# Let's talk about the Fifty Shades of Grey Movie!



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Has anyone seen the FSOG movie? Any thoughts? Being an erotica author and a guy who needs this to do well so that I can get financing to turn one of my books into a webseries, I saw it on Thursday, the day it came out.

I also reviewed it for this week's video if you want to know my thoughts. And just so you know, the Hulk's views on the movie are my own.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Didn't see it.  Probably never will.  Now please answer me this.  Why does a movie having success or failing have to do with your Web series?  
Erotica did not start with 50 shades of gray.  Most erotica has nothing to do with 50 shades of gray.    

You want to do a Web series, do a Web series.
But your audience will NOT be the 50 shades of gray audience.  Those people watched or bought the book,  because all their friends did
Try your Web series.  Let me know when you get it up. I want to see this.  But don't ever do something just because someone had connections.
The movie will be a hit.  Because of peer pressure.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Well, it's not quite that simple. There are 2 television networks that are trying to decide whether to fund another company that is, in turn, interested in making one of my books into a webseries. The networks are looking to cash in on the FSOG phenomena. So if the movie does well, the television networks will assume that steamy romance is viable in a visual medium. If the movie tanks then they will assume that not even the world's most popular erotic romance book will make people watch.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Well, it's not quite that simple. There are 2 television networks that are trying to decide whether to fund another company that is, in turn, interested in making one of my books into a webseries. The networks are looking to cash in on the FSOG phenomena. So if the movie does well, the television networks will assume that steamy romance is viable in a visual medium. If the movie tanks then they will assume that not even the world's most popular erotic romance book will make people watch.


What does a television network have to do with a Web series? 
Yes I assume 50 shades will do good at the box office but as a Web or tv series, not so sure. I would say the story line of one couple would wear thin in a hurry. 
Now Soap Operas have been around for years and in the early 80's, they were the steamy romance of the day. 
I do hope you find the funding.


----------



## LeahEmmaRose (Mar 16, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


Oh my!

Or should I say holy crap?


----------



## B&amp;H (Apr 6, 2014)

I don't imagine it will do well in cinemas. Who wants to sit in a room full of strangers watching a mucky film.

Will maybe do better on DVD, but i strongly suspect the hype around the book has lost its lustre and the film will bomb.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> What does a television network have to do with a Web series?
> Yes I assume 50 shades will do good at the box office but as a Web or tv series, not so sure. I would say the story line of one couple would wear thin in a hurry.
> Now Soap Operas have been around for years and in the early 80's, they were the steamy romance of the day.
> I do hope you find the funding.


Networks fund webseries nowadays an experiments.

Megan, I will share if/when things become official.

I just checked estimates and people are thinking that the movie will make $75M this weekend. If it does, it will be considered a hit.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


This is why you're one of my favorite kboarders.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Thankfully, I no longer work as a film critic so I won't have to slog through this piece of "cinema". Critics that I know and trust have already communicated to me just how awful this film is in terms of the acting, the pacing, and the rather boring cinematography (though, apparently, it's not quite as inept as the writing found in the source material, for whatever that's worth). Apparently it's not even all that 'erotic'...I mean, this is America after all, sex in cinema is rather taboo here, and anything really "boundary" pushing would never make it past the MPAA. I encourage everyone to go see Kingsmen this weekend instead, first great film I've seen in 2015.


----------



## Keith Soares (Jan 9, 2014)

JV said:


> Apparently it's not even all that 'erotic'...I mean, this is America after all, sex in cinema is rather taboo here, and anything really "boundary" pushing would never make it past the MPAA.


Apparently, in France, 50 Shades has been approved for 12-year-olds, because they deem it to be so tame.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/ooh-la-la-fifty-shades-of-grey-movie-only-gets-a-12-rating-in-france-10040525.html

K.


----------



## RBK (Nov 28, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


You are actually my favourite.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Don't want to see the big screen version. I'll wait for _Coerced, Unhealthy Relationship With A Sociopath: The Animated Series_, thanks.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Keith Soares said:


> Apparently, in France, 50 Shades has been approved for 12-year-olds, because they deem it to be so tame.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/ooh-la-la-fifty-shades-of-grey-movie-only-gets-a-12-rating-in-france-10040525.html
> 
> K.


Ha, that sounds about right. Passion of the Christ is essentially two hours of a guy being tortured and that gets is an R. But Basic Instinct and Showgirls both get an NC-17...I've seen more "explicit" sexuality in Game of Thrones. It's truly a lesson in American values.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

JV said:


> Thankfully, I no longer work as a film critic so I won't have to slog through this piece of "cinema". Critics that I know and trust have already communicated to me just how awful this film is in terms of the acting, the pacing, and the rather boring cinematography (though, apparently, it's not quite as inept as the writing found in the source material, for whatever that's worth). Apparently it's not even all that 'erotic'...I mean, this is America after all, sex in cinema is rather taboo here, and anything really "boundary" pushing would never make it past the MPAA. I encourage everyone to go see Kingsmen this weekend instead, first great film I've seen in 2015.


Ooh, that's good to know. I went to see Kingman last night and couldn't get a ticket! I decided I would rather go to Pizza Express than see FSOG or any of the other rubbish films that were available yesterday, really disappointed by the selection on offer right now!


----------



## RBK (Nov 28, 2014)

PS: Kingsman is excellent.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Don't want to see the big screen version. I'll wait for _Coerced, Unhealthy Relationship With A Sociopath: The Animated Series_, thanks.


I don't know... I expect I'll watch it at some point. But I'm not _paying_ to watch it.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

RKC said:


> PS: Kingsman is excellent.


