I saw Queen Latifah nude
Not bad really, I'm impressed
shareI thought her breastst were saggy.
shareReal boobs tend to sag when you get older.
shareShe had a breast reduction several years ago.
Carpe Noctem!
MovieChat Forums > Bessie (2015) Discussion > I saw Queen Latifah nude
I was impressed by her skin. She's 10 years older than me and in your 30s you think about elasticity and complexion more. Her skin was beautiful. I want mine to stay this way and look as good as hers when i hit 45 too.
shareJust a guess but I think it's because she never had children.
shareThat's why I was surprised they were saggy like that-she had no kids. I know she's in her 40's but damn!
I couldn't believe she went there. Very brave.
Excuse me--ya'll lookin' for a dead body??
They should had gotten her a body double for that scene. That was the worst thing I ever seen in a movie.
shareI'll never eat pancakes again...
Son, you can't polish a turd
If it's realistic, it should stay in... Bodies to fap over are for porn.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
Strongly disagree...If there is a reason (e.g. The Elephant Man) to assault the eyes for the sake of the story, then OK. Otherwise No, No, X1000!
I tried to contain myself but I escaped.
There was a reason. People don't just tend to go nekkid in front of a camera for the sake of it. I forget what the context was, but there was a context, and if you ask the writer, I'm sure they could tell you why they put that in there.
What I suspect YOU mean is that no reason could be good enough to convince you to watch that... Which is fine, but does mean that you're immature, and the reason would be lost on you, anyway. It's just skin; adults would be fine with it - if you're not fine with it, then your mentality is not adult enough to watch.
Your mother puts licence plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!
There is a lot of discussion about the amount of gratuitous nudity is on both TV and in the movies. So your statement that nobody gets naked for the sake of nudity is wrong. The studios go over all degrees of nudity required with the actors. If they won't comply, they don't get the part. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that zero nudity is "required" to tell a story, as none was found in movies up until the '60s, and people went to see them anyway. Married couples on TV had to sleep in separate beds and cleavage was unheard of. Yet the stories got told and people watched. So studios put nudity in productions because they believe it draws customers. There is no there reason.
My post was a little bit of humor suggesting that ugly bodies aren't fun to look at naked. Perhaps when you're older and have gained some maturity, you'll understand the difference in my statement and what you THOUGHT you read.
I tried to contain myself but I escaped.
Gratuitous nudity involving Queen Latifah... Your statement makes no sense; you say that few people would be interested in seeing Latifah naked, and then you say that the studios put it there to draw people in... One of these propositions HAS to be wrong, by your own argument.
There is always a reason, no matter how spurious it might be... You might not agree with it and you might find it insubstantial, but it's always there. Sometimes, as you say, it's to make money - since this is an HBO production, there will be some kind of thematic justification instead. With the greatest of respect to Ms. Latifah, this cannot be gratuitous, since she's not enough of a sex symbol for people to tune in JUST for that (although I'm still being kinder to her than you have been!)
Zero explicit nudity was ALLOWED before the 60's because of The Hayes Code... There is a very big difference between what is allowed, and what is required. Just because film-makers in those days had to skirt around the issue does not necessarily mean that it was the most effective - or indeed, preferred - way to tell a story.
If I need to be older to find sophomoric and shallow statements funny, then I'd rather be the age that I am, thanks...
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
No contradiction in my post, you're just looking for one. Nobody wants to see bad bodies in a movie, that would make no sense whatsoever, unless they just want to see HOW bad a particular actor is based upon what they've heard from others who have seen the movie. That's why most nudity is of people already known to be attractive.
I tried to contain myself but I escaped.
I don't disagree with you there - but you aren't following my argument… There WILL be a reason for this scene to be included, even if it isn't immediately obvious… Of course, you're perfectly entitled to be uncomfortable with its inclusion, even if I think this makes you a little bit childish… You replied to me, so I think it's best to just agree to disagree, and move on.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
If that was the "worst thing" you've ever seen in a movie, I'm guessing you've seen about 5 or 6 total?
shareIt was just a joke. Damn.
And a dumb one. Damn.
shareI thought the naked scene was amazing and maybe one of the bravest things I've ever seen in a movie. I call it naked instead of nude because that's what she did- she bares the essential her to herself in the mirror. No clothes, no wig, no jewelry, no eyelashes. It was meant to be profoundly private and intimate for only Bessie. I didn't think the rest of the movie was too bad but that scene blew me away.
share