The Hush-Hush News Report 12.01.09: Does Sex Still Sell?

Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 12.01.2009

This week we look at the myth that sex sells in the face of a new research study that claims the opposite and ask, "Do two girls making out really sell tickets?" Plus, news on new Marvel comic book casting rumors, Oren Peli's next projects, Paul Greengrass leaving the Bourne franchise, Predators talk, new mini-reviews and more!

Welcome one and all to the Hush-Hush News Report! I'm your host Jeremy Thomas, and I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving. If you guys made out like bandits on Black Friday, you can be sure that you didn't wrest anything from my hands; I gleefully avoid the stores on the most evil of shopping days, because I have no desire to be trampled. But hey, it's worth it for a $250 flat-screen television, right? …right? Anyway, let's get right into it, shall we?

Before you start reading, have you bookmarked 411Mania.com yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and it'll get you your daily dose of entertainment news that much quicker! Typing the URL out in the address bar is such a pain, don'tcha think? Hell, make it your home page and it'll be that much easier for you!

Antal Talks Robert Rodriguez's Predators



Coming Soon spoke with Nimrod Antal, the director of the soon-to-be-released "Armored" who is currently working on "Robert Rodriguez's Predators," about the reboot of the latter franchise.

"So far, it's been great, and I think that the fans who may have been underwhelmed by the last two AVP films, I think they're in for a very pleasant surprise," he tentatively said when asked how it was going.

Regarding the involvement of producer Rodriguez Antal stated, "Robert hired me, so obviously I'm very grateful for him giving me a shot. He is involved in the screenplay and we've had a lot of conversations, and any big decisions I want to make, I always speak to him about, but he's been very gracious and he's been letting me do my thing. He's really let me perform and he's let me dance, so again, I'm grateful to him for that."

While Rodriguez has embraced doing things using CG animation, Antal stated that they would be using more practical effects. "I think we both recognize that the original film was as good as it was because of the practical, because it was a guy in a suit, because it was the jungle, so we stay true to that. We were in Hawaii for a month in the jungle, so there's going to be some pretty impressive locations."

Antal also spoke about his appreciation for the franchise's roots. "Let me tell you, I was so much of a fan that I stood in line when I was 14 and I had the poster on my wall. I was a huge fan...it was a challenge in finding a balance. I think when we cast Adrian, there were a lot of people going, 'What?' but at the same time, if we cast a Vin Diesel in that role or if we cast anyone who is Arnold-esque, we would have been attacked for doing that. So we decided early on to go in a very different direction as far as the casting process, but it turned out fantastic. He plays a mercenary in the film and if you look at the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan today, they're not 'yolked-out' Schwarzenegger-looking guys. They're all very wiry and thin guys, and I think it's going to play well."

Before things wrapped up, he did confirm that Predators was being shot to be an R-rated film.

There's a lot of information here from Antal, and most of it is decent to good. I'm glad to hear that he's a fan of the franchise, but then what director would go in saying "I don't much about it and wasn't really a fan?" Well, besides J.J. Abrams anyway. Antal largely comes off here as just a nice guy who's trying to play the gracious and appreciative director, and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't hurt that a lot of the things he's talking about, such as the R rating and practical suits over CGI, are encouraging. I even have to admit that his reasoning for casting someone smaller and wiry like Adrien Brody is a smart move, because it won't seem like a rip-off that way. And he's acknowledging that the A v. P films were problematic at best, so kudos for that too. All in all, there isn't much I can complain about here and my interest remains moderate.


Paranormal Peli Goes Back to Well For Area 51



Variety is reporting that Paramount Pictures has picked up the rights to distribute Oren Peli's $5 million follow-up to his hit "Paranormal Activity" entitled "Area 51," at least in the United States.

Like the surprise fall hit, Peli wrote and directed the movie and it's being produced by Jason Blum of Blumhouse Productions using the same "found footage" structure to tell the story of three teens whose curiosity leads them to the notorious Area 51 portion of Nellis Air Force Base in the Nevada desert.

Paramount made a high seven-figure to co-finance the film with Incentive Filmed Entertainment and the Aramid Entertainment Fund as well as any potential sequels at the recent American Film Market, where the movie was one of the hot properties up for sale.
The movie has already been filmed with unknown actors Reid Warner, Darrin Bragg and Ben Rovner and is currently in post-production. The article mentions that Peli will work on another installment of "Paranormal Activity" for Paramount after its completion.

