It’s the most wonderful time of the year (ongoing thread)

It is still too early to do the voting, but it’s time to start assembling the nominees for the nude scene of the year. Here’s what I have so far. Please add any scenes I may have missed. (The usual reminder: we don’t want every nude scene on the list, just the best ones. Don’t add nominees unless you are prepared to vote for them as the scene of the year.)

Giovanna Lancellotti in Burning Betrayal

Clara Galle in Through My Window Across The Sea

Elena Martin in Creatura

Giordana Marengo in The Lying Life of Adults

Chloe Zubiri in Bookie

Saoirse Ronan in Foe

Brittany S Hall in Rap Sh!t

Alexandra Cismondi in Escort Boys

Shelley Hennig in Obliterated

Amandine Noworyta and Iris Jodorowsky in Entre Nous

Margherita Aresti in Noi siamo leggenda

Emma Corrin in A Murder at the End of the World

Sarah Shahi in season 2 of Sex/Life

Amber Goldfarb in season 2 of Sex/Life

Wallis Day in season 2 of Sex/Life

Tori Griffith in Lion-Girl

Alyson Gorske in Obliterated

Virginia Rand in Candy Land

Phoebe Dynevor in Fair Play

Mia Goth in Infinity Pool

Noemie Merlant in Baby Ruby

Alison Brie in Somebody I Used to Know

Jessica Huber in 99 Moons

Valentina di Pace in 99 Moons

Lizzy Caplan in Fatal Attraction

Elizabeth Olson in Love and Death also here

Juliet Rylance in Perry Mason

Zoe Lister-Jones in Slip

AJ Raval in Sugapa

Keri Russell in The Diplomat

Mayra Hermosillo in Que Viva Mexico

Laure Calamy in Two Tickets to Greece

Ana Girardot in La Maison

Cecile de France in La Passagere

Parker Posey in Beau is Afraid

Lily-Rose Depp in The Idol (episode 1, episode 2, episode 3, episode 4)

Ailin Salas in Matadero

Scarlett Johansson in Asteroid City (??)

Jennifer Lawrence in No Hard Feelings

Cynthia Nixon in And Just Like That

Florence Pugh in Oppenheimer

Amandla Stenberg in My Animal

Alysson Paradis in Amore Mio

Virginie Efira in Other People’s Children

Heather Graham in Suitable Flesh

Aurora Giovinazzo in Nuovo Olimpo

Emily Cox in Alma & Oskar

Barbara Branco in Crime do Padre Amaro

Giorgia Spinelli in Suburraeterna

Natalie Portman in May December

Emma Stone in Poor Things

Betty Gilpin in Three Women

Shailene Woodley in Three Women

DeWanda Wise in Three Women

Jodie Comer in The End We Start From (no link yet)

Kate Easton in Wilder Than Her (no link yet)

The last two may or may not appear in the 2023 list, depending on when we have our first look at them.

76 thoughts on “It’s the most wonderful time of the year (ongoing thread)

  1. My wife and I, plus our young adult son saw Anyone But You and my wife and I quite liked it. I strongly suspect that the movie is not going to win any Oscars, but it was funny, sexy and overall entertaining. It is played quite broadly and nobody would say that it achieved realism, but that is not what this sort of movie is about. It is intended as a light rom-com diversion, and that is what it delivers. Our son thought it was a bit lame in parts and that the acting was not great, but while perhaps that is true, within the context of what this movie is about, that did not bother me at all. Enjoyable.

    As for the nudity, there is more male skin on display than female, but props to the filmmakers doing some rebalancing on that front, and maybe that works if your target audience is more women than men. But there is still plenty of hot female bodies on show, and even if they are mostly not nude, they are so close to nude that it barely matters. More to the point, there is some brief female nudity, and not just the glimpse of Charlee Fraser’s spectacular rack. Contrary to what is being reported, Sydney does offer some very brief topless nudity in a shower scene – there is brief, but generous side-boob from her with, in my estimation, definitely some nipple.

    Ultimately, the movie will not get my vote as best female nude performance. But it was enjoyable just the same.

