The naked underwater scene
Is this the first mainstream movie where the actresses have no pubic hair? I thought there were clear rules about full-frontal nudity with the MPAA. How did they get away with this?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Piranha 3D (2010) Discussion > The naked underwater scene
They probably got away with that scene because the scene was mostly from a distance, and for the most part, you only saw their breasts and butts. The vagina is only seen in one or two glimpses. It also helps that the scene wasn't really a sex scene, just a nude swimming scene.
share[deleted]
You should've been able to tell from the trailer that this isn't a movie to bring your kids to. It was pretty apparent from the trailer that it was at least going to be VERY gory, so definitely not a film to bring your kids to.
share[deleted]
yep, that didn't show Kellys. only the other female.
Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking
As someone who loves horror movies, I don't get why so many parents want to bring their children to see them? These are the kind of films you watch with your partner and your teenagers watch secretly at their friends house when their parents are still at work. At least half of the horror movies I have seen (over 500) are not cool to watch with parents. That goes for maybe 75% of films that are rated R. One time I watched Scary Movie at a friends house and her dad and uncle insisted on watching it with us... it was sooo awkward. This is why households normally have two tvs or more, so this doesn't have to happen.
Change American Politics through VOTE SWAPPING!
https://www.facebook.com/VoteSwap2012
That sounds suspiciously like a set-up for a gang bang, mate!
Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!
[deleted]
Ummm.... Footage of the vagina would entail penetration. I would say there are no glimpses of the vagina.
shareWhat MPAA rules? There has never been any rule that says actresses must have pubic hair.
Have you seen My Bloody Valentine 3D? No pubic hair and it too is rated R. There have been others - non mainstream - that show women completely shaved down below and it was allowed by the MPAA:
Running Scared
Code 46
Just One Of The Girls
and I'm sure there were others, these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
My question is where you got the notion that the MPAA has rules against this?
It's not just a notion. The shaved look is something that until the past decade or so has been commonly associated with porn. If there is an erect penis or a close-up of lady parts, it's generally an automatic NC-17. But as you mentioned, this apparently isn't the first time... I see where the original poster is coming from, though. A clear shot of labia is much more graphic than a mound of hair.
shareCan you name a movie that got an NC-17 for showing close ups of lady parts? I can't think of one. Also your comparison of close up lady parts to erect penises makes no sense. An erect penis means it is in a state of arousal. That doesn't mean a close up of a vulva is the same unless it too is shown in a state of arousal as well. The nude girls in this movie didn't have aroused vulvas so if they showed that in close up, the movie would still (and should still be) rated R not NC-17.
My point is body parts never equal a rating. It's the context that makes the difference not the body parts shown.
Since when does the MPAA do things consistently, or come up with any coherent rules that make it possible for filmmakers to navigate with any certainty? This is the same organization that gave Open Range the same rating as Hostel, for God's sake. I don't see NC-17 movies, the few that get released. Virtually no one will release them without editing it down to an R, so that's not really a fair question, but Eva Green in The Dreamers would be one example. In the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, they talk about The Cooler being slapped initially with an NC-17, and that was only a fairly quick shot of Maria Bello's pubic hair. It has to be one of the most inept groups of so-called professionals in the world.
shareThe MPAA is not consistent with any rules, you are right. That's why I questioned the OP regarding the supposed rules on shaved female genitals.
Also, The Cooler was NC-17 not because of Maria Bello's pubic hair but because a man's head was shown there, close to her genitals (that's what a member of the MPAA confirmed). Still, I disagree with that NC-17 rating. Maria Bello starred in another movie called A History of Violence where she goes full frontal and you see her pubic hair and portions of her vulva/labia. That movie was rated R - no man's head was shown near her genitals in that scene.
And according to some people, the R rated version of The Dreamers contained the closeup shot of Eva Green's vulva.
I just don't see how anyone can claim an erect penis is equal to a closeup shot of a vulva. 2 movies I mentioned above (Code 46 and Running Scared) contained closeups of completely shaved vulva shots and both were rated R.
I do, however, agree with you regarding the MPAA being inconsistent and inept on many things.
What is Just One of the Girls? I've heard of the others you mentioned? Can't find it on IMDB.
shareJust One Of The Girls is a comedy that starred the late Corey Haim. It was also known as Anything For Love (www.imdb.com/title/tt0107292/). It's a rare find these days so you'll probably find it on Amazon for over $20 used.
