I think Exapno Mapcase and bump nailed it. I don’t buy the prudishness argument. These days, real porn is so much more readily available, what with VCR’s, DVD’s, and the Internet, that nobody’s going to sit through a regular movie just so they can see some boobies.
It’s not just movies that show a lot less boobage; check out Time or People magazines from the late 70s to early 80s. Almost every issue include a topless shot of someone.
I recall when the King Kong remake came out (1978?). Time magazine included a strip of shots of Jessica Lange in King Kong’s hand, pulling her dress down. Yep, they included a boob shot that lasted all of a tenth of a second in the film.
This reminds me of something I saw this weekend on Bravo’s “Project Greenlight” marathon –
The continuity guy noticed that Krista Allen (of “Emmanuelle” fame) had changed her bra – in scenes that had already been shot, there was a clear outline of her nipple, but now there wasn’t. Series chump John Gulager (the director) was dispatched to tell Allen to change back, but when Gulager tried to point out that there was “something different” about her costume in perhaps the most oblique manner imaginable, she just looked at him like he was chock full of nuts and blew him off.
I remember reading an article when Monster’s Ball came out which commented how long it had been since a mainstream American movie had had a sex scene with nudity. Thanks to the success of the movie, there has been a revival since then. So credit to Halle Berry for that.
I am reminded of a comment from (IIRC) the Washington Post review of the first issue of Maxim:
The Playboy Principle: If you publish intellectual articles and cutting-edge journalism, you can print pictures of naked women without being considered sleazy.
The Maxim Corrolary: If you stop short of showing a nipple, you don’t need any of that highfalutin’ egg-head stuff.
It usually is straight, though I assume that the occasional lesbian appreciates their cover photos.
First off…Krista Allen, oh god yes…
Moving on, I think it boils down to one factor. Cheap boobies don’t make enough money to warrant it anymore.
Its a composite of reasons that contribute to that fact. Most of which were already mentioned.
- The advent of the internet and the mainstreaming of porn have made the demand diminish.
- The stricter enforcement ofthe R-rating as dried up a pretty sizable portion of the potential viewership for these movies.
- The popularity of preimuim cable channels and the lessened need for cheap movies to fill time dried up revenue streams since they are now more apt to show higher cost movies and have lots of their own original programming.
Plus it’s probably safe to say that the onslaught of fundimentalist mores have dampened the open popularity of it too, though I’d say that while its the most repulsive factor, its probably the smallest of the factors. There’s far more conservative cable channels than their once were and the fact that big chain video rental stores and mega-retailers have all basically decided to not carry overtly sexual videos.
All in all, its a complex issue, and one that it pretty damn depressing watching this country regress.
First off…Krista Allen, oh god yes…
Moving on, I think it boils down to one factor. Cheap boobies don’t make enough money to warrant it anymore.
Its a composite of reasons that contribute to that fact. Most of which were already mentioned.
- The advent of the internet and the mainstreaming of porn have made the demand diminish.
- The stricter enforcement ofthe R-rating as dried up a pretty sizable portion of the potential viewership for these movies.
- The popularity of preimuim cable channels and the lessened need for cheap movies to fill time dried up revenue streams since they are now more apt to show higher cost movies and have lots of their own original programming.
Plus it’s probably safe to say that the onslaught of fundimentalist mores have dampened the open popularity of it too, though I’d say that while its the most repulsive factor, its probably the smallest of the factors. There’s far more conservative cable channels than their once were and the fact that big chain video rental stores and mega-retailers have all basically decided to not carry overtly sexual videos.
All in all, its a complex issue, and one that it pretty damn depressing watching this country regress.
And the combination of the two, resulting in the huge number of direct-to-cable “movies” that used to be somewhat limited to “Cinemax After Dark” but now seem to find their way onto a number of other cable channels.
Less gratuitous boobage in mainstream movies = this country is regressing?
And in a truly advanced civilization, every movie would look like Girls Gone Wild? 
In a truly advanced civilization, every movie COULD look like girls gone wild but no one would care.
I’m inclined to agree with this argument. Almost every Trek discussion of 7 of 9 or T’Pol ends up including at least one comment to the effect of: “Hey, I’m over 18; if I want to see boobs I can just get some porn and see all the boobs I want”.
Any chance at all that this is an appeal to masses of teenage female moviegoers who’d rather not see female leads being spied on in the shower (or whatever wacky scenario the screenwriters can come up with) while the males stay dress or in their skivvies? I loved Old School, Harold and Kumar and Eurotrip, despite the gratuitous female nudity. It was pretty tame compared to 80s teen romps (Hollywood High, anyone?), but, guys, have you checked any of those out lately? They are utter, unforgivable crap. They don’t even have jokes. Just bad acting and quasi-rape scenes. I’ll take clever over pointless boobies any day.
Well, I can agree that boobies should not be pointless.
The points are the best part!
You can always dust off a copy of Total Recall from 1990 including The Governator and enjoy the sight of the tri-breasted babe in the Martian bar. Talk about making bra shopping difficult! 
Mister President, we cannot allow a boobie gap!
Some boobie gap is permissible, enough to…
oh damn, this is Cafe Society so I can’t be talkin’ about that… :smack:
Gotta agree with Cat Fight here: on average, half of every movie audience is made up of women, who often don’t appreciate seeing other women being spied on, having their clothes stripped off them “accidentally”, or being generally harassed by boobie-obsessed guys. Women aren’t some kind of weird minority group, we do contribute half of the box-office takings.
I reckon things are better these days. Men and women who want to look at boobies or other nude bits can do so in the comfort and privacy of their own home (bonus: without 300 strangers for company!), and people who want to watch movies with plot and character can take their chances in a cinema, avoiding anything with Ashton Kutcher in it.
Don’t forget Brad Pitt in Fight Club. Except they were stunt buttocks :eek:
I agree with others, and I’ll throw in this - it’s not that audiences are more prudish, it’s that they’re more sophisticated.
Think about it - we demand more from our movies and television shows than we did twenty years ago. I recently watched a Magnum P.I. episode and was bemused by the way the show took me by the hand and led me through the plot, clearly pointing out important plot points and foreshadowing twists along the way just so I didn’t get lost. There were absolutely no surprises or things I didn’t expect. And this was considered good television for its day (well, some considered it good TV. Okay, my family.) I don’t think that Thomas Magnum would find any sort of audience today without some major updates.
Today’s audiences demand more from their shows than one-dimensional villians or cartoon situations. Nudity just to have nudity really isn’t going to work - I think the audience will see through it immediately. Like someone else said, those 80s movies may have had abundant T&A, but they were also pretty bad.
Not sure I completely agree here. Certain movies are marketed to certain groups. I think it’s safe to say that dumb teen comedies with gratuitous boobies are generally marketed to men. Much in the same way that sappy romantic farces are marketed towards women. I highly doubt that women’s preferences are heavily considered here since that’s not where the core audience is.
I’ll agree that 80’s movies were bad and that the comic situations were a bit skeevey when viewed in retrospect, but todays movies with gratuitous sex manage to be less exploitative and generally make the women as eagerly horned up as the men. The sophistication isn’t in losing the boobs, it’s in the fact that the female characters actually have lines and the scenarios aren’t the type that would inspire litigation anymore.
I think the scarcity of these movies is due to the dwindling of the market for them. Women were probably not interested in seeing those movies then just like they aren’t interested in seeing them now[sup]1[/sup]. So from that perspective the market hasn’t changed.
[sup]1 - Though I might go so far as to say women today are more interested in seeing those movies than then, further contradicting your arguement.[/sup]