  2. My wife cued up May-December on Netflix last night and I gave it a watch with her. Though the film seems to have been well reviewed, neither of us thought it was good. It is loosely based on a true story, but as portrayed in the film the characters are unrealistic and their dialogue verges on laughable. Also, it is directed in bizarre mock-gothic horror style, where mundane events are inexplicably accompanied by tense, swelling music and with characters giving unaccountable significant looks to each other and the camera. Both my wife and I independently thought it reminded us of film parodies from SCTV’s Monster Chiller Horror Theatre. And although the subject matter of the film theoretically should be interesting, May-December is slow moving and deadly dull. Both of us were nodding off to sleep during the last 20-30 minutes.

    As for the nudity, Nathalie Portman definitely is portrayed in full (lower) frontal, albeit at an angle and very briefly. I say “portrayed”, because whether it is actual nudity vs. a prosthetic is unclear to me. I don’t see references online to whether her nudity was real or not, but her male co-lead acknowledged that he was wearing a prosthetic, so I wonder about her as well. And, just to note, like the rest of the movie, the sex scene was dull and unrealistic. May-December is definitely not going to have my vote in this year’s poll.

  3. I nominate Chloe Zubiri from Bookie. I know she’s not most people’s preference, and the scene itself is 5-15 seconds, I think she deserves to be up there. It’s possibly her first nude scene, probably the last, and it took a lot of courage to do it (more than most actresses, in my opinion). And it’s a non-sexual and an action scene (which scores more points in my personal criteria).

    I would be ready to vote for her. Although I still do have to review the other scenes. And as I’ve said before, Jennifer Lawrence is the current front runner in my vote for #1 (but I have not committed to it yet).

    1. I missed a name, brazilian actress Giovanna lancellotti for burning betrayal. For me top 4 nudity this year and the best ass of an actress of the year, along with Shelley Henning

      1. I can understand being annoyed at yourself, but saying that missing her name is a burning betrayal seems a bit over the top. 🙂

        1. FWIW, Adam, as Ric10 told me earlier in this very thread, he’s from Portugal. His English is let’s say, adequate, but a work in progress.

          So, I get your joke hinging on Ric’s inconsistent use of capital letters, specifically omitted from the title. But maybe cut him some slack & exercise a certain restraint before making fun of it.

          As for his “missing her name”, I might’ve phrased his request along the lines of: “Brazilian actress Giovanna Lancellotti in Burning Betrayal. I didn’t see her name in your above list, Scoopy. Unless I simply missed it, please add her. Thank you.”

          1. Too late. I’ll have to add her in the next stage.

            That’s a good performance, but this is kind of annoying. The nomination list was online for two weeks, and he said nothing, then decided to nominate her after I put the semi-final poll together.

    1. Two things. a) Look, preseason rankings were gonna be, in order: Emma, Jennifer, Alison, Saoirse, with Shelley, Shailene, Sydney, Heather as dark horses. IMHO.

      b) Since we only get to vote for #1 in the actual poll, my take on runner-ups & also-rans is, they’re to be treated exactly the same as contestants who didn’t win the Miss America title. Scoopy seems to disagree on this, but what else is new? It’s his poll, so whatevers.

        1. Portuguese! That brings the situation into sharper focus. Apologies for that remark about reading comprehension. It might be true, but maybe it’s best to overlook, I see now.

          1. Yeah haha. I’m from Portugal, a Portuguese person ended up accidentally coming out. I forgot it was supposed to be in English here. My English isn’t perfect, but I can understand at least

        1. You’re talking about nominating & voting. When the preseason rankings come out, they’re based on information that I don’t have. That’s where we are as of now in this process.

    2. This is going to be my year to really look at the various candidates. Emma’s cute but not a huge turn-on in those clips. I like J-Law but I don’t see that as a #1. The one I would have voted for is Ronan (I loves me some Saoirse) but filmed too poorly.
      I’ll laugh my ass off if a day or two after we vote, Soeur Sydney shows up and blows everybody else out of the water.

      1. We really do have similar affinities. I just have that born-again fervor. I want more of my ilk to genuinely reform. People like David Brooks & David Frum still don’t go far enough.