It's friggin fantastic, the church scene alone is worth the price of admission.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> Thankfully, I no longer work as a film critic so I won't have to slog through this piece of "cinema". Critics that I know and trust have already communicated to me just how awful this film is in terms of the acting, the pacing, and the rather boring cinematography (though, apparently, it's not quite as inept as the writing found in the source material, for whatever that's worth). Apparently it's not even all that 'erotic'...I mean, this is America after all, sex in cinema is rather taboo here, and anything really "boundary" pushing would never make it past the MPAA. I encourage everyone to go see Kingsmen this weekend instead, first great film I've seen in 2015.


I would disagree about the pacing and cinematography. And the female lead isn't bad. But she is not incredibly strong. However if the director was better, you would never notice the actress' weaknesses.

But anyone who completely rips this movie apart just doesn't get it. It is the romantic equivalent of the Hangover. The difference is that I liked parts of FSOG. People liked the Hangover for no good reason. At least when people like this movie, it would be because it pushes the boundaries for movies that made it to wide release (in the US). And really, in terms of boundary pushing, I would say that it exceeds Secretary and critics liked that. The problem is that this is just a weaker storytelling experience over all compared to Secretary.

P.S. God did I hate that introductory scene. I spent the first half of the movie being won back from it. If that scene wasn't so poorly made, who knows if I would have liked the movie over all.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

As soon as it comes on a movie channel,  I will post my opinion.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I'll watch it for sure, but not in the theater. But that is because I don't watch anything in the theater, not because of what movie it is. 

I do think this is of course targeted towards women and lots of women that read the books. Many have and many have liked it. I am reading all kinds of reviews online, many are favorable. 
Overall I am just glad there is something out there targeted to women and not just for men. 

Most of us women are also quite capable of separating reality from fiction, movies and books.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Alex Anders said:


> People liked the Hangover for no good reason.


_I_ liked The Hangover because it was funny.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

This discussion really belongs in the Not Quite Kindle section. Yes, I know, some will want to jump on me for saying so, but the more off-topic threads clutter up the writer's cafe, the harder it is to filter out what matters.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> I would disagree about the pacing and cinematography. And the female lead isn't bad. But she is not incredibly strong. However if the director was better, you would never notice the actress' weaknesses.
> 
> But anyone who completely rips this movie apart just doesn't get it. It is the romantic equivalent of the Hangover. The difference is that I liked parts of FSOG. People liked the Hangover for no good reason. At least when people like this movie, it would be because it pushes the boundaries for movies that made it to wide release (in the US). And really, in terms of boundary pushing, I would say that it exceeds Secretary and critics liked that. The problem is that this is just a weaker storytelling experience over all compared to Secretary.
> 
> P.S. God did I hate that introductory scene. I spent the first half of the movie being won back from it. If that scene wasn't so poorly made, who knows if I would have liked the movie over all.


Basic Instinct pushed the boundaries long ago. 50 Shades of Grey didn't explore any new ground. If you want to delve into kinky sexual fetishes, go with David Cronenbergs Crash...that film actually pushed boundaries and has a competent director around it.

And saying anyone that "rips it apart" doesn't get it is simply not true...it just means they didn't like the film...we're not dissecting literature here, this is twilight fan fiction (literally). I also don't quite get the 'romantic equivalent of the Hangover' line. The Hangover was actually an extremely intelligent twist on the buddy comedy and had clever writing (the same can't be said for the sequels, sadly). 50 shades isn't doing anything new, we know the writing is rather sub par, just not sure how it compares.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Atunah said:


> I'll watch it for sure, but not in the theater. But that is because I don't watch anything in the theater, not because of what movie it is.
> 
> I do think this is of course targeted towards women and lots of women that read the books. Many have and many have liked it. I am reading all kinds of reviews online, many are favorable.
> Overall I am just glad there is something out there targeted to women and not just for men.
> ...


And I think you will like it. If you go in with a love of romance and an open mind, you will probably like it. If you go in there skeptical, you will find enough reason to dislike it.



SevenDays said:


> _I_ liked The Hangover because it was funny.


But it wasn't any type of cinematic master piece. And I love comedies, even stupid comedies. But I don't think I laughed once during the entire movie. I went in skeptical about FSOG, then I absolutely HATED the opening scene. Yet the movie still had gotten me to laugh out laugh twice during the movie. As week as it was in other areas, it does hold your attention and it does make you care about what the characters are going through. I might even consider seeing the 2nd movie.

Overall, FSOG wasn't bad. It just had weaknesses at are obvious for anyone who gives it some thought.


----------



## mjstorm (Feb 23, 2013)

JV said:


> Passion of the Chris


I really want this to become a movie, in the "Life of Brian" vein. Someone? Anyone?


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> And I think you will like it. If you go in with a love of romance and an open mind, you will probably like it. If you go in there skeptical, you will find enough reason to dislike it.
> But it wasn't any type of cinematic master piece. And I love comedies, even stupid comedies. But I don't think I laughed once during the entire movie. I went in skeptical about FSOG, then I absolutely HATED the opening scene. Yet the movie still had gotten me to laugh out laugh twice during the movie. As week as it was in other areas, it does hold your attention and it does make you care about what the characters are going through. I might even consider seeing the 2nd movie.
> 
> Overall, FSOG wasn't bad. It just had weaknesses at are obvious for anyone who gives it some thought.


It's worth noting that The Hangover sits at 79% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.8 on IMDB (critics and audience seem to be in line here). FSOG sits at 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and 3.7 on IMDB (critics and audiences also seem to be of a like mind here).


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

mjstorm said:


> I really want this to become a movie, in the "Life of Brian" vein. Someone? Anyone?


Ah, typo corrected.

Chris...Christ...I get them confused sometimes.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Not sure what it matters what some site says about movies. Especially movies that are for a different audience. I watched some of Hangover, hated it. Just not even remotely my kind of movies. So what. There are a gazillion movies put out that target young male audiences as majority. There is almost nothing put out that targets women. So why even compare a movie like 50 with a movie like Hangover. 

I go see movies so rarely as there is almost nothing out there that interests me. I have trouble finding stuff on the movie channels. Its either all shoot em dead wham bam violence. Or its stuff that is obviously targeting 20 somethings, usually male. Or cartoons, or stuff based on cartoons. 

I also rarely like stuff the critics like so there is that.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Atunah said:


> Not sure what it matters what some site says about movies. Especially movies that are for a different audience. I watched some of Hangover, hated it. Just not even remotely my kind of movies. So what. There are a gazillion movies put out that target young male audiences as majority. There is almost nothing put out that targets women. So why even compare a movie like 50 with a movie like Hangover.
> 
> I go see movies so rarely as there is almost nothing out there that interests me. I have trouble finding stuff on the movie channels. Its either all shoot em dead wham bam violence. Or its stuff that is obviously targeting 20 somethings, usually male. Or cartoons, or stuff based on cartoons.
> 
> I also rarely like stuff the critics like so there is that.


They aren't just 'sites'. Rotten Tomatoes is cumulative reviews from critics. IMDB is cumulative reviews from regular movie goers. It gives you a general idea of what people think about it and you can form your own opinion from there. If you don't agree with critics you can also use that as a gauge for judging whether you'll enjoy something. If a majority of people are saying something is hot garbage then you may just think it's a masterpiece.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm one of those who can't wait for all things 50 Shades to disappear off the face of the earth.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> Basic Instinct pushed the boundaries long ago. 50 Shades of Grey didn't explore any new ground. If you want to delve into kinky sexual fetishes, go with David Cronenbergs Crash...that film actually pushed boundaries and has a competent director around it.


Completely disagree. I saw Crash and didn't care for it. FSOG isn't an exploration of kinky sexual fetishes. That's what I meant by not getting it. Crashing cars for sexual arousal is no where in the ball park of people exploring what lies at the heart of the male/female experience. But yes, Cronenberg is an interesting director. But the only comparison between Crash and FSOG is that both movies involve sex. And, in a way, FSOG is a much deeper movie than Crash because Crash is dealing with an extreme fetish, while FSOG is dealing with a heightened version of what every man deals with on a daily basis.



JV said:


> And saying anyone that "rips it apart" doesn't get it is simply not true...it just means they didn't like the film...we're not dissecting literature here, this is twilight fan fiction (literally). I also don't quite get the 'romantic equivalent of the Hangover' line. The Hangover was actually an extremely intelligent twist on the buddy comedy and had clever writing (the same can't be said for the sequels, sadly). 50 shades isn't doing anything new, we know the writing is rather sub par, just not sure how it compares.


Again, this is what I mean by not getting it. And I'm not being pretentious or anything. I reviewed this movie by using a Hulk action figure. But I am also an erotica author who had to spend a lot of hours trying to understand what BDSM is so that I can appeal to that market. And it isn't about whipping people because you're creepy. Domination (and specifically the way it was portrayed in this movie) is a relationship people enter into as a safe way to explore one's intimate feeling as it comes to sensuality and sex.

Even with all of it's weaknesses, FSOG is stil an exploration of what it means to feel and be sexual. And, as you said, 'The Hangover' is a new twist on the buddy comedy. I would almost always choose a comedy over a romance. But, whether you like the movie or not, FSOG is exploring new ground in a mass audience way.

P.S. I can't believe you just made me say so many positive things about a movie I didn't love. Hmm... I guess that it does mean that I respected the movie.


----------



## horst5 (Aug 9, 2013)

Thumb's up for David's comment.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

The problem with these sites is the same you get like in threads like these. Lots of dissing without watching, or just for the fun of dissing the books, the movie cause of "uh, cooties". 

With 50 shades its almost an amusing auto response. The book trilogy is erotic romance. Now who reads that, so who would watch that. And who has been making fun of those books since they came out. How many times have I had to listen to the term "mommy porn". The same stuff is popping up again now that the movie is out. 
Yet, fans of the books, groups of women that just don't give a flying fig anymore are going to the movie in peace. Cause they can. 

It is such a polarizing movie that you'll get a lot o folks flocking to downgrade just because. Of course I might not like it either when I watch it, sure. But this movie is coming already with the baggage we already been through with the books. 

I guess I just don't get the big deal. Don't want to watch a erotica romance don't. I don't like cartoon movies or superhero movies. I don't like stuff that is about guys in college and things like that. I just don't watch them. Others like them. Its all good.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Atunah said:


> Not sure what it matters what some site says about movies. Especially movies that are for a different audience. I watched some of Hangover, hated it. Just not even remotely my kind of movies. So what. There are a gazillion movies put out that target young male audiences as majority. There is almost nothing put out that targets women. So why even compare a movie like 50 with a movie like Hangover.


I chose the Hangover because it did extremely well at the box office and was geared mostly toward younger men. Whereas FSOG will probably do well at the box office and is mostly geared toward slightly older women. In my mind the two are polar opposites... and I figured that The Hangover was a movie that most younger male reviewers would defend.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

David VanDyke said:


> This discussion really belongs in the Not Quite Kindle section. Yes, I know, some will want to jump on me for saying so, but the more off-topic threads clutter up the writer's cafe, the harder it is to filter out what matters.


I agree with you, but we can turn it into a writing topic:

I read several articles that said author E.L. James was pretty much a control freak about this movie, and she made sure she had the rights to have the film made the way she wanted. She had approval rights on the actors and the script, among other things. They hired a professional scriptwriter, but James threw all his work out and started writing the script herself. Then they brought in another scriptwriter who did things the way James wanted.

