If it was his real cock they would 100% have marketed it as including his full frontal
Are we sure it’s
Huh? The screen captures seem like he’s uncut. Also the images of him naked from his play are so blurry I can’t tell if he’s cut or not from those.
Indeed. It's a prosthetic. I'm surprise this is continuously debated. The majority of mainstream Hollywood actors will not do full frontals (even if it's not fully shown). But if there is a debate on if its real or fake, then the makeup artists have done their job. No need for any actor to actually do a real full frontal scene if one can be deceived by an obvious prosthetic.
I dont immediately believe it's real, but I also don't go around saying it's 100% a prosthetic without giving actual proof. Feel free to share your opinion, but saying things like "it is a prosthetic" with NO link, NO quotes, NO interview, doesn't help the situation. LOTS of actors go frontal and it not used as a marketing tool (lest we forget the Chris Pine backlash) and this is BARELY a frontal to begin with. I've not said one way or the other if I think its fake or real, I've just offered perspective on the side that is being grossly assumed.
mark carter
Superior Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2016
- Posts
- 4,220
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 6,877
- Points
- 158
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Posts
- 330
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 1,503
- Points
- 748
- Location
- London, UK
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 60% Straight, 40% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The 'backlash' was a marketing tool though and all those articles/interviews about his dick raised interest in the film in the two months prior to its general release. There were articles about it everywhere.
Anyway, I agree with your general point that nobody can be 100% its real or 100% sure its a prosthetic way until its addressed which it may never be. Personally I learn towards it being prosthetic because we've seen his dick before and this is much bigger, which to me is more convincing than trying to argue he was fluffed etc.
Lady Frost OBE
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Posts
- 34,641
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 40,140
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Dover (Kent, England)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Posts
- 233
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 1,087
- Points
- 313
- Location
- New Zealand
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
They are not porn actors. The movie is not porn. So obviously, the filmmakers cannot keep actual real boners/semi in the movie. If it happens, the editor will have to cut it to ensure the movie didn't broke MPAA rule for R rating.
In Euphoria, Eric Dane had to used prosthetic because his nude scene feature erection. He was willing to not use prosthetic. But he cannot do that, cause Euphoria is not a porn, and he is not a porn actor. This is television.
Also here's a quote regarding R rating in movie.
"it’s R rated, you can basically do anything. You just can’t show erect penis" Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising director
Both Neighbors and The Voyeurs were rated R
This isn't television, it's a movie. And many non-porn actors have had semi and erections in movies, just search through this forum for examples. Yes it can effect the films rating, but its not banned, and even if films use realistic prosthetics they are often treated the same as the real thing when it comes to ratings it if it to simulate an erection. Most famously, Michael Fassbender had a fluffed frontal scene in the film 'Shame'... so NOTHING is set in stone in terms of what can and can't be shown on screen, it's up to the actors, directors and studios and how it effects their rating. And AGAIN.. this was hardly a full on erect full frontal.. it was a barely visible, slightly larger than flaccid, kinda half side nude scene... and AGAIN I'm not saying it's not a prosthetic, but there's also no reason to believe it isn't either, especially if you consider if they were going to go to that effort, why would they have the shot like THAT and not actually make proper use of it as is usually the case in most projects, such as the examples you gave?
I do agree with this. I work in productions and the budget plays an important role in these kind of things. From my view, the film is not really your typical high-budgeted material, just enough so prosthetics will be the least to be on the list to considered (though I still partly believe it can be prosthesis) because the production will focus on camera, art department, and sometimes food.
Ben is also English and we have no problems in nudity here in UK. But since the nature of the project is American-based it’s a different conversation. But generally English actors don’t really shy away from nudity.
Also from the looks of it, it was a fast pan down so the use of prosthetics is pointless. If it was really a long exposure kind of sequence and he’s hung in an unnatural way then it’s a prosthetic.
It can really be his cock but fluffed or CGI.
Incorrect. Again, look at films like Love, Nymphomaniac, Antichrist, Shortbus, American Translation, Lie With Me, 9 Songs, etc etc etc.. there's even an uncut version of the Melissa McCarthy comedy Spy, LOTS of films with PROMINANT erections and MORE.. there is NO hard and fast rule saying if an actor gets hard, filming has to stop. Sometimes, it's planned. Sometimes it's part of what has been discussed and part of what is going to be filmed. NO ONE is saying that he ACCIDENTALLY was hard/semi and they just didn't notice and left it in..
All I've been saying is that there's no evidence either way as to whether it's prosthetic or not, and there's reason to believe it both could be and couldn't be.
Pro Prosthetic: It's become common these days. Also, his dick looks bigger in this film than the leaked stage caps of his previous nudity.
Con Prosthetic: It's such a brief flash of a scene that it seems unlikely they'd budget for a prosthetic for such a small moment. Also, Ben Hardy has shown he's not shy of nudity and there is precedent (Fassbender in Shame) of well known actors being fluffed for brief frontal roles.
All of this is opinion and conjecture as there has been nothing published one way or the other.
I agree some people here are just rude. Before I even posted on this thread, I made sure I said I work in film productions because I really am. I even said that it CAN BE A PROSTHETIC, but considering that the scene is a fast panning, what’s the use of prosthetic? Also I’ve seen penises and they’re not consistent. That stage play was like years ago, and probably it’s cold in that venue so there’s shrinkage. The location for the film was probably shot on room temperature thus his penis looked hung. Also I don’t think he’s hard or erected like people saying.