        Things like cutting taxes & entitlements, are less principled than the conservative belief. Even the moderate left is corrupted by this shakedown. They focus on helping the poor. That’s a compromise. I believe government needs to change, not die. What we need is to raise everyone. Not just the needy.

        IOW, the good of the country comes first, above all.

        But that’s so inimical to those with more than they deserve. The thought of raising everyone is a direct assault on their position. So, they first concede on a safety net. Then they work on severing even that away at the moorings.

        That’s what old-fashioned conservatism has boiled down to. So, no. I’m not satisfied with clinging to that core of conservatism.

        1. “we…” Mykey, is that directed to me? Or is my eyesight problem getting worse than I thought? These threads do get mixed up sometimes.

          1. Specifically, I share some of Bill’s taste in women. Not all, but a good overlap. The rest is fishing for our common political ground. Since we got off on the wrong foot, or that’s how I see it.

            As in, he & I both see our own self as more or less conservative, but the window has shifted to leave us behind. Being in this position has made me reconsider a lot of things that I now realize my old self neglected.

            I’ll never be some pedal to the metal socialist, “democratic” or otherwise. I want there to be a kind of thing as working for a living. I just want us to stop normalizing the aberrations in our system. Where taking advantage of however it happens to be broken is dismissed as fair play.

        2. Yes. I am trying to course correct from our earlier discussion. I see change needed not just around the edges of conservative thought, but in its very heart.

          It’s not that I want to get rid of the things that make us great. Money, property, legally binding contracts. These things help make us able to stand alone. But not completely. Enforcement of contracts, criminal prosecution, they go against the rugged individualism fantasy. I see them as needed for a fair & just society.

          People who benefit from unfairness don’t want what I want. No one should go along with them, without some deeper thinking about the matter than most people ever give it.

          1. On a related topic, I read that more than half of the country’s billionaires got there simply by being born. The conservatives tend to think that the rich got there as a reward for their own endeavors, but that narrative is increasingly inaccurate. We still have the Michael Dells of the world who started with a garage business and built an empire, and nobody begruges their affluence, but we’re now at a point where the majority of rich people are where they are solely because of the ingenuity and hard work of their parents or grandparents, rather than through their own efforts. I wonder if there is a way to place things on a more level playing field.

          2. Scoopy, we’re still not quite on the same wave length. I believe there’s a need to limit excess sequester of domestic wealth that supercedes just desserts, but only above a very high bar.

            In math, we can regulate a singularity by first confining it to a small area & then don’t let it go to infinity. Our upper bound, called the cutoff, can be far above all our real-life data. But the volume will be the small area times height. We control those parameters, so we can keep it from blowing up. It’s like capping an oil well.

            This volume in econ terms would be a fraction of GDP. Too much concentration of the overall wealth of a country is much like concentration of power. We can’t have fairness without some concession to equitability.

            As I see it, the height of Michael Dell cannot be unlimited. You can’t make the omelet without breaking some eggs. We can not begrudge Dell his affluence, but still begrudge his unlimited affluence. The way wealth acquisition works in modern economies, any concentrated wealth becomes a runaway process. As such, runaway affluence may be a better term.

            Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his secretary because his salary is less. His assets are dominantly in unrealized asset growth. He borrows against it on favorable terms with unrealized gains as collateral, & never ever converts any of it to income. When we talk about closing loopholes, the discussion can’t be limited to eliminating deductions. We can never, that way, get anywhere near where the vast majority of wealth hides.

            So, yeah. A more level playing field, we might be able to get. Anything approaching an actual level playing field, that’s a way bigger question. Not in our lifetimes, I think. But Notre Dame cathedral took half a millennium to construct. It can be worthwhile to set aspirational goals.

          3. LOL. I actually think my current political/philosophical status Is FRSOT (FurSot) – “formerly relevant school of thought”, my search for relevance obviously hindered by my previously noted zero-rethink capacity.
            As a DC resident I’ll probably write-in someone I like next year.
            But, as of right now, I think my Guardians have a better chance of winning the WS than Biden does of winning the WH.