Considering that most of the movie reviews are pointing out that the dialogue (script) is awful and that the male lead, Jamie Dorman, doesn't come across as charismatic, maybe this is a good lesson to writers whose books are sold for movies: Just cash your check for the movie rights, then stay out of the way and let the professionals make the movie.

One reviewer made an excellent point about how professionals can turn a bad book into a good movie. He said that Mario Puzo's "The Godfather" was not a good book (I've read it, and I agree) but Hollywood was able to turn the book into one of the greatest movies of all. As a Godfather fan, I agree with that part too.

BTW, I was not interested in the FSoG book and have no plans to see the movie.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Completely disagree. I saw Crash and didn't care for it. FSOG isn't an exploration of kinky sexual fetishes. That's what I meant by not getting it. Crashing cars for sexual arousal is no where in the ball park of people exploring what lies at the heart of the male/female experience. But yes, Cronenberg is an interesting director. But the only comparison between Crash and FSOG is that both movies involve sex. And, in a way, FSOG is a much deeper movie than Crash because Crash is dealing with an extreme fetish, while FSOG is dealing with a heightened version of what every man deals with on a daily basis.
> 
> Again, this is what I mean by not getting it. And I'm not being pretentious or anything. I reviewed this movie by using a Hulk action figure. But I am also an erotica author who had to spend a lot of hours trying to understand what BDSM is so that I can appeal to that market. And it isn't about whipping people because you're creepy. Domination (and specifically the way it was portrayed in this movie) is a relationship people enter into as a safe way to explore one's intimate feeling as it comes to sensuality and sex.
> 
> ...


We'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing new being explored in 50 shades from where I'm sitting. The female is a blank slate character like Bella from Twilight, without a personality of her own. The entire script for this film is LITERALLY twilight fan fiction...hence why the characters are so poorly drawn.

I mean, if we're going to talk films that explore sexual taboos in a serious way...beyond just the attempt to be shocking (which...seriously...50 Shades is glamoured up hollywood fare...as someone pointed out earlier, it's tame, receiving a 12 in Europe) there are SO many better options.

Crash, Nymphomaniac, Brokeback Mountain, Last Tango in Paris, Blue is the Warmest Color, Eyes Wide Shut, Lolita--ALL of these films had something fresh and new to say and, in many instances, pushed boundaries. Most of them were also incredible cinema with legendary actors and directors attached.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Atunah said:


> The problem with these sites is the same you get like in threads like these. Lots of dissing without watching, or just for the fun of dissing the books, the movie cause of "uh, cooties".
> 
> With 50 shades its almost an amusing auto response. The book trilogy is erotic romance. Now who reads that, so who would watch that. And who has been making fun of those books since they came out. How many times have I had to listen to the term "mommy porn". The same stuff is popping up again now that the movie is out.
> Yet, fans of the books, groups of women that just don't give a flying fig anymore are going to the movie in peace. Cause they can.
> ...


It has nothing to do with the genre and everything to do with the execution.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2015)

*Quote:
". . . sex in cinema is rather taboo here . . ."

*
I really disagree with that quote.
Basic Instinct quickly comes to mind.
There are several other sex in cinema examples but I don't want to spend the time researching.
Today practically every romance or romantic comedy includes several sex scenes, frontal nudity, etc.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Okey Dokey said:


> *Quote:
> ". . . sex in cinema is rather taboo here . . ."
> 
> *
> ...


You actually just made my point. Basic instinct had to be chopped numerous times before it was let through with an R rating. However, make torture porn, like I mentioned earlier, and it skates through with a smile. Again, sex in America, very taboo. Violence, woo hoo!


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing new being explored in 50 shades from where I'm sitting. The female is a blank slate character like Bella from Twilight, without a personality of her own. The entire script for this film is LITERALLY twilight fan fiction...hence why the characters are so poorly drawn.
> 
> I mean, if we're going to talk films that explore sexual taboos in a serious way...beyond just the attempt to be shocking (which...seriously...50 Shades is glamoured up hollywood fare...as someone pointed out earlier, it's tame, receiving a 12 in Europe) there are SO many better options.
> 
> Crash, Nymphomaniac, Brokeback Mountain, Last Tango in Paris, Blue is the Warmest Color, Eyes Wide Shut, Lolita--ALL of these films had something fresh and new to say and, in many instances, pushed boundaries. Most of them were also incredible cinema with legendary actors and directors attached.


We will have to agree to disagree. As a guy who has seen all of the movies that you have mentioned. As a guy who has worked as a director and who has made a full length movie. As a guy who as written over 100 erotic stories, about 20 of which are BDSM. And as a guy who has seen the movie, and not completely liked it, my opinion is that FSOG pushes boundaries in a real way. But you have to, not just watch the movie, but see past the origin of the movie to get it.

It is not cinematic gold. Nor is it pretentious or artsy for the sake of being artsy. But it is real and substantial. That is a layer below what most people will see when they watch the movie. And I probably only saw it because this genre is how I make my living.

But when a person who has written over 100 erotic stories can see a movie in their genre and then have an ah-ha moment in the middle of watching it about what BDSM is at its heart, it means that the movie is more than eye candy.

But hey, movies weren't meant to be dissected. Movies are meant to be enjoyed. Many will rightfully enjoy this movie. But what I'm also saying is that it is pushing boundaries.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> We will have to agree to disagree. As a guy who has seen all of the movies that you have mentioned. As a guy who has worked as a director and who has made a full length movie. As a guy who as written over 100 erotic stories, about 20 of which are BDSM. And as a guy who has seen the movie, and not completely liked it, my opinion is that FSOG pushes boundaries in a real way. But you have to, not just watch the movie, but see past the origin of the movie to get it.
> 
> It is not cinematic gold. Nor is it pretentious or artsy for the sake of being artsy. But it is real and substantial. That is a layer below what most people will see when they watch the movie. And I probably only saw it because this genre is how I make my living.
> 
> ...


