Subscribe via e-mail



Gratuitous Explosions vs Gratuitous Nudity: Are they the same?

With The Expendables coming out this week (see my Machete vs The Expendables comparison here), we are going to get a solid case of action porn with Stallone's alpha male awesomeness. This got me thinking that as a red blooded American male who grew up watching Van Damme spinkicks, Arnold slaughtering the entire Val Verde army, Bruce smokin Hans and his crew and Stallone saving most of southeast Asia, the action movie is pure male bravado porn.

Explosions, gun battles and mano y mano fistfights are what we crave. But do we get the same feeling seeing this mass slaughter as we do seeing boobs? Of course it's a little different seeing flesh than flesh ripped to shreds. But what would you rather see?

Would you rather seeing a cool single bullet gas tank explosion or a quick glimpse of a model turned actress in the buff?

When we see an explosion, it lasts about 3-5 seconds, pretty much the equivalent of seeing a pair of boobs flash onscreen. So I ask, are explosions as gratuitous as nudity?

Of course we realize seeing nudity on screen is highly gratuitous, but is seeing an exploding car really needed as well? What does it really add to a movie? A big flaming fiery red ball of smoke has been seen countless times yet we're still pounded with Michael Bay explosions time after time. Is this not the same as seeing a pair of boobs from waitresses turned actresses?

Hell if I can tell you which I prefer more. I'm as jaded as they come and both make no difference to me when I watch a film. I usually say the same thing when I see either an explosion or boobs:

"Whoa, that was cool"

So now I ask your 2 cents. Are you desensitized when you see a building explode as you are seeing some C cups?

Because when you see The Expendables on Friday, your gonna see some serious shit exploding. And no doubt it's going to be fuckin awesome. But if you replaced that RPG hitting a tank with a set of mega breasts, would there be a difference?