          4. Thank you for that, Bill.

            I never really liked Job Eiden. On top of it, his age is getting in the way of any charisma he may have had. JFK’s youth bestowed on him undeserved charm. Not so, Joe. What he tried to do to shift the window back toward the actual center was something no one else had the courage to attempt. But in a way, it was too little, too late. The headwinds have been hurricane gale force.

            No one had really right answers. Many smart people scratching their heads… Where they came down was about as good as random guessing. I can’t think of anyone who’d want the job that I’d want to be our president.

            As I don’t believe in “throwing away my vote” by using it on someone I’d gauge has no chance of winning, I don’t see write-ins as any kind of tummy-filling comfort food on my plate. Like you, I see many Americans who don’t quite know what’s the right thing to do.

            In its absence, they’ll choose whoever’s less likely to clamp down on the things they do to get ahead on high & mighty moral grounds. In short, Trump fills their bill nicely. There’s no place else for a fence sitter to jump off.

            That, bar a compelling cause like defending a woman’s right to choose, seems to me enough to see the strength of your guesstimate.

          5. To Mykey: Cripes. Why don’t all posts have reply tails or whatever they’re called?! In DC, the Democrat will automatically win. In ’16 I wrote in Kasich, in ’20 I voted Biden mainly for the reason of boosting his popular vote total so Trump wouldn’t be claiming a bogus popular vote victory like he did in 2016. In ’24, I’ll mostly likely write-in, which in DC is not necessarily a wasted vote, being irrelevant to the outcome. Could be anyone from Spanberger to Zappa.
            ’28 will be interesting. Trump may well be dead; Dems might be being asked to ratify a Harris nomination. I wouldn’t pretend to have the slightest notion of what might happen?

          6. To Mykey: Cripes. Why don’t all posts have reply tails or whatever they’re called?! In DC, the Democrat will automatically win. In ’16 I wrote in Kasich, in ’20 I voted Biden mainly for the reason of boosting his popular vote total so Trump wouldn’t be claiming a bogus popular vote victory like he did in 2016. In ’24, I’ll mostly likely write-in, which in DC is not necessarily a wasted vote, being irrelevant to the outcome. Could be anyone from Spanberger to Zappa.
            ’28 will be interesting. Trump may well be dead; Dems might be being asked to ratify a Harris nomination. I wouldn’t pretend to have the slightest notion of what might happen.

          7. To Bill: While I have my own ideas why to limit reply depth, it’s not my bailiwick.

            You’re right that not voting isn’t necessarily a viable option. It’s always possible to tick, in the general anyway, the least-bad box available. A write-in serves the purpose of not letting your vote actively support someone you don’t. It still squanders your power to suppress the relative support for more-bad choices. That’s my view, anyhow.

        3. Bidenomics Is Real Economics by Nick Hanauer in a Time Magazine article

          Hanauer is an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist, the founder of the public-policy incubator Civic Ventures, and (with Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen) an author of the new book “Corporate Bullsh*t: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America.”

          There are limits to what Biden can do through executive action rather than legislation and there are always time lags before people start to notice or use these things, but Biden has launched a revolution to overturn the Reagan Revolution.

          1. Thanks, Adam. That’s a cool artifact to stow in the sales kit. I skimmed very lightly, but yes, this is at least a part of what I’m talking about.

            He’s more optimistic than I am. I’d underscore the “no more a finished product than the emerging middle-out economic consensus.” Yes, we gotta start somewhere, & Biden’s tried to get the fire started.

            It’ll just get doused out if enough people don’t buy it. So the problem is basically the same as breaking a cult’s hold on its followers. That’s hard. In today’s U.S. of A., Trump may well be re-elected. How long shall we guess that sets back our new vision?

            Too many people are firmly embedded inside the old kaleidoscope. Too many smart people are convinced the old orthodoxy is right, because they’ll believe that what’s to their advantage must be correct.

          2. In case you don’t get the WaPo, Krugman had some interesting points today, in an article called “Beware Economists Who Won’t Admit They Were Wrong.”

