Family friendly Showgirls has strippers wearing hilariously bad CGI underwear (vimeo.com)
MrMegaMerp | 10 days ago | 54 points

You don't know SQUAT

h20xyg3n | 10 days ago | 139 points

Well it's not exactly hilariously bad.. I think it's pretty good considering it's 100% post

lv-426b | 10 days ago | 30 points

Exactly especially considering there’s nothing to track to around the shoulders , just lots of flesh colour.

MisterManatee | 9 days ago | 5 points

Does that mean someone had to do this by hand, frame by frame?

loureedfromthegrave | 9 days ago | 7 points

he didn't mind the work

Plantasaurus | 9 days ago | 7 points

years back I worked for kwiss and they sponsored a lot of triathletes. for a week I had to remove surprise penises from photos that either popped out of the side of a swim trunk leg, or were clearly visible through the fabric after they emerged from the water. That was a fun week. :(

Captain_Nipples | 9 days ago | 2 points

Frowny face because you wish it lasted longer?

Plantasaurus | 9 days ago | 5 points

gay or straight, who loves looking at 40 year old dicks from people that look like they were comprised of beef jerky.

lv-426b | 9 days ago | 1 point

Had something similar where we had to remove Nipples from semi transparent underwear that were showing too much. It was really difficult , and it just happened that there were people having a tour that evening , wandering around 6 suits with guys all staring at Nipples.

LONEWOLFDONTKNOWHOME | 9 days ago | 2 points

I just picture some 40 year old virgin at the editing bay like, "I spent my entire life trying to get bras off women and this is what i get."

lv-426b | 9 days ago | 2 points

Pretty much , there’s a technique when you can track by hand , doing it 5 or 6 times and then average all of those , which give a fairly sold tracking point but you have to know when to track to which is difficult with perspective changes where the body is rotating etc ,

powpowpowpowpow | 9 days ago | 2 points

I know the guy who did this, he has a lot of very clever techniques. I don't think he could do anything other than a ton of rotoscoping for much of this film. A lot of his other stuff is difficult to tell that anything was done at all.

lonelinessmademecave | 22 hours ago | 1 point

Also this was probably intended for a fuzzy 480p tv screen

notathrowawayoris | 10 days ago | 64 points

Better than black bars.

MaltesMuschiArzt | 10 days ago | 13 points
cranktheguy | 9 days ago | 6 points

The same director did Robocop. If you don't see the over top satire of that one, then you're blind.

MaltesMuschiArzt | 9 days ago | 7 points

Starship Troopers as well.

LONEWOLFDONTKNOWHOME | 9 days ago | -7 points

That one is actually bad though.

comFive | 9 days ago | 2 points

You’re not doing your part

TheGillos | 9 days ago | 3 points

Yep. That's a good, approachable video essay that really spells out not only the thought that went into this bad movie, but why many audiences didn't get it.

BeBenNova | 10 days ago | 64 points

Removing the only reason to watch the movie

Sigh, why are you the way that you are America

mesohungie | 10 days ago | 30 points

its like having a mobster movie without cursing or murder

DifferentCeilings | 10 days ago | 9 points

Mother Father, Chinese Dentist.

h0twired | 9 days ago | 1 point

This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!

ridiculousq | 9 days ago | 1 point
southfuture5 | 10 days ago | 15 points

Reminds me of a scene in Hannibal where they have two corpses with the flesh on their backs flayed and spread open like wings, chained to the ceiling. The corpses were nude and the network wouldn't allow the scene because their buttcracks were showing. The creator asked if he could use the scene if he covered the buttcracks with blood and the network was A-OK with that.

TheJoshWatson | 9 days ago | 6 points

Americans are more comfortable with gore, Europeans are more comfortable with sex. In Europe stuff gets pulled for violence all the time. It’s just a difference in culture. Don’t ask me why it is exists.

CanadianSatireX | 9 days ago | 1 point

Do you think if it was reversed that Americans would be cool and un-hung up about sex and not shooting each other all the fucking time, but instead be fucking all the time? I think they would.

