What's with so many 80s movies having random tits in them?
Die Hard, Robocop, Escape From New York, They Live, etc. Not that I'm complaining cause women back then were hotter, but how come the random tit shots in everything didn't really carry over to nowadays?
It was recently ruled to be allowed some time back in the 80's. So therefore every movie had to have a gratuitous tit shot.
Because that was before Hollywood became cucked by feminists/SJW's
>>70911288
Source on this? That's pretty interesting.
When did the PG-13 rating come around? I'd imagine it has something to do with that, especially when you get to a point where studios want PG-13 movies because they can sell better.
So you're saying you want to further the treatment of women as sexual objects? Maybe you should grow up.
>>70911583
It most have been early mid-eighties. I keep hearing that a big factor in its creation was that Raiders of the Lost Ark was too violent for a PG, but not violent enough for an R. The same with Poltergeist, too scary for PG, but not enough for R.
>>70911250
is this copypasta?
you've posted this exact thread before word for word
>>70911756
I've seen it before too but I don't mind cause I like me some 80's tits
>>70911250
Because people were less retarded in the 80s. Basically >>70911353.
Overall, public display of sexuality had degenerated in the late 60s and early 70s, when children could go see porn in usual cinemas and every "intellectual" needed to write an anti-family piece to be considered by (((academics))).
So there was some heavy censorship in the late 70s but it died in the 80s. Tits in movies are literally the only good thing that came out of the sexual revolution.
>>70911250
It was to offset the lack of cheap, accessibledragontechnology.
>>70911250
PG-13 came to be... To bump the rating from PG to PG-13, the simplest, non-controversial, way at the time was by tit-shot count.
The MPAA has done more damage to the movie genre than anything, really.
>>70911250
the driver was that what young men wanted to see was more important back then than it is now
now it's more what children and women want to see
>>70911250
Focus groups and demographic pandering wasn't as strong back then.
R rated movies are not made as often now as it cuts out the under 18 demo and opens up a can of worms if the material is too problematic.
why are all of these replies so stupid?
tits in cinema stopped once people could get convenient/anonymous access to porn, thus, a few minutes of tits were no longer a draw.
>>70912666
>Chyler Leigh
:3
>>70913185
what do they lose by not having breasts though if they plan for an R rating regardless?
>>70911250
No internet in the 80s
Tits were an incentive to go see a movie, now that you can see tits in less than 3 seconds thanks to the internet, tits have stopped being used in today's movie because the internet has made them redundant.
>>70913457
>what do they lose by not doing something they could do
The more I look at this, the less sense it makes.
They don't lose anything because doing it gains nothing either. If people want to see tits, they can see tits whenever they want. So they're not a draw. So going out of one's way to put tits in a movie does nothing.
>>70913689
except there's plenty of instances in R rated movies where they go out of their way to avoid nudity, like cropped shots above the chest, or holding the blanket above the chest, stuff like that, even if it would be natural during the scene
>>70911250
Men paid for everything back then, ergo, movies had to cater to them more.
>>70913689
>>70913457
>>70913185
Titscan be used for shock value, to get the audience's attention and let them know that the shit that's about to go down ain't for kids. It sets expectations with just a simple shot and then those expectations are free to be met or ignored.
Just like novel might use a word like "brandish" over other words with similar meaning, every scene in a movie has an idea the movie makers want to convey.
>>70913719
An adult oriented movie doesn't need nudity to approach adult themes, you manchild. It's not like you know how every single person behaves during intimate moments either.
>>70913719
those are big names who don't want to do nude scenes, though. 80's tit shots were usually some chick from the extras who happened to be hot
>>70913888
The last pair of tits , I can think of, that were used to shock the audience to sell movie tickets were Halle Berry's in Swordfish...then the internet came, kids.
