Do you get to see David Bowie's shlong in this movie?
-
mhenderson22 — 12 years ago(January 21, 2014 05:21 PM)
There were a couple of shots with Bowie's full body, including his face where you could see it. A lot of the more graphic shots pan up to his face too- so it's definitely him- Unless they had the technology to put bowie's head on somebody else's body.
-
GoldMorning — 16 years ago(October 03, 2009 06:22 AM)
Well the shot was reasonably wide because it showed most of his body (it was not a body double), so for this reason, even though it's on a large screen, it looks a bit unimpressive. It was also completely flacid. I guess Candy just wasn't doing it for him then again, there was a bloody big film crew watching.
So just to prove that he does have a decent size "shlong", please feel free to perve at this photo: But do so at your own risk.
http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq312/ChinchillaChinchilla/Photos/H uge.jpg -
nephihaha — 13 years ago(August 05, 2012 09:13 AM)
"While they show a lot of penises, the vagina is still a taboo".
A bit easier to show penises, since they stick out.
On the other hand, one sees a lot of topless women in old films of the period.
Just as these days, it's almost obligatory for good looking women to get off with each other in tacky Hollywood blockbusters, but you'll hardly ever see two men get it on
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF! -
rileyinlondon — 13 years ago(August 08, 2012 02:55 AM)
We've been seeing naked men and women in film for around the same time, but I'd say the reason penises aren't so 'taboo' as vaginas is that up until maybe 20, 30 years ago, vaginas were totally engulfed by pubic hair! Like that scene in The Life of Brian, where a naked Judith defends Brian from his mum, and they could get away with this nudity because her hair covered her breasts, and her pubes covered everything. Only since women have started grooming like they do now have vagina shots been as 'graphic' as penis shots. You could never really see them before.