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

[Carnagath]

God, am i the only one that doesnt find Emma Watson attractive? I still see her as a kid, even though shes older than me.

Yes, yes you are.

is it a nerd thing or something?

I really wish hot 18 year old girls were only a "nerd thing", but unfortunately it seems to be a universal thing.

I dont find her hot, She doesnt seem to have curves in the right places, and her face bores me.

Yeah ok, she's no Monica Bellucci, but there are other charms, my friend. Other charms. Pour me a glass of wine and I'll tell you all about them.

 

[historybuff]

All the HP movies suck.

Why don't people seem to realize this?

So I don't care because I won't be going to see the movies anyway.

 

[Mondo_Generator]

At least she's not pulling a Chloe Sevigny.

That would be weird.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Now THAT'S what I'd call an adaptation!

I support this as much as re-making LOTR as a nine-hour long hobbit porno.

 

[Cptn_Squishy]

It's in the Young Adult section of the bookstore and published by Scholastic. And the characters are 17. I don't think it'll cause a breakout of orgies among 13-year olds, but I don't think it's a good idea either.

 

[The3rdEye]

(Having not seen all of Half Blood Prince, so my opinion may change) - There's a fine line between romance and sexuality, a line that with HP's coy little "embarrassed-stuttering-passive-aggressive-quick-little-peck" history has stayed firmly on the Romance side of things. I know that the HP movies have been getting progressively more mature in their subject matter (I imagine seeing Simon Diggery getting killed on screen must have shocked a number of people) but the subjects themselves have never really changed until now. Right from the start we know that Voldemort killed Harry's parents so death and murder have been there since day one, but in the context of them being kids the actual graphic nature was slowly introduced. I really don't see how suddenly having a sexually suggestive scene is going to fit into things.

But then again, this could be entirely hype and the entire sequence could be tastefully well done in the spirit of the story (that I have seen) thus far. On a personal note, I've always felt that the more enjoyable elements of the HP movie's writing has always been the implicit details and direction rather than the explicit.

 

[MasterChowmein]

bad idea

 

[zelda2fanboy]

No way the MPAA would let this stand. First of all, no there's not going to be nudity. Maybe, there might be some back nudity, but no butt cheeks. You might say that Twilight has been a big ruse to sell sex to kids, and though this may be true, the second a nipple pops out, you can bet your boots the MPAA will try to make it R or NC-17. They can rate a movie differently based on their own personal preference and there's no accountability whatsoever. If they think Harry Potter is more for kids and there a tit right in the middle of it, they will do everything in their power to ensure kids won't see it.

Titanic

That was different. Titanic was not seen as a kids' movie. In America, Harry Potter is. It doesn't matter if they make a movie about Harry becoming a drug addicted wall street stock trader, Potter will ALWAYS be connected to kids here, which isn't the case in the rest of the world. Also, Titanic was a hugely hyped big budget oscar contender. MPAA folks probably saw it as elevated high art that everybody should see. Therefore, it gets a PG-13. Remember Whale Rider? That movie was a kids movie about kids. It contained no violence or sexuality or nudity or harsh language of any sort, and it got slapped with a PG-13. Why? There was a shot in which for a spit second you could see a marijuana pipe in the background. A PG-13 for a background prop. The MPAA does not have to consistent with their rulings and they answer to no one. Watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" by Kirby Dick.

 

[omega 616]

I've never liked it, I got forced to watch a film and I have never read a book, so forgive me if I mess this up.

Isn't harry potter for kids? I know they released "special" books for adults so they wouldn't be embarrassed (can anybody notice the awful logic behind that?)but it started out for kids.

How can they possibly think that nudity is a good thing for a children's film?

I think its like that girl from high school musical putting pics of herself naked on the net.

I bet, like so many other films (hostel I am looking at you!), it will not add a thing to the film. If you took all the boobs out of Friday the 13th would the film be totally shot to hell (sorry for the pun)? If you took all the sex from hostel would the film be ruined? The only film you need sex and nudity in is porn.

