or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › SOMEONE WILL HAVE ACTUAL SEX ON CAMERA WITH SHIA LABEOUF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SOMEONE WILL HAVE ACTUAL SEX ON CAMERA WITH SHIA LABEOUF - Page 2

post #51 of 107

Wasn't he supposed to be making a movie about his BFF Cage (aka Chris Palko)? (I know he directed at least one of Cage's videos.) Maybe he didn't want to pack on weight to play Palko's fat period.

 

Not that I necessarily want to see Shia as Palko. Palko's 100 times the artist Shia is.

post #52 of 107

post #53 of 107

To get back mildly on topic, how is Shia's Sexing in the Name of Art film different than Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs, other than that he is more famous? 

 

For me, and the puritanical upbringing being from aspiring middle class southern people that raised me, do I NEED to see the sex on screen? Does stunt dicking pull me out of the film? Do I need to see penetration? Bodily fluids? For pornography, I will turn to pornography. For story, I will watch a film. Basically, in the form of a poor metaphor,  I love chocolate pudding and chocolate ice cream, but do I want to mix them?

post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

To get back mildly on topic, how is Shia's Sexing in the Name of Art film different than Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs, other than that he is more famous? 

For me, and the puritanical upbringing being from aspiring middle class southern people that raised me, do I NEED to see the sex on screen? Does stunt dicking pull me out of the film? Do I need to see penetration? Bodily fluids? For pornography, I will turn to pornography. For story, I will watch a film. Basically, in the form of a poor metaphor,  I love chocolate pudding and chocolate ice cream, but do I want to mix them?

I think your upbringing may have effected your views of this matter. Depicting real sex on screen does not mean the film is pornographic. You can tell a story without filming real sex, but there is an inherent emotional and physical honesty that comes across in film when you're showing real coupling. It's another way to tell the story, another way to present an artistic truth.
post #55 of 107

I don't want to fuck him, so I don't want to watch him fuck.

post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post

I don't want to fuck him, so I don't want to watch him fuck.

post #57 of 107

In all fairness, Even Stevens was the greatest TV show since The Honeymooners. 

post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

To get back mildly on topic, how is Shia's Sexing in the Name of Art film different than Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs, other than that he is more famous? 

 

For me, and the puritanical upbringing being from aspiring middle class southern people that raised me, do I NEED to see the sex on screen? Does stunt dicking pull me out of the film? Do I need to see penetration? Bodily fluids? For pornography, I will turn to pornography. For story, I will watch a film. Basically, in the form of a poor metaphor,  I love chocolate pudding and chocolate ice cream, but do I want to mix them?

 

Yeah, I'm with you on this.  It's tough not to sound prudish but it is a line fiction shouldn't cross and definitely doesn't need to cross.  You court all the libertine, art school, anti Freudian repression arguments people can think of, but this kind of thing can't ever not be exploitational and sensationalist at it's core as far as I'm concerned.  Even with the best will in the world, like Short Bus,  you're at the mercy of what the filmmaking process just is by nature.  Von Trier knows this and embraces it, so you kind of expect something crass and transgressive from the guy now and then.  These others who do it for reasons of supposed high art and try and be frank and serious about it, invariably end up ugly, dull and self indulgent.  It's up to them of course, but it seems like they kind of missed the point of movies.

post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

Plenty of actors have badmouthed their movies.  I don't see chewers complaining about them.  I fail to see the big deal with those offhanded, nothing comments he made.  I guess Lebeef shit in somebody's bed or something.

 

I think there is a sense (whether it's true or not) that Spielberg supported LaBeef, in effect made him a star, only to have LaBeef metaphorically spit in his face. It's ingratitude, especially since LeBeef also trashed the Transformers movies and Wall Street 2.