Hey, I love film. I worked as a professional critic for 5 years. Two of my best friends are indie directors. Film and its history are serious hobbies of mine, especially now that I'm able to be a bit more choosy about what I watch. I'm not some guy just coming in here and raining on the parade because I've got a bone to pick with 50 shades (though I think it's terrible writing). I have seen all the films mentioned above and I think they actually move their respective genres forward a step, whereas I believe 50 shades is a step back.

Oh, and I do think they're meant to be discussed, I think the entire point of art is to promote discussion. Though...I hesitate calling certain films art.


----------



## funthebear (Sep 26, 2014)

This blatant dismissal of things that are popular simply because one doesn't enjoy them hints at why so few people find popular success.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ʧ said:


> This blatant dismissal of things that are popular simply because one doesn't enjoy them hints at why so few people find popular success.


Only if the solitary reason behind their dismissal is popularity. Michael Bay had two of the top grossing films last year, but as a serious purveyor of film I had zero problem dismissing them, and it wasn't because they're popular.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

This thread really should be in NQK, but I saw this headline yesterday and it made me laugh: Dominatrixes Descend on Downtown

http://patch.com/california/losalamitos/dominatrixes-descend-downtown-protest-depiction-sm-fifty-shades-grey


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> Hey, I love film. I worked as a professional critic for 5 years. Two of my best friends are indie directors. Film and its history are serious hobbies of mine, especially now that I'm able to be a bit more choosy about what I watch. I'm not some guy just coming in here and raining on the parade because I've got a bone to pick with 50 shades (though I think it's terrible writing). I have seen all the films mentioned above and I think they actually move their respective genres forward a step, whereas I believe 50 shades is a step back.
> 
> Oh, and I do think they're meant to be discussed, I think the entire point of art is to promote discussion. Though...I hesitate calling certain films art.


I never read the books because an erotica author I respect told me that they weren't good. But I would seriously recommend seeing the movie before poo pooing it. And if you seriously want to have a discussion about it from an intellectual stand point, when you watch it, try to forget the books.

Instead, try to see the story for what it is, a story about a sexually and physically abused man who desperately desires love (like every human) but only knows how to express love in physical abuse. And also see it as a woman who is afraid of sex because choosing sex is the equivalent of having to embrace all that comes with life, something that society has taught her that she should fear. And try to see the story as two people in tremendous fear trying to do what they see the rest of the world do so easily, connect with others.

Watch the movie from that perspective, and not as erotic fanfiction based on a foppish teen romance, and then tell me what you thought about the movie. Because that is what is at the heart of the movie. Not some guy getting off on whipping a girl.

P.S. I hate that again you have made me defend this movie in an intellectual way. I reviewed this movie with a Hulk action figure... WITH A HULK ACTION FIGURE!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Alex:  I have read part of FSOG, please tell me you are not basing BDSM on that book.  If I might be so bold, please pick up a non-fiction book to really learn about it.  Screw the roses, send me the thorns by Phillip Miller & Molly Devon is wonderful.  I have heard great things about Jay Wiseman's books too.  Also talking to people in the lifestyle helps too.

And yes I am going to read at least one of your books.


----------



## Amity Lassiter (Nov 28, 2014)

B&H said:


> I don't imagine it will do well in cinemas. Who wants to sit in a room full of strangers watching a mucky film.
> 
> Will maybe do better on DVD, but i strongly suspect the hype around the book has lost its lustre and the film will bomb.


I don't know, I saw it Wednesday night at a sold out pre-screening put on by a company that sells naughty things for couples. It was packed, people were excited, and nobody was a bit shy!

Re: the male lead's lack of charisma... I think it was not so much a problem with the actor as a problem with the character he was portraying. The movie highlighted a lot of things that worked, or at least were glossed over on paper but didn't work in a 'real life' situation. I rolled my eyes a lot. There were, however, some really good moments, like the drunk call and the negotiation of the contract. One thing I felt they did a very poor job of was building the chemistry between the characters. When he took her to the hotel, I still hadn't bought into that animalistic attraction that I wanted to see.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Monique said:


> I'm one of those who can't wait for all things 50 Shades to disappear off the face of the earth.


+1000. I thought we'd finally seen the last of Twilight, and then this came along. They'll probably make a zombie franchise out of Shades just as this franchise wraps up.


----------



## funthebear (Sep 26, 2014)

JV said:


> Only if the solitary reason behind their dismissal is popularity. Michael Bay had *two *of the *top grossing films last year*, but as a *serious purveyor of film* I had *zero problem dismissing* them, and it wasn't because they're popular.


This is what I mean.

Why dismiss at all? Something's going on.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> I never read the books because an erotica author I respect told me that they weren't good. But I would seriously recommend seeing the movie before poo pooing it. And if you seriously want to have a discussion about it from an intellectual stand point, when you watch it, try to forget the books.
> 
> Instead, try to see the story for what it is, a story about a sexually and physically abused man who desperately desires love (like every human) but only knows how to express love in physical abuse. And also see it as a woman who is afraid of sex because choosing sex is the equivalent of having to embrace all that comes with life, something that society has taught her that she should fear. And try to see the story as two people in tremendous fear trying to do what they see the rest of the world do so easily, connect with others.
> 
> ...


How can one ignore the books when the script was essentially a carbon copy minus the tampon scene? I mean, if you see something deeper in this, to each their own. I may watch it for free on Netflix if I'm in the mood for some boobs.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

ʧ said:


> This is what I mean.
> 
> Why dismiss at all? Something's going on.