Sadly, I think we all knew this was coming. While I enjoyed Paranormal Activity a lot more than some, I was worried that Peli would prove to be a one-note director. I think that he's more talented than that, but like Eduardo Sanchez of Blair Witch he's going to have a very difficult time escaping the "found footage director" stigma. However, I'm very disappointed to see that not only is he making Area 51 a found footage film, but he's also keen to cash in on Paranormal Activity too. Did I expect it? I suppose I figured it was a possibility, maybe even a probability. But it doesn't mean I can't be somewhat let down too.


Unnecessary Remake News of the Week



The remake to I Spit on Your Grave rolled cameras in Shreveport, Louisiana recently and director Steven Monroe is now stepping forward to talk about his take on Meir Zarchi's original picture.

Sarah Butler stars as a young woman who is repeatedly raped and then seeks revenge on her attackers.

"There is one additional lead character, a Sheriff played by Andrew Howard," Monroe says of the changes viewers will see in his film, "and of course we upped the brutality and length of the tortures and kills - as they were quite short in the original - which was really a disturbing thriller at heart not a horror film. I also wanted to update the look of the film and give it a very voyeuristic quality and gritty realism."

Anchor Bay will distribute the film when it is completed.

This is news that Erik Luers will just dance for joy over. I kid. Sadly, I guess it was a given that I Spit on Your Grave would eventually be remade; it's an infamous film and thus someone thinks a remake will make a buck. And with torture porn not fully dead yet, there may still be a market. But really, up the brutality and the length of tortures? Because the lengthy, obscenely graphic rape scene wasn't long or brutal enough? Yeah, that's just brilliant. Yes, I do realize that maybe Munroe is talking about the scenes of revenge, but either way this is an atrocious idea. I Spit on Your Grave is a film without redeeming value and I can't imagine that the remake will be any better.


Eccleston Uncovers Naked Lennon



Christopher Eccleston (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, "Doctor Who") will play John Lennon in BBC Four's upcoming "Naked Lennon," reports Variety.

The film highlights the years from 1967 to 1971 when the Beatle was ending his first marriage to Cynthia as Yoko Ono entered his life, coping with the death of manager Brian Epstein and the group's own messy and acrimonious disintegration.

Naoko Mori ("Torchwood") will play Ono and Rory Kinnear has been cast as Epstein. Other cast members include Claudie Blakley as Cynthia Lennon and Andrew Scott as Paul McCartney. "Lennon Naked" was written by Robert Jones, the co-creator of BBC TV drama "Party Animals."

I've said before that I'm a big fan of Lennon and I enjoy seeing films about him. Casting Christopher Eccleston as Lennon is an excellent decision as the British actor is a fabulous actor who I have little doubts can capture Lennon's look and feel quite well. The era that they're covering in this film should make for a very interesting tale, and I can see it being the kind of character piece that Eccleston can sink his teeth into and come out looking wonderful. The title is a bit dodgy, but otherwise I can totally get down with this. And for those curious, the woman above is Naoko Mori, who will play Ono as mentioned.


From French First Lady to Allen Actress for Bruni-Sarkozy



Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, former supermodel and wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is set to make an appearance in Woody Allen's French-set film which begins shooting in the Summer reports the trades.

The script for the $30 million English-French language is still being finished up, but Bruni is only expected to play a secondary role. She told Canal Plus television that Allen himself had asked the French First Lady to be in the project but wouldn't tell her what the role was.

"I said 'yes'... I do everything a little bit blindly. If I don't, I won't do anything... I'm not at all an actress. Maybe I'll be absolutely terrible" said Bruni-Sarkozy.

Allen's next project, the London-set "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", stars Naomi Watts, Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas.

This is an interesting decision by Allen, but I'm always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Allen is an adept film-maker who often makes inspired casting choices, and if he sees talent in Bruni-Sarkozy than I'm willing to see what she's got. Not every director strikes gold when they make bold decisions like this, of course. Critics didn't seem to be particularly loving of Sasha Grey in The Girlfriend Experience, and of course we know how many singers or sports personalities have tried to become actors, with little success. That Allen proactively pursued the woman is encouraging, and I am quite interested to see what, if anything, she brings to the table as an actress.


