Nudity in my Trek? You better be kidding. That kind of blasphemy will never be tolerated. I would personally make sure such an abomination never reaches theaters.
Gene Roddenberry was a visionary for creating Star Trek, but he had an... "interesting" preoccupation with sex from all reports.
But the first thing Roddenberry did with a movie budget is redesign the Enterprise and show Earth... and he wanted Earth to have naked people who are telepathically linked and wild animals as pets.
Yeah, Gene was a horndog. He must not have wanted the naked telepathic zookeeper thing too badly, because it was pretty much never mentioned again. I think Angel One was as close as he ever got, and we all know how well that turned out.
Actually, I think you're thinking of Justice, the one with the half-naked folks who decide to execute Wesley for some reason. Angel One was the woman dominated society which featured men wearing perfume.
[EM] More likely saner minds intervened, talked him down from his madness. On a different note, I saw screen-caps from the 9 minutes preview which feature an idyllic park setting, (thankfully) sans the naked people but hey, it is tribute to Roddenberry's vision though.
I'm a liberal myself and I consider the Federation to be socially liberal but please, no nudity and no hippies. Please.
But we still never really saw the common everyday Earth in those films. We've only seen the administeriel side of Earth. That would be like only seeing today's United Nations or today's White House and U.S. Capitol, and saying "this is today's Earth". Granted, we have caught some glimpses of "common everyday Earth" -- a New Orleans restaurant in DS9, even a French vineyard in TNG -- but those were not enough to get a feel for how 24th century people live. I want to see (at least some glimpses of) 23rd or 24th century people going about their day. We have scant examples of that in Star Trek. Most Earth scenes are sanitized and sterilized visions of Earth, and don't feel the least bit like they are "the real future Earth".
As I remember, the major reasons given in "The Making of Star Trek" for not showing Earth were the necessity for complex sets (which meant money and time) and to avoid potential arguments (especially in the network and among sponsors) about how the social and political system of the Earth finally panned out. If they had wanted or needed to in TOS, I'm sure they could've made a shrewd guess at what a 23rd century San Francisco, New York, or Chicago, or even a countryside could look like and what the political and social structure would (could) be. I agree with Roykirk that it would be nice to see a more "everyday" earth, and I think we'll get a small dose through Clarke's character in this movie, but a bigger on-screen picture would probably have to wait for a TV series (if there will ever be one).