 

Also, there is a sense that this "star in the making" (and he was clearly cultivating/being cultivated as a Jimmy Stewart type) is giving the finger to his audience as well.

post #60 of 107

Again, if he had something to point to as the movie he was really good in, maybe this stuff would be more charming, but he doesn't, as far as I'm concerned. And telling me repeatedly how disappointed he was in movies he made with people like Spielberg and Stone or even Michael Bay does not endear him to me. It just looks like he's trying to position himself 'above' his own body of work. I'm easily at the point where I'd much rather give Robert Pattinson a chance, and he's always seemed like a terrible actor to me. I can't really imagine what's going on in these guys heads, but from the cheap seats, it looks like the difference between wanting to be at least some kind of an artist and wanting to be perceived as an hipster badass.

 

Look, I know I'm just sinking my teeth into the chance to hate all over someone's face here, and I'm sure his side of things has its merits. But considering there's actually a pretty strong freshman class of movie stars out there right now, I'm cool with unapologetically hating the smugest, least- accomplished of the lot.

post #61 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

You must be talking about this:

 

 

And while I see where you're coming from, I must say that it's funny to ignore this:

 

 

Isn't this Spielberg reveavling not so kind things about the film as well?  I don't see how one can criticize Labeef, and ignore Spielberg.  Because Spielberg isn't a dick?  He's still shit talking his own movie and basically blaming it on George Lucas.  He recovers by talking about his loyalty to his friend, but Labeef also recovers and goes on to not only praise his colleagues, but he even criticize himself and says he's the reason it sucks.

 

I thought we were talking about LaBeouf. I mean, if I have to take a grand tally of all offending parties or none at all, let me know.

 

Actually, what you just did is very Shia-like. You took the attention away from his wrongdoing by dropping others in the conversation. It's like the guy getting pulled over for speeding and complaining because the cop "ignored" all the other speeders instead of him.

post #62 of 107
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

I think there is a sense (whether it's true or not) that Spielberg supported LaBeef, in effect made him a star, only to have LaBeef metaphorically spit in his face. It's ingratitude, especially since LeBeef also trashed the Transformers movies and Wall Street 2.

 

Also, there is a sense that this "star in the making" (and he was clearly cultivating/being cultivated as a Jimmy Stewart type) is giving the finger to his audience as well.

 

Spit in his face seems very strong.  Lebeef never directly blames Spielberg.  And nothing he said affected people's perception of the man or his movie.  Lebeef said people MIGHT blame Spielberg, but that the blame should fall on him for not making it work as an actor. 

 

Quote:

"You get to monkey-swinging and things like that and you can blame it on the writer and you can blame it on Steven [Spielberg, who directed]. But the actor's job is to make it come alive and make it work, and I couldn't do it. So that's my fault. Simple."

 

And I fail to see how this is some sin against his mentor...mentors are not above critcism and part of breaking out of the teacher/student relationship (which must happen), is having an opinion and expressing it, sometimes to the detriment of the teacher.  It's part of the process of the relationship, and it's doesn't mean Lebeef doesn't respect Spielberg and appreciate the break he was given.  Where is the disrespect?  It's generally accepted protocol that actors smile and nod and fellate the movie they're promoting, but it's not written in stone, and as someone mentioned earlier, the press junket is exhausting and sometimes things slip out, especially when you're young...it's happened so many times in the past that you can't even list them all.  It happens all the time. 

post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Z 

 

Actually, what you just did is very Shia-like.

 

lol

post #64 of 107

In all of Shia's "telling it like it is" interviews, there's an air of "if they'd just listened to ME then maybe this could've all worked out" about his comments. Like, he knew things were going bad, even if the multi-award winning celebrated directors who he was working with didn't. And people don't like arrogance like that, especially when the person sporting it has done nothing to earn such self-belief.

post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
And people don't like arrogance like that

 

I'm not even saying he's not arrogant.  I don't care what he is or what he's like.  He's just an actor who made a couple offhand remarks about a tentpole and (indirectly) a few guys who have defined the genre (who are immune at this point), and he blames himself the most.  And he was saying things many, many people would agree with anyway.  I fail to see the significance.  I think the fact that he's a pompous dickhead has nothing to do with his right to speak his mind.  They're two separate issues to me.

post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 He's just an actor who made a couple offhand remarks about a tentpole and (indirectly) a few guys who have defined the genre (who are immune at this point), and he blames himself the most.

 

Come on, no he doesn't. He pays lip service to being partly at fault, but most of the remarks about Indy/TRANSFORMERS/WALL STREET are designed to be him "speaking truth to power". Throwing in a bit of faux self-deprecation does nothing to counteract the main thrust of his criticism.

 

We're talking at crossed purposes here anyway. I'm not advocating gagging the irritating little stain; I'm just explaining why I find his comments to be hogwash and deserving of scorn.

post #67 of 107
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

 

Come on, no he doesn't. He pays lip service to being partly at fault

 

I don't agree with that really.  But, even if he doesn't (which no one knows), nothing changes.  He slang a milimeter of poo at a subpar tentpole that should never have been made anyway.  If people are angry at Lebeef there are better and more appropriate incidents to channel their rage at.

post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 He slang a milimeter of poo at a subpar tentpole that should never have been made anyway.

 


That he collected a huge cheque for and only lambasted once the film was safely in his rear-view mirror. It's not about whatever film he's attacking, it's about his shitty attitude. He does stupid shit like that, he's going to provoke people. I'm not sure what the desired endgame is here for you - for people to stop findinghim irritating?

post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 If people are angry at Lebeef there are better and more appropriate incidents to channel their rage at.

 

I agree. He's shitty in movies.

post #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

That he collected a huge cheque for and only lambasted once the film was safely in his rear-view mirror. It's not about whatever film he's attacking, it's about his shitty attitude. He does stupid shit like that, he's going to provoke people. I'm not sure what the desired endgame is here for you - for people to stop findinghim irritating?

 

The fact that he collected a check for it kind of makes it less of a sacred cow don't you think? 

 

And the endgame is for people to separate the douche from the right to speak his mind.  The original beef in this thread was that Lebeef (lol) hadn't earned the right to speak that way because all he cared about was getting pussy and he wasn't making art films or something.  Which is like, 95% of Hollywood actors.  Because all he was doing was starring in glorified toy commercials he can't make a jab at one of them...the jab actually makes sense considering the films.  And it would seem the Beef has some artistic yearnings, considering his recent output. 

 

Look, he sucks, he's a terrible actor.  Nobody cares what he thinks, I'll hang it up.

post #71 of 107

I loved it when he made the Indy comments, because it made him look like a complete jackass. I was already rooting against him passively because I disliked him so much as an actor, so it was fun to get contributory ways to dislike him. In fact, I kind of like shithead douchemouth Shia interviews, I just wish he'd stop being in movies I might have wanted to see.

 

But then, I always think it's kind of fun when celebrities act like complete shits, especially when it's due to arrogance and a poor understanding of the 99%. LeBron James has been a blast to watch the last two years.

post #72 of 107

Shithead Douchemouth, the debut album from Decoy Prom.
 

post #73 of 107

The winner in all this?  Carey Mulligan.  

post #74 of 107

Why her? Please tell me she's not giving her flower to Thebeef.

post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Why her? Please tell me she's not giving her flower to Thebeef.

 

She used to, but they broke up about a year ago before all his shit-sligging began.

post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

 

 

And the endgame is for people to separate the douche from the right to speak his mind.  The original beef in this thread was that Lebeef (lol) hadn't earned the right to speak that way because all he cared about was getting pussy and he wasn't making art films or something.  Which is like, 95% of Hollywood actors.  Because all he was doing was starring in glorified toy commercials he can't make a jab at ALL OF THEM..the jab actually makes sense considering the films.  And it would seem the Beef has some artistic yearnings, considering his recent output. 

 

Look, he sucks, he's a terrible actor.  Nobody cares what he thinks, I'll hang it up.

 

Fixed to explain further why people have a beef with.....the Beef.

 

I actually liked him in Indy 4 and the Transformers films. He really had a charisma that rose above the underwritten and (in the case of Transformers) sociopathic roles.

post #77 of 107

For a master class in transforming from young sitcom star to awesome actor, just look at Joseph Gordon Levitt.

 

All you have to do is repeatedly pick good, interesting projects, and do great work in them. Or, I guess, you could just take big money gigs with questionable scripts and then bitch about it after.