Greengrass Bourne To Run



The Playlist is reporting that Paul Greengrass, who directed both The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, has exited the fourth "Bourne" movie in development at Universal Pictures.

Two scripts were turned in for the project - a first one by George Nolfi and a second by Josh Zemuter. The site says that no one likes Nolfi's version, but that Greengrass was not consulted by the studio in the hiring of Zemuter.

It will be interesting to see how this will affect Matt Damon's involvement. He's close to Greengrass and also starring in the director's upcoming Green Zone. Nolfi also wrote, and is directing, the Damon-starrer The Adjustment Bureau.

The Playlist does add that walking away might be a "typical Paul move" and that he possibly could be back on the project in a few months.

Ahh, Bourne drama. This has been an on-again, off-again project since The Bourne Ultimatum's release. Damon once said he was in no way interested in coming back, and Greengrass made a joke about titling it The Bourne Redundancy. And yet, when the money lined up, both signed on board. Now that they've gotten scripts, there's drama over whose script is liked by whom and who cleared what with whom. Honestly, I enjoy the saga of Jason Bourne, but I'm not dying for a new tale. The third film finished it off nicely and anything else would be redundant. So I hope Greengrass isn't making a "typical Paul move" and is actually departing, with Damon in tow. It certainly wouldn't be the worst move they've made.


Get Ready for Rooster McConaughey, Cartoon Star



Fox has teamed with Matthew McConaughey to develop an animated TV comedy based on his brother's life, says Variety.

"Rooster Tales" follows the world of a beer-swilling, redneck sheriff who marries a much younger woman from Mexico. The man soon realizes, however, that he's gained not only a wife but an entire clan -- 114 members and counting.

"My brother's life is so unbelievable, we had to animate it," executive producer McConaughey said. Twentieth Century Fox TV is behind the project, which is currently in script stage.

Also executive producing are Mike "Rooster" McConaughey, Mark Gustawes and writer Kell Cahoon ("Psych").

This is a news story that's too nutty not to comment on. Rooster Tales, really? Wow, it must be nice to have a movie star as a brother…you can get a movie made out of your life. Perhaps I don't follow the tabloids enough, but I've never heard of crazy exploits of Rooster McConaughey, and I would think that these kinds of tales would have hit. The paparazzi love following Matthew around shirtless all the time, so some dirt on his family would be like gold. I did find out that Rooster named his son "Miller Lyte McConaughey." Wow. Either way, this is a flat-out dumbass idea that undoubtedly has little to no chance of succeeding.

But then again, I said the same thing about The Biggest Loser, so what do I know?


Renner has Hawkeye In His Sights



In the latest Empire Magazine, actor Jeremy Renner was asked something during an interview to which his reply seemed to indicate that Marvel Studios is looking for an actor to appear, albeit briefly, as Hawkeye in Branagh's movie as a teaser for when all the Marvel heroes band together, similar to Samuel L. Jackson's cameo at the end of Iron Man.

"Hawkeye could be interesting," he told them. "They're going to send me some stuff on it, see what it is, but I think they're pretty awesome, trying to make superhero movies almost plausible and not just some fantasy thing."

When SuperHeroHype spoke to Renner much earlier this year, he had mentioned he was interested in doing a movie based on a graphic novel, and that he was looking at taking a part in Sylvain White's The Losers.

Empire has since added a few more quotes from their interview with Renner on their website, including one of the whether Hawkeye might appear in Iron Man 2:

"If I was a betting man, I would bet that Hawkeye would probably show up in Thor, and then be in 'The Avengers,'" he told them, "But do I know for sure? I can't say. But I'd love for that to happen. It'd be fun."

Renner also revealed that he never had been inconsideration for Captain America as some websites reported: "I don't know if I'd be right for Captain America. I met with the Marvel guys, actually, but we didn't talk about Captain America. But one of the writers, Zak Penn, we've become friends over time and he was thinking maybe Hawkeye could be interesting. He sounds like an interesting character."

