Specifically the breastfeeding scene near the opening & the bath scene where we see a glimpse of Andromeda's breast & a full view of her bottom. (likely a body double, but still)
Now remember, this was a movie aimed at kids. So why do you think they were able to get away with the nudity in 1981, but didn't go there in '10? Times have changed?
There are a couple of other threads which discuss the nudity in the film and the film's PG rating.
First, when this film was released in 1981, there was no PG-13 rating. At the time, there was only G, PG, R, and X.
Next, the context of the nudity was considered when rating a film. Back then, nudity while bathing or nursing a baby was not as "bad" as nudity during a sex scene. Plus, the nudity is pretty brief.
I fail to understand why kids have to be protected from nudity especially when we don't seem to care to protect them from violence.
shareAs to this point, I think it's important to distinguish nudity from sex, and sex from violence.
Violence can be shown in a moral context. Children become traumatized by it most often when: a) it is exceedingly graphic and b) when innocent people are victimized (kids are very troubled, even damaged, when they see evil prevail). When kids see violence used against "bad guys", they are actually comforted by the depiction.
Sex, on the other hand, is a bit different. Exposure to the sexual act has been shown time and again to adversely effect children and damage their innocence, regardless of context. So, while some violence may be acceptable for children to view, sex is not.
Nudity, however, does not always mean sex. Brief nudity does not have the same effect on children as the sexual act.
Huh. Is "damaging their innocence" a scientific measure?
Ridiculous.
No, it's a little something this generation is bereft of: common sense.
We see how "damaging their innocence" is a foregone consideration in the Coomer era where grooming and degeneracy reign supreme and we have the most psychologically damaged generation ever.
Congrats on winning, I guess.
Nicely put.
The violence in this movie was also fairly close to cartoon violence, even the smallest child could easily see and understand that the monsters were stop motion.
Yup, and your point about the cartoon violence ties into billy's point above, about how moral-violence is different from graphic-violence, even if it's stop motion. The violence was telling a story in this film, and not just there to be gratuitous.
But with today's generation, nuance and context seems to be lost in a sea of noise.
Things have changed in this regard, mainly the definition/application/perception of "PG."
In 1981, there was no PG-13. Brief nudity was not uncommon for "PG" films ("Hooper", "Splash" and "Sixteen Candles" are just a few that come to mind). Parents at the time knew that a "PG" rated film may contain such elements.
So I disagree that a "PG" film from this era would be considered aimed squarely, or solely, at kids. Older kids, sure.
Secondly, the nudity is - within context - tastefully done. Keep in mind that in 1981, parents weren't as overprotective of kids as today. This type of nudity was not viewed as "bad", necessarily, but pretty innocent, really.
The conversation regarding these issues has gotten very polarized over the years. I think as far as movies go, much of this has to do with the equivocation MPAA critics have made between violence and sex and their lack of appreciation for context. But these things are what make ratings subjective and why they must necessarily be. The violence in "Saving Private Ryan" is not the same as the violence in "Saw" because of their moral & historical context. Similarly, scenes depicting sex are not the same as a brief flash of nudity.
"...in 1981, parents weren't as overprotective of kids as today."
Fully agree. "Helicopter" parenting as gotten far worse in recent years.
Exposure to the sexual act has been shown time and again to adversely effect children and damage their innocence, regardless of context. So, while some violence may be acceptable for children to view, sex is not.
Don't worry, you can watch it with Grandma and the kids since they left the fellatio and anal scenes on the cutting room floor. Including the stop-motion ones.
shareIf innocence means ignorance (about sex, among other things) or lack of experience, why consider it a good thing to preserve?Nearly every society recognizes that children are not developmentally prepared - physically or mentally - for the sexual act. This is the reason why we have consent laws. Can you think of any instance when it is permissible to expose a child to the sexual act? I can not (note that I made the distinction between the act itself and brief nudity or something merely suggestive).
Not sure....but in 1981, I had just turned 5 and was allowed to see this movie in the theater. I doubt kids today would be able to see such a film. I confess as a father, I wouldnt risk it. But I do have to admit, even being 5....I knew that was an awesome sight before I felt my mother's hand covering my eyes during which I could hear my father snickering as I tried to pry them loose.
"Freedom and morality do not go hand in hand. In fact, they are usually devoid of one another."
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen this movie, I don't remember those scenes at all.
shareIt's called, making boring movies. Old time sword and sandals movies always put a little sexy cheesecake in the mix. The studio shills who make movies these days forgot that. P.S. You forgot the nice naked walk on the beach near the beginning of the film.
shareI think two things are different between now and 1981.
First you'll find that a lot of the nudity used for titillation (as opposed to really being needed or naturally a part of the story) has moved to cable now, especially the cable shows on networks such as HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.
I, Claudius is the only show I can think of from the 80's that had nudity, and it was on PBS. I don't know what the first cable network shows to have nudity were, but I know Entourage was one to have it regularly, with many others following.
Second, it isn't at all unusual now to have different versions released for the theater and home video/cable. Often with different ratings. So it's viable for producers to offer a censured version to get more butts in the seats in the theater while knowing they can get a steamier version out when it comes time to release on DVD and cable.
If the postings in this thread and the others on this board are correct and we are forcing our movies to become more repressed in what we want to see in the way of nudity in theaters, I wonder if those same people are being as cautious at home?
Besides, I now see Save The Boobies bumper stickers with cartoon graphics of them (and for a good cause). I don't see the harm in children seeing the real thing now and then to remind them what they really look like. I grew up thinking all coyotes looked like Wile E. Coyote.
Part of the problem with the remake was that Persius was a wimpy looking thing in a full t shirt and skirt while in the original he was.shirtless quite a lot. Same with the princess, what no bath?
A little eye candy can do wonders for a film.
;)
There were premium cable shows with nudity a while before Entourage. The Sopranos, Sex & The City, Six Feet Under, Oz, even the animated adaptation of Spawn (cartoon nudes!). I dunno if HBO's earlier shows, from the late '90s and back, had nudity. The films they played must have shown all.
share1st & Ten was on HBO in the early 1980s and it was a non-stop boob fest. Having said that, back in those days HBO only showed R rated movies at night.
shareI remember watching this in year 6 and when the breastfeeding scene came on all the kids in the room started laughing their asses off (except for me of course). The teacher was threatening to turn the movie off if they didn't shut up, of course they didn't and we all ended up getting in trouble and told to grow up. It's a shame because I was probably the only one interested in watching it, but my *beep* class mates ruined it for me. Pricks!
Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.
Ha! Funny anecdote, Slicky! I imagine showing the same movie today & to the same age group might get a teacher in big trouble.
shareTimes change. Priorities change; they got complaints about gratuitous T&A shots in movies marketed toward children.
sharePeople didn't get as offended back in 1981, we were tougher.
share