 

I'm sure the Indy 4 script was sooooo much better than the final product. He had no idea a George Lucas influenced project could turn out less than brilliant!

 

In all fairness, the trailer for Wettest County (I think it's called Lawless now?) looked excellent. Well, the Beefless parts, anyways. I can't wait to see if moonshine magically gives you good acting powers.
 

post #78 of 107
Why do people call him the beef? That one goes right over my head.
post #79 of 107

It is the English translation of his name. La boeuf* means the beef in French. Fun fact: Shia in Hebrew means A Gift From God. So in whole his name translates to A Godly Gift Of Beef.

 

*The correct grammar is actually le boeuf but let's not get French grammar get in the way of a joke.

post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

It is the English translation of his name. La boeuf* means the beef in French. Fun fact: Shia in Hebrew means A Gift From God. So in whole his name translates to A Godly Gift Of Beef.

*The correct grammar is actually le boeuf but let's not get French grammar get in the way of a joke.

Thanks for that! Can't believe I missed that for so many years!
post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

It is the English translation of his name. La boeuf* means the beef in French. Fun fact: Shia in Hebrew means A Gift From God. So in whole his name translates to A Godly Gift Of Beef.

 

*The correct grammar is actually le boeuf but let's not get French grammar get in the way of a joke.

 

Shia Deboeuf shirley?

 

Fucker needs to change his name.

post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

 

Yeah, I'm with you on this.  It's tough not to sound prudish but it is a line fiction shouldn't cross and definitely doesn't need to cross.  You court all the libertine, art school, anti Freudian repression arguments people can think of, but this kind of thing can't ever not be exploitational and sensationalist at it's core as far as I'm concerned.  Even with the best will in the world, like Short Bus,  you're at the mercy of what the filmmaking process just is by nature.  Von Trier knows this and embraces it, so you kind of expect something crass and transgressive from the guy now and then.  These others who do it for reasons of supposed high art and try and be frank and serious about it, invariably end up ugly, dull and self indulgent.  It's up to them of course, but it seems like they kind of missed the point of movies.

 

 

 

I dunno, as I said before I think Shortbus managed to do it frankly and honestly (I'm not saying "serious" because sometimes (oftentimes?) sex is pretty ridiculous and the movie certainly didn't shy away from that) and managed to get at a truth, which is what JCM was attempting to do, without being the slightest big ugly or dull.....though admittedly at times self-indulgent. 

 

 

I CERTAINLY agree that it's a difficult line to walk, but I think that it can be done. I know that some object to it because "you don't need to see actual sex to get to the truth of things"....maybe not, but then again, if a movie is about walking, you'd expect to see walking. 

post #83 of 107

I liked Shortbus, and felt it was done in quite a honest way. It kinda even reminded me of Shame, how I felt so uncomfortable with the long, glaring shots, the consistent nudity, and then realized it's just nudity and just sex. Like Chavez pointed out, it's ridiculous at times when you think about it, so why people get so weirded out by sex and not unnecessary violence confuses me.

 

As for Shia, I don't mind the kid. I think he's a little douchey but I don't have a problem with anyone saying something negative abut the Transformers and Indy films. Besides, he blamed himself more than anything, at least he didn't called Steven a jackass or something.

post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by philmooreslim26 View Post

Like Chavez pointed out, it's ridiculous at times when you think about it, so why people get so weirded out by sex and not unnecessary violence confuses me.

 

 

 

Again, and maybe it is me, the difference there is that for all the unnecessary violence, I know it is simulated. I am not watching someone get the tar beat out of them. My tolerance for UFC, its underground cousins,  or even boxing for that matter, is pretty low.  Even then, simulated violence, when there is nothing but that, I sometimes feel squicky about. One of my problems with Kill Bill was the unceasing violence of it during the first film. It has a great story, but sometimes it is just brutal to watch. I watched Battle Royale recently, and I got bored of the nonstop slaughter without a point. Not desensitized, but I realized that the violence had little connection to any story.