He's optimistic about getting a role in a Marvel movie but he's aware that nothing is set in stone until it's put in writing, "I'm just happy to get considered for big franchise roles like that. I'm not [doing the] casting. If they see me that way, right on. If they don't, I'm ok with it."

Allow me to start my fanboy engines now. Behind Iron Man, Hawkeye has always been one of my favorite Marvel characters. I loved the West Coast Avengers, so sue me. I think he's a far cooler character than DC's version in Green Arrow and I think his presence in The Avengers would be fantastic. And the idea of casting Renner—a talented actor who has had a chance to show those talents in films like The Hurt Locker, 28 Weeks Later and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford—is one I certainly approve of. Renner seems to know how to play the game, dropping potential news tidbits and then saying "I don't know if it would happen, but it would be fun."

Obviously, this should be taken as a rumor for now. It's a rumor straight from the horse's mouth, but a rumor nonetheless. Certainly, if they can make a guy with a shield as a weapon stand on his own around Iron Man, Thor and the Hulk, they can make an archer do so too. I am glad that he's not being cast as Captain America, as I think he doesn't have the right look for it and there are probably a lot of actors they can find who will be well-suited for such a role. Besides, it would put a kibosh on the idea of him playing Hawkeye, which I obviously much prefer.

---

Technical difficulties prevented the posting of links. Instead, I'll just say read everything, because it's all awesome.





Do you Twitter? If not, you should! And while you're at it, add these to your list of people that you follow so that you can get the latest updates!

Follow Me on Twitter!
411Mania.com
411's Wrestling Zone
411's Movies & TV Zone
411's Music Zone
411's Games Zone
411's MMA Zone
411's Boxing Zone

---

From Guest#5574:
Under The Dome is a great, great book. All the illiterate children thinking it's a rip off of the Simpsons movie can go fuck themselves. The plots are NOTHING alike. Oh, and King came up with the idea first.

Good to know, I'll have to check it out. Thanks!


From Eric Von Erich:
I think that the use of "cutting" in the quote about James Cameron is meant to be synonymous with "crafting". I don't think they meant that he cuts parts out of long movies to make them shorter.

I agree that the audience adds a lot to a movie. The effect is especially stark in comedies. I don't think I would have enjoyed The Hangover half as much if I had watched it on DVD.

From Mario:
Uhm, I think you're misreading the story about Cameron cutting long films. What they probably mean is he is known for editing his films to a long running time, which you proved with the rest of your comment...

Duly noted from both of you guys; I had misread it to be a similar statement to "he cuts DOWN longer films." In retrospect that makes sense. And yeah Eric, comedies are the most susceptible to the audience effect. I don't think any film infects an audience as well as a comedy, because laughter is definitely contagious.


From mjmoon29:
When you combine expectations with your audience effect the impact on the viewing of a movie can be huge. I just saw GI Joe on DVD and expected it to be a complete turd, it wasn't and I had a good time watching it. The low expectation combined with atmosphere made it OK and far better than I thought it should have been. Critics and the online community are too quick to analyze and judge based solely on their personally defined criteria instead of rating the entire experience.


From Todd Vote:
I have high hopes for Avatar, but that $300m budget is going to make the movie an uphill battle from the get go once it releases. How much will it have to make to be considered successful? As far as I can tell $300m grossing movies is not the norm for December.

There is certainly precedent, from the Lord of the Rings films, The Chronicles of Narnia, and even Meet the Fockers got close. Also, it's worth noting that Titanic opened in December so Cameron has done it before. I'm not positive that he'll pull it off a second time but if anyone can, it would be him.


From The Great Capt. Smooth:
So true about the crowds. What's funny is when you get a division within the crowd. I remember going to see the Jim Carrey Grinch movie. It was a PACKED theater and people were so hyped for it. Then the movie happened. I'd say just about anybody over thirty was grumbling and had a pained look. However, just about anybody under 15 went NUTS for the movie. Older people would give the kids a dirty look and that just made the kids cheer louder. It was like "John Cena: The Movie".

I've never been in a crowd where there was a very serious division like that. I think the closest I came was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen where it was much the same reaction as you described for The Grinch. All the 13 year olds loved it, anyone above puberty seemed bored and annoyed. Myself included.


