Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 October 6

= October 6 =

Why does the director influence the movie so much more than anyone else?
I hope I explain this clearly enough. So, take Peter Jackson for example. His movies are known for being very long, having lots of CGI, having thousands of extras and being extremely expensive to make. Or Tim Burton. You can tell a Tim Burton movie just by looking because his films have such a distinctive look. And no matter what movie he makes it has the same mood, the same feel and some of the same themes as anything else he's done. I'm noticing a certain trend amongst even foreign directors where every movie the director does is basically the same and they cast the same few people as leads all the time. So I'm wondering why the director - who doesn't write the script, doesn't choose the actors and actresses, doesn't really do anything but yell at everyone about how to move about the set, seems to infuse the finished project with his own essence so much when it isn't his project at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EF:73A0:4925:E9A2:E589:D9C4 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Film directors do an awful lot more than tell the actors where to stand. Broadly, the director is in charge of all the creative aspects of making the film, while the producer is in charge of all the business aspects. In theory, not just the actors, but the cinematographer, the set and costume designers, the storyboard artists, the lighting people, the special effects people, the casting people, the makeup artists and so on, all report to the director and follow his/her direction, hence under the auteur theory the director is usually considered the "author" of the film. That's not always the case - sometimes the director is a hired hand working to realise the desires of a producer or star or studio boss (but very rarely a writer) - but that's how it's usually conceptualised. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, one business aspect is telling the creative people to make the show the producer's way or kiss the money goodbye. Here are ten examples of movies ruined by this meddling. Of course, ruining is subjective, and often, a crappier movie means a better box office. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The director doesn't hire himself. Peter Jackson probably doesn't get many calls asking him to make a short film with 3 people appearing on screen through the whole thing. He's known for what he does and is asked to do what he does. He's hired to make the long blockbuster with effects. --Onorem (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't seen Meet the Feebles, one of Jackson's works that has no "special effects" per-se, though the "actors" are all puppets. It was also not a blockbuster by any stretch of the imagination, it was described as "dark and vulgar" by one review... SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I used to share your confusion. The director doesn't choose the script, but he tells the actors how to act it. He doesn't do set design, but he gets the final call on how things look. For virtually any aspect of the film, the director has veto power and the final say. This is the short version of why a director has so much influence over a film. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this explains it. Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EF:73A0:918B:EBE3:685C:C84C (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feminist porn studios / directors specializing in normal bodied actors?
I'm looking for porn studios or directors who make feminist (I'm using the term broadly to mean porn that celebrates rather than degrades the body - I know it's not precise!) and also use actors who have 'normal', or typical body types rather than model physiques. The problem I'm finding is that I'm either finding 'BBW' material that is focussed on a particular body type, rather than a more typical cross section of the population, or 'amateur', which has more to do with a lo-fi aesthetic. Directors like Erika Lust are the type of thing I'm looking for, except without the focus on models as actors. Any ideas? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.93.125 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the "Natural" category of CDUniverse. Plenty of films, by plenty of studios, but you may find a common link among them that particularly suits your taste. Not safe for work, or anywhere else you (or whoever else) don't want to see porn screenshots, covers and ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's not exactly what I'm looking for though - the 'natural' category there refers to unshaved or unaugmented breasts, not body types holistically. Appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.93.125 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there someone you could point to with what you'd consider a typical, non-model, non-BBW physique? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - it's not anyone in particular, or any physique in particular, more about diversity. Thanks
 * Unshaved breasts? What next?! —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, I think I know just the place. Australian amateurs of various typical shapes, shot with fancy cameras held by women (or a tripod, for the "Intimate Moments"). Hot stuff, but not demeaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call, Hulk. The OP might also want to check out the work of "Lady Sonia" (to whom I'm not going to post links while on a workplace computer :-), but I like to promote local enterprises). Be aware that she self-advertises as a dominatrix. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of articles from the Huffington Post tagged with 'feminist porn', you might find that helpful. I seem to recall reading about a site called "girls out west" that might fit your criteria. Like Hulk's link, it is an Australian outfit. Maybe they are on to something? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's more the kind of ball-park I'm looking for. I'm putting together some work on comparing actual body sizes and shapes to fashion and porn portrayals, and am trying to find any porn producers who do anything like this. Abby Winters and GoW are interesting, but they still focus on conventionally attractive teenage women. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.36.183 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not all teens, or mainstream attractive. If you sort by age, descending, you'll see the first page goes from 43 to 32 years, with quite a few unsymmetrical faces (safe for work). If you click the faces, you'll see flab, stretch marks, lopsidedness and such. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)