Poll: Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe to have nude scene in final Harry Potter films?
- Thread starter Caligulove
- Start date
Emma Watson- nude scene- in Harry Potter
tbh though HP is not an 18 so you wont get to see anything
tbh though HP is not an 18 so you wont get to see anything
Once again you display your absolute lack of reading comprehension and back-pedal mania. I repeat,omega 616 said:
You: Nudity is never tastefully done
Me: Well that's bullshit, here's some examples
You: Uhh, no, I was just talking about the movie! Give me reasons it should be in the movie!
Me: ...that's not what I was even talking about, you said-
You: GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.
*sigh*
There is a time and place for everything.omega 616 said:
The big problem with nudity and gore, is that there is so much of it in movies/art/(sometimes) theater that when it actually a big part of the story, the viewer is turned off with the mindset of 'oh, now they're doing it to get more viewers or (insert whatever sexual reasoning here)'.
The other problem with nudity, it's mostly used for those sexual reasons too or just shock value, instead of being big parts of a story.
In HP, while it may not be completely necessary, it's still not being used strictly to get the viewer off or get more people interested in the material. However, the director and so on might use it as such a thing.
But that's completely the directors fault, not the authors fault.
True, but again that can be said for many things in film that are used too much.omega 616 said:
Personally, from a spiritual angle and 'afterlife' view, it makes more sense for them to be naked than clothed (at least Harry). He's not dead just yet, so even the Japanese example you gave could be altered to say 'Well he's not dead yet, nor is he buried. He's just in limbo'
Also, from an artistic angle, it still just makes more sense (to me).
It can be very artistically done, but it takes one heck of a team to be able to pull it off in a movie (not just actors, but the entire crew behind the movie).
Meh, depends on the artist. I do tend to see more people saying that about the female form, as some type of defense for drawing the naughties. Male forms... well, they just don't have as many things the artist needs to be wary of.omega 616 said:
It also seems like there's a stigma, boobs and women are more... attractive?... than the male and his goods. Hopefully it's just a phase.
I like the male form more, as the flow and shape of the body is more appealing to me over all (I am a woman, by the way).
And yes, I have had to use that excuse when drawing a naked male form... without it having any sort of a suggestive pose. People are just that touchy about things, and it really bugs the hell out of me at times.
Mostly true, but back in those days it was all about an important person or people. Headlessness in a statue was pretty rare, unless something happened to it. There are a handful of statues that have been recovered from those times that are now headless, and are just as popular as their full-headed counterparts. If anything, it not only adds to the mystique of the statue but makes the viewer think a wee bit more about the item in question.omega 616 said:
These days, it's not uncommon to see statues without faces (discernible ones) or even heads. Cultures have more freedom to express emotion through form, and not just the facial expressions.
True, but I honestly can't see the nudity being so bad that it would risk alienating little kids.omega 616 said:
If it is, I'll be disappointed in the film.
Now, I do think it will have a suggestive scene that parents will need to be wary of. But outright nudity? I just don't think so.
They'll find a way to cover up the naughty-bits and keep it somewhat more kid-friendly. But I am afraid that they'll go over-board on that suggestive scene and make it a little too suggestive, mainly because that's the Hollywood way these days.
The last few films get more darker, and seems like they are intentionally taking away the innocence of the film and books. It's not exactly a viable excuse, but if the purpose of the books is to show a group of kids growing up and becoming mature in all areas of life, then it's hardly a kids book/film anymore.
The benefit to it being done in a book is it doesn't have to be graphically worded, and a little kids brain usually doesn't imagine too much suggestive imagery (not to the effect that an adult or teen might, anyway).
Honestly, that's part of the drawbacks to movies and something that is easily mass-produced and distributed.omega 616 said:
Imagine, if you will, that the little kids who saw the first film (and only those little kids) were the only generation of kids to grow up with the films. By the time they get to the last set of films, they would/should be mature or old enough to handle a slight bit of nudity.
But the problem is, any little kid can go and get the movies and become instantly hooked on the series and watch all the current ones within a few days, instead of a few years.
These books are meant to grow up with kids, and the films are (almost) the same way. It's just that when kids can have instant access to something, it makes things tougher and makes it seem 'unfair' to deny some kids a chance to see the newest film.
And it is unfair, but it's hardly the kids fault or the fault of the movies/books.
Parents and kids need to learn a little more restraint. Just because it's there doesn't mean you need it or get to have it/see it if it isn't appropriate for you (yeah, kinda harsh right?).
Suggested death, but I don't need to see a severed body and body parts throughout every 10 minutes of the film (not HP obviously, but most 'horror' films).omega 616 said:
Half the films today that have gore in them I can't watch. Not from the gore, but from the pointlessness of all the blood and gore. JAWS is still more effective than half almost all of these new 'horror' movies, because it's not just about gore. it's about fear. Gore dose not make me fear the movie, it makes me think the director doesn't have a decent enough idea in their head and had to resort to the 'more blood+sex = instant seller' way of thinking.
But again, it all comes down to purpose and intent.
The author of HP made the nude and suggestive scene very non-graphic for a reason, but if this director makes them more specific than intended (a drawback of using forced imagery) then he had other motives behind the scene.
Most of the time, nudity in a movie is pointless because the director(s) of the film(s) make them so. Plus most people think that nudity of any sort is only in a movie for the purpose of attracting horny people, and so they use it as such.
In all, it's the fault of society for having such a fear of the naked body and only thinking it's purpose is to get off a round of jollies. It starts to impact things a lot more than people want to think.
>.> Sorry that this post is so damn long.
You can't even give examples here so whats the point in carrying on this argument? You be trollin'.Cakes said:
WOW, this post is the same length as a HP book.crypt-creature said:
With alot of films I have seen you can get the same message across with a suggestive scene, like kissing for a bit then the girl leading the guy out of the room, everybody except little kids know what to think, you don't need to see either of them naked to understand.
The famous saying, less is definitely more.
I can't think of a single reason way nudity could add to the story in a way them being clothed could. Thats the bit I need an example for, a valid example were being naked could do what being clothed can't.
For humiliation or vulnerability you could just have loads of dark shadowy "demons" or people laughing at the main character in a "inside his/her head" moment, it would be far more effective than leaving him alone, naked, reading a monologue or wondering naked down dark corridor with a narrator speaking as his thoughts.
If they are in limbo then they could still be clothed, like in Japanese example I gave, they wouldn't be buried clothed, go into limbo naked, then in the after life there clothed again. Unless every body in heaven and hell is naked for eternity.
After seeing many, MANY films with nudity in (I never bought them for the nudity, I didn't even know nudity was in them) I have never, ever seen a film were the girl (it has always been a girl) being naked has been used in any kind of artistic way, the biggest offender is hostel, if you have seen it you will understand what I mean.
If you haven't, it's about three guys that backpack around Europe visiting brothels then get picked off to to be tortured, thats the basic premise of the film. Your expecting maybe one or two boob shots, WRONG, there is atleast 20 pairs of boobs ... even when there no were near a brothel, theres a sex scene. I describe it as a porno with a bloodbath on the end, as some kind of afterthought.
Starship troopers, they have a shower scene with males and females in, they talk about there ambitions and why they joined the troop, they could have had the exact same scene in the canteen.
In every single Friday the 13th films, there is always two people having sex and again all you see is the girls boobs. Were is the art? It's all about making the male audience members twitch with excitement.
I know guys tend to think alot more with there smaller head, so I can understand them wanting to "admire the female form" (or find an excuse to stare at a naked woman for and hour), so is it just just about drawing to you? If so, why does it have to be the male form? Why not the form of a mountain? Or the form of a bowl of fruit? I know girls/women sometimes think about sex, I am not that stupid. As you can now tell I am guy, who doesn't think like normal guys.
