Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nudity or Violence
- Thread starter max2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If something's crucial to telling a story, then both are fine by me.
thought this was a thread about marriage 
got to say both, show me an action flick w/o violence
got to say both, show me an action flick w/o violence
Even foreign films ? (BTW I mean no racism or anything by calling a film other than in English that)
unless the tatas speak you can't really tell they are foreign
[doublepost=1530564354][/doublepost]
like so?
Is it not possible to tell a story without either nudity (I assume you mean "female nudity" but just haven't made that explicitly clear; for, after all, male nudity rarely carries the same thrilling frisson for the presumably intended male heterosexual audience) or violence?
Me, I look to the Bechdel Test, and am of the opinion that 1) You can tell a gripping, compelling and powerfully moving story (for example, The Inner Light, one of the best ever episodes of STNG - Star Trek Next Generation) without resorting to either nudity (again, I assume female, and I assume youthful and perkily perfect), or violence (of necessity, in recent years, jaded palates and all that, becoming ever more unnecessarily graphic), and 2) not every audience is comprised solely of young, (or middle aged) heterosexual males.
Some - shock - are female, while others are perhaps gay.
Anyway, plot, narrative, script, acting skill, actual cast, all matter - much more - to me than either nudity or violence.
While nudity and/or violence can add to a movie, used sparingly and judiciously, too often, they substitute for plot, or script. Indeed, some individuals mistake them for plot and/or script.
Last edited:
No I mean male and female nudity. That is why I just said nudity.
I love going back and watching movies from the early 80's.
Holy cow... the boobies...
It was a different time back then...
Holy cow... the boobies...
It was a different time back then...
I love going back and watching movies from the early 80's.
Holy cow... the boobies...
It was a different time back then...
Not really. I seen plenty of films that are made in the 2000s that are like the 80s.
remove the nudity & violence from say games of thrones or magic mike and what do you have left? plenty of times nudity and violence are the story. although as I get older I appreciate sexiness a bit more, say like wonder woman, hot w/o showing anything out of line.
I thought from the thread title you were asking about the "evening news".
Funny thing is, I really didn't notice them back then, now that I'm in my 80's they just pop right out.
"Charlies Angels", gotta love all those nipples.I love going back and watching movies from the early 80's.
Holy cow... the boobies...
It was a different time back then...
Funny thing is, I really didn't notice them back then, now that I'm in my 80's they just pop right out.
If either or both are done in service to the story, that is fine. Given what I watch, both are rampant, and sometimes gratuitous, but for me characters and story come first.
I believe if you look at movies like A Summer Place (1959) where sexuality was relegated to the closet, some vague quality of human relationships, I believe sexual activity, nudity it does not necessesarily have to be R or X rated, (but breasts should be ok) adds gravity and realism to the story. It’s not unreasinable to show intimacy, intimantly, even if it makes us all voyeurs. This already existed in books and boils down to how much of the story should be vividly told? What is there an appetite for?
The issue for at least US audiences is that violence is considered more acceptable for children viewing than nudity or sexual activity. It’s puzzling, but kind of insightful about our qualities, along with the drastic fear that our children may become sexually active before it’s appropriate and maybe screw up their lives.
The issue for at least US audiences is that violence is considered more acceptable for children viewing than nudity or sexual activity. It’s puzzling, but kind of insightful about our qualities, along with the drastic fear that our children may become sexually active before it’s appropriate and maybe screw up their lives.
Last edited:
I think gratuitous inclusion of either is generally not needed, and many times it doesn't add to a story.
There is definitely an appetite for violence. Of interest are PG-13 movies that involve extreme violence sanitized for youngsters. Just saw one Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.
Are the youngsters really being shielded when a dino stands over a man and he screams as he is being ripped to pieces, yet you don’t see the ripped flesh? Even though we do see bodies being violently dismembered without the gore.