            From an economic point of view, 2023 will go down in the record books as one of the best years ever — a year in which inflation came down amazingly fast at no visible cost, defying the predictions of many economists that disinflation would require years of high unemployment.

            So far, at least, the public seems unwilling to believe the good news, or to give the Biden administration any credit. But this column isn’t about the apparent gap between voter perceptions and reality. It is instead about the unwillingness of some influential economists and officials to accept the fact that they got it wrong.

            Why should we care? This isn’t about scoring personal points — although I’m a big believer in owning up to your past errors — it’s how you learn, and it’s also good for the soul. What I’m concerned about is that clinging to a view of the economy that has been disproved by recent events makes it more likely that we’ll mess this up, putting the economy through a recession that, it turns out, we didn’t and don’t need to control inflation.

            How amazing has the economy been? As recently as March, the Federal Reserve committee that sets monetary policy projected that we’d end this year with 4.5 percent unemployment and with the Fed’s preferred “core” measure of inflation running at 3.6 percent. Last week, the same group projected year-end unemployment of only 3.8 percent and core inflation at only 3.2 percent. But actually the news is even better, because that last number is inflation for the year as a whole; over the six months ending in October, core inflation was running at 2.5 percent, and most analysts I follow believe that when November data come in later this week, it will show inflation down to around 2 percent, which is the Fed’s long-run target.

            Soft landing achieved.

            How did we pull that off? The answer seems fairly clear. Economists who argued that the inflation surge of 2021-22 was “transitory,” driven by disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, appear to have been right — but those disruptions were bigger and longer lasting than almost anyone realized, so “transitory” ended up meaning years rather than months. What happened in 2023 was that the economy finally worked out its postpandemic kinks, with, for example, supply chain issues and the mismatch between job openings and unemployed workers getting resolved.

            This isn’t casual speculation. A combination of rising employment and falling inflation is exactly what you’d expect in an economy with improving supply chains. It’s also what you see when you look at the economy in detail: the fastest-growing sectors have had the biggest declines in inflation. And statistical models of inflation that include supply chain measures track inflation in recent years in a way that more conventional models don’t.

            But many economists who were wrongly pessimistic about inflation — most prominently Larry Summers, although he isn’t alone — remain unwilling to accept the obvious. Instead, they argue that the Fed, which began raising interest rates sharply in 2022, deserves the credit for disinflation.

            The question is, how is that supposed to have worked? The original pessimist argument was that the Fed needed to create a lot of unemployment to reduce inflation. As best I can tell, the argument now is that by acting tough the Fed convinced people that inflation would come down, and that this was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            There is, as far as I can see, no evidence at all for this story. While financial markets may pay close attention to the Fed’s pronouncements, producers and workers, who set prices and wages, don’t; they base their decisions on what they see around them.

            There are some historical echoes here. Around a decade ago, some economists and policymakers insisted that slashing government spending would actually increase employment, by inspiring higher investment; I mocked this view, which proved utterly wrong, as belief in the Confidence Fairy. What we’re seeing now might be called belief in the Credibility Fairy.

            To be clear, I don’t fault the Fed for having raised rates in the past. Last year we didn’t know that the inflation story would turn out this well, and to be fair, rate hikes have not, in fact, caused a recession, at least so far.

            What worries me is the future. By and large, the same people who were wrongly pessimistic about disinflation are now warning the Fed against cutting interest rates quickly. Why? Well, if you believe that any rise in inflation will be very hard to reverse, and also believe that the Fed’s perceived toughness was crucial in getting inflation down, I guess you’re willing to run big risks of recession to preserve the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility. But neither belief is supported by the evidence.

            Has the war on inflation been definitively won? No. But recession looks like a bigger risk than resurgent inflation. And I worry that this risk will be increased if policymakers listen to people who are reluctant to admit that they got the inflation story wrong and are clinging to a false theory about how we got inflation down.