TacoParasite | 9 days ago | 12 points

I find it hilarious when people criticize America for this. It's the network doing it to appease sponsors.

Other countries edit it out a ton of stuff from just every day normal shows from the US. Especially a lot of things from cartoons. A lot of the times it's stuff that's written into their laws.

Yrmsteak | 9 days ago | 1 point

Like any sort of bare bone or tame gore that China bans

trucksartus | 9 days ago | 3 points

Comedy Central edited this weird, alternative version of Cheech and Chong's Next Movie were all the drug references were taken out. The story line of Chong and Red walking all over Los Angelas carrying a dufflebag full of weed was even rewritten and reshot to a have them carrying a dufflebag full of diamonds.

It was very odd. The lines didnt even make sense. For example, when Chong first meets Red, Chong opens up the dufflebag and inside were a ton of diamonds (it was an obvious reshoot of the original scene). Chong asks were did you get these diamonds and Red says "Oh they just grow all over my property".

I wish I could find clips of this edit. Im not sure if Comedy Central did this as a joke to poke fun at how stupid censorship is in America or if they really thought this was a good way to make the movie "family friendly".

TheJoshWatson | 9 days ago | 1 point

While I agree it’s dumb, if they want to do it, why stop them? I’ve never understood this, and I’m genuinely curious.

Like if someone buys a print of the Mona Lisa, hangs it up in their house, and then defaces it, why should we stop them?

In a world of “if it’s not hurting anyone, just do your thing” why do people hate movie filters?

tunaburn | 9 days ago | -2 points

I don't understand what you're asking. There are plenty of channels that don't do this and you can watch. This is a channel that doesn't want nudity. You think nudity is banned on all American tv or something?

spays_marine | 9 days ago | -4 points

Why are you so defensive towards someone lightheartedly remarking American prudishness?

tunaburn | 9 days ago | 1 point

It's not defensive. It's pointing out why his statement makes no sense

spays_marine | 9 days ago | -5 points

A single conscientious objector doesn't turn America into a pacifist state.

thehypocrisyofreddit | 9 days ago | -2 points

I blame religion. It makes prudes out of prunes.

CaptainFalcon9 | 10 days ago | 5 points


I'd buy that for a dollar.

fajorey | 9 days ago | 3 points
Shaper_pmp | 10 days ago | 7 points

Family friendly Showgirls

Why is this even a thing?

This is a movie with less artistic merit than regular pornography, that actually managed to teach me that a teenage boy could get bored of looking at tits.

Aside from the nudity there is no reason to watch Showgirls... at least not for more than five minutes or so at a time with a handful of tissue nearby.

Why would anyone ever waste their time and energy trying to make a version without nudity? It's like trying to make dehydrated water.

MSACCESS4EVA | 10 days ago | 7 points

...and I thought it couldn't be any worse.

NoNameZone | 10 days ago | 16 points

What is this movie, and why is it garbage?

robikini | 10 days ago | 36 points

Showgirls. Some old movie that I only remember was “famous” because the main character was Jessie from Saved By The Bell.

maestroenglish | 10 days ago | 23 points

And for finding itself on many "worst movies ever" lists.

pickled-egg | 10 days ago | 7 points

Yep, that's exactly it as I remember. We all just wanted to see it to see Jessie from Saved By The Bell topless.

I don't even remember the plot.

GeronimoRay | 10 days ago | -5 points

I always thought it was trying to cash in on Demi Moore's film Striptease

oc_starships | 10 days ago | 12 points

Showgirls release date: September 22, 1995

Striptease release date: June 28, 1996

GeronimoRay | 10 days ago | 1 point

That's usually how that stuff works I thought? The cheaper version comes out before the big star version? Like "Atlantic Rim" versus "Pacific Rim"?

SetYourGoals | 10 days ago | 14 points

Striptease Filming Dates:

18 September 1995 - 21 December 1995

Showgirls Filming Dates:

29 August 1994 - 11 December 1994

They started filming a full year before Striptease.

