MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > OT: Blue Lagoon.

OT: Blue Lagoon.

posted 14 years ago by cjh8504
22 replies | jump to latest

Why wasn't Brooke naked in the Blue Lagoon??? It was a body double every time she was swimming and we saw her naked. And everytime her face was in the shot, her hair was covering her breasts. I mean, in one scene, there must be a 100 mile an hour wind, and her hair is blowing like crazy, accept the hair covering her breasts. It must've been taped on her nipples or something. Why wouldn't she show her breasts when she actually had some to show, but instead when she was like 10 and had nothing??

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

I've wondered about this for some time. The best I've been able to gather from various people is that she wasn't naked in The Blue Lagoon because she was naked in Pretty Baby. There was such a hue and cry over Pretty Baby that Brooke and her mother decided "never again" on the nudity.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

I guess. But, why even do a movie then, if your gonna be topless most of the time, and NOT show anything??? I mean, that freakin costar of hers was running with his dong flapping around. Disgusting. I wanna see her breasts, not some guys member, you feel me??? But instead we got a stand-ins breasts, and it wasn't the same.

[–] TheProjector 14 years ago

If you are only watching it to see Brooke Shields naked, then you are clearly missing the point of the film.

And why is Christopher Atkins' "dong flapping around" disgusting? The nudity was meant to highlight the fact that being alone on an island they had no need of clothes for certain things, such as swimming. How can that be disgusting? Whilst, I'm a heterosexual male I am mature enough to be perfectly comfortable with seeing another man's penis on screen.

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

That freakin costar of hers hadn't generated a storm of controversy by having his dong flapping around* in a movie when he was twelve years old.

The director wanted Brooke Shields for the role to begin with. He also originally wanted the two to be nude all the time, and compromised that when Brooke wouldn't get naked. He was willing to go with somebody else, but he couldn't get somebody who was both right for the part and willing to do the nudity. So he decided that if was going to have to settle for a girl who wouldn't go nude and a body double, he might as well have Brooke Shields not going nude as anybody else not going nude.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

* Though at that age I suppose it would be a ding instead of a dong.

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

He might have well just had the body double play the part, if she was going to be nude all the time, not Brooke. Why have Brooke, if she's not gonna be nude??

[–] TheProjector 14 years ago

Because:

1) The character was meant to be 14 years old and the body double was an actress in her 30s. Even the most skilled of crews would have had difficulty passing her off as a 14-year-old if we'd seen her face or she'd had any lines.

2) Brooke Shields' name would have been key to the success of the film. I doubt the film would have generated anything like the revenue it did if she hadn't starred in it.

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

It didn't make that much money. Nowhere near 100 million(which certifies a blockbuster). Under 60 million, I just saw, which is more than I thought, honestly, but still not like a big movie.

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

a) $60 million was more money in 1980 than it is today.

b) Would it have been better to make $30 million or $60 million?

Finally, the reason the director wanted Shields from the beginning was because he thought she would be good at portraying the character, if not the nipples.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad277/yorda28/DakotaFanning/D-1.jpg

Hello Daddy, Hello Mom.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

I'd rather see Brooke naked, then some no name, that's all I'm saying. Having a body double all movie, was lame.

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

Well, you can blame it on Pretty Baby. It seems to have the uproar over this movie which decided her and her mom that she couldn't show off the goodies in TBL.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

Then why be in it??!! You know?? That's like Jenna Jameson doing a porno, but it's not really her getting boinked, it's some body double. I don't wanna see some body double!! I wanna see Jenna! Or in this case Brooke.

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

The reason the director wanted Shields from the beginning was because he thought she would be good at portraying the character, if not the nipples.

He did try to find someone else, but none of the other fifteen-year-olds he had lined up were willing to do nudity either.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

Then, they should have just used a 20 something actress willing to do nudity.

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

That's what most movies did. But it was thought important to have a real teenager play the teenager.

I wish Shields had just taken her own clothes off. The need to switch back and forth between Brooke Shields' face and somebody else's breasts compromised the film, and actually made some parts seem dirtier than they were.

Maybe Kleiser should have gone with a European actress. David Hamilton never seemed to have any trouble getting the teens out of their kits.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

[–] cjh8504 14 years ago

Right. It definitely compromised the film. And ruined it, I think.

[–] missscoobyca 13 years ago

Let me preface by stating that I have no knowledge of the reason she didn't do the nudity herself, the following is just my conjecture and opinion. =) Perhaps she was fine with being nude in Pretty Baby because she was prepubescent, but in Blue Lagoon she obviously had developed and matured? Maybe she was no longer comfortable with her body being nude on film? I have never read any interviews with her about this topic, but would be interested in her answer for sure!

[–] kinickibeck 10 years ago

it was her body, i saw a documentary on brooke and her husband at the time was interviewed saying that he was watching blue lagoon qnd realized that it wasnt a body double but brookes actual body. she probably lied because she didnt want to experience the same backlash that she got when she was nude in pretty baby.

[–] xenophile2002 9 years ago

Can you give us a link on that? That is very interesting if true, and I'd like to know.

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart