i don't understand, how did she get away with never having to show her tits in a movie? - Michelle Pfeiffer Discussion

[–] Threadkiller (3080) 5 years ago

It's not difficult to imagine actresses finding "ways" behind the scenes to negotiate "no nudity" clauses in their contracts.

What would be more interesting to find out is which (if any) actresses made it big as Hollywood starlets without ever putting out on the casting couch and/or nepotism

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

no, sorry, there aren't ways to getting around this. because if you are to be taken seriously as an actress and if you are to become an A list star, you have to show your tits in a movie.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3080) 5 years ago

There are a plenty of highly successful actresses who have never done on screen nudity. Some of which have already been mentioned Not to mention the plethora of actresses who have done nudity without it significantly advancing their careers

The casting couch and nepotism are far more significant factors for a potential starlet to make it big.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

not true. it held them back. yeah, that's the actresses who did nudity at the start of their career in a cheap, comedy or sleazy sex drama like denise richards in wild things and shannon elizabeth in american pie.

why are you talking about the casting couch and nepotism so much? so, like jamie lee curtis or dakota johnson? in jamie's case she was going to be a star without it, based on her acting, in the case of dakota though, she wouldn't have been a star had it not been for her mother and father. and how can we ever find out what actress used the casting couch to become a star? where is this information and evidence?

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

^This guy thinks he is Al Pacino.

https://youtu.be/HOr8EwpHNwY

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

He’s also a dildo

reply

[–] huwdj (4567) 5 years ago

She refused to. She also refused to make certain types of films. I remember film critics observing that this had damaged her career and that she wasn't as big a star for as long as she should have been because of this decision.
I may be being a little unfair but it seemed to me the critics were a little condescending in their remarks. But at the end of the day it's her body, her choice and our loss (in terms of lost roles and, I confess, gratuitous enjoyment).

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

i love it. how you said i confess our gratuitous enjoyment, though all nudity isn't gratuitous. kim basinger's nudity in 9/2 weeks was not gratuitous or excessive or not needed. yeah, this is wrong. i started this post by saying it's wrong we never got to see her tits in a movie. i mean, we may go the rest of our lives never having seen her tits and this is wrong. so, what did you mean by certain types of films? are you talking about edgy sexually films? and do you think her career was shorter because she never showed her tits in a movie?

no, if she didn't show her tits then her career as a star shouldn't have been as long as if she did.

michelle's career as a star was long. longer than the average star but had she shown her tits would it have been longer? i think so. her career as a star still was about 15 years. the average is 5 and the longest is usually 10. from about 1987-2002.

i mean i think there is a direct connection between a star actress's career longevity of being a star and showing her tits in a movie. because most actresses show their tits in a movie at some point and the actresses who are stars the longest might be the ones who do this, like charlize theron and nicole kidman. the key is to do it in the right movie and at the right time in your career. though in the case of nicole kidman she seems indiscriminate as far as what movie she shows her tits in. she shows her tits in every kind of movie.

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

You really do seem to have some sort of obsession that goes beyond the normal here. But it is kind of amusing. There was a point at my life I considered Michelle Pfeiffer my favorite actress, and you know, I really don't think I had any idea I'd never seen her tits. But thank you for bringing that fact to my attention. (I'm quite a fan of Nicole Kidman as well, and according to what you're saying, I've probably seen her tits, but what's odd is I really don't recall them. Apologies to Nicole if she's reading this, I will try to pay more attention in the future.)

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

I agree. This dude had been dropped on his head

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

fuck you

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

Why ? Where is that head leak

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

Oh like Luke I’m so sorry

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

you're welcome. so, you don't know about mr. skin.com? it's a pretty thorough website when it comes to cataloging female nudity in movies and tv shows. yeah, nicole has shown nudity in at least 10 movies. kate winslet has shown nudity in at least 10 movies also. charlize keeps going showing nudity. shes' shown nudity in at least 10 movies also.

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Nicole has stripped off to nothing lots of movies, the only reason you don't remember seeing her naked is that her tits aren't that memorable. If you want to go see her in all her glory Billy Bathgate gives you ass, tits and bush... or if you want an older view of her Eyes Wide Shut or Cold Mountain... and there are a lot more out there with Nicole. Though frankly when think of Pfeiffer I don't really care to see her tits because I prefer larger tits... but for those still arguing about why she never showed her tiny tits, go watch Into the Night the John Landis movie from 1985... watch closely there is a shot where she walks around naked and you get a shot of her walking naked. So there she did show her tits in the 80's can we now put this goofy thread to rest?