They are dismissed because they're lazy, crap filmmaking.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ʧ said:


> This is what I mean.
> 
> Why dismiss at all? Something's going on.


Something's going on? If you're implying I envy success, I've already found it. Why dismiss? Well first, I'm a film fanatic, a conniessure, a walking encyclopedia of film knowledge. I worked as a critic. That's sort of what you do when you have a hobby like film, you separate the good from the bad. That is why you dismiss.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Monique said:


> They are dismissed because they're lazy, crap filmmaking.


Thank you!


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I give no crap about 50SOG. It didn't thrill me from the look inside, is all.
I give no crap about "the lifestyle."
I'm disappointed in the movie's casting most of all. Seems like a perfectly worthy fluff movie, sexlessly cast. 
Not going to see it because it just doesn't look attractive. That's all. *shrug*
Enjoyed "The Hangover" a lot. Also thought "Bridesmaids" was a sea change.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Alex: I have read part of FSOG, please tell me you are not basing BDSM on that book. If I might be so bold, please pick up a non-fiction book to really learn about it. Screw the roses, send me the thorns by Phillip Miller & Molly Devon is wonderful. I have heard great things about Jay Wiseman's books too. Also talking to people in the lifestyle helps too.
> 
> And yes I am going to read at least one of your books.


Actually I have only read one BDSM book and one piece of fan fiction. And I read it in preparation to interview the authors for my podcast.

I didn't actually base my BDSM elements on anything but my own internal exploration. I started with the things I knew from sexual experiences and then worked my way outwards. So the BDSM in my stories are more a reflection of the caveman/cavewoman aspects of BDSM. But what the movie taught me was that a whole other level existed.

I have heard subsmissives talk about how dominants are actually the subservient ones in a Dom/Sub dynamic, and my experiences didn't reflect that. But, for the first time, while watching the movie, I understood that way of seeing domination. It really was an ah-ha moment.


----------



## Rachel E. Rice (Jan 4, 2014)

I saw the movie and it was interesting at best. I wasn't impressed with the minor characters and the cutting of the movie. The dialogue and some of the scenes were exactly as written in the book. The music gave the movie more depth and help connect the two main actors. The female lead I thought was perfect for the part, however, since the male lead wasn't the first choice, he was acceptable. If all the books had been turn into one film I would have enjoyed it immensely. The film wasn't a waste of my time because I read James's Books and I was one of the millions who bought them, and found pleasure in them. 
I've seen many films that were touted as top notch, where the actors stunk up the film, but I didn't get that feeling with this film, and I can't wait for the next one.


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


*This* is an absolute hoot!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Alex,
Check your messages here.


----------



## RBK (Nov 28, 2014)

JV said:


> It's friggin fantastic, the church scene alone is worth the price of admission.


YES. Absolutely phenomenal. My jaw was on the floor. Kind of reminded me of The Raid, which is also excellent (as is its sequel).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Keith Soares said:


> Apparently, in France, 50 Shades has been approved for 12-year-olds, because they deem it to be so tame.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/ooh-la-la-fifty-shades-of-grey-movie-only-gets-a-12-rating-in-france-10040525.html
> 
> K.


They were making movies in France that pushed more boundaries more than a quarter of a century ago. Personally I am grossed out by BDSM so I've never read the book, but a have a couple of friends very active in the BDSM community who are infuriated by some of what they view as bordering on non-consensual and breaking other protections. Apparently they took most of it out of the movie but left in one of the more questionable scenes (judging strictly from what I have been told).


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

David S. said:


> She may be a control freak, but other than that, I don't believe a word of what you wrote.
> 
> Even Rowling didn't get all that.
> 
> ...


Actually, she's right. There's been a TON of talk about it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fifty-shades-cray-inside-story-772282

http://www.writerswrite.com/e-l-james-control-over-the-fifty-shades-of-12220151

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943394/50-Shade-Grey-author-E-L-James-turns-50-Shades-Control-Freak.html


----------



## Maia Sepp Ross (May 10, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


Ha!!!


----------



## Writer&#039;s Block (Oct 29, 2014)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


Took me a while to get this but when I did it cracked me up. Best post ever!


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Perfect example of WHY this is NOT a boundary pushing film. If anything, it's regressive. Women's sexuality is taboo in this film, despite the books supposedly being about female sexuality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/fifty-shades-of-grey-sexism-female-sexuality_n_6671194.html


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

David S. said:


> The only one of those with an ounce of validity concerning Hollywood is the Hollywood Reporter, and nowhere in their article did I see anything even remotely saying she had the right to have the film made the way she wanted.


How about The New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/movies/fifty-shades-of-grey-the-movie-as-a-fairy-tale.html?_r=0

From the article: "Ms. James, the author of the trilogy and a woman whose great success has brought commensurate financial and creative power, was a producer of the film and intimately involved in every decision. Often she and Ms. Taylor-Johnson [director] disagreed..."

You probably won't give People magazine much credence, but they did interview Ms. James, and she used the "control freak" phrase herself. From the article: "James, a West London-based TV executive and mother of two, says her decision [to sell the movie rights of her trilogy to Universal Studios and Focus Features] also came down to the studio's ability to grant her the pull she wanted in the movie-making process, including approvals for script and casting. '"This makes me sound like a control freak, doesn't it?' she says. But bossiness aside, when it comes time to adapt the books' focus on those sex scenes, she adds, 'I think that's going to be a collaborative process.' "

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20582151,00.html


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

"Let's talk about the Fifty Shades of Grey Movie!"

Let's just not.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Monique said:


> They are dismissed because they're lazy, crap filmmaking.