From Vince:
In your editorial you mentioned critics and their disconnect with many popular movies and their immunity to the "audience effect". I'd like to add some information which I found interesting.

In one of Roger Ebert's books (I'm sorry, but I can't remember which one), he talks about the lack of similarity between movies that critics like, and movies that general audiences like. (I'm going to paraphrase, so forgive me if I'm not as accurate as I could be.) He mentions that watching movies is a movie critic's job. For the vast majority of people, they'll see maybe six movies in a year. A movie critic can see four movies in a day. When you are exposed to that much of something, you learn to discriminate between worthwhile and worthless. You can tell when something is wasting your time. You're going to want something different, unique, and attention-getting.

People who've only eaten a McDonald's hamburger would think it's pretty good, but someone who's eaten a Burger King, Wendy's, Harvey's, A&W, and six other chain's burgers would realize that they're all pretty much the same. But then, when you find a burger from a smaller place, one that you've never heard about, with its own unique flavor that makes you stand up and take notice, you really feel that you've found something special.

Also, if you want to see how sometimes the critics can enjoy a blockbuster, you can go to Ebert's website and compare Ebert's review of the original Transformers with that of the sequel. There's a two-star difference there.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with all of Ebert's reviews, he has been doing this for 40 years, so I consider him an authority on the subject. Also, I love his writing style.

Finally, I'm glad to see you've joined Flickchart, it's a very addictive website. I'm user vincemale.

Keep up the tremendous work, the Hush-Hush is always an entertaining read.

Thanks for the kind words Vince! I think that the disconnect you mentioned by way of Ebert and how seeing more movies affects how much you enjoy films is a great point. It's very true that I think some people who don't go to as many movies are a bit more easily satisfied. That's not said in a superior way, each person has their own tastes and if someone likes a film, I don't give them a hard time for it…except Meet the Spartans. I can't possibly get how anyone would love that thing. And certainly, critics can appreciate blockbusters if the quality is there. One of the things I've always loved about Roger Ebert is that, with the exception of slasher films which he unabashedly hates, he's always been very good about viewing films within the context of their genre. It's an important distinction; for example, no one would call Ninja Assassin great cinema. But viewed as a brain-dead action film I think there's a lot to enjoy there, and it does a lot of good things that Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li and Dragonball: Evolution couldn't manage. So there's certainly something to be said for that, and thank you for bringing it up.

Also, thanks for the FlickChart shout-out. I've been a fan of that site for some time, and can often be found there wasting a little time here and there. Anyone who hasn't seen it, I encourage you to check it out and waste a few hours ranking films.

---

eXistenZ David Cronenberg's story of the ultimate massive multiplayer online role-playing game is exactly what one might expect from the man responsible for Scanners, Videodrome and The Fly. Cronenberg injects the film with his trademark body horror elements by turning the sterile world of online gaming into a place of umbilical corded "game pods" and bio ports. Cronenberg's film bears themes similar to those of another 1999 film about virtual reality, The Matrix, and the same sort of mind-bending questions are asked. Where the Wachowski brothers' film is slicker and more visually impressive, eXistenZ explores its themes in a fuller and more realized way. The performances are largely solid with Jude Law doing good work in one of his earlier roles and Jennifer Jason Leigh showing that she still had it. While The Matrix may be the more successful film by far, it runs neck and neck with this one in terms of quality.

Final Rating: 8.0

The Broken: Some very good acting talent is wasted in The Broken, as Lena Headey and Oscar nominee Richard Jenkins find themselves in a dour, hollow horror movie. Headey spends most of her time as protagonist Gina McVey looking stoically scared and Jenkins is wasted in a role that has no real demands to it. The script by writer/director Sean Ellis plays out as a clumsy pastiche of Mirrors and Invasion of the Body Snatchers and while Ellis piles on the moody atmosphere, he doesn't have enough tricks to hide the fact that there's nothing really going on. A final twist can be seen coming about a quarter of the way through the film, leaving the story to play dully out to its inevitable conclusion amidst constant, unnecessary flashbacks. There are a few creepy moments but they are too few and far between, leaving the movie to come as another disappointment from the After Dark Horror Fest.

