PG-13 Movies with Nudity....since TITANIC

[Jake Scully Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jake Scully]

Wasn't Uschi Digard in the shower scene in Kentucky Fried Movie?

[Paul L Scholar of Sleaze Find all posts View Profile Close Paul L]

Wasn't Uschi Digard in the shower scene in Kentucky Fried Movie?

Yep.

[JoeS Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoeS]

I do feel that in American cinema, at least, there is a tendency amongst filmmakers to equate nudity with sex or displays of sexuality - which, in the eyes of the MPAA, would necessitate a classification above 'PG-13'. I would agree there is definitely a very puritanical attitude towards nudity within the MPAA, but the tendency among American fllmmakers particularly to equate nudity with sex is also possibly a reason why less films with nudity achieve lower classifications generally. In other words, if Hollywood was more inclined to include nudity in non-sexual contexts, the number of films with nudity and a lower classification might very well increase. (And, for that matter, I'd suggest there are less films at the 'R' classification with nudity - whether sexual or otherwise - when compared with the early 1990s, for example, and some of the neo-noir pictures of that era: eg, THE LAST SEDUCTION, BASIC INSTINCT.) Perhaps the salacious attitude towards nudity within Hollywood (ie, that nudity must always be presented within a sexual context) is as much of a 'problem' as the puritanical attitude of the MPAA. When you consider the darker side of Hollweird and the prurient attitudes of those in positions of authority within the system, from Kenneth Anger's HOLLYWOOD BABYLON to the #MeToo debacle, Hollywood cinema's association of nudity with sex seems part of a much deeper cultural trend that has perhaps become normalised within the kinds of people who make it to the upper echelons of the Hollywood system.

Then there are other factors: eg, the inequality that has for a long time existed in American films between female nudity and male nudity, which has faced a backlash and, seemingly in response, filmmakers have largely shied away from 'equal ops' nudity (ie, avoiding including more male nudity to redress the balance), choosing instead to avoid representing female nudity.

What's ironic is that while Nudity in PG-13 films has virtually disappeared since 1997, it has increased exponentially on TV and Streaming. Heck, on HBO it seems like a requirement to have X amount of nudity in every series they air. Sure, most would be rated R (or even NC-17), but the fact that they are readily available with a cable or internet connection makes them even easier to see than movies.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

What I find wierd is that there's a very sharp and sudden turn in Hollywood's attitudes towards sex on screen. In the 80s and early 90s it was seen as a very sure way to get bums on cinemas seats. And then all of a sudden in the mid 90s, for no reason I'm able to pinpoint, it seemed they decided that nudity would keep audiences from visiting the theatre. I remember seeing one Hollywood exec explaining that people are uncomfortable watching sex scenes with a room full of people they don't know. Okay, maybe, but when did that happen?!

The early 90s is full of sex heavy movies that did great business. Basic Instinct etc. There was no, as far as I'm aware, change in censorship laws. There wasn't a massive string of bombs (or was there? Sliver and Jade spring to mind). I don't recall a massive public outcry. Did Showgirls just scare everyone straight?

[Paul L Scholar of Sleaze Find all posts View Profile Close Paul L]

What I find wierd is that there's a very sharp and sudden turn in Hollywood's attitudes towards sex on screen. In the 80s and early 90s it was seen as a very sure way to get bums on cinema. And then all of a sudden in the mid 90s, for no reason I'm able to pinpoint, it seemed they decided that nudity would keep audiences from visiting the theatre. I remember seeing one Hollywood exec explaining that people are uncomfortable watching sex scenes with a room full of people they don't know. Okay, maybe, but when did that happen?!

Perhaps Hollywood's persistent chasing of the more lucrative PG-13 classification, especially since the late 1990s, has been a reason for this. In the late 80s/early 90s nudity became linked to sex through the plotting of erotic neo-noir pictures like FATAL ATTRACTION, THE LAST SEDUCTION and BASIC INSTINCT, and then in the late 90s Hollywood decided that selling sex through 'R' rated films was less lucrative than making action-oriented films that achieve PG-13 classifications (ie, appealing to the young teenage market), in which violence is more acceptable, through franchises like Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN films, TRANSFORMERS, the Marvel movies, etc. Filmmaking by committee.

I think you're right about the string of bombs, Dom: Friedkin's JADE, and then Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS, seemed to spell the end of the LAST SEDUCTION/BASIC INSTINCT era, and then the next big thing for Hollywood was big-scale PG/PG-13 action films like INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE MATRIX and the STAR WARS prequels - barring a few other, more short-lived trends ('harder' action films, given a more audience-limiting 'R' rating, like CON AIR and FACE OFF, and epics like TITANIC which are expensive to mimic). JADE and SHOWGIRLS, and a few other films, showed to Hollywood that sex, in and of itself, doesn't sell.

