i not read the book, but can they show the stuff that's in the book ? This Morning Phil and Holly were talking about this today
No, as said the film is highly likely to be contractually obligated to get a mainstream R rating in the USA, meaning any sex scenes in it are likely to be brief.
Some what inaccurate though, as the 'family friendly' Disney make as many 12A's as U's these days. (Lone Ranger, John Carter, The Avengers and related Marvel films, the Pirates of the Caribbean series; all Disney branded. Would assume episode VII will be a 12A as well).
No, as said the film is highly likely to be contractually obligated to get a mainstream R rating in the USA, meaning any sex scenes in it are likely to be brief.
This what I reckon is gonna hurt the film- the whole point
of FSOG's appeal was its sex scenes. They won't be
able to reproduce them in a Hollywood flick without getting a box-office suicide NC-17 rating, so they'll have to tone
the sex down to vanilla level.
Will I go and see the film? Unless it gets very good reviews,
then no-the little I've read of the book was awful.
Besides, it's unlikely to be as good as the best film
I've seen about sex-Bertolucci's "The Dreamers". :cool:
I agree with you about Charlie and lets hope he is in a state of undress most of the time.
Same here, He would be the only reason I'd watch the film. A lot of fans wanted Matthew Bomer to be Christian. I think Charlie would fit the role quite nicely.:)
Any film would be pornographic if it portrayed the book correctly, so no I wouldn't watch.
hmmm, that doesn't need to be the case.
I'm reminded of (iirc) that bit in Twilight book when Bella is about to give birth and Edward gnaws open her belly to free the kid. Now they didn't show him doing that in the movie, but did add some chomping sounds so anyone who HAD read the book would know what was happening just out of screen shot.
So..... the FSOG movie makers will know most of their viewers have read the book and so know what happens and so instead of showing all the naughty stuff in hard-XXX-R rated splattery, they can just give us some R rated stuff and leave us to fill in the blanks from memory. QED.
I've read the books, out of curiosity. The first one was ok, but the second weren't brilliant.
Any film would be pornographic if it portrayed the book correctly, so no I wouldn't watch.
I wonder will there be protests against the film? I
remember reading about feminists picketing
"Dressed to Kill" , "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic
Instinct" on the grounds they were seen as
misogynistic. Could the FSOG films attract similar
controversy?
If people want to picket the movie then fine, just so long as they've read the books (or listened to them as audiobooks ) and are not simply going by what they've heard.
I briefly endured this 'book' being raved about by the women in work. Wild horses wouldn't drag me to this film, Charlie Hunnam nude or not.
And, that last sentence quoted from it in the opening post, all I can say is OMFG. The 'author' of this piece of overflowing toilet of shit is seriously f-ed up in the head.
Comments
No, as said the film is highly likely to be contractually obligated to get a mainstream R rating in the USA, meaning any sex scenes in it are likely to be brief.
That's making me snigger!
This what I reckon is gonna hurt the film- the whole point
of FSOG's appeal was its sex scenes. They won't be
able to reproduce them in a Hollywood flick without getting a box-office suicide NC-17 rating, so they'll have to tone
the sex down to vanilla level.
Will I go and see the film? Unless it gets very good reviews,
then no-the little I've read of the book was awful.
Besides, it's unlikely to be as good as the best film
I've seen about sex-Bertolucci's "The Dreamers". :cool:
Yet Mario Puzo's pulp novel 'The Godfather' was turned into a masterpiece of a movie so you never know?
"Terra Nova".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Marcel
The director has a somewhat better track record-she did the well-received
"Nowhere Boy" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Taylor-Wood
Same here, He would be the only reason I'd watch the film. A lot of fans wanted Matthew Bomer to be Christian. I think Charlie would fit the role quite nicely.:)
Any film would be pornographic if it portrayed the book correctly, so no I wouldn't watch.
I don't think the film would be that explicit.If they followed the book play by play, 90% of the film would be sex scenes.
I'm reminded of (iirc) that bit in Twilight book when Bella is about to give birth and Edward gnaws open her belly to free the kid. Now they didn't show him doing that in the movie, but did add some chomping sounds so anyone who HAD read the book would know what was happening just out of screen shot.
So..... the FSOG movie makers will know most of their viewers have read the book and so know what happens and so instead of showing all the naughty stuff in hard-XXX-R rated splattery, they can just give us some R rated stuff and leave us to fill in the blanks from memory. QED.
I wonder will there be protests against the film? I
remember reading about feminists picketing
"Dressed to Kill" , "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic
Instinct" on the grounds they were seen as
misogynistic. Could the FSOG films attract similar
controversy?
And, that last sentence quoted from it in the opening post, all I can say is OMFG. The 'author' of this piece of overflowing toilet of shit is seriously f-ed up in the head.