Umm... The last thing his movies are is lazy. His movies are probably the most difficult movies to make. And the level of skill that he draws on to make his movies are unparalleled. But they are incredibly simplistic story-wise. I rarely watch Bay's movies but they are phenomenal.

And talk about a man who knows his audience? Dismiss Michael Bay if you want. It's everyone's right but he leads a small town while making every movie. And to be able to juggle all of the technical things to account for the CGI that won't be added for months, I find massively impressive.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

LeahLurker said:


> Oh my!
> 
> Or should I say holy crap?


Thak you Leah!


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Umm... The last thing his movies are is lazy. His movies are probably the most difficult movies to make. And the level of skill that he draws on to make his movies are unparalleled. But they are incredibly simplistic story-wise. I rarely watch Bay's movies but they are phenomenal.
> 
> And talk about a man who knows his audience? Dismiss Michael Bay if you want. It's everyone's right but he leads a small town while making every movie. And to be able to juggle all of the technical things to account for the CGI that won't be added for months, I find massively impressive.


Gotta disagree again, strongly, and I honestly can't believe someone so into film is actually trying to say Bay isn't lazy...but to each their own. He is lazy. You see, there's this thing in the film world that we film critics call "hearing a fight scene", heck, I've heard directors talk about this. That's all you get with Bay, quick cut frenetic images. You hear a bunch of noise and you think you saw an action scene, you didn't, you heard one. His latest films are lazy. They're poorly directed. Half of the film is made behind a computer by industrial light and magic. She called it right, very lazy film making. He's on a one man mission to kill the action film. Now John Wick or The Raid 2, stunning action films, great directors.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> Gotta disagree again, strongly, and I honestly can't believe someone so into film is actually trying to say Bay isn't lazy...but to each their own. He is lazy. You see, there's this thing in the film world that we film critics call "hearing a fight scene", heck, I've heard directors talk about this. That's all you get with Bay, quick cut frenetic images. You hear a bunch of noise and you think you saw an action scene, you didn't, you heard one. His latest films are lazy. They're poorly directed. Half of the film is made behind a computer by industrial light and magic. She called it right, very lazy film making. He's on a one man mission to kill the action film. Now John Wick or The Raid 2, stunning action films, great directors.


Yeah, we are just going to disagree on this one. I have no interest in watching many of Michael Bay movies. But it isn't because they are lazy.

Making a special effects movie is by no stretch of the imagination easier than a non-special effects film. In fact, making a non-special effects film is a scores easier. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you are taking this position considering the fact that you have director friends and I assume you have an idea of the film making process.

I'm not going to take anything away from "great" directors. But making movies so tuned that it makes kids nag their parents to see it is in no way lazy. He's a lot of things, but that man is truly great at what he does. He's so good at it that he has a whole style of film associated with him.

Now French new wave filmmakers, those people were lazy. Michael Bay's movies are absolutely not. From a technical standpoint they are amazing. Give many great director's $200M and they could never come close to what he does. The great directors' movies might appeal to you more, but you aren't the audience. And for that, their movies would be less successful at achieving their goal.

Michael Bay's movies are in no way lazy.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

The best description I've read of the movie so far is that it's an event movie along the lines of "Mamma Mia."  I was roped into watching MM by my girlfriend and daughter.  I must say, genuinely, there were times during the movie I was sitting with my head in my hands, I couldn't believe my eyes.  Then at other times it was highly entertaining. Around me, I think another six guys had been victimized into watching the movie. I actually saw one slide off his seat he was so appalled - but also around me were three hundred women having the time of their lives. 

The scene where the song "Mamma Mia," was sung was just superb - you would have thought you were in an Abba concert - the theatre went wild. The highlight for me was seeing a group of elderly ladies throwing caution to the wind and dancing on their seats.  

I read the other day that this movie is hitting the same button.  No one is showing up expecting to see an Oscar contender - they know what they have signed up for.  And to that end it's core audience is loving it - it's being treated almost like a pantomine.  

So here's the bottom line - the movie has achieved exactly what every movie should achieve.  It's pleased it's core audience. I have no doubt some will get it out on DVD and think it's appalling - but they are missing the point.  This is an event movie. 

Some movies don't transfer well to the small screen and I'm prepared to bet this will be one of them.  This is a movie you need to watch in a crackling atmosphere. 

There is a single truism at the heart of this movie.  It's pleasing it's genre. 

And it will make a fortune.  I am not it's target audience but I would go see it, just to be watch the audience reaction.  That's because even though I watched the majority of MM through the gaps in my fingers - some parts of it were so memorable due the audience I was delighted to have been part of it.  Delighted and traumatized in equal measure.  

It's easy being a critic - not so easy writing a cultural phenomenon, or creating a hit movie.  EL James has done both - good on her.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Yeah, we are just going to disagree on this one. I have no interest in watching many of Michael Bay movies. But it isn't because they are lazy.
> 
> Making a special effects movie is by no stretch of the imagination easier than a non-special effects film. In fact, making a non-special effects film is a scores easier. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you are taking this position considering the fact that you have director friends and I assume you have an idea of the film making process.
> 
> ...


I believe you're wrong here. He isn't competent in his craft. Just because shiny things are thrown on the screen and explode doesn't make him a great director. None of it is coherent, it doesn't make sense, half the time you can't tell who is fighting what--it's awful. It's lazy. He's the Uwe Boll of special effects. Want some coherent special effects? Check out a James Cameron film or the Wachowskis. Again, to be clear, just because you can throw money at CGI doesn't make you a good director, especially if it looks like garbage...and Bay films looks like garbage. Gravity, now there's a film with mind blowing, boundary pushing CGI, and it's a master class in directing.