          3. Thanks! For everything, Scoopy. I don’t get that Bezos rag, nor the NYT. At first, I avoided the Times link (search hit). I managed to get PK’s column on DNYUZ. But then, his byline didn’t survive the cloning. So, I discovered that, at least for me, I didn’t run into a paywall when I visited the link to NYT. Quick click on Brave’s SpeedReader icon, et voila, nice clean copy.

            But thank you for excerpting it in toto. Your representation of the byline was flawed, but your paste did the trick, pretty much.

            Krugman has gotten a lot of mileage out of his Confidence Fairy gimmick. It’s been a gift that kept on giving. Point being, yes, everybody has sentiments that drive what we do. But upshot of all that sentimentality is an underlying driver, the reality that we all really inhabit. It will have its effect on us, eventually. Market volatility reflects our daily fears. Over a longer term, there are corrections upon corrections.

            The way Larry Summers raised a stir with that Secular Stagnation argument makes me fume. It was persuasive & influential. It seemed to be quite a good point to make. That’s what he does. Has always done. Strays far off the base, making good point after good point. Somehow, he’s always right for the wrong reasons. It’s as if he stumbles into a plausible explanation for a thing that demands one. Then he manages to defend that hill in the face of a mountain of evidence that his story about it isn’t what has actually been going on. He’s a menace to his profession.

          4. I made a mistake largely because I don’t follow the present economy all that closely. I’ve been going on about supply chains, what I referred to as ‘logistics’ from 2016 or so but I failed to foresee the rise in inflation following on Covid.

            I knew a guy on twitter (before Elon Musk ruined it) who was a mathematician and business consultant who went by the nickname ‘strategy as tires.’ We were discussing the decline in oil prices in 2016 and how that would impact Alberta, and he said that there wouldn’t be as many layoffs as I was thinking there would be.

            I asked him why not and he said that businesses don’t let their key employees go, not the ones with technical knowledge anyway because once they go, it’s impossible to get them back so businesses would rather pay their key employees (and in the modern technological economy there are quite a lot of key employees) to do nothing than lay them off.

            As a mathematician, he referred to businesses losing key employees as a ‘discontinuity’ (a term from calculus.)

            So, in Canada and the United States, this was largely prevented through government assistance programs limiting layoffs and I didn’t know that wasn’t the case around the world, especially in Asia and, I guess, the Middle East. But, the supply chain problems largely occurred because key employees left ports and shipping and the other businesses that support those things. If I paid more attention to the current economy around the world, I would have expected that to happen and that inflation would become a problem, as I’m sure Strategy as Tires knew it would.

            For economists in general, when Janet Yellen ‘apologized’ for the Fed allowing inflation to occur, she was actually apologizing on behalf of the economics discipline for not having supply chains as a field of basic study. As we know, there are many ‘assumptions’ in economics and one of them is that all that is needed is ‘incentives’ and with the correct ‘incentives’ in place, logistical problems will sort themselves out as if by invisible hand.

          5. Sorry, that should be Janet Yellen at Treasury.

            In regards to the Krugman article.

            Interest rates likely can be lowered, but don’t expect them to go down all that much. Interest rates are supposed to be above the rate of inflation, and the Fed had been trying to do that for a number of years (this is referred to as ‘normalizing’ interest rates.)

            The reason for this is fairly basic: If interest rates are below the rate of inflation, a person can essentially borrow money for free.

            How much interest rates (the Fed rate) should be above the inflation rate is another matter. When Jerome Powell was appointed Chair of the Federal Reserve, the other person in the running for the appointment was a guy named Taylor who is pretty flaky except in one area: he formulated something called The Taylor Rule which is a shorthand for determining what the Fed rate should be. The only complication to this is that it requires an imputed value based on levels of real GDP growth and inflation expectations. The biggest takeaway though is that real interest rates (the nominal rate minus the rate of inflation) has actually been declining for as long as several hundred years. So, something has been going right.

            Let’s also not forget that back in 2018 when the Fed first tried to normalize interest rates that not only did Donald Trump squawk loudly, but that he actually has good reason to as the Fed nearly brought on a recession.

            So, Biden has certainly been much better for the economy than Trump.