 

The same for unsimulated sex. If both actors are enjoying themselves, I enjoy watching. Both sides take pleasure in the work, everyone is happy and now I am too.  Those videos were one side (normally female) is being abused if for no reason than because the male producer can, I don't watch those. It is assholes for the sake of being assholes. Excessive simulated sex makes me wonder what the point is of the story. Some movies just show some T&A to sell a movie and there is little reason.

 

Ultimately, does it do something other than garner attention? Does it reflect some basic truth in the story, or is it exploitive. If the answer is yes, more power to the film and LeBeouf. If not, then why do it?

 

 

(Then again, I am not a fan of terrible movies. I know that some here relish them, but I enjoy quality over quantity.)

post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

 

 

Again, and maybe it is me, the difference there is that for all the unnecessary violence, I know it is simulated. 

 

Why would it have to be simulated though? If you're careful the worse you'll get after sex is a need for a shower before you get dressed. Violence has to be simulated because, well, it actually kills and maims. Because violence is a "bad" thing and sex is a "good" thing. It's the same reason why Travolta wasn't really taking heroin in Pulp Fiction but he was actually eating.

post #86 of 107

I never thought someone could catch so much flak for saying Indiana Jones IV was a substandard movie. I mean, god forbid.

post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I never thought someone could catch so much flak for saying Indiana Jones IV was a substandard movie. I mean, god forbid.

 

But he's a professional dammit, he should know better!

post #88 of 107

Isn't this what CGI and mo-cap were INVENTED for?

 

 

...oh...no they were'nt...

 

My bad...

post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post

Actually, what you just did is very Shia-like. 

 

I like the term 'Shiastic'. 

post #90 of 107

And it's now being confirmed that all the sex will be simulated and using body doubles. Oh, poor, sweet Shia. Now you're just in a regular movie!
 

post #91 of 107

Lars von Quitter.

post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

And it's now being confirmed that all the sex will be simulated and using body doubles. Oh, poor, sweet Shia. Now you're just in a regular movie!

 

Feels like as big let down and a serious compromise on Vom Treir's part.
post #93 of 107

I can't wait for the 2014 Shia interview where he says how he wanted to rock out with his cock out and Gainsbourg wanted to jam out with her clam out but Von Trier just didn't get it and he needs to hear this shit, man!

post #94 of 107

Thank god, I don't think I could stand to see Even Stevens fucking the incredible Charlotte Gainsbourg.

post #95 of 107

It just hit me. Shia is a completely irony-free real-life version of HAROLD & KUMAR's Neil Patrick Harris. It's uncanny.

post #96 of 107

Speaking of Harold and Kumar...

 

The beef drops acid for movie role.

 

Quote:

 "There's a way to do an acid trip like 'Harold & Kumar,' and there's a way to be on acid," LaBeouf says. "What I know of acting, Sean Penn actually strapped up to that (electric) chair in 'Dead Man Walking.' These are the guys that I look up to."

post #97 of 107

Laurence Olivier would act this pissant off the screen and leave him dribbling through his acid trip comedown.
 

post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

Laurence Olivier would act this pissant off the screen and leave him dribbling through his acid trip comedown.
 

I never understood Olivier's contempt for method acting. I think he was just intimidated that actors were using it to get amazing results, while he was doing things the "old fashioned way".

 

If Olivier were around today, would he be shitting on Daniel Day Lewis? And if the answer is yes, should anyone then take his opinions seriously?

post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I never understood Olivier's contempt for method acting. I think he was just intimidated that actors were using it to get amazing results, while he was doing things the "old fashioned way".

 

If Olivier were around today, would he be shitting on Daniel Day Lewis? And if the answer is yes, should anyone then take his opinions seriously?

 

He had a skill set he refined and mastered through decades of practice. He probably thought of method as cheating - you weren't acting tired, you were just tired, for example.

 

And did he consistently knock method acting? I'm well aware of the Marathon Man quote, but I don't think you can necessarily extrapolate to shitting on Daniel Day Lewis from that.

post #100 of 107

In fairness, if Olivier was around today he'd be 105.  He'd probably be figuratively and literally shitting on pretty much everything.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › SOMEONE WILL HAVE ACTUAL SEX ON CAMERA WITH SHIA LABEOUF