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

Wait a minute, you bumped the thread to put it to rest? Do you know how threads work?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

No when I logged on today this thread was already bumped to the top. I certainly didn't get online to try and look up Michelle Pfeiffer, I thought she was retired or in a nursing home by now.

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I asked "Do you know how threads work?" but I should have asked, "Do you know how bumping works?"

reply

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

What a great essay you wrote .

reply

[–] huwdj (4567) 5 years ago

A couple of points in this (I hope) not entirely serious thread. I'm sure there is not a direct correlation that states "show boobs = longer career" but refusing certain adult rated roles that require it will impact a career. We'll never know what she turned down over the years that might have widened her range and perhaps perhaps stardom. I know it's common to list the very successful films other people turned down but personally I never believe this articles.
Regarding length of time at the top - how do you measure that? I would have said Married to the Mob (1988) - I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007) which is almost 20 years but my very subjective opinion.
As for gratuitous enjoyment yes, I'm shallow enough to admit I would not have objected if there was more of Ms Pfeiffer on display. But having said that, in this strange time of lock down, I've been rootling though my DVDs and found a couple of her films to watch again and thoroughly enjoy - even though she keeps her cloths on :)

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

what do you mean, bu refusing certain adult rated roles that require it will impact a career? what is the it, in the require it part? you measure that by well, if you've heard of the movie? i've never even heard of i could never be your woman, so that's off this list and that does not qualify for this. michelle was a star from around 1987, because of her role in the witches of eastwick to about 2002, right after she was the star in what lies beneath.

i never heard about her being in any big movie after what lies beneath until she wasn't a star anymore and was just in big movies as a novelty or tribute, so that doesn't count. also, she wasn't a star in anything after what lies beneath anyway.

it's not gratuitous enjoyment because that would imply all nudity is not needed.

reply

[–] einstein (2569) 5 years ago

a simple google image search tells me that she did show her bobs, just image search "michelle pfeiffer tequila sunrise boobs" easy peasy broskie

reply

[–] g-bone (564) 5 years ago

You get side boob in Into the Night.

reply

[–] Jinx (3746) 5 years ago

If she ‘did’ show her breasts, wouldn’t you call her a cheap slut like you did Melissa Benoist for her nude photos?

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

no, because melissa's pics are actual pornography. i mean, they are as explicit as you can get. they are actual sex nudity pics.

reply

[–] Jinx (3746) 5 years ago

What is the difference in your mind between art and pornography? Not being snide, I'm just curious.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

are you talking about porn with art and vice versa? porn is defined as something made to arouse sexually. i found out there is porn with art and art with porn. now, those porn pictures with mellissa benoist are her having sex so obviously they are porn. in movies if the nudity is needed, if it serves a purpose above and beyond to titillate like for instance to tell a story, or get in depth in a story, to show something artistically like metaphorically, and if it's not gratuitous then it's not pornography.

reply

[–] Jinx (3746) 5 years ago

How would a woman showing her ‘tits’ in a movie give depth to a story? Again, I’m not trying to antagonize, I’m interested in the subject of art vrs. Pornography. Thanks for responding.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

it gives depth artistically. it gives an extra layer of depth to what we see and hear and feel. just watch a david lynch film and you'll see what i mean.

reply

[–] Robbie (249) 5 years ago

I am into big breasted women but wouldn’t mind seeing her tits in a movie.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

i love the way you think. where can i talk about this with people, celebrity nudity and porn? is there a message board where i can talk this stuff on?

reply

[–] Robbie (249) 5 years ago

Lol, thanks this is the only place I know, but you can always private message me on this board to discuss celebrity nudity and porn or whatever! 😆

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

thanks. some of the prudes on here are not ready for this conversation, they're kids, lol.

reply

[–] Robbie (249) 5 years ago

I know that’s why I’m careful on here and will pm people if someone else complains about stuff we are talking about especially nudity and porn

reply

[–] Robbie (249) 5 years ago

I sent you a pm as well.

reply

[–] JBran (1661) 5 years ago

Tits aren’t really a big thing, they’re lumps of fat and males have them too if they are fat. It’s not a reproductive organ. Men have been topless in countless films. Same as asses. Sexy but not reproductive organs. No big deal.

reply

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

they are sexual objects though. but yeah, some actresses are completely free when it comes to showing their tits in a movie or tv show. some actresses think tits are no big deal to show. these actresses i love. because when you come down to it, tits are barely nudity. so come on all girls, stop being uptight about showing your tits.

reply