          6. Thanks again, Adam. For more, good stuff.

            The big difference that the Reagan Revolution had in its favor was that it put wind at the backs of cake-eaters. Bidenomics is less a revolution, in that it benefits bread-eaters. The cake folks are the guerilla resistance against it.

            They will work to undermine it, like big tobacco since way back, & like big oil now. Finance is in my mind pretty analogous to them, but not as demonized yet among the common folk.

            In business, that’s called “taking a hit”. In econ, it’s an “externality”. Me, I’m mathy, but I can go with the flow.

            To my mind, the overwhelming problem in econ policy at both the Fed & Treasury, is that potential growth has been consistently, badly underestimated. This drastic undershoot in output gap results in an undershoot on how much of real GDP is “inflation”.

            The proposal to raise the inflation target is really a proxy for getting growth projections that more closely match what we eventually find out actually happened. The extra benefit that a higher inflation target leaves us more room to cut rates before we hit the zero lower bound is actually peripheral.

            In general, you’re pointing out that the broad brush, easy to explain theories about what’s going on in “the economy” are no substitute for a bottom-up understanding.

            Moreover, my own broad brush tells me that the supposedly “serious” voices on how “the economy” is doing equate “good for me” with “good for the country”. Self-styled independent voters who think conservatives are better for “the economy” are biased in that exact same way. They actually don’t really give a shit about the “general welfare”. If they include it at all, it enters into their calculation far out in the “tail” end of their “Taylor” series.

  4. Top 5 for me:
    Stone: Not even close, the nudest a major actress has been in a theatrical release in 20 yrs? I now know Emma’s nipples better than my own. And ya heard it here first: that bush is real. See it in a theater & tell the gf “It’s art, honey”
    Brie: easy #1 if there was no Stone – woulda liked more butt BUT her MILF tits are at their peak
    Posey: good ass view at last in def the weirdest sex scene in ages
    Calamy: full frontal French MILF goodness
    Lister-Jones: nice turn by an actress that wasn’t on my radar before

    Lawrence? Too much controversy – merkin? CGI? bd?

    Em-bare-ass-ment of riches this year, is this 1982?

    1. I have mixed thoughts on Emma Stone. First of all, just from the cam shots available, it doesn’t look all that exciting. I am hoping once we get the Hi-Def shots I will be wowed.

      But honestly, even then, I don’t think I would vote for her. Should it matter that she doesn’t look great naked? I think it should. Honestly, I’ve never been all that impressed with her “beauty” and her exposed b-cups are “meh” to me at best. And I am unconvinced thus far that those are really her pubes (tho I do not dismiss the possibility, I just think it is more likely a merkin than her).

      OTOH, how do we NOT pick an A-list actress who decides to go so fully nude for the first time as nude scene of the year when she clearly did not have to do it? Do we diss her like that?

      And then I think, does it really matter? If somehow Emma finished 17th in the poll, will she find out and go into clinical depression because she bared her body for only 17th place? Does she really want to finish first in a poll like this?

      And will it discourage other A-list actresses from stripping if they know they are not guaranteed a first or second place finish on such a prestigious list as Other Crap’s top nude scene of the year?

      I am in a quandary.

      1. I’ve always thought Stone was cute but her very slim body is maybe not everybody’s taste – also the character has black hair & practically a unibrow, which does give her a harsher look than usual. But I loved the movie PLUS she’s also barefoot for 80% of it, which as a full-on Tarantinoid foot fetishist tickled me to no end.

        1. Eh, I love Emma Stone. Don’t get me wrong about that. But she’s not so much slim as flat-chested.

          I like women’s tits of all shapes & sizes, so I don’t mean it as “inferior.” In particular, her lower body is, um, wide.

          I accept that a preference for booties is a thing. It’s out there, it’s firmly held, & there’s no reason to think of it as wrong.

          I just happen to like wide shoulders, V-shaped back, & a butt that fills out jeans to fit tight, but otherwise not especially bulbous. The Playboy hourglass standard figure with big boobs & wide hips is, to me, exaggerated.

          I’m not impressed or turned on by it. I like a good amount of body fat to soften out the sharp angles, but not so much that there are unsightly bulges. YMMV.

