Nudity! - Trail of the Pink Panther (1982) Discussion

[–] IsoscelesKramer 20 years ago

I was pleasantly surprised to see that as well, IMHO it is the movie's only saving grace. Anyway the movie got a PG rating because in 1982 there was no PG-13 rating and to give it an R rating would have been too harsh.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Progoth 20 years ago

those movies were probably re-rated...the pg-13 rating was created in 1984. sometimes they do rerate movies (the one that comes to mind is a clockwork orange [X->R]) and sometimes they don't (one that comes to mind is 16 candles).

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] usaywat_1 20 years ago

its just boobs people get over it

Bad Boys Bad Boys, What You Gonna Do?

reply

[–] bdiddy1123 16 years ago

mmm, boobs

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Heck, at the time at least one gratuitous breast shot was basically required for PG... otherwise it'd be G.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

at where or who did you read that or hear that from?

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

I lived it. I don't remember going to any PG movies in the 70s that didn't have a gratuitous breast shot. I pretty much ignored them and didn't think anything of it... in the last few years we've seen a couple of movies we've watched with our teens who were about the same age we were when we first saw them and the kids were rather shocked. My daughter was offended and didn't understand why I hadn't reacted.

Think about it: the Bond movies, the Airplane movies, basically anything that wasn't a family movie like The Apple Dumpling Gang.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

see I just don't understand that because all my life I've thought of PG movies as kid movies, you know and they still are. they are kids movies that maybe have some adult things in them, but no nudity or sex. aren't PG movies kids movies? I mean, they have to be right because even PG-13 movies are kids movies and they are more adult than PG movies. even PG-13 movies nowadays don't ever have nudity.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

I love that you brought up 16 candles because that movie is the ultimate and most perfect example of a movie which should have been rated PG-13 when it first came out, though I'm not sure if they had PG-13 when it came out. I mean, when I watched it, boobs in the shower scene. I mean, like how did they allow that in a PG movie? and the same is true of this movie, them rerating it wouldn't make them not rating it R when it first came out acceptable.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

but that's not true or right. in this case you have to air on the side of safety which is to give it an R rating. no kid should see boobs in a movie unless their parent thinks it's ok.

reply

[–] romic01 20 years ago

Well,it was rated with a NC-16 rating here in Spore,which i feel was very fair..due to brief nudity.

reply

[–] jutuomin 12 years ago

In Finland this film is rated K7 (which is the lowest rating a film can get that is still not for everyone - for everyone is K3). I don't remember much of the film, but I'd say it is a good rating..
The Finnish Board of Film Classification makes usually good decisions (although in 1980s they made some horrible ones that are now corrected with a law).
(And in Finland nudity is not a big deal - even children films can have nudity without affecting ratings.)

This classification was made in 1982 and after that it was released by several movie rental stores with an unchecked K8 rating (in 1994 and 1995).

EDIT:
To make myself a little more clear..
K7 means that the films is considered not to be harmful for a child of 7 years old and older. There are several factors that take place. Nudity is of course one, but only when it's in sexual context. Then there is violence, gore and horror elements in visual and sound..
Contrary to MPAA in Finland cursing is not a factor when deciding a film rating. It is considered a bad habbit, but not to be any way harmful for a child to hear cursing.

reply

[–] MinervaMoon 19 years ago

I dunno. People usually say that several years or decades ago, movie ratings were stricter. Sometimes I find it to be quite the opposite. As long as there was no sex, I guess they thought that breasts were okay.

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here: this is the War Room!

reply

[–] tylerrabbit 19 years ago

Here in the USA, ratings have become more strict on nudity and less on violence over the past couple decades. It's not just because PG13 hadn't been implemented in the early eighties. Today if a movie has a breast, it gets an R. If it has ultraviolence like LOTR it gets a PG13. This illogical attitude, (which suggests a human breast is more dangerous for kids to be exposed to than war, bloodshed, gore, and cruelty) is very indicative of how backwards our culture can be over here. Don't get me wrong I'm a huge fan of the LOTR Trilogy and breasts as well, I'm just making a point about the ratings system. Stepping off the soapbox now... peace yall.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harsawa 18 years ago

I don't see why nudity is considered grounds for an R rating yet graphic violence is accepted, while anyways on to the subject, this would not be the only time this has happened in the 80's. Look at both Airplane! movies, while the first only had a brief sequence of nudity the 2nd had quite a few shots of nudity and both got a "PG" rating the last I checked. I don't see this happening now a days; but it's probably because whether the movie had nudity or not, if the rest of the content was not deserving of an "R" rating then they probably got away with a lower rating.

---
Oh my god! You killed Fritz! You yellow stinking fairies killed Fritz!

reply

[–] FinnurE 18 years ago

Erm, there's nothing objectionable about nudity, unless presented in graphic sexual context.

reply

[–] rjackson7 18 years ago

I agree with Revolution - the point is that the nudity was NOT in a sexual context - that makes a very obvious difference as far as ratings go. It is quite common for kids to see breasts in a non-sexual context, so I have no problem with the PG rating in this case. A good point about ratings getting more lenient on violence, but I think the main thing is that there are no firm rules - great competence is needed in this area and it seems that the people making the decisions sometimes have no idea. After a ridiculously wrong rated movie in recent times? Check out The Sons Room. Should have been G (*maybe* PG), got an R.

reply

[–] adl1484 18 years ago

Titanic had boobs and it wasnt R.

reply

[–] ewhsxuw 18 years ago

i don't think it was sexual, after those two women were making wine, and making wine is not in anyway pornographic, i think.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

exactly, so that's why American pie gets an R rating though it deserves an r for it's sexual content, but actually it's far more damaging to a child than the Airplane! movies. the biggest mistake in movie rating history is Tourist Trap's PG rating. I mean, like come on. I wouldn't let some adults watch this film because it is that scary, suspenseful, traumatic, emotionally and mentally damaging and mentally scar inducing with it's deep, dark suspense, intensity, and violence.

reply

[–] MaPhPo 17 years ago

exactly!! ...please people listen to 'tylerrabbit' ...do your own thinking ...don't just swallow the crap the establishment is feeding you... switch on your brains!

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

sometimes, how about all the time? movie ratings nowadays are so amazingly and stupidly and pointlessly strict it's absurd and ridiculous. don't ever show nudity or sex in your movie or else...

reply

[–] Dean-29 16 years ago

Sarcasm is a lost art.
You may want to brush up on it.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 13 years ago

Boobs are worshipped in my church along with nipples, coal buckets and naked pictures of Raymond Burr.

Absolute perfection in the face of woofing!

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

In the '70s it was fairly common for PG films to have brief nudity, but I was surprised by that scene in this film, which is anything but brief. Still, because it wasn't sexual, it passed the censors. Frankly, it was the highlight of the film for me.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

exactly it was by far the best scene in this movie because it was so flaming, fire hot! wow, those girls are hot!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]