"Full" Nudity in Movies?

[DELTA x WOLF]

I have heard lots of comments from people I know and I'm passing the question to you guys Should directors show "full" nudity from both actors and actresses.

And would you watch movies with them in it, and also you need to be 18 or older to watch it (thats the catch) but this isnt porn because this is with famous actors and actresses in good movies

Only Motion Pictures as examples. NO TV series like HBO, SHOW TIME, and so on....;...

 

[Fronken]

If it fits the movie and its in context, full nudity is perfectly fine, but if used as a selling point for a crappy movie, then it has no place in there.

 

[Brokkr]

If it fits the movie and its in context, full nudity is perfectly fine, but if used as a selling point for crappy movie, then it has no place in there.

I agree with this. I hate it when shitty movies use nudity as a major selling point.

 

[NeedAUserName]

Well, there is in The Life Of Brian, well for the guy anyway... The woman has her hair over her breasts.

 

[Legion]

Some films already do, even if they are only for short amount of times and completely unneeded.

'28 Days Later' shows frontal nudity at the very beginning for example. Also in 'The Life Of Brian' as mentioned already.

It doesn't really bother me. Although usually it just isn't necessary.

Oh, and just because a famous person is in it does not mean it is not porn.

 

[Baby Tea]

If it fits the movie and its in context, full nudity is perfectly fine, but if used as a selling point for crappy movie, then it has no place in there.

I agree with this. I hate it when shitty movies use nudity as a major selling point.

Doubly agreed. If it fits the story and characters, then fine. If it's there for teenage boys to go 'Oooo! Boobz! Just like the internet!' then count me out.

 

[Scout Kubin]

Are you asking if there should be "full nudity" or are you asking if there should be full nudity from men AND women? 'Cus my answer to both is a resounding "yes."
Many peoples' (and my) objection to "fan service" isn't the partial nudity, it's when it's always women, serves no purpose other than to draw attention, and isn't realistic (Sorry, you will never, ever, ever find a female soldier showing leg and cleavage in the field).

 

[kalaim]

see "bad lieutnant"... hardly arousing fully naked harvey kettel but serves the plot.

 

[Ionami]

Oh, and just because a famous person is in it does not mean it is not porn.

Exactly.

Although I'm "comfortable with my sexuality" I'm totally okay with not seeing tons of peen in the movies I watch.

Don't need to see Keanu Reeves dork or Tom Cruise's shvantz.

Eeeeuuuuch... or Danny Devito's peice...

 

[Kellerb]

why not? "the naked body is beautiful" as the Italians say.

 

[Gladion]

Since you ask this question, I assume you're from America and only watch American movies, since there already have been films that showed "Full nudity", but none of them are from the US. The one that sticks out in my mind is Irreversible. Won't see that many penises in any other non-pornographic film.

PS: I wasn't trying to sound xenophobic, sorry if I do.

 

[SqueeFactor]

I agree with the full context argument, but I fear it will lean more towards nudity for the sake of nudity. And it would be anohter Hollywood farce. The actors and actresses nowadays already have more plastic than a foreign car and it would be more reason to exaggerate their features for the sake of idiot adults and horny teenagers. Fake breasts will get faker and, well, if theres full male nudity on screen... you know where I'm going with this. Movies go along fine now anyways without full nudity. 98% of the nudity used is for shock value, and rarely for artistic reasons, so I'm gonna have to go with no.

 

[Asehujiko]

Would it bother me? No.
Would it make movies better? Maybe, although i doubt it.
Would the resulting shitstorm from he moral guardian camp bother me? Yes.

So, no.

 

[Good morning blues]

If we relax the taboo, we'll get a lot of exploitative schlock, and a little bit of artistic, tasteful treatments that truly do enhance the film's artistic value. I think that it's worth it - nobody's forcing anybody to watch the former. (Also, if it gets Americans more comfortable with their sexualities, it can only be a good thing.)

 

[DannyDamage]

If the film/scene is about people being naked and there's a certificate on the dvd case, then where's the problem?

Everyone has a body that can be naked if they wish it to be, it's not some foreign concept that people should be allowed to complain about.

If you were watching Shrek 8 and it quickly cuts to a shot of some dudes nut-sack covered in BBQ sauce, then fair enough. Complain all you want.

These high and mighty types that try to control "protect" all those who need protecting should just piss off. We don't take kindly to your type around here.

 

[jthm]

I'm all for it. The majority of movies these days have sucked (excluding Dark Knight and Wall-E) and if the only part of it I enjoy is some pointless full nudity by a good looking actress, then so be it. At least it wasn't a total waste.

 

[Maet]

... but this isnt porn because this is with famous actors and actresses in good movies

Funniest thing I've seen all day.

 

[Resistance205]

If it fits the movie and its in context, full nudity is perfectly fine, but if used as a selling point for crappy movie, then it has no place in there.

I agree with this. I hate it when shitty movies use nudity as a major selling point.

Doubly agreed. If it fits the story and characters, then fine. If it's there for teenage boys to go 'Oooo! Boobz! Just like the internet!' then count me out.

Agreed. Nudity should only be in movies if it actually fits what is going on in the film. There is no point just throwing it in there just to make more people watch it, I just think that is a stupid move.

 

[BardSeed]

I have no problem with nudity in movies, I'm opposed to censorship. It's only the vocal minority that would really give a shit.