Poll: Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe to have nude scene in final Harry Potter films?

[Jekken6]

I thought the sixth movie was shit, because it seemed like they were trying to pander to the Twilight crowd. I have no intention of seeing the 7th movie if that is the direction they're going in.

In other words, you didn't watch the movie.

I've watched all the movies and read all the books. In this sixth movie, most of the plot and actual interesting stuff was minimalized or sidestepped completely to make room for alot of romance and teenage angst bullshit.

The sixth book had a shitty plot, just a midway point between books 5 and 7. Romance took up most of the book.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I remember more use of the 'Half Blood Prince's ' book in the sixth book. In the movie, it was barely there. I don't remember romance taking up most of the book, I just know I didn't really like the sixth movie because of too many movies with romance in there just for the hell of it.

 

[Cakes]

If I was to describe harry potter's basic premise it would sound like a children's film, so no matter what comes up in it, it will always be a children's series. Makes me worry about adults these days.

Once again, have you read the last book in the series? As I said, non-stop murder and occasional torture. It's not for kids.

So copy and paste these examples into your next quote 'cos I missed them, the only one I can remember was you posting a picture of the Sistine chapel, although I am not sure why you did it. list the reasons how nudity improves a film about wizard or anything with nudity in (except porn). I'll talk about nudity in anything, I was talking about the film then you introduced the statue of David, then the Sistine chapel and I included them in my responses to you now your saying I've only been talking about the films? Your chatting alot of bubbles.

Once again, b-b-b-back pedal. You quite plainly said nudity is never in good taste. I called you out on that shit. Then you claim you were only ever talking about the film. Now you have no idea what you're claiming anymore, and I'm not sure either.

What is much better than my "bullshit"? From what I can tell you have just said nothing is better than my "bullshit". Care to elaborate?

'Nudity is never tastefully done'
That is called bullshit.

All you seem to be doing is insulting me, I don't think you have made one point for the nudity.

I'm not even here to support nudity in this film, I have no idea what they're going to do. I was just calling you out on your penis-phobic views.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I haven't seen the latest HP movie, and certainly disliked 4 and 5.
Emma Watson naked is good, but not in a Harry Potter movie. Anyway, I kinda disaggreed with her as Hermione in the first place, because Hermione is supposed to be not very attractive.
Oh, and I haven't seen the latest film. Not going to see it, either.

Small correction: Hermione gets more attractive after book 4, and Emma started getting prettier around the time of the 3rd movie (yes, I'm too into this)

I understand the "Harry wakes up at King's Cross" thing, but did they really have to try to sex up the movie? The Horcrux scene may be the most appropriate, but I don't think that this is completely necessary.

 

[fluffybunny937]

I doubt we would actually see anything since Harry Potter is aimed at kids

 

[Rand-m]

But... But the scene will be so... Magical.

S-See what I did there? I made a pun based on the fact that they're at a school of wizardry.

OT: That's hot.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This whole thread reminds me of Frankie Boyle on Mock the Week, when confronted with the situation 'Things you wouldn't hear in a courtroom'

'Your Honour, that's all fair enough, but I put it to you, that that child is sexy!'

I personally very much doubt that there will be hot nudey action in any HP movie (a saucy HP movie? bsdum-tish!), it'll be hinted at and filmed carefully, so as not to edge over a PG rating and lower the enormous tidal wave of cash that it would bring in.

It's strange tho, isn't it, how the whole hype about paedophilia can make some of us uncomfortable in finding someone attractive, just because they used to be a child, when of course we all did!

Reminds me of the time when Chris Morris asked a group of random people questions about sexuality, and asking them if it was acceptable or not acceptable, one being 'Can I have sex with that six year old, now she's 23 years old.'

I admit I'd probably go for Charlotte Church if offered, but the young hymn singing 13 year old Charlotte really wasn't my thing, she's far more attractive as a woman than a girl. I also can't stand her music or her ill advised chat show, she just triggers the baser switches inside my head is all

I do have to say I'm pleased that, as far as I can tell, Daniel Radcliffe managed to do his nude scenes in the stage show without it becoming a millstone around his neck, as sometimes nudity is essential to a plot, and it shouldn't end up being a turning point in a career. Yes he has a cock, woo, what a shocker. I wouldn't be that surprised if it turns out Emma Watson has a vagina under those clothes too.

