MovieChat Forums > Creature (2011) Discussion > How come the most attractive woman in th...

How come the most attractive woman in these films never show nudity?


Is it just me, or doesn't it seem like the most attractive woman in a slasher film doesn't ever show nudity. This movie is an example, because serinda swan didn't show ANY nudity, gosh dangit. And she is the most attractive woman in this movie. It just seemed to me like this is a trend in slasher films. It might be because the most attractive women in slasher films are usually the heroine or damsel in distress, so they end up surviving hence not showing any nudity. Because of the moral implications of showing nudity or having sex in a slasher film. Oh, and the most attractive woman in slasher films usually are the heoine or damsel in distress because the director wants them to be because usually they are the most important woman character and they usually have the most screen time as far as the women in the film go. Can you guys give some reasons why this happens so much?

reply

It might be a matter of people thinking that they might go on to better things, and they might hold out to do nudity until they're offered a decent paycheck to do so. I'm thinking that the cast and crew of "Creature" was paid in sandwiches and food stamps.

reply

[deleted]

what do you mean by "paid?" and the director never pays the actors.

reply

what did you mean by, "it might be a matter of people thinking that they might go on to better things?" why would showing nudity in a movie like creature make it so where you wouldn't be able to be in better things?

reply

<<<I'm thinking that the cast and crew of "Creature" was paid in sandwiches and food stamps. >>>

I wouldn't be surprised. As an actor I see breakdowns every day and a surprising amount of them are offer no more than food, copy and credit as "pay" (sometimes they actually say good karma). The sad part is there are a lot of actors that believe that the exposure they get will further their careers so they work for free and the majority of the times it's for nothing. Of course this only applies to non-union work but then it costs $3000 to join the union (assuming you have enough waivers)

"If you hate it when people post signatures they are 100% proud of and try to get others to join them, and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature"

reply

Yeah, I wonder the same thing though with the Friday the 13th remake, while Panabaker of course didn't show anything Julianna Guill was more than sufficiently attractive and showed a lot. It's not often that nudity comes from an actor that is actually attractive in horror films because there's this belief that doing a nude scene in a horror film really limits an actor's career from that point forward as it becomes pretty much the only thing said actor is known for.

reply

Well it's really a matter of taste because the full frontal chick
and Lauren Schneider are very attractive IMO.

reply

Amanda Fuller was the most attractive woman in this film, and she did do nudity.

----
Youre as obvious as Quentin Tarantinos foot fetish.

reply

Yeah, I've never understood this. Serinda isnt a big name at all, she is an actress that has gotten her roles because she is a Hot piece of a$$, make her go topless. & she is probly paid more than the actresses who DO go topless. there is no chance this movie will ever become a big series franchise, Serinda will always be a D-Level film nobody ,who your boobs while you can. Honey you havent been 18 in quite the while, you are called bitches because you age in dog-years.

reply

lol at the bitches statement. wow, that was funny. yeah, she should show her boobs already because in just about 10 years she'll be at the end of her good looking enough to show nudity well and at the end of her looking really good part of her life. when a woman is in her 40s she's not that attractive anymore and that is for just about every woman.

reply