No, it is you missing the point. I said it's MY personal opinion on why WB wouldn't want to promote someone like that...
Again, I've never stated it
wasn't your opinion. Nor did I sate you were director. I'm asking this as if you're part of WB's marketing team, because it's
their thought process we're evaluating. I tried to simplify things with my rephrasing, but that didn't seem to work.
So now, I'm asking you,
from WB's promoting perspective, what looks worse: an actress who showed off her goods in a film, or an actor who played a character that practiced mutilation and cannibalism (we'll take these two specifically from the list of other horrific acts)?
If we want to talk from a strictly sexual perspective (which you started with, stating that Eva has been in "porn" roles), then we need look no further than the fact that Patrick Batmen tells a woman to eat another woman's *******, proceeds to videotape himself having a threesome with the women in which everything but his you-know-what is exposed, and later, he kills two women after having sex with them and seemingly eating some flesh. Mmmm.
I'm not trying to start a fight, nor do I misunderstand. I get it. You don't think a woman who has been naked in a film is one that WB would not want to promote in fear of issues with the young audience (which is the minority for this new Batman franchise anyway). I'm just trying to comprehend the logic behind the marketing department fearing children finding female nudity on the internet, over finding their hero, Batman, savagely biting on a woman's leg and dropping a chainsaw on her half-naked body. That's all. I mean no further harm.
EDIT: I guess a real easy way to cut to the chase would be to ask, if Bale had shown his junk on screen prior to Begins, do you think there would be concern in the WB marketing department about him as Batman?
Again, you'll have to excuse my bafflement, but I'm struggling to wrap my head around these arguments. Like I said, I mean no harm.
t:
