Another post in reply to a query about Lord of the Rings (funny how I seem to be bashing non-sensual films nowadays):
One of my major objections to a fantasy film like Lord of the Rings, or the books by Tolkien in general is that they may seem to be adult adventures, and have the maps and made-up language (complete with poetry) and detailed, made-up history to prove it, but they're not. And one reason is the lack of important roles for women or for sexuality in the films. If you compare LOTR to, say, the Arthurian legends, women are strictly in the sidelines, and are hardly looked at as women at all--at most they are brave soldiers or enduring nursemaids; you wouldn't know if there was a vagina in the lot, or if it ever lubricated.
Oh, people have pointed out that, say, Morgan le Fay was a negative stereotype...but she was central to Arthur's legend; Eowyn is a positive role model, but she's barely more than a stick figure, albeit a positive one. You might argue that Galadriel is crucial, but the most she does is provide Frodo with a glorified flashlight to scare the big spider with; it's not a crucial role, and I think not an especially memorable one.
People have pointed out the sensuality of Gollum's hunger--sure, it's the best thing in the film and novel. Actually, about the few characters I still find interesting in either films or novels are those that give any evidence of having any genitals: Gollum, Saruman...Aragorn suggests he has a pair, but mainly in battle (he's queer that way); even his love for that lily-livered fairy is as chaste as driven snow. Sauron--fughedaboudit; he's a flame at the end of a gas pipe leak, and about as scary.
Which is why the only franchise I'm really looking forward to is the third Harry Potter flick.