t visible (hence, they aren’t identifiable.) And some have no problem, period with being photographed naked. Beyond that, it’s what’s best for them as people, or in the case of celebs, for their careers.
), to $6,000,000 a picture. Again, bad choices ( and in this case, weaker talent ) have hurt her more than anything else. Actually, far and away her best work was in Casino, for which she reportedly worked on the cheap for the chance to do it.