[hal9000i]

On a related issue, I always find it amusing when an actor states (or someone agrees) that nude and underwear scenes should only be included in a project if they're necessary or integral to the plot. And you see a lot of this.

I have to laugh at that because in almost all cases, it's a written script-- an artistic choice. In a written script, very few things are absolute and necessary when it comes to clothing.

An example I like to use is a scene that takes place on a beach in summer. The actors are talking. They could be in bathing suits, the girl in a skimpy bikini. Or she could be wearing shorts. Or a light summer dress. The girl could be nude. Is there a "right" choice here? a "necessary" one? and does it have to be "necessary"? who says so? it's an artistic choice by the film maker.

Or take a scene where a couple is on the run. They are at a motel. They have just woken up and believe the police will be there any minute. So they start scrambling. Now at this point, what is 'necessary" to move the plot forward? the girl could scramble out of bed in her undies...or she could be nude. Or wearing a pair of sweats. Which choice is logical and likely? well, all of them as it turns out. Or the film maker could show the couple waking up, covered by a sheet, and then cut to the outside as they run dressed to their car. An artistic choice.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the underwear scene at the end of "Alien" (1979). Sigourney Weaver's character of Ripley strips down to skimpy panties and tank top in preparation for hyper sleep, which we have seen established at the start of the movie. Yet this is probably one of the most controversial underwear scenes in movie history, with critics calling it "sexist" and "not necessary to move the plot forward"

So I always call bullsh** when an actor or others get up on their virtue signaling high horse and say stuff like this.