[Dom D Spoon! Find all posts View Profile Close Dom D]

I think you're right about the string of bombs, Dom: Friedkin's JADE, and then Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS, seemed to spell the end of the LAST SEDUCTION/BASIC INSTINCT era, and then the next big thing for Hollywood was big-scale PG/PG-13 action films like INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE MATRIX and the STAR WARS prequels - barring a few other, more short-lived trends ('harder' action films, given a more audience-limiting 'R' rating, like CON AIR and FACE OFF, and epics like TITANIC which are expensive to mimic). JADE and SHOWGIRLS, and a few other films, showed to Hollywood that sex, in and of itself, doesn't sell.

Yeah, I guess throw Colour Of NIght in there as well. If you can't sell tickets to a Bruce Willis movie there's got to be something wrong your approach.

[Paul L Scholar of Sleaze Find all posts View Profile Close Paul L]

Yeah, I guess throw Colour Of NIght in there as well. If you can't sell tickets to a Bruce Willis movie there's got to be something wrong your approach.

Agreed. That was a bizarre film. Then, to be fair, Willis made a string of bad choices in the early 90s (COLOR OF NIGHT, STRIKING DISTANCE and, of course, HUDSON HAWK) before he was 'resurrected' somewhat by his role in PULP FICTION in '94.

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

I think in today's climate, a director would probably be exiled from Hollywood for even suggesting an actress show some skin that wasn't absolutely necessary to the plot - and even then, he'd probably be attacked by today's ridiculously self-righteous critics and social media for even including nudity in his film. I'm sure directors do everything they can to avoid shooting nude scenes nowadays. Gone are the days of unnecessary nudity.

[agent999 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close agent999]

I think it's also partially due to internet porn. A flash of boob isn't going to cut it these days, so why bother?

[Jason C Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jason C]

I think it's also partially due to internet porn. A flash of boob isn't going to cut it these days, so why bother?

"A flash of boob" works for this old man. Not looking to spank it to action films so a flash is a nice cherry on the top of an action film cocktail.

People can see clips of actions scenes "on the internet" so I'm not sure why Internet porn gets cited as a reason not to have gratuitous nudity in films. In my mind there isn't a difference between gratuitous violence and nudity. Both entertain the same.

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

Agreed. I miss casual nudity. No matter how fleeting.

It also struck me odd that Tarantino as much as he tries to draw from exploitation films has a rather chaste filmography. As much as people refer to QT himself as sleezy it really doesn't show up in any of his films. I believe DJANGO has the most nudity and it's mostly male. Something like DEATH PROOF should have been wall to wall tits. Instead we get feet.

[agent999 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close agent999]

I still think the internet's had an impact. Action films give people something they'll never see in real life, but nudity in mainstream movies is just weak compared to what (some people) expect and can get elsewhere nowadays, plus from a commercial point of view it alienates part of the potential audience. It's not part of the required formula for making cash nowadays whereas in the good old days nudity got kids in because they couldn't see it eleswhere. Generally speaking, action requires a decent budget, so I fully understand why the T and A factor would be a hindrance to turning a profit.

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

I think we need to come up with a new name for the PG-13 CGI action films that offer no real action. It bothers me when people say they like action films then refer to a movie like Iron Man where the majority of the action is green screened. Whenever I bring up older action films people call them cheezy. How is a real guy on real fire cheezy but CGI glitter isn't? When did everything become upside down world?

[Matt H. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Matt H.]

It bothers me when people say they like action films then refer to a movie like Iron Man where the majority of the action is green screened.

A couple of things dawned on me when one of the superhero movies was on TV a few months back: 1. It must be incredibly boring for the actors to shoot one of those movies (with the majority of it being green screen) and 2. There's no way these big stars don't feel a little bit embarrassed standing around on set in those ridiculous costumes. They certainly look like douchebags!

[Mark Tolch Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mark Tolch]

I still think the internet's had an impact. Action films give people something they'll never see in real life, but nudity in mainstream movies is just weak compared to what (some people) expect and can get elsewhere nowadays, plus from a commercial point of view it alienates part of the potential audience. It's not part of the required formula for making cash nowadays whereas in the good old days nudity got kids in because they couldn't see it eleswhere. Generally speaking, action requires a decent budget, so I fully understand why the T and A factor would be a hindrance to turning a profit.

I think that this is pretty bang-on. I'm sure a number of us remember seeing their dad's or older brother's Penthouse magazines back in the day, and watching dubbed copies of PORKY'S in awe. Nowadays, you can quickly (and for free) hit up pornhub and see whatever the hell you want.