[FRIAM] Friday Fodder

[Prof David West]

I read, long ago and who knows where, that the issue came from the director, and probably more directly from the continuation editor — there were visual 'responses' from females in this scene and in the bar scene from the first one where they looked at his crotch and were "impressed" and "lustful" so it was felt that they needed to provide support for those reactions.

I just remembered where I read this, not an exact title but a postmodern critique of of eroticism, robots, and film. I have the book here somewhere and will post title when I find it.

davew


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, at 11:29 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> LoL! Can you imagine how insecure you'd have to be to insist the 
> producers CGI larger genitalia for you? As Womanizer-in-Chief, I'd buy 
> that he did. But hell, maybe the Governator would have been fine with 
> anatomical correctness but the director insisted that modern 
> masculinity demands porn star proportions? ... or maybe the rhetoric is 
> "Nobody will be scared by a robot with small genitals?" I mean, the 
> idea that the metal had to be surrounded by flesh for the time machine 
> to work killed my ability to suspend disbelief, already. But to insist 
> the fleshy vesicle needed genitalia too? Seriously?  At least 
> Battlestar Galactica and Blade Runner had believable reasons for the 
> robots' physiological fidelity.
> 
> On 3/24/21 10:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.
> 
> -- 
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>