Fifty Shades of Grey

[Hamatron]

Well, dang. That is a long time. That date is weird, too. Isn't January through March pretty much a dumping ground for aborted Oscar potentials, crap that has sat on the shelf, and stuff that just broke down into awfulness along the way from script to distribution? Reach for the sky, 50 Shades.

I guess I'll see y'all in this thread in a year or so.

[ratscabies]

Well, that's simply ridiculous.

Back in the "Golden Age", when they still used film, had scripts and lines to deliver, and didn't spend the whole movie spitting on each other, a good, HIGH BUDGET porno would take 3 weeks, tops, from script writing to screen!

Hell, "Deep Throat" took 3 days, and cost 10 grand to make. It took in like 400 million dollars.

They shoulda hired Paul Thomas to direct...

[GoldenFleece]

Nov 16, 2013 16:12:45 GMT -4 Hamatron said:

Well, dang. That is a long time. That date is weird, too. Isn't January through March pretty much a dumping ground for aborted Oscar potentials, crap that has sat on the shelf, and stuff that just broke down into awfulness along the way from script to distribution? Reach for the sky, 50 Shades.

I guess I'll see y'all in this thread in a year or so.

A lot of "date movies" are released in early February to get the Valentine's Day/season business. I actually think it's a sign of confidence (maybe misplaced) that they aren't just rushing it into theaters as soon as they can. If they'd been smart and aimed lower all along instead of deluding themselves that they could snag A-listers, they probably could have filmed it already and had it in theaters by Valentine's Day 2013 or 2014.

[Hamatron]

Yeah, I guess that's fair. Though I'd only want to see 50 Shades on V-Day if my BF was the type who liked to get buzzed and laugh. I suspect otherwise it's the stuff that early date awkwardness is made of, hah. (Maybe they're hoping to attract "forever alone" audiences?)

But hey, it doesn't strike me as misguided as the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- to launch on Christmas!" disaster.

[GoldenFleece]

Maybe they're hoping it's like how guys ended up being "dragged" along by their girlfriends to that crazy dueling ballerina movie...where Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis had a big kissing/sex scene. Not that 50 Shades will be up for any Oscars, but unlike actual Twilight, the fanfic version has nudity and multiple love scenes. I can't see a ton of guys who would go see it on their own, but the books did seem to appeal to a lot of women who were married/in relationships, or at least claimed to be. And then there will be the single women who will want to spend Valentine's Day with Christian Grey.

[ratscabies]

When my buddy turned 18 a few months after I did, we "celebrated" by going to our first porn movie. It was 1984, and there were still porno theatres. Akron had two. One was downtown, and was strictly for the raincoaters. The other was the Art Theatre.

I was not expecting this. It was as clean and large as any old, pre-cineplex theatre I have ever been in, and to this day, I have never had better popcorn!

We went to see "Insatiable II", starring Marilyn Chambers. There were people of all ages, and even a few couples. One couple sitting a couple rows back from us, were college age. They made it throught the first two scenes (one missionary, one solo in the shower), but as soon as the girl/girl started, the girl stood up, slapped her date so hard it sounded like a Jim Thome home run, and stomped out.

We assumed it was one if those, "Let's go see a porno, and we'll try everything we see in the movie!" dates that the dubious advice columns in Club and Penthouse used to recommend.

50 Shades will NOT be a date movie. And even if it is being sold that way, as per my last post, Valentine's is still 3 months away. PT would've had it in the can by now!

ETA: Does anyone remember Blake Edwards' "S.O.B."? Most famous perhaps, for the scene when Julie Andrews (Mary Poppins! Maria von Trapp!!!!) flashes her "boobies", but the story concerns the last will and testament of a big-time producer, who says in his will that no one gets a penny unless they make a "Cleopatra" style epic based in the Kama Sutra. All the craven Hollywood types get stuck on is if they should show "Positions".

I picture this debate going on right now. Like some porno version of Rupert Murdock watching "Network", and thinking "Eureka!!!"

[Freelance Exorcist]

Still can't believe they're taking this shit show seriously. That's all. Somewhere in the Devil's filing cabinet is a folder labeled "Leonard, Erika" with a contract bearing a signature written in blood.

[scarlet]

Nov 20, 2013 23:23:54 GMT -4 Freelance Exorcist said:

Still can't believe they're taking this shit show seriously. That's all. Somewhere in the Devil's filing cabinet is a folder labeled "Leonard, Erika" with a contract bearing a signature written in blood.

Every now and then, when I feel in the need to get enraged, I look at her Twitter account. The woman's head could not be any bigger. From the sounds of it, she's going to be on set every single day (since all she talks about is taking meetings in LA and how--sob, sob--she *has* to be away from her family so much (all the while posting pics of her out at different LA hot spots). There's just no way this movie is going to be anything but a colossal joke. I know next to nothing about him, but good on Charlie Hunnam for bailing on this.

[Freelance Exorcist]

From everything I've heard about her, she seems absolutely insufferable. I hate her just for her refusal to even consider that the relationship in her book is abusive and for blocking anyone who disagrees with her on Twitter.

And yes, good on Charlie Hunnam for getting out when he could. Given how little actual erotica is in the book, he's probably naked and/or having sex more in the Sons of Anarchy episodes I've seen so far (finishing up Season 3) than he would have been in this movie anyway.

[Auroranorth]

A date movie? Really? No way would I want to watch this with a BF- I'd be too busy cringing and gagging.