I don't think you can express emotion without the face, if you put a box over somebodies head and ask them to express happiness, sadness, fear or excitement in any order you would have a very hard time picking what they were doing in a single statue-esk pose.
I know little kids haven't got a clue about sex and would probably just giggle at a nude scene and don't think about those lines but the people who matter do think like that, the parents. If there willing to complain about original XBOX advert then I doubt they will be happy about nude scenes in what started out as a kids book.
If films like high school musical can keep some sort of innocence in them, then HP can aswell. Would the series be tragically ruined and cast into damnation if they had kept the childish fun and child friendly tone?
What will be in the next HP? A student finds a magic mushroom, which quickly goes round the school, people start to see hallucinations and have more nude scenes with each other, while the students get sick, Harry has to find a cure, while being under the effects of the mushroom due to peer pressure, so he asks around and follows leads then travels far and wide to furthest reaches of were ever, then over comes an adversary to get the remedy and save the school ... again? If were going to have nude scenes might aswell have drugs, unless it's been done.
I know what your saying about the people growing up with the book will be at the right age to view these scenes but new kids won't be, but if the films kept there innocence everybody could read them and people who are hooked on Harry potter will still buy or see the film and books, if your hooked on something you won't give it up. There actually more likely to stay hooked to them due to them reading and seeing what they fell in love with first of all.
I think theres Three kinds of horror film, theres the classic: suspenseful, make you jump, JAWS kind of horror (quarantine is also a really good example).
The new breed: shallow story, loads of gore, violence and macabre scenes, (just about every other horror film).
Then the hybrid: The only series I have seen slot into this is "saw", it has the new breeds gore but the classic horror suspense and a deeper story.
I don't fear the naked body, I just don't to see it all the time, when I was younger I wanted to see every boob in every film as a cheap thrill. When ever I see a boob (it's the most common form of nudity) in a film now, I just feel disappointed that the director stooped to that level.
I am getting more and more disappointment in films lately. Mine is a bit long aswell, whoops.
As a fan of the original books, I don't see how it would fit the canon. That being said . . . Emma Watson . . . mmmmm . . .
Well, one half of that is a good idea.
So long as it's tasteful (I consider female boobs and no male genitalia to be tasteful)
So long as it's tasteful (I consider female boobs and no male genitalia to be tasteful)
On the other hand...Labyrinth said:
There's something far more erotically charged about wisps of clothing than plain flesh. A move towards nude scenes would nicely shiv our culture into only having young, pretty, lean film stars. (I mean, even for the ladies, what is Sean Connery or Harrison Ford gonna look like?)
This will lead to 'shopping galore on the posters, and if you've got the kids learning sex at age 6...what exactly do you think is gonna happen?
(No, I'm not a prude...I was doing the same at 6...but I was at least afraid I'd get caught)
If we've still got the problem that penetrating a woman with a dagger is only a 15, but with an erect penis is an 18; then this sort of idea will ruin a generation, not to mention sending teenage pregnancies sky-rocketing.
A bit of education (from people who know about these things) and lay the hell off using boobies/pectorals to sell everything, and maybe we'll be ready for the idea soon.
Our "favourite" sparkly film already shows what's going to happen. Rather than get a more enlightened world, as Labyrinth suggests, we're going to get a push towards mainstream pr0n; which then has a multitude of problems.
And, I'm sorry, but I like my nudity to be at least in a place where I can look away. The thought of all the half-bathed trollops and scum waltzing in to work makes me vomit. It's bad enough already on sunny days where they're red and peeling. Anything more than the back will make me heave.
Oh, and teenage suicides from fear of their bodies in puberty? Skyrocket.
Emma Watson, like mead/vodka/dope/smoking talked up and not all it's meant to be, seriouisly, there are far more attractive people out there, many of which don't have annoying whiny voices, also, it's harry potter, who gives a wizarding fuck