I also disagree that those are the most difficult films to make. Something like children of men, where the final action sequence is an unbroken 10 minute shot and is all practical, much more difficult. Something like Birdman, where the entire film is edited seamlessly to look like one shot, much more difficult, just listening to how they had to shoot those scenes makes my head hurt. Michael Bay doesn't come close. Count me unimpressed.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Yeah, we are just going to disagree on this one. I have no interest in watching many of Michael Bay movies. But it isn't because they are lazy.
> 
> Making a special effects movie is by no stretch of the imagination easier than a non-special effects film. In fact, making a non-special effects film is a scores easier. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you are taking this position considering the fact that you have director friends and I assume you have an idea of the film making process.
> 
> ...


Also...you're classifying the entirety of French New Wave as lazy? Most in the industry would say it played a large part in revolutionizing cinema...I'd say it did as well. Hmm, I'm definitely puzzled by many of the positions you're taking. Defending bay and then panning French New Wave...


----------



## funthebear (Sep 26, 2014)

There are normal people, and experts (or critics). Bay appeals to normal people. Which is to say most.

There's a reason art house flicks are what they are. And there's a reason they aren't popular among normal people.

Things like french new wave or long seamless shots are made for critics, directors, or other insiders. Normal people have little interest in technical aspects.

To make something that's popular, let go of "art". To be remembered, let go of "art". To be taught or shown in schools, go wild, be original.

Neither is good or bad. Just entirely different goals. Judging them on the same cretia is meaningless.


----------



## Revolution (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm in two minds, atm. I'm curious, and want to see it. But a friend of mine said the writing and acting was horrible. It didn't have any sensual romance, which is what erotica is meant to be about. 

Will see.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ʧ said:


> There are normal people, and experts (or critics). Bay appeals to normal people. Which is to say most.
> 
> There's a reason art house flicks are what they are. And there's a reason they aren't popular among normal people.
> 
> ...


Normal people? What are you even talking about? Define normal, please? Find me a set objective definition of normal? I have popular cinema and art house films on my shelf, what am I? Neither normal or critic, but some new in between creature? Most critics I know like ALL types of cinema. There is no "normal" people cinema. I can revel in the indie beauty that is Killer Joe while simultaneously cheering at the kinetic action of John Wick. I'm sorry, but these lines you claim exist...they simply do not.

Now, I do believe we live in a fast food mentality nation, one that has been dumbed down...I do believe that many like their music and film dumbed down and easy to digest...no matter how intellectually bad for them it may be. It's truly the only explanation for the existence of Michael Bay. Just my conclusion.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hi.  Just checking back in.  First off erotica doesn't have to have sensual romance.    2nd and more importantly to address the OP, BDSM lifestyle is actually very specialized.  Guy acting like a jerk towards women is never true BDSM.    Book, movie or real life.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Previously, I would have said that the best thigns going for it were that it wasn't _The Spirit_ or _Man of Steel_.

Then I looked on my twitter feed and discovered #FiftyShadesOfGrayson and then my feedburner and found 'Fifty Shades of Greyskull'.

Redemption by quality of the parodies.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Previously, I would have said that the best thigns going for it were that it wasn't _The Spirit_ or _Man of Steel_.
> 
> Then I looked on my twitter feed and discovered #FiftyShadesOfGrayson and then my feedburner and found 'Fifty Shades of Greyskull'.
> 
> Redemption by quality of the parodies.


Ah, see, you had me...then you had to knock Man of Steel...one of my all time faves.

I will say, the video of Gilbert Gottfried reading the book is priceless.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Or the Outlander fans' response:

#fiftyshadesofplaid


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

ʧ said:


> There are normal people, and experts (or critics). Bay appeals to normal people. Which is to say most.
> 
> There's a reason art house flicks are what they are. And there's a reason they aren't popular among normal people.
> 
> ...


Well, thank God I'm not normal! I would take an indie or art film over a mainstream movie every day, and certainly not for the technical aspects. I would choose it because of the risks taken, the emotions either portrayed or evoked from the audience, and the "internal dialog" instead of buildings being blown up, cars crashed and eighty people all shooting at one man and missing, but of course everytime he shoots he kills a bad guy. Give me angst anyday. Normal or not, at least I want to think and feel.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

"Normal" in this context means average everyday people. Come on, lighten up. I'm quite sure everyone knows what tf was trying to say.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> "Normal" in this context means average everyday people. Come on, lighten up. I'm quite sure everyone knows what tf was trying to say.


It's not a matter of what they're trying to say, it's just that it doesn't make sense. I don't know one average everyday person that only watches one type of film...in fact...that seems like it'd be a bit abnormal.


----------



## A Woman&#039;s Place Is In The Rebellion (Apr 28, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> then my feedburner and found 'Fifty Shades of Greyskull'.


Ha! I would totally watch that.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV, I'm starting to think that this will surprise you, but there are more people who would choose watching Transformers over Birdman. And these people aren't dumb or lesser is some way. Some people like Birdman. But many, many more people prefer Transformers.  And yes, I know quite a few people, hell, I know almost a nation full of people who would prefer the latest popcorn movie over Birdman. 

The purpose of movies in not intellectual stimulation. The purpose of studio films is to make a profit by being entertaining. If you find intellectual stimulation entertaining then great. But you have to realize that you are in the minority... the tiny minority. And if you don't realize it, look at the grosses of movies. People who work in construction, people who work as cops, people who work as teachers and office workers vote every week with their hard earned money.

And btw, normal = people who don't refer to movies as dumbed down. 

Also, I've seen documentaries on the French New Wave filmmakers. They got drunk for half the day, pointed a camera at emoting friends who later called themselves actors and then edit it into something unique. And you think that is