I feel that a story like this benefits from the violence, while questioning it’s appropriateness for children. It numbs us, while conceding this kind of violence is still relegated to the movie experience for most of us. We would still be horrified and traumatized to experience this kind violence in the real world. It’s the Columbine types you have to worry about.
I’ll also critique the vagueness of this thread’s poll and ask what kind of info is being sought, positive or negative? Are people choosing nudity and/or violence positively or negatively, as in which is best or worst? There is no way to tell in the poll results, is there?
[doublepost=1530628413][/doublepost]
I agree with the bolded completely.
That said, this seems like a good opportunity to make a comparison. From a narrative standpoint, which gives a story more impact or umph if you prefer, an implied sexual activity or vividly displayed sexual intercourse?
Two examples, the Cat house in Paint Your Wagon where in a PG rated scene (due to its nature) Clint Eastwood presents the teenage boy of devote parents to a prostitute vs a relatively vivid R rated scene from Game of Thrones in a House of Pleasure, which has obligatory nudity.
I’d argue that both can work and both are of an adult nature equally deserving of being shielded from children unless you want to answer awkward questions. I’ll also submit that important plot points, can and realistically are revealed while two people are in an amorous undressed state and it seems like once we get into their bedrooms, at least some level of visual realism adds to the story.
Are the youngsters really being shielded when a dino stands over a man and he screams as he is being ripped to pieces, yet you don’t see the ripped flesh? Even though we do see bodies being violently dismembered without the gore.
I feel that a story like this benefits from the violence, while questioning it’s appropriateness for children. It numbs us, while conceding this kind of violence is still relegated to the movie experience for most of us. We would still be horrified and traumatized to experience this kind violence in the real world. It’s the Columbine types you have to worry about.
I’ll also critique the vagueness of this thread’s poll and ask what kind of info is being sought, positive or negative? Are people choosing nudity and/or violence positively or negatively, as in which is best or worst? There is no way to tell in the poll results, is there?
[doublepost=1530628413][/doublepost]
I agree with the bolded completely.
That said, this seems like a good opportunity to make a comparison.
From a narrative standpoint, which gives a story more impact or umph if you prefer, an implied sexual activity or vividly displayed sexual intercourse?Two examples, the Cat house in Paint Your Wagon where in a PG rated scene (due to its nature) Clint Eastwood presents the teenage boy of devote parents to a prostitute vs a relatively vivid R rated scene from Game of Thrones in a House of Pleasure, which has obligatory nudity.
I’d argue that both can work and both are of an adult nature equally deserving of being shielded from children unless you want to answer awkward questions.
I’ll also submit that important plot points, can and realistically are revealed while two people are in an amorous undressed state and it seems like once we get into their bedrooms, at least some level of visual realism adds to the story.
Last edited:
There is definitely an appetite for violence. Of interest are PG-13 movies that involve extreme violence sanitized for youngsters. Just saw one Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.
Are the youngsters really being shielded when a dino stands over a man and he screams as he is being ripped to pieces, yet you don’t see the ripped flesh? Even though we do see bodies being violently dismembered without the gore.
I feel that a story like this benefits from the violence, while questioning it’s appropriateness for children. It numbs us, while conceding this kind of violence is still relegated to the movie experience for most of us. We would still be horrified and traumatized to experience this kind violence in the real world. It’s the Columbine types you have to worry about.
I’ll also critique the vagueness of this thread’s poll and ask what kind of info is being sought, positive or negative? Are people choosing nudity and/or violence positively or negatively, as in which is best or worst? There is no way to tell in the poll results, is there?
[doublepost=1530628413][/doublepost]
I agree with the bolded completely.
That said, this seems like a good opportunity to make a comparison.
Two examples, the Cat house scene in Paint Your Wagon where in a PG rated scene (due to its nature) Clint Eastwood presents the teenage boy of devote parents to a prostitute vs a relatively vivid R rated scene from Game of Thrones in a House of Pleasure, which has obligatory nudity.