Facts are, they need to sell the movie to a religion crazed USA, therefore they're not going to put a nudey scene in it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they scale down the magic theme too, for fear of offending more idiots, after the protests about HP 'promoting witchcraft in our children' all over. Fuckwits.

honestly, magic, guns, knives, etc, all things you don't really want your kids dabbling in, but all things you'd see kids pretending to use if you went back fifty years. I think you'd find it hard to find a kid from the past 50 years who's never poked their index finger at a friend while running around and shouted 'bang'.

 

[Uszi]

Emma Watson is cute... But she's not exactly someone I'm aching to see naked.

I vote no.

Besides, I highly doubt you'll see anything. If I was Emma Watson, I definitely fucking wouldn't show anything, that's for sure. Most actresses try to keep a certain level of class by showing their cash and prizes as little as possible in movies, and Emma Watson definitely strikes me as someone who values that.

You generally only get tits from people who need to give that sort of thing up in order to get a part. Emma is in the EXACT OPPOSITE situation, and she could probably demand effectively anything and the producers would give it to her to keep her in the part.

Facts are, they need to sell the movie to a religion crazed USA, therefore they're not going to put a nudey scene in it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they scale down the magic theme too, for fear of offending more idiots, after the protests about HP 'promoting witchcraft in our children' all over. Fuckwits.

Emphasis added

I haven't seen any indication of this, nor heard anyone even discussing it, nor anyone even asking for it. Generally, the people who don't want magic in Harry Potter mostly just want to put Harry Potter to a complete end, rather than trying to change it.

Shit man, it's not that crazy in the USA. Yes there are Jesus Camp [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eERDW1d5joQ] freaky-Jesus types here, more so than anywhere else minus the Middle East. But you're average movie goer is definitely not that intense.

And since when has Hollywood ever cared about offending the bible thumping demographic? Have you paid attention to how contrary the Hollywood message is and has been to those people's values? Hollywood has always run afoul of the bible thumpers.

 

[Super_Nintendo_Chalmers]

Emma Watson is my dream woman. So i'll be rooting for this to happen.

Yes, I said rooting in that sort of context.

 

[Super_Nintendo_Chalmers]

But... But the scene will be so... Magical.

S-See what I did there? I made a pun based on the fact that they're at a school of wizardry.

I giggled at that.

 

[crypt-creature]

Since you think I never acknowledged it last time, let me reassure you I didn't but just to make sure you full assured, the ancient Japanese believed you took with you, to the other side, what ever you were buried with or in. There is still no feasible reason he can't be
clothed.

http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm

Have a read. Apparently many cultures found nudity to be nothing ashamed of, and while it might not be practiced by everyone it was common enough that it was acceptable for quite a few cultures.
They didn't find it shameful, or sexual unless it was meant to be taken as such. It wasn't nakedness even then, it was intent.
The only reason(s) that they should be clothed in this day in age, in a movie, is because nudity is 'icky' and most times is used to produce a sexual reaction.
In a spiritual sense, there is no reason why he can't be nude. A lot of producers and artists will use such images to also emphasize vulnerability, or shame.

Can you not see me referencing you in what I type? We were talking just about a film then you brought up the statue and I said ART and film, the statue has nothing added to it by it's wang waving around, happy now? If you took the statue and cut it off from the waist up, it wouldn't effect the statue's identity, unlike cutting the head off.

The point of it in art is about admiration and respect for the human body, all parts of it (not so much nowadays, unfortunately). It's about beauty and anatomy. Not getting your jollies by drawing someone naked, and it's not supposed to add anything aside from making the image complete.
You don't need the statues head unless you are choosing a face/person/expression for a specific reason. The body can, will, and does stand on its own quite nicely without the head. Again, it's about beauty and appreciation. There are plenty of statues with very bland or non-descript features that emphasize form, and also include generic bumps and humps to represent 'naughty bits'.
Again, it's about the intent of the artist or person(s).

You totally avoided the question and restated what I did, if you were a kid who loved the other films would you be angry you couldn't see the new film, due to your parents objecting to the nudity?

Probably, but so what?
Sometimes the child needs to obey their parents and trust their judgement, or prove that they are mature enough to handle such a movie. If they prove not to be able to handle such a thing, they should be punished if they act in an immature fashion, otherwise they simply need to deal with what they saw and the parents should talk with their child about it afterwards to try and make them feel less 'icky' about the whole thing.

The nudity does nothing but exclude the film the to it's main demographic.

It keeps the book as it was intended. Which might not mean anything to you or the younger kids but surely does to the author and the older fans watching the movie, and not because people want to see nudity.
I'd be willing to be the nudity is so minimal (no naughties, somewhat like the bath scene in the 4th movie) that it isn't even a big deal, it's going to be the suggestiveness behind it that will make parents flip out.