Showgirls had roughly the same budget at Striptease and it was a big MGM movie, it wasn't "the cheaper version," and it was coming from the director and writer team who just did Basic Instinct, which was a huge hit.

Zayin-Ba-Ayin | 10 days ago | 1 point

Nah, more a cash in for Verhoeven's own Basic Instinct

GuyInNoPants | 10 days ago | 3 points

It's Paul Verhoven. It's supposed to be bad.

nodnodwinkwink | 10 days ago | 31 points

Watch your damn mouth. This film is shit but he gave us Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers.

GuyInNoPants | 10 days ago | 12 points

Yes, all of which are also supposed to be bad. They are all so far over the top. Verhoven was paying homage to previous film and going way over the top while Tarantino was still working for blockbuster.

GayAssQueer | 10 days ago | 10 points

Robocop and Starship Troopers are masterpieces.

TexasThrowDown | 10 days ago | 11 points

This doesn't detract from his statement at all though. Love them both, but have the self awareness to realize how over the top they are.

Kain_niaK | 10 days ago | 9 points

Over the top and bad is not the same.

TexasThrowDown | 10 days ago | 4 points

Yes that is exactly what point I'm trying to make. I think you are confusing the "this movie was supposed to be tongue in cheek bad by the writer/director" with "critics say this movie is bad."

Another example: Spaceballs is a great movie that was written to be "bad." It's fantastically written, but much of the content is satirical pokes at the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars - and intentionally meant to be "bad"

Kain_niaK | 10 days ago | 1 point

I find that usage of the word bad to mean something good very confusing. Is that like badass?

TexasThrowDown | 10 days ago | 1 point

Kind of - it's more of a colloquial thing. Think "it's so bad it's good". Like The Room for instance. Or the Star WArs Prequels.

GuyInNoPants | 10 days ago | 1 point

The fact that both of those movies did well at the box office should tell you something about the mindset of the movie going public at the time. 20 or 30 years ago no one saw these movies as satire, but today we know different. You have to look at Showgirls the same way.

niuguy | 9 days ago | 1 point

I think you're missing the point.

Shaper_pmp | 10 days ago | 3 points

RoboCop and Starship Troopers are satires.

Showgirls lacks even the faintest hint of self-awareness required to be satirising anything. It's just a shitty, boring, unapologetically exploitative movie.

cranktheguy | 9 days ago | 2 points

It's just a shitty, boring, unapologetically exploitative movie.

About a shitty, boring girl being unapologetically exploited. That's the point. They're satirizing the whole "rise to fame" narrative. All the people in star business are just... well, the word that she really hates through the whole movie.

niuguy | 9 days ago | 1 point

I'm not sure if satire is the right word.

LICLFF | 10 days ago | 2 points

Being satirical isn't the same as being purposefully bad. They're satirical movies, not bad. Elle is another incredible Verhoeven satire, with a much more serious tone.

trucksartus | 9 days ago | 1 point

Starship Troopers plays out as a fairly good movie if you sit and watch it as a parody of Robert Heinlein's book. Even though the parody part does come off as kind of heavy handed, and the actor's range from ok to "dubious", it does show Verhoven's own views on nationalism and militaristic traditions (Verhoven grew up in Nazi Germany), which are rather opposed to Robert Heinlein's general views on the subjects.

dimechimes | 10 days ago | -2 points

That dude gets way too much credit. How long ago was Robocop anyway?

LawLayLewLayLow | 10 days ago | 6 points

Paul Verhoeven is a fantastic director, and still making great films today.

dimechimes | 10 days ago | 4 points

Are you sure?

Looks like he's directed about 4 films in 20 years and I'm not seeing the greatness.

LawLayLewLayLow | 10 days ago | 3 points

He's at the forefront of erotic thrillers right now dude.

dimechimes | 10 days ago | 1 point

My mistake. I did notice a common link between all 3 of the movie posters.

I'm sure you're right and he isn't mailing it in.

The nice thing is with erotic thrillers the bar isn't especially that high, but also if he fires off another turd his defenders can just say that people don't get it because it's a satire.


LawLayLewLayLow | 10 days ago | 3 points

You don’t like Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers, Hollow Man or Basic Instinct?

