MovieChat Forums > Clash of the Titans (1981) Discussion > There was an awful lot of nudity in this...

There was an awful lot of nudity in this for a PG movie at the time.

posted 14 years ago by GreenGoblinsOckVenom86
63 replies | jump to latest

I don't hate this movie and I admit I've not seen so many PG movies from that time but this movie showed a woman's boob nipple and all. Then there were scenes where it showed a woman and a little boy walking down a beach naked from behind showing their butts. Then it showed a woman getting up from a bath from behind showing her butt. I didn't really know they could do this at the time. Are there very many other PG movies from this time with this much nudity?

Kelloway: Doyle, get in the car.
Doyle: But I ordered Onion Rings.
Kelloway: Doyle!

[–] MirrorofReflection 13 years ago

I'm sure if we put coal up people's asses now, diamonds would become a dime a dozen.

[–] BoxOfficePoison 11 years ago

Well said!

Doesn't look like anyone's mentioned it yet, but another PG movie with a great boob shot was Airplane! (1980). Loved that shot when I was 13!

I noticed practically all female nudity, even in R movies, came screeching to a halt in the self-righteous, politically correct, goody-goody '90s. (The real tragedy there was that Kevin Costner's naked butt started showing up in every movie -- and not just the R-rated ones -- during the same period. How's that for a gender-based double standard?)

[–] jbirtel-1 11 years ago

Yup!
A woman's boob, nipple and all
(and what's wrong with a nipple on a boob?)

A couple of female butt cheeks?

And you say there's a problem?

How bout PLANET OF THE APES (1968); rated G !
with Charlton Heston (Taylor), Robert Gunner (Landon) and Jeff Burton (Dodge)
showing off their behinds while running to the waterhole.
And let's not forget Taylor's trial.

(but in all fairness, POTA was originally rated "M" during it's 1st release.
And a rating of M in 1968 did not mean mature audience only.
It was a 'heads up alert for parents)

Bonnie & Clyde was also rated M in 1967, but now it's officially 'R' on DVD % Bluray.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BobFillmore 10 years ago

God forbid... boobs.
It all depends on context, and I feel sorry for those that can't see the beauty in the human body.
Artists have tried to capture this for centuries, and largely succeeded.
Please get your mind out of the gutter... unless the context is appropriate.
It's possible to appreciate both art, and porn... separately... and it's great when the two can combine.

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

This was a normal thing back then, Sixteen Candles was PG as well and it has nudity. Growing up in that time period you heard no complaints from us guys. Lol

[–] ltarex 7 years ago

This just shows the prudeness of American people. Here in Europe, back in the day they made lots of movies with shots of full frontal female nudity and those included light-hearted comedies aimed at the whole family. It just didn't bother anyone. And honestly, why would it bother anyone? The human body is a wonderful construct, a miracle of nature, not something needed to be hidden. It's only because of the prudeness of people who believe in a fantasy creature who divided the Red Sea and had a son nailed to a cross, that nudity is thought of as a sin. On the contrary, there is nothing sinful or hideous in a beautiful female (or for that matter, male) body. And being a kid's movie... well, shouldn't kids learn how they'll look like when they grow up?

"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel." 

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Would you feel the same if they deliberately depicted ugly bodies?

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

LOL. Prudeness. You funny.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I believe the word is actually "prudishness."

[–] Cheepshooter (672) 6 years ago

PG meant "Parental Guidance" was recommended. That meant the parent, not some agency somewhere, determined what was or wasn't suitable for their child to watch. It's a novel concept by today's standards. In 1984, PG-13 came out. After that, everything PG was deemed okay for kids, therefore you didn't need to screen it for them.

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

Just watched it on Amazon Prime and was expecting to see some nudy but no. Amazon or someone else edited them out. Normally, I'm against this but this is still basically a kids movie and the BOOBIES probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. Just my opinion.

[–] Starman (412) 4 years ago

I can't imagine many parents would be forbidding a film to a child because of a naked body, certainly not these days, the more they see it the better for them. Innocence is not meant to be hidden.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12345) 4 years ago

I think they took a lot more chances with PG films back in the 80s compared to today. Often movie-makers could get away with a little nudity here, a strong swear word there, so long as the incidents were isolated in the story. It could be seen as the one moment mom and dad have to cover their kids' ears or eyes and then they could continue watching.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

"All the President's Men" had something like twenty seven F-bombs. It was actually originally rated R, but was re-rated to PG on appeal. Perhaps it was considered to have educational/historical value for its treatment of real-world events that were still rather recent at the time.

[–] Techto (1075) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Techto (1075) 2 years ago

Logan’s Run (1976) had a brief shot of female full-frontal nudity (Jenny Agutter) as well as various other scenes of breasts besides. I’d forgotten this until I rewatched it recently on DVD for the first time since I saw it in the theater as a preteen.. Michael York, the male lead, had evidently also forgotten because he let out a little yelp of surprise upon seeing the scene during his watch through for the DVD commentary track.😆