underwear? (spoilers, question about ending)

I'm glad to hear I'm not completely bonkers for thinking that. Yeah, I'm not saying it's any surprise the director wanted to play it "safe" on this one point, but it definitely stands out. It's like: "violence taboo? busted. Rape taboo? no problem. Nudity taboo? eh, let's back off on that one." Which just seems silly to me, because it's like people are more afraid of naked bodies than they are of far more traumatizing subject matter. And what's even more ironic is that people will be like, "go ahead, let's put sex in this movie, but only so long as there's no nudity," because the actual fact of people's naked bodies is, like, scarier than anything people might do with them.

If anything, I'd support the decision NOT to mix nudity in with the themes of a movie like this one, which hinge on rape and violence and, basically, truly horrible stuff. I'd prefer nudity to be presented in much nicer contexts, if just to cleanse people's image of casual exposure as a naughty thing. But the fact is that nudity is a neutral state for mankind. Everybody's got a naked body. To say that it can only be used for good purposes or only for bad purposes is to try to impose control on it that you just don't have. So, ideally, I opt for a more realistic approach towards nudity. Which means not flinching when the script reasonably calls for it. Cause when you do, it really seems to contribute to a cultural anxiety around naked bodies that I hardly see as healthy.

But, yeah, that's actually what I love about exploitation cinema - it doesn't give a *beep* about 'the rules', or trying to please oversensitive busybodies.

lol, now that's a possible explanation that could actually make sense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure they did have the creative and legal rights to show "down below". What they didn't have was the balls. On the other hand, the power the ratings board wields would have doomed the film to obscurity if it dared to show that kind of nudity (especially given the context). But on the first hand, was this movie ever expecting a mainstream audience? I doubt it. They should have gone for it.

Are you saying that because the CHARACTER is 14, we can't see her cooch? Not the actress, but the character? I need to learn more about the ratings board....

so it's ok to show a woman brutalized, raped, and killed but not show her nude while getting raped??? ok. how dumb and mixed up is that? how is it somehow going too far showing her nude while getting raped but they can show everything else that they show in this movie? don't you think it's worse to show her getting raped and tortured than just showing her nude body? and don't you think it's more disturbing showing her get raped and tortured than it is showing her nude?

Absolutely. But the question isn't why was she stripped to her underwear, but why wasn't she stripped all the way nude?

IMO he wanted to make her feel helpess, and uneasy. She was stripped down to her underwear, leaves her wondering is he going to remove her underwear, but even though he didn't likely she's creepd out that a predator sees her in her underwear.

Ghost Rider With Zarathos in Control would defeat Thanos a defeat he would forever remember

I thought the actresses WERE really that young, but if they were over 18 the OP has a point. Strangely, the US seems to have a taboo about 18+ actresses appearing nude if they play underage CHARACTERS. But if FICTIONAL "underage" nudity is taboo, you'd think all the other FICTIONAL stuff that goes on in this movie would be taboo as well.

If the real actresses were that young (they looked it), I could definitely understand this. Actual underage nudity isn't always illegal even in the US, but it would be VERY questionable in this movie. I already don't buy that this a "cautionary tale" about the "real" dangers of the internet and not just flat-out sensationalistic exploitation.