          As for foot fetishes, leg lover, butt lover, boob man, homosexuality, they’re all fine, but not my thing. Literally all right there in YKINMKBYKIOK.

          I do like fit legs. Thunder thighs, def turn me off.

      2. I agree with all of your thinking, pretty much. Just, I guess a little feedback may be helpful.

        First, A-list actors may not care overly about Scoopy’s specific poll. I think it’s one of the “important” ones. But there are plenty of signs that they pay attention to “celeb nudity” buzz.

        Second, while I don’t have a direct cite, it’s in the rumor mill that Emma said in an interview that she wore a merkin. Until I see more shots in the highest def possible, that’s winning the argument, with me.

        Third, in my mind, Jennifer’s controversy is Merkin Madness. It’s a disease. The obsession over shaving is distorting a lot of perceptions. Too many opinions currently from people whose eyes are operating outside reasonable tolerances.

        Apart from that, I agree with Hanzo on a few points. Stone, Brie, a good year. I don’t share the affinity to buttocks, but YMMV, I’ve always believed. Ie:

        MKINYK BYKIOK2 LAAMFO… “Laugh At And Make Fun Of”. 😉

        1. Correction: I misremembered YKINMK. The full YKINMKBYKIOK is not only in Urban Dictionary but also some other dictionaries.

      1. Juliet Rylance! Not Janet. She deserves that much.

        Rylance matters to me! I want her to be famous enough that a brilliant dude like Scoopy would never get her name wrong.

        It’s a damn typo. The linked post says Juliet. Even the link itself says so. It ain’t rocket science. Gee whiz.

        1. I didn’t even catch that until you pointed it out!

          I really liked her scenes in that series, but she’ll have to struggle to make the top twenty. The polling is subjective, and other actresses have more hype, more fame, and (I suppose) more youth in their favor. If I had to make my personal list, I’d shoehorn her into the top twenty somewhere.

  5. I even understand why… but isn’t it a bit early to put Sydney Sweeney by anyone but you? A film that hasn’t even been released yet. I mean, her many nude scenes in the film are just rumors for now.

    1. That’s why we’re not voting yet. If we don’t have the scenes in time, she’ll have to go into next year’s.

      1. Dear Ric10: “They?” This suggests perhaps poor reading comprehension. Lack of bother to read, seems more likely. But, hey, care to explain?

    1. She absolutely does, but I left that scene off because there’s no real nudity. She’s wearing nipple patches, so it’s basically just impressive cleavage.

  6. #1 in the non-existent She Could Have been a Contender category: Saoirse Ronan in whatever that was.

    1. Pho. Not to be confused with Smak Pho (2019). Also not to be confused with Harlem Pho (2007). A place where 3 other establishments within 2 blocks have better Yelp ratings. Also, Sophia Myles has not frequented the spot in the nude for some years.

      Truthfully, Foe’s miserable critical reception is needless to say unpersuasive to me. It does far better in Average Joe/Jill reviews. It’s scifi, the premise seems interesting, & the cast is good. OTOH, “more drama than scifi” says one viewer. One solid demerit for that.

      On balance, Sow Earsha tits wins by a mile. I’ll see it. I may even vote for it. My own guess is it’ll get votes but who knows if it’s a contender. I’ll vote. Not putting my own money where my mouth is. So not scratching my head too hard calculating my expected ROIs.

  7. My first thought is Jennifer Lawrence for the best scene. Because it’s a non-sexual, comedic, action scene.

    But I’ll still have to review every entrant.

    1. Let’s assume you’re agonizing over half a dozen scenes you loved. Either your choices are bunched at the top, & the race is on. Or, one or more of them have no chance, really. If you’re unlucky, you pick one & waste your vote. OTOH, if you’re lucky, your pick has a real chance to win. Either way, you have no further control of the outcome.

      So, primarily, you can vote & then you can, I dunno, run a campaign? Ie, root. The stakes are about as low as we could ask for. If you continue to waffle, flip a coin. 3 tosses should do it. Don’t be a scaredy cat. Go for it. Have fun.

Comments are closed.