Final Rating: 4.0

The Queen: The 2006 collaboration between Stephen Frears and Peter Morgan about the reaction of England's leaders in the week following the death of Princess Diana is a study in excellent acting. Helen Mirren's performance as HRH Elizabeth II is simply stunning and Michael Sheen continues his wonderful run in Morgan's works as Tony Blair. James Cromwell, Roger Allam and Helen McCrory all offer strong supporting performances and Morgan's script is wonderfully layered, presenting the royal family and the members of the Labor government as two vastly different sides trying to come to terms on a great many issues through the tragedy of Diana's death. The story rarely ever falters and the few times that it approaches melodrama, Sheen and Mirren are there to keep things moving along strongly. Frears does an excellent job of giving us a look inside the dynamics of key figures of Britain's government in a wonderful film.

Final Rating: 9.0

Funny People: While it may not be the film that audiences were expecting out of Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan and Judd Apatow, Funny People is nonetheless a heartfelt, engaging and often funny story. Sandler's performance as stand-up comedian, movie star and cancer sufferer George Simmons is one of his best, ranking alongside Punch-Drunk Love and nearly as good as Reign Over Me. Rogan doesn't quite hit Sandler's heights, but does quite well for himself as the comic who George takes under his wing. The story seems to wear out its welcome about midway through the final act and some of the stand-up that is supposed to be funny may not hit the laughs with some people; it is worth noting that some of the stand-up isn't supposed to be funny, and those work well within their intended purpose. The chemistry between Leslie Bibb and Sandler is quite nice and most of the supporting cast is quite good; only Eric Bana seems to occasionally fizzle as Bibb's pompous husband. The film may have its flaws, but as a movie about self-realization and redemption it works more than it fails.

Final Rating: 7.5

The I Inside: With The I Inside, German director Roland Suso Richter makes his American debut and does a decent job building a suspenseful thriller that keeps the viewer guessing. While the film may suffer from unfavorable comparisons to Memento and The Butterfly Effect, the story is similar to those only in fragments and takes its own tack that relies heavily on Ryan Phillippe to carry the film. Phillippe, playing a man who wakes up after an accident with no memory of the last two years of his life, gives a solid performance and leads the cast admirably. Sarah Polley is nice as the mysterious Claire and Stephen Rea gives a typically steady performance as Dr. Newman; on the other hand Piper Perabo fails to hold up her end as Philippe's wife by giving a stilted performance that his beneath her usual talents. The story plays out well enough and never feels slow, though the climax at the end may feel like a cheat to some considering the lack of clues that lead to it. Still, all the plot elements hold up well in relation to said twist and ultimately this is a good thriller that entertains for the majority of its length.

Final Rating: 7.0

Nobel Son: Some good performances abound in this black comedy/thriller. Alan Rickman is a joy to watch as the monstrous Nobel Prize winner Eli Michaelson, Mary Steenburgen is quite good as his long-suffering wife and Bryan Greenberg does a nice job as their son who gets kidnapped for Michaelson's $2 million prize in ransom. Or does he? Therein lies the problem; the plot twists get repetitive and are overdone, leaving so many changes in direction that watching is something akin to getting whiplash. Eliza Dushku is largely wasted in her role and Shawn Hatosy flounders a little as the kidnapper, but the other performances and a dry, sardonic wit within the script save this from coming even close to being a loss of a film. The joy here is in the set-up, and even after the story has lost credibility with too many demands on the viewer to suspend their disbelief it's fun to watch the actors see the improbably conclusion through.

Final Rating: 6.0

---

The Hush-Hush Editorial Section: Does Sex Still Sell?

It has been a long-standing phrase in the history of movie-making: sex sells. Hollywood is all about glamour and glitz, and wherever beautiful people gather, the idea of them getting intimate is sure to follow—and draw attention. This week however, a study revealed that apparently, it doesn't necessarily sell movie tickets. The study, done by independent scholar Anemone Cerridwen and Dean Keith Simonton of UC-Davis and published in the November issue of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, did an analysis of 914 films between 2001 and 2005 and examined the effect of nudity and sex on the box office average, critical acclaim and major awards. Using a set of standards established by family review site Screen It, they calculated the extent of potentially objectionable material, including sex and nudity.