List reasons why there should be nudity in this film.

Because it's part of the story and the plot, it might even have some subliminal messages depending on which situation you look at.
Yes, you could do the same things clothed, but why? Because people are too touchy about the subject in todays age, and think every time nudity is used that it is being used in a sexual way? Because nudity is shameful?
That is a worse reason to strike it from the movie, and makes the phobia people have of this subject even worse.
Besides, you could say gore is just as useless. But even that has been added into HP at times.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It was pointed out on the second page, but I'm not sure if it got noticed. Daniel Radcliffe has already done a nude scene. He was the antagonist (IIRC) in the play "Equus". BTW, if you ever get a chance to read up on the play...let's just say that it was quite a leap in maturity from Harry Potter. And by "quite a leap" I mean "Oh my God, Harry Potter just ripped that horse's eyes out".


Sorry, where was I? Ah yes. Daniel Radcliffe has been there, done that, a few parents objected and were smacked down for being morons, and that was that. Somehow, this might be a bit different, but will probably end the same way. Although if the scene is misty and obscured, as it will be in all probability, Daniel Radcliffe is a lucky man for being able to actually see her nude.

 

[quack35]

Emma Watson flashing her tits is like Sam Adams beer - "Always a good decision."

Well, you win.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

The way they're saying sounds like it would fit with whats going on. Sounds good to me.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Facts are, they need to sell the movie to a religion crazed USA, therefore they're not going to put a nudey scene in it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they scale down the magic theme too, for fear of offending more idiots, after the protests about HP 'promoting witchcraft in our children' all over. Fuckwits.

(Quote from Uszi, lost my tags )
Emphasis added

I haven't seen any indication of this, nor heard anyone even discussing it, nor anyone even asking for it. Generally, the people who don't want magic in Harry Potter mostly just want to put Harry Potter to a complete end, rather than trying to change it.

Shit man, it's not that crazy in the USA. Yes there are Jesus Camp [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eERDW1d5joQ] freaky-Jesus types here, more so than anywhere else minus the Middle East. But you're average movie goer is definitely not that intense.

And since when has Hollywood ever cared about offending the bible thumping demographic? Have you paid attention to how contrary the Hollywood message is and has been to those people's values? Hollywood has always run afoul of the bible thumpers.[/quote]

(end of Uszi's bit)

I oughta point out, I mean the tiny minority of idiots, not the majority, it's just that sadly, minority groups of mental cases who think something like Harry Potter is 'corrupting' actually get attention from the media, who don't even have the decency to make a it 'lol dummies' story. Stepping away from the US, wasn't it an Archbishiop in the UK who stated that Harry Potter was teaching kids about withcraft, the tool? After all, isn't water to wine a pretty neat trick?

I guess my point was more about , we need to stop listening to the minority whiners, cos they're not going to pay to see it anyway, and concentrate on pleasing people who will actually buy a cinema ticket. If you offend say, 7% of all christians with a movie, maybe you should apologise and reconsider the direction of a sequel, purely in terms of profits, but in this case, it was probably nearest 0.007% yet, of course the papers made it out to be loads.

In summary, if they put a filthy nudey sex scene in the next HP, say goodbye to any profits, as well over half your audience won't even be able to get into the cinema to see it because it's rated R or 15.

 

[Uszi]

I guess my point was more about , we need to stop listening to the minority whiners...

In summary, if they put a filthy nudey sex scene in the next HP, say goodbye to any profits, as well over half your audience won't even be able to get into the cinema to see it because it's rated R or 15.

Agree.

Emma Watson flashing her tits is like Sam Adams beer - "Always a good decision."

Emma Watson flashing her tits is like going to the County Fair with Sasquatch -- fucking sweet, but only a secret dream.

 

[Spiner909]

Ick...terrible idea...

 

[Altorin]

people freaking out over nothing... Honestly, if there's as much nudity in harry potter as there is in the Wanted movie (read: Angelina Jolie's bare back and the top of her butt) I'd be very very surprised.

Not endorsing that movie, just was the first thing that popped into my head with the imagery I was trying to describe.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Whatever...so long as they don't market the film on that one scene

 

[omega 616]

Since you think I never acknowledged it last time, let me reassure you I didn't but just to make sure you full assured, the ancient Japanese believed you took with you, to the other side, what ever you were buried with or in. There is still no feasible reason he can't be
clothed.

http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm

Have a read. Apparently many cultures found nudity to be nothing ashamed of, and while it might not be practiced by everyone it was common enough that it was acceptable for quite a few cultures.
They didn't find it shameful, or sexual unless it was meant to be taken as such. It wasn't nakedness even then, it was intent.
The only reason(s) that they should be clothed in this day in age, in a movie, is because nudity is 'icky' and most times is used to produce a sexual reaction.
In a spiritual sense, there is no reason why he can't be nude. A lot of producers and artists will use such images to also emphasize vulnerability, or shame.

