Geekofriendly's profile

25 Messages

 • 

370 Points

Sat, Jul 30, 2022 12:32 PM

Closed

Answered

Can we remove pictures in IMDb titles that show nude bodies?

In the last year or so I have stumbled upon many IMDb titles (movies and perhaps even TV series) that have images of nude women, specifically their behinds (e.g., https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412019/mediaviewer/rm879959297 , https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/mediaviewer/rm1689832193 ).

While such depiction of nudity has become ever more frequent on social media such as Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok, I find it disturbing that such forms of nudity are also allowed on IMDb due to numerous factors that should probably be taken into consideration:

  • underage and young IMDb visitors
  • people who do not want to see such images for religious reasons
  • people who do not want to see such images for various personal reasons
  • people who do not want to see such images for various mental issues and sexuality-related addictions
  • people who do not want to see such images due to all of the reasons listed above and likely other reasons as well

I've been an IMDb user for decades and I sincerely don't remember stumbling upon such images until very recently.

At the risk of sounding like a prude: Could images with nudity be removed from image galleries of certain IMDb titles?

4 Messages

 • 

130 Points

2分前

No. I disagree. Both images are not gratuitous, but essential to the plot and stories of both movies. I don't see why the world must succumb to the very limited repressed notions of morality from American mini states with less than a million inhabitants. It's not called the "American Midwest movie data base", but the INTERNATIONAL movie database....for a reason.

Also, removing them would go against standing policy for images, already in place.

https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/is-it-allowed-to-post-nude-pictures-from-movies-or-tv-shows-in-lists-or-polls/5f4a7a108815453dba96adf0

Lastly, it's a bottom. Literally everyone has one. Don't confuse those with genitals.

(edited)

25 Messages

 • 

370 Points

@amandamanda​ such images are definitely gratuitous and not essential to represent the movie. If what you said were true, then it would basically be much more essential that all erotic thrillers where female bottoms are revealed should include such screenshots on IMDb. "Basic Instinct" (1992) will definitely disappoint You.

Also, I have not stumbled upon male bottoms on IMDb but only female ones and I'd bet an arm and a leg there are much more female bottoms on IMDb. One could definitely argue that more women undress in movies than men do, and they'd be correct. But this argument does not per se justify bottoms on IMDb.

ALL your presumptions - about my country of origin (let alone continent), my gender, my. moral standards, and my reasoning - are SO off the mark and only seek to promote degradation that they do not deserve my further time and energy. They only give insight about you ;-)

And your agument that we all have bottoms applies to children as well. Guess what, their bottoms are not allowed on IMDb for a very justifiable reason.

I have hopefully listed enough sound arguments in my first post to start spreading awareness that there are plenty of impressionable people who don't want to see adult bottoms on IMDb. And these individuals have justifiable reasons far beyond your - seemingly myopic - outlook on the world.

2.2K Messages

 • 

65.9K Points

2分前

Geekofriendly is pretty much correct. Those examples (in the first post) are hand-picked screenshots just to show off nudity (usually of a female actor, I might add). These type of stills are taken out of context (often the actor is ”nude” for some seconds, or at least only in a few scenes - in a whole movie).

”Nudity” (which means a bit different things to different people) in a official posters etc can be another matter, though. Or stylish promotional shots approved by the actor.

4 Messages

 • 

130 Points

@eboy

geeko's attempt to impose the somewhat warped morals or her repressed and hypocritical community (which come with several other nasty traditions ... like forced marriages, SEE: Warren Jeffs) still go against standing policy.

Also: ANY shot from a movie is just ONE second out of 90-120 minutes, so your argument falls flat. But those screen shots are meaningful to the plot and story. Random shots are not.

25 Messages

 • 

370 Points

@amandamanda​ company policies are not set in stone and change all the time when justifiable reasons encourage or demand it.

And one last time, your presumptions warrant a "flag as harassment" button on this forum ... perhaps another thing to consider in IMDb's company policy ;-)

(edited)

25 Messages

 • 

370 Points

@eboy​ exactly! Nudity that is part of the actual promo material is a whole different matter on IMDb than random screenshots of (mostly female) behinds that mostly serve no substantial purpose. I presume the latter are added because they can be due to being allowed by the IMDb company policy.

(edited)

6 Messages

 • 

120 Points

@Geekofriendly​ harassment?   I truly resent your attempt to intimidate me. I won't sink so low as you have, but I will say this: I won't be silenced in face of your attacks of our freedoms. . These aren't the times to NOT speak up, especially considering the Supreme Court's minority-tyranny of our majority

Fran

Employee

 • 

367 Messages

 • 

3.9K Points

2分前

Hello All, 

Following our guidelines and help references this kind of images are allowed. To get more details on what is allowed and not allowed, I encourage you to take a look at our Images Guidelines on our help guides.

25 Messages

 • 

370 Points

@Fran​ thank you.

Do you perhaps know the reasoning for allowing images of adult bottoms and the year this particular bullet point was last revisited?

Has the IMDb staff considered all the factors I have listed above?

What steps usually need to happen before IMDb staff change their company policy?

(edited)

6 Messages

 • 

120 Points

The arrogance to think that one is the first one trying to impose her twisted and repressed morals upon normal people is astounding.

Something about "if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out" and "you don't HAVE to be here"