If the only way you can get people to watch your film is with a bit of T&A then your not that great at making films.

You seem to be thinking Harry Potter is for small children, which it is not. It started out that way, yeah, but find me a 10 year old that enjoys Deathly Hallows and I'll eat my hat.

Not to mention you seem to bizarrely link nudity to porn. Crazy thought: maybe nudity can be tastefully done? Nah, it's obviously just an excuse for sum pr0n lawl.

Nudity is never tastefully done, EVER! It is like a nude painter saying I am capturing the beauty of the female form, NO, YOUR NOT! your want a reason to look at a naked woman.

From what I have read in the link some body is being tortured by watching harry and the girl do whatever, couldn't they just make the girl sit on his lap and kiss? It would still provoke the same response or hint at the fact they were going to have sex? No, he had to get them naked.

In another scene harry is naked and dieing, why can't he be clothed and dieing? Does it really add that much to the film that he needs to be naked?

I have yet to see a film were it was necessary to get somebody naked in order to convey the message you want to get across. It's not like you see it in high school/college performances.

What happened to the saying less is more? If a girl and guy are kissing then say something like " I think we should ... you know" then run off, you know what the director is trying to convey to you, you don't need to see the girls boobs and lads butt to know whats going on.

If it started out for 10 year olds it should remain targeted at 10 year olds, don't you think they will be upset that a thing they love will have nude scenes in it, which some parents will stop there kids seeing so they have to miss out on it and for what?

 

[Panda Mania]

Heaven forbid...

I have zero desire to see either Watson or Radcliffe (especially him) show some skin. Together, or apart. In the book all the "monster" does is conjure up their images and they kiss. No sex. I'm sure Rowling intended it that way.

Someone boot the over-caffeinated H/H shipper off the crew!

 

[Kimjira19]

I dunno, they've got a relationship as characters, it makes sense.
Plus, they're both over 18.

Also, it's Harry Potter, who gives a shit?

They are only friends in the books. So the two of them being naked together does not make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Cakes]

Nudity is never tastefully done, EVER! It is like a nude painter saying I am capturing the beauty of the female form, NO, YOUR NOT! your want a reason to look at a naked woman.

You have some serious body issues.[footnote]I'm not joking either. Did something traumatizing hapen to you as a child? Because something about people not wearing clothes (which is perfectly natural) gets you jumpier than a rabbit on speed.[/footnote] I suppose the statue of David should be wearing pants?

In another scene harry is naked and dieing, why can't he be clothed and dieing? Does it really add that much to the film that he needs to be naked?

So, you don't know what you're talking about at all.
He had already died (sort of) and was in a kind of limbo, in between life and death. Why the holy fuck would someone need clothes in such a place?

If it started out for 10 year olds it should remain targeted at 10 year olds, don't you think they will be upset that a thing they love will have nude scenes in it, which some parents will stop there kids seeing so they have to miss out on it and for what?

Yeah, you're right. I can't believe J.K. Rowling made the absolutely appalling decision to have her characters grow up. Adult Harry Potter should have been the exact same as 11 year old Harry Potter. Maturing? Ha! Such a thing does not belong in literature.

 

[Octorok]

Watson is 19 and getting her kit off for a bunch of perving camera crews is probably a mistake. Although she is modeling these days, who knows, perhaps she'll go the whole hog and become a porn star.

I know a bunch of people who have let you get away with this, but I'm not going to be one of them!

How the HELL do you get from one (probably) tasteful and mostly covered nude scene to "porn star"? Are you aware of how many actresses have done nude scenes and not gone on to do porn? Are you aware that one actress who has done porn has already had a leading role in a Harry Potter film, and no one started having orgies on the pavement because of it?

Is it just because she's 19? Is the fact that she's been acting for half her natural life not enough to think that she might just be able to handle it? She's not some Disney Brat who's been kept pure and virginal for the extra publicity when she goes off the rails.

Good God, if I thought so many people would take that completely literally and not see the joke then I wouldn't have bothered typing it.