>>70913970
>>70913719
There were different reasons for tit shots in movies. First were the director that genuinely believed that a tit shot would improve the art of the film. Next was the director that wanted the tit shot just to say he got so-and-so to show their tits and get more publicity, The last was the director that just wanted to see a famous persons tits.
>>70911583
PG-13 allowed nudity, Doc Hollywood and Titanic are proof of this.
>>70914178
That did have an actual effect in the movie and so were completely justified, was the scene itself a good one? maybe not.
A less obvious and much better use of tits was in "escape from new york" when the punks are tossing around a drugged up tramp. The scene gives off strong rape vibes which help to establish the lawlessness of the area and since rape is considered on of the worst crimes in the public eye the scene also helps establishes are so-called hero's moral apathy. Without the tits the scene would not have had as strong a rape vibe and thus the feelings you get about the area and the hero would not have been as strong.
>>70912666
>if the material is too problematic
what do you mean by problematic?
>>70914355
before pg-13 became a thing regular pg movies allowed quick tit shots
>>70912479
still my favorite fucking dragon to appear on screen
>>70914178
>Halle Berry's in Swordfish
nasty uneven brown bags
>>70913185
this
also tits didn't magically just vanish, there still there on TV and movies
I don't know but I like it
>>70911250
because tits are great
>>70915884
>>70915788
And one of my favorite wizards, too.
>>70915884
>>70915884
m m mom?
>>70915884
>>70915884
this thread finally paid off.
>>70915884
That's from an R movie. Malibu Express
>>70915884
>>70915884
THICK
H
I
C
K
>>70911250
it was more common in the 70s and more explicit
>>70913461
This.
Pre-Internet, you went to an R movie, you wanted to get your money's worth. Porn wasn't like breathing air back then so tits on the big screen had real value. You'd leave the theater thinking, shit, that was worth it.
You only put tits in one scene because wall to wall tits, now the chicks in the audience are uncomfortable. Some guys are bringing dates for fuck's sake. Can't make a porno. Got to be tasteful. Besides, tit wrangling is a pain. The bigger the actress, the more contractual bullshit. The smaller the actress, the less hot she probably is and the less she's going to be in the overall plot thus making the tits seem more gratuitous.
Why do so many movies have faces in them?
>>70911250
le women aren't sex objects meme.
And, I'd like to add, things were different in the 60s, 70s, 80s. That's the free love era. Early 80s kind of when it died. Nudity was different then. It was cool. Liberating. Artistic. Sexy. Now if you get naked you've objectified yourself and alienated your female audience. Helen Mirrin wouldn't be shit if she didn't have banging knockers. Actress starting out today where her main attribute is banging knockers? She's shit out of luck. No one is going to give a shit.
>>70911250
in the 80's being healthy and heterosexual was still openly allowed and considered the norm in American society.
Then the 90's happened, and it was a slow descent downhill until we get to where we are today.
>>70911288
>>70911530
That's not true. There are loads of films in the 60s (ans probly earlier) that had tits. Best example I can think of is Barbarella which was full of tits. Also Romeo and Juliet had it for like a second
>>70915554
Like Cannibal Holocaust
>>70911250
Oh you shouldve seen what she turned into with teh ravages of time.
vomit.jpg
>>70912666
I think the focus testing explanation might have something to do with it too, actually. Movies started getting tested like crazy in the 80s. I don't think it was a common before then. You focus group a woman and she's going to say, why does there gotta be tits?
That's why every movie today is made by a gay director and there's a gratuitous shirtless shot of the roided out male lead. And zero tits.
>>70911583
PG-13 probably helped. The pro-tit and anti-tit audience stopped overlapping as much.
>>70914222
The director explanation could have some validity as well. The auteur era lasted from the 60s until about Heaven's Gate (1980), at which time the studios stopped trusting the directors and started trusting bean counters more.
This is actually a much more interesting question than I at first realized. It really says a lot about our society.
god bless the 80s and underage tits.
the chick from the tom hanks movie probably has the best set and body and face to be filmed in history.