Anyway, the movie is rated R and contains a girls locker room scene in a high school that contains full frontal female nudity, including one girl that is completely shaved down below, zero pubic hair. This movie was released back in 1993.
Huh. I didn't think Brazilian waxing had caught on in America until the past decade. It's had a long association with porn, but not being a connoseur of that, I don't know how long that's been the case. 1970s women sure seemed to allow the bush to run wild. I read that Playboy's first spread featuring a model with no hair was in 2001 (Dalene Kurtis). Do you know anything about that?
shareAnybody?
shareThis post is much too personal and inappropriate but what the hell...
Ok aworgill. All I've got to say is that it should no longer be associated with porn at it isn't. People shave out of consideration for their partners. My girlfriend was apprehensive one time because she said she didn't trim. I told her that was no problem... but the next time, it was evident we both spent a little time with the clippers and the razor. Gender equality.
I'm not saying it should be associated with porn, just that it has been. I know it's become very stylish. I'm a fan. And I'm not trying to be inappropriate, just asking some general questions. As I said, it's fairly rare to see in major Hollywood releases.
share[deleted]
actually my bloody valentine has a woman who shows her bush. so, she wasn't unshaven but she did show her vagina though.
shareI thought the whole underwater scene was done with CGI. I mean at one point it looked like a cartoon and also irl I don't think they could've held their breath was so long. They were down there for ages.
shareI thought the whole underwater scene was done with CGI. I mean at one point it looked like a cartoon and also irl I don't think they could've held their breath was so long. They were down there for ages.
This is what I thought. It didn't look real at all. I think it could've been kinda sexy if the girls kept their bottoms on, and without the CGI altering. share
Not since the Hayes board censors wayback when ...nudists films were a favorite for distributors trying to smash the whole ratings system. It was found that since no explicit sex was 'performed' they could not censor them. These were also well renound for having naked children depicted along with adults in them as well. They were picnicing, swimming, exercising and generally doing whatever with no clothes on and still never performed explicit acts on one another. Since it was voluntary naturalist's footage, much like home movies there was little the censors could do since they had little pull over such footage ever being filmed anyway. Hayes opponents made a killing on this theme always staying ahead of the censors whatever they'd censor, opponents would slip past them on Constitution-al grounds. Hence Male or female genatalia was in free regalia which is what the new MPAA has been trying to get full reign on ever since. This censorship is un-Constitutional here in the US but the 'powers that be' seem to get a bigger & bigger handle on this and thus parents have given this vital role over to said MPAA instead of parenting & censoring their own children.
I don't get it ...My father drove out of a drive-in when I was litle just when the word *beep* was uttered ...that was parenting at work!!! No harm, No foul ...I don't remember what movie but I remember this is what He did. I do believe it was mainstream double-feature 'G' or 'PG' film followed by an 'R".
Anyhow I wasn't emotionally scared by the event either were my brothers or sisters. Actually after reading all the hipocracy on IMDB it makes me laugh at ridiculous posts/counter posts as to what is right or wrong ...no one can possibly speak for everyone. Thank God!!!! Thank Allah!! Thank whomever-you-are.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
[deleted]
I don't find it sexist at all. It's a fact that the breasts of a woman arouse men MUCH more than the torso, even a well built torso, of a man. Men are allowed to walk around topless, women do not because breasts are equated with sex organs. You already got your equivalent to 'vag' shots long ago, and you get to see them in a ton of movies, while women had to sit through the movies staring at tits and not getting any type of male sexual shots. It's a matter of equality? Ok. So butt shots are ok for men and women. And women reveal breasts which are not shown in general because they are too sexual. What can guys reveal that is sexual? Obviously genitals, there's nothing else that's generally covered up. So if you want to get some vag shots, I say quit your b*tching and give the women something else to even the score.
Or, you could just watch your movies for actual content and keep the sex to the many forms of very easily available porn.
Move to NYC, You can go topless if you wish... I believe this is the first law of it's kind anywhere in the US.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york
...I don't know if this applies to movie theaters however if you're not affiliated with the theatere itself then its safe to say its a go topless!!!
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
That sequence was sheer celluloid poetry. Excellent use of classical music and both actresses were bangin' hot.
I'm a totally bitchin' bio writer from Mars!
excellent scene nice b00bs
shareabsolutely! sheer celluloid poetry. so well thought out, conceived, and executed. such a beautiful scene. so graceful and so beautiful to look at, not just because of their beautiful naked bodies but because of the elegant way it's shot and the beautiful underwater surroundings.
share