Would it be easier for you if I put underneath - DISCLAIMER - I am being sarcastic.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

This fills me with effeminate fury!

I'm a die hard, I view any change as being poison to the roots. I really, really don't want to see it done, especially since from what I hear it's being substituted for a scene which represents the tortured internal struggle of Ron's romantic feelings combined with his camraderie with Harry, and replaces it with sexualisation of the first order.

Bad form.

you havent seen it yet.

Yes, but I have no faith in the movie industry to not sexualise the scene. It could have been done without it, it won't be.

Also, I would add to this my hatred of Emma Watson, but I bang on about that all the time.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

What the hell is wrong with Switzerland?!?!

 

[Balboa]

You people are unimaginably, painfully idiotic. Let's get one thing straight right now: Harry Potter is absolutely not, in any way, shape, or form a children's series. You people are using the first installment to judge the entire series. Anyone who thinks the last few films are even remotely for that age range doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. It isn't for a bunch of little kids. For the life of me, I can't understand why people don't get that. It doesn't matter whether kids are taken to it or not (I've seen kids in just about every movie that I've ever got to the theater to see), whether these oblivious, aloof soccer mom's go on these long, drawn out rants about how they read the books to their kids, or anything else--it is NOT a children's series and therefore it should not be treated as such. Please explain how these extremely dark themes and all of the murder and mayhem (among other things) are for children. Please explain to me how children are going to pick up on the frequent uses of metaphor and symbolism, the various political and philosophical ideologies explored, and just the overall mature themes which are all there in these multi-layered, deep, profound, epic stories. I don't believe in underestimating kids, but I do know that people frequently--particularly where their own kids are concerned--overestimate them. My suggestion to you people is get over the fact that these books are not for kids and never were intended just for them--it was designed to age with the people who first started reading them. It reminds me of the crowd that says The Lord of the Rings trilogy is for kids, simply because they read The Hobbit which was geared more toward a younger crowd--as far as the manner in which it was written, and yet they apply it to the entire middle earth saga. Bottom line: Harry Potter is not for kids. No amount of debate will change that. Period. That's the end of it.

 

[Alzabane]

ok now harry potter is COMPLETLEY like the saw films, I'm really not sure how 2 react to this, I can sort of see them heading towards the older audience, and it's given me a reason to go see it, but I'm not sure how the "hardcore", or younger fans will react, I suppose will see soon though, it all depends on the purpose and how they present this scene

 

[Beatrix]

Bad idea, they did not explicitly have sex in the books, they should not do so in the movies.
It's just another sign of them completely screwing everything up (excusing my pun).

 

[Balboa]

Take it with a grain of salt. I clearly remember them saying the same thing before Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire came out too (that Daniel/Harry would be nude in the scene where he opens that egg in the prefects bathtub).

 

[Chipperz]

Watson is 19 and getting her kit off for a bunch of perving camera crews is probably a mistake. Although she is modeling these days, who knows, perhaps she'll go the whole hog and become a porn star.

I know a bunch of people who have let you get away with this, but I'm not going to be one of them!

How the HELL do you get from one (probably) tasteful and mostly covered nude scene to "porn star"? Are you aware of how many actresses have done nude scenes and not gone on to do porn? Are you aware that one actress who has done porn has already had a leading role in a Harry Potter film, and no one started having orgies on the pavement because of it?

Is it just because she's 19? Is the fact that she's been acting for half her natural life not enough to think that she might just be able to handle it? She's not some Disney Brat who's been kept pure and virginal for the extra publicity when she goes off the rails.

Good God, if I thought so many people would take that completely literally and not see the joke then I wouldn't have bothered typing it.

Would it be easier for you if I put underneath - DISCLAIMER - I am being sarcastic.

I love how, when called out on shit like this, suddenly everyone's "only joking". You know what? There are people out there who actually think like that, and I feel it's so fucking stupid I have to call them out on it. You gave no indication you were joking, so I treated you like a moron.