I’d argue that both can work and both are of an adult nature equally deserving of being shielded from children unless you want to answer awkward questions.
There are movies where violence - used sparingly but tellingly - emphasises what the story wants to tell you, but it serves to support the story, even if and when the story itself actually is about worlds, and empires created with violence and tells of its effect - personal, professional, psychological - on those the story is actually about.
To my mind, The Godfather !, and, above all, The Godfather Part II are outstanding movies, and I wouldn't remove one second of some of the graphic scenes in either movie; this is because they serve to underline the story and add to it.
But, even though the story arc is all about power and influence achieved though violent means (and tells, too, of the souls and relationships lost in the process and the cost of it all and toll it takes on those who pursue their ambitions by violent and illicit means) the violence never takes over or takes place at the expense of the story.
However, I would argue that a scene that is every bit as compelling and chilling a scene - as the clearly and openly violent ones - (and they are operatic in their choreographed brilliance, the murder of Fanucci is superlative in how it is portrayed on screen) is the terrifying and tragic scene at the very end when Fredo is killed on the orders of his brother. You don't see it. You hardly hear it. But you most certainly feel it in the very fibre of your being.
Last edited:
Agreed! The Godfather is an amazing, artistic film, with exquisite violence that brilliantly supports the nature of this story. If the story is going to be told, it should be told vividly in the right quantities. This is the perfect example of when seeing the impact of violence on the human body trumps implied violence, such as seeing someone walk though a door and hearing shots. To some degree the same argument can be made about sex if and when it is germaine to the story, and not as a replacement for story.
I don't mind either but I don't care for either to be too overt.
Violence: I prefer it be limited to what you'd see in a classic action movie not a modern horror movie. Such as squib packs for getting shot. Some cuts and bruises from a fight. I don't care for wanton gore. Such as half a head blown off, realistic torture, suffering from wounds, &c. I'll just skip past it if a scene is drawn out long enough to do so.
Nudity: I don't mind nudity by itself male or female. Once it gets to the point of groping, making out or mimicking sexual acts I fast forward. It adds nothing to the story.
I do a lot of fast forwarding in Game of Thrones. Doesn't hurt the story telling any.
Of course with Netflix I find I fast forward a lot of boring scenes in other shows too. The Marvel series aren't half bad if you skip through all the chatting of bad guys and expanding their personal relationships that doesn't progress the plot. Luke Cage probably wastes an hour and a half each season just showing singers and bands playing in that night club with no story progression at all. Although not Marvel. The Flash wastes hours with the heroes whining, waffling and experiencing relationship angst which you can skip right through without effecting the plot.
Violence: I prefer it be limited to what you'd see in a classic action movie not a modern horror movie. Such as squib packs for getting shot. Some cuts and bruises from a fight. I don't care for wanton gore. Such as half a head blown off, realistic torture, suffering from wounds, &c. I'll just skip past it if a scene is drawn out long enough to do so.
Nudity: I don't mind nudity by itself male or female. Once it gets to the point of groping, making out or mimicking sexual acts I fast forward. It adds nothing to the story.
I do a lot of fast forwarding in Game of Thrones. Doesn't hurt the story telling any.
Of course with Netflix I find I fast forward a lot of boring scenes in other shows too. The Marvel series aren't half bad if you skip through all the chatting of bad guys and expanding their personal relationships that doesn't progress the plot. Luke Cage probably wastes an hour and a half each season just showing singers and bands playing in that night club with no story progression at all. Although not Marvel. The Flash wastes hours with the heroes whining, waffling and experiencing relationship angst which you can skip right through without effecting the plot.
Nudity doesn't bother me much by why when there's a male an female lead do they need to have sex?
I do however like a bunch of CG violence
I do however like a bunch of CG violence
Demi Moore and Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men. They weren't even romantically involved.
In the same respect that movie is 25 years old and there was far less nudity and violence, or lets say more innocent nudity and violence.