MovieChat Forums > Flight (2012) Discussion > Nude scene

Nude scene

posted 12 years ago by annette513
310 replies | jump to latest

I wanted to walk out of the theatre after that first scene. That girl Nadine was not necessary in terms of walking around like that completely butt naked. I mean they can show that they had sex without having us see her 10 foot nipple or every hair on her body. I just would like to see a movie with my husband that doesn't have a naked woman in it just for shock value, it lasted too long in my opinion. Am I the only one? I ended up loving the movie regardless, but will just fast forward it when I see it on dvd :)

reply

[–] mykedee 12 years ago

yes I would have to say it was just you. The gratuitous nudity went towards the subject matter. And in this situation, yes there are people that are in those kind of situations. The drugs, drinking, sex and nudity, I think Zemecis was establishing a theme, a mental state for the Denzel character. A state of irresponsible behavior. The film is for adults.

reply

[–] epprecht 12 years ago

DID YOU NOTICE THE "R" RATING?

reply

[–] The Guy-2 12 years ago

The OP is a complete buffoon. There is nothing more beautiful than a woman's naked body. It sure as hell got my attention immediately. In Europe there's nudity in TV commercials. I will never understand why people in this country are petrified of nudity.

reply

[–] mechajutaro 12 years ago

The OP is a complete buffoon. There is nothing more beautiful than a woman's naked body. It sure as hell got my attention immediately. In Europe there's nudity in TV commercials. I will never understand why people in this country are petrified of nudity.

Didn't really sense(and he can confirm or deny my read, if he's still checking in with this particular thread)that it was the nudity itself that had him riled up so much as the manner in which it was used. While not an opinion shared by this particular viewer(after an absolutely feral night of doping, booze, and sex such a sight is nothing less than accurate), give credit where credit is due; this isn't an objection fueled by knee-jerk prudery.

reply

[–] The Guy-2 12 years ago

It most definitely is an objection fueled by knee jerk prudery. Nobody seems to mind in this country the over the top graphic violence in movies like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or even END OF WATCH but God forbid a woman does a full frontal nudity for more than 5 minutes...people are outraged. LOL it's hilarious.

I applaud the film maker for being truthful.

Nothing upsets me more than when I see a movie and the lead actress is having sex with her top on because she won't do nudity. Sarah Jessica Parker did that for years on SEX AND THE CITY. Or the scene in just about every movie where the couple just finished having sex, yet the actress covers herself while they talk, post sex. If they're going to go for realism in movies about war, go for it when showing intimacy as well.

I applaud Robert Zemeckis.

reply

[–] zkpip 12 years ago

The naked human female body is TRULY a sight to behold, and I will NEVER be ashamed to admire it! Why ELSE would God, or whatever, have designed such a magnificent entity? Human skin, and the parts it covers are MEANT to be looked at, and I will never be convinced otherwise!

reply

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 12 years ago

Because we r fat azz viagra taking Americans who need to put our chips down, spread our butt cheeks more and them some. That's what I gotta say.

reply

[–] IheartCali5882 12 years ago

Meh she was a tad on the skinny side. Not curvy enough. Aside from that, you're right. The nudity wasn't at all necessary.

However I went to see it with my husband, and I really don't care. I forgot about it as soon as the scene was over. No need to be so uptight. It's just some tits & ass. You'll be ok.

reply

[–] jayman333 12 years ago

I loved it chick was hot. I have no clue why most people are crying about it its a rated R movie wth do you expect?

reply

[–] cbartal 12 years ago

W-W-W-W-Wait a minute....

That was Catalina from Earl?

I'm actually crying copious tears of joy right now just internalizing that fact.

reply

[–] greydonsquare 12 years ago

A bit on the skinny side? I guess you missed her round rump, but hey, who's looking or noticing, anyway?

reply

[–] mdiersbock 12 years ago

Want a secret to a LONG HAPPY marriage?

Let your husband see nude women.

I know... I know... you don't get it.

It's a guy thing.

We also don't understand why you like flowers.

Nude = Flowers.

reply

[–] inko8 12 years ago

f-l-o-w-e-r-s... that's a funny way to spell penis.

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

reply

[–] DarkTheater 12 years ago

While not the least bit offended by the naked female form, I agree nudity really is never needed. It's dirty men tricking actresses into getting naked. TV manages to imply nudity all the time without showing anything.

This signature has been lightly massaged by an administrator

reply

[–] filmfan887 12 years ago

Well, it thought it was just too long. Zemeckis could have just shown a bare back, bare butt, or even just arms/legs...but it is what it is.

reply

[–] Godnesss 12 years ago

OP's mistake was posting on the IMDB board which is filled with guys who go at their dicks multiple times every day like a landlord trying to collect rent.

With that said as a guy I went to see this with some of my roommates and found the scene way too long. Fun thing to do is look around the theater and watch how people are reacting. The majority of girls/wives I saw began txting while some guys awkwardly looked away and others didn't.

I found the scene just way too long to where it got awkward. The girls that were coming with us canceled last minute, thank heavens I didn't have to see next to them..

reply

[–] mikkit9298 12 years ago

I had an interesting conversation with my teenage daughter about this very thing. She thought it was unnecessary and at first I agreed. But while talking through it I ended up thinking the scene did exactly what it was supposed to. Whip was clearly flawed and the scene made us see him as a man with no values, carrying on in this cheap, sordid way. It did not glorify the sex or the drugs The flight attendant was also cheapened by the whole thing...we as the audience really don't like either of them. And that's why when we see her behave heroically and she looks so angelic in that picture at the hearing we begin to understand that duality, that they are both way more than the worst thing they've done. The scene made me uncomfortable for its length and I think we were supposed to be uncomfortable--that it is the very opening scene is also deliberate. I think it really works.

reply

[–] galaxychick 12 years ago

The scene made me uncomfortable for its length and I think we were supposed to be uncomfortable--that it is the very opening scene is also deliberate. I think it really works.

I think it was "in your face" realism. Deliberate lack of sugar coating things. People waking up after a night of sexual intercourse and wandering around naked in the privacy of their room while getting dressed is realistic. The girl had a nice body but it was not over glorified. The scene had a pragmatic feel to it.

Same as the scene of Denzel's full "moon" in the hospital gown. In the theater I was in, the audience went "whoa" with a few guffaws. That "moon" shot dragged a bit too. I guess they wanted to make sure that we get it that he had no underwear under that gown, LOL.

reply

[–] txsiimk 12 years ago

I never understqand people who complain about nudity but don't say a word about violence. Gimme a break, if you wanted to walk out, you would have, i don't think anyone would of stopped you.

reply

1
2
3