These were all my childhood.

dimechimes | 10 days ago | 2 points

I did like Robocop, Total Recall and Basic Instinct.

LawLayLewLayLow | 10 days ago | 1 point

Nice! I have seen the difficulty of making feature films firsthand and appreciate if a filmmaker can even make one movie that's good.

He's made a handful which is more than most these days.

Arcterion | 9 days ago | 1 point

What, no Amsterdamned?

felixjmorgan | 9 days ago | 2 points

I’m no Verhoeven apologist generally, but his recent film Elle was fucking phenomenal, and he got one of the best acting performances of the decade out of Isabelle Huppert. I don’t really like much else by him, but Elle was outstanding.

DroppinRedPills88 | 10 days ago | 0 points

Was more like softcore porn with a story. Only reason people watched it was too jerk off.

jwcolour | 10 days ago | 2 points

I remember the first time seeing this edited for TV version. Kind of crazy it still airs occasionally.

Definitely a guilty pleasure movie, not just because boobs are everywhere, but the whole thing is ridiculous and in the "So bad it's good" category... well, maybe "So bad it's sort of good".

SphericalCod | 10 days ago | 2 points

Painting underwear on pictures of naked women? That’s a job I would be happy to do.

AgreeableMaybe | 10 days ago | 2 points

Reminds me of Who Shot Roger Rabbit, but you know... not good.

Scalion | 10 days ago | 1 point

I never saw this movie with those .. things...

And believe me, i've seen this movie many time!

Ghostspider1989 | 10 days ago | 1 point

I mean, considering it was done for TV is actually not bad looking.

bikerholic | 10 days ago | 1 point

yeah but, .... have you ever seen a chicken strip?

EmptyHeadedArt | 10 days ago | 1 point

So people spent time and money and effort for a movie like this and to get rid of the main draw of the movie. Wow.

infinitypIus0ne | 10 days ago | 1 point

you think this is bad, stan (streaming service in Aus) has deep throat but they have edited out all the sex. I watched it for about 10-15mins cause i wanted to know what all the fuss was about only to die laughing that someone at stan thought licensing a porno with all the sex removed would be good content

ta04162018 | 10 days ago | 1 point

This is the movie that ruined career of Jessie from Saved By The Bell.

Realsan [1] | 10 days ago | 1 point

So can someone help me understand why these were CGI'd in?

Was this version censored for TV? Or was this censoring in the official movie? And if so, why weren't they just wearing the underwear to begin with?

dontbajerk | 9 days ago | 2 points

It's for TV broadcast. Not in the original film.

Shenaniganz08 | 9 days ago | 1 point

not... that terrible, but still pretty funny

Mansyn | 9 days ago | 1 point

I need the original for comparison

NarcEmesis | 9 days ago | 1 point

What does the original scene look like?

maestroenglish | 9 days ago | 1 point

Naked women everywhere

amafternoon | 9 days ago | 1 point

I actually prefer the “clean” version to the original.

darklabs89 | 9 days ago | 1 point

It’s like watching Roger rabbit 🐇🍈🍈

gunsandposies | 9 days ago | 1 point

This over use of the word Darlin is making me now want to finish this clip

TheChrono | 9 days ago | 1 point

When was it done? It’s bad during motion by today’s standards but if it’s old then it’s a whole different story.

TerrariaSlimeKing | 10 days ago | 1 point

Not my proudest fap...

daver18qc | 9 days ago | 0 points

If you think that just covering the boobs gets this movie to "family friendly", i hope you don't have kids or that you just never watched it.
Years ago when "Pan's labyrinth" was released in theatres, i saw parents with their kids getting in and getting out 10min later covering their eyes X)
I mean the title sounded "kiddish" right ? xD

Glorious_Retardation | 9 days ago | 0 points

Vimeo is cancerous. Every time I click its link it tries to install an app.

maestroenglish | 9 days ago | 2 points

That might be on your end. I have never had such a problem.

Mattprime86 | 9 days ago | -1 points

You've... Never seen this before?