Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

This film was one of the first films to have the PG-13 Rating. A 6 year old could of bought a ticket (and still can) to a PG-13 film without having a parent or adult guardian. The ratings are only a guideline thre not a law binding.
This film btw was PG-13 all the way. You have to freeze frame to see anything in this film and if your doing that you have too much time on your hands. And another thing This film was made for ADULTS your average 12 year old would never want to watch this anyway!

The film doesn't show any full frontal or any other nudity. Nobody with basic common sense would ever consider a split-second moment where you can hardly notice anything unless you use a pause button to be a nude scene.

As I remarked, "AS FAR AS I CAN RECALL." Wikipedia identifies "Porky's" as showing full frontal female nudity. Which, oddly enough, I don't recall, though I thought it was hilarious.
A quick search on IMDB of movies that I saw that were considered "raunchy" at the time shows that American Gigolo, Risky Business, My Tutor, Private School for Girls all showed full nudity (this is from the Parental Advisory section which is not always accurate, and no entries for Private Lessons or Losin' It.) I don't remember having any reaction to those movies.
I distinctly remember being shocked seeing the bush on the screen in TWIR, and I saw it on video probably a year after it was in the theaters.
I only saw The Last Picture Show in the last year and that must have been shocking at that time.

This IS the first film, even with R-rated films, as far as I can recall, that did show full frontal female nudity.
No, it isn't.

This IS the first film, even with R-rated films, as far as I can recall, that did show full frontal female nudity. Maybe I missed one. And I'm not talking adult films aka porn so don't post your "Romancing the Bone" titles please.

This message has been deleted.

Saw IV (2007)
:
Rated R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture throughout, and for language
I haven't seen any of the
Saw
movies, but, it's the "and for language" part that amuses me. So, the MPAA were surprised that people being subjected to
"grisly bloody violence and torture"
might not be so polite about it
?
But then, as Sheila Broflovski said in
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
:
Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids! That's what this war is all about!
"May the Force be with you."
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/jasonsite/gsteele.html

What f* *king prude needs to know that????
Americans
http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/
Learn your damn homophones.

It was the pulling out of the heart that inspired the PG-13 rating in Indiana Jones.
I think movie ratings are a joke. But even worse is when they try to list why with all the lame reasoning. Mild Violence? Yawn. That just means there's fighting. What f* *king prude needs to know that????

No. Absolutely no.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Actually "Poltergeist" and "Gremlins" got the MPAA thinking about the PG-13. In fact I heard "Poltergeist" WAS R rated but Spielberg appealed the rating and won. "Indiana Jones" WAS way too extreme for the PG but not strong enough for an R. The same applies to this movie. Reallywas the quick female nudity at the enough to give this an R? I don't think so. My sister saw it when she was 12 and she didn't grow up to be a sex addict or homicidal maniac! In fact she found the film "silly" and "stupid". She never even commented on the nudity.

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" were the films that proposed the PG-13 rating. They were released PG with disclaimers saying "This film may be too intense for younger children." A few months later, "The Flamingo Kid" was indeed the first film to be rated PG-13, but the film got shelved and wasn't released until December '84. So, "Red Dawn" was the first PG-13 film to be released.
But actually, "Return of the Jedi" was what really sparked the MPAA into thinking about another rating. "Jedi" also carried that "too intense" disclaimer. And I remember some news shows saying that "Jedi" was more violent this time around.
-UJ
http://www.swapadvd.com/index.php?n=1&r_by=JJC
SWAP YOUR DVDS at swapadvd.com.

Swimming pools and beaches too.

Do you really think children need to be protected from a glimpse of a female human body? Better keep 'em away from art museums.
"The truth 24 times a second."

The thing that surprises me is they left the obvious shot that everyone's referring to that would've given this an R today in since it was pretty clearly an accident (or at least unintentional.) I can think of two explanations: Either they didn't want to go through the trouble of reshooting and Kelly LeBrock didn't think it was that big of a deal, or Kelly LeBrock developed an exhibitionist streak and WANTED to leave it in (and possibly even let it happen on purpose.)

This message has been deleted.

so before PG13 came along it was 'pg' or 'R' ?

I'm sure it WOULD be rated R today, but it shouldn't be. We need to scale back the ratings to that family stuff gets a G instead of PG, and PG-13 actually means there is mature content. I was just old enough to see this when it first came out and it didn't warp me at all.
Believe it or not, ratings in the early 80's made more sense than they do now. We're a bunch of freaks now.

I watched this movie again yesterday, the last time I watched it was when I was about 12 and I didnt even notice the beaver shot, it is very brief.
There are a lot of F words in one scene however.

The quick shot of bush, and it was quick, should not warrant an "R" IMO.

no way.PG-13 films should be allowed full frontal nudity.more graphic nudity should be in the R like seeing her .instead of just pubic hair.