Can you not see me referencing you in what I type? We were talking just about a film then you brought up the statue and I said ART and film, the statue has nothing added to it by it's wang waving around, happy now? If you took the statue and cut it off from the waist up, it wouldn't effect the statue's identity, unlike cutting the head off.

The point of it in art is about admiration and respect for the human body, all parts of it (not so much nowadays, unfortunately). It's about beauty and anatomy. Not getting your jollies by drawing someone naked, and it's not supposed to add anything aside from making the image complete.
You don't need the statues head unless you are choosing a face/person/expression for a specific reason. The body can, will, and does stand on its own quite nicely without the head. Again, it's about beauty and appreciation. There are plenty of statues with very bland or non-descript features that emphasize form, and also include generic bumps and humps to represent 'naughty bits'.
Again, it's about the intent of the artist or person(s).

You totally avoided the question and restated what I did, if you were a kid who loved the other films would you be angry you couldn't see the new film, due to your parents objecting to the nudity?

Probably, but so what?
Sometimes the child needs to obey their parents and trust their judgement, or prove that they are mature enough to handle such a movie. If they prove not to be able to handle such a thing, they should be punished if they act in an immature fashion, otherwise they simply need to deal with what they saw and the parents should talk with their child about it afterwards to try and make them feel less 'icky' about the whole thing.

The nudity does nothing but exclude the film the to it's main demographic.

It keeps the book as it was intended. Which might not mean anything to you or the younger kids but surely does to the author and the older fans watching the movie, and not because people want to see nudity.
I'd be willing to be the nudity is so minimal (no naughties, somewhat like the bath scene in the 4th movie) that it isn't even a big deal, it's going to be the suggestiveness behind it that will make parents flip out.

List reasons why there should be nudity in this film.

Because it's part of the story and the plot, it might even have some subliminal messages depending on which situation you look at.
Yes, you could do the same things clothed, but why? Because people are too touchy about the subject in todays age, and think every time nudity is used that it is being used in a sexual way? Because nudity is shameful?
That is a worse reason to strike it from the movie, and makes the phobia people have of this subject even worse.
Besides, you could say gore is just as useless. But even that has been added into HP at times.

At last somebody putting good points forward for nudity.

I don't think you should be ashamed of being naked, it just has a time and a place and I think film, theater and art is no place for it.

I don't think it's "icky" just not in good taste, I lost alot of respect for hostel when I saw the first half of the film was basically naked women.

There are other ways to show shame and vulnerability, than get your kit off.

I always here artist say that, "I am admiring the human form" but I also notice they NEVER admire the male form.

I have never seen a statue without a head, from what I can remember most statues are to acknowledge somebody important like Julius caesar or beauty like venus de milo, so without a head there is no beauty, if there was only a torso arms and legs you would never be able to tell statues apart, except things being a little bigger or smaller.

For the sake of not adding nothing to very little to the film, little kids everywhere are going to massively disappointed, is it worth it? I don't think so, there is always another way to do things in film, theater or art.

The only reason I am against it is 'cos it will take it away from the kids, who it is for/started out for. Nudity takes the innocence away from the film, you don't watch high school musical in the hope of seeing man ass or a bit of boob.

If all the films had been a little more mature, a little darker, the lead characters weren't so young and it had been rated atleast a 15 then fair enough, everybody knows what to expect but I find it wrong to get kids hooked on this series then start pulling it away from them and teasing them with it.

Gore is more necessary than nudity, you would be astounded if you went to see the next horror film and never saw and gore, the suggested death is ok once or twice per film but to totally eliminate them from a film would ruin it. Taking the clothes out of the film just means people are cold and it sometimes bumps the age rating up.

I'm not even here to support nudity in this film, I have no idea what they're going to do. I was just calling you out on your penis-phobic views.

Well I will stop wasting my time, all you have done is say "your wrong" with no counter arguments or anything to prove me wrong. You have not added to any discussion or how nudity would improve the film.

Don't take this to mean I have no more arguments left or you somehow won 'cos to assume either would mean your dense, I have asked multiple times for points for nudity and you
provided none.

Good day to you sir.