"I have yet to see a way of crunching the numbers where sex/nudity has a positive relationship with box office, even controlling for MPAA rating or budget," wrote Cerridwen. "'Sex sells' is a myth, at least for this database." In fact, it was found that, on the average, sex and nudity resulted in a negative impact on a film's net profits from both domestic and worldwide distribution. "It is apparent at once that sex doesn't sell by any of the four box office criteria, including the rough indicator of U.S. net," the researchers write. They add that "the adverse effect of sex is actually greatest for world gross," which suggests the appetite for sexual content is actually lower outside the U.S. In addition to grosses, they found that sex and nudity can have a negative impact on the critical reaction to films and awards shows. "Sex/nudity does have a small positive correlation with the Golden Globes, an appreciation not shared with the Oscars," they said. It must be noted that this was only applied to wide-release films, not limited release or adult movies.

This brings up a very interesting point. Clearly, our society is one that is obsessed with sex, probably a little overly so. It's much truer in the United States than elsewhere…that's one common belief that is shared by the researchers. But is this an example of a surprising statistic where numbers don't lie, or a case of numbers being spun a certain way to make a point? Maybe it's a little of both, but one fact does remain and that is that box office numbers are being dropped at least a little by sex. How can this be the case, when we seem so obsessed with the subject? Internet pornography jokes aside, so-called "nip slip" pictures are always a hot commodity and even here on 411Mania the posting talents of one A.J. Grey are undoubtedly a draw.

I think the answer is relatively simple. While it is true that sex is prevalent in pop culture in our country these days, it's always very safe depictions of sex. Movie-making and those who walk the path of stardom tend to me masters of the sexual tease. You get pictures of Drew Barrymore straddling Ellen Page in roller skates for Whip It. It's not two women having sex, it's two girls being "playfully naughty." Hundreds of magazines like Maxim, FHM and the like offer near-nudity, but not the whole thing—they would have to be sold behind the counter next to Playboy and Hustler then, and no one wants to be seen buying those magazines. Fergie "kind of" gets down with girls in the Black Eyed Peas' video for "I Gotta Feeling" and it's considered lascivious; someone wears a black corset, high heels and a pair of fuzzy handcuffs around their waist, and they're called dominatrixes. I challenge any of them to see what a real dominatrix is like and how they act. But when it's time to get really down and dirty, most people—even celebrities—balk. In other words, sex doesn't sell…but it markets very well. Thus, you see the near-nudity in magazines and the hot chicks in the trailers, but when it's time for Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried to get down in Jennifer's Body, it's a tease that doesn't quite deliver…at least, for those who were hoping it would deliver and weren't more interested to see what happens when Fox starts killing more boys.

One thing that does have to be pointed out also is the date range that the researchers used. It's significant that they chose 2001 through 2005, because there was a little thing that happened during the latter half of the first of those years that changed the entire mindset of the country and even the world. It's almost a cliché to bring up September 11th, but the fact of the matter is that following that event the mindset of the country had changed drastically. People were in a very different mindset at that point in time, and I think that they were more interested in other things than seeing two stars going at it on-screen. It's worth noting that, at least during this period, the researchers noted that violence tended to have a positive effect on domestic and worldwide grosses. We'd entered an entirely new era and vengeance and war was on people's minds. That tends to push sex out of the picture just a wee bit. In the past several years, that shift has moved back into balance some; ultra-violent films have dropped off a fair amount (see: torture porn) and sex and romantic comedies have risen toward the top again. The Hangover, The Ugly Truth, The Proposal and Sex in the City are just four examples of this. Ultimately, I would be very interested to see how this study did in a follow-up covering the years 2006 through 2010.

In the end, I think of course that the most important factor is quality. Audiences may not be ready to embrace certain "unacceptable" levels of sex in their films, and they may conversely react favorably to sex being marketed to them, but for the most part they will reject bad films. So as interesting as this study is, I would hope that Hollywood is going to spend more time producing good quality films than they do figuring out whether to show Megan Fox side boob in Transformers 3. Hey, I know the opposite will be true. But I can dream, right?

And now, before we leave, it's time for the random video of the week. This week is the age-restricted promotional clip for Antoine Fuqua's upcoming film Brooklyn's Finest. All I have to say is that I'm hopeful.



Until next week this is Jeremy Thomas, off the record, on the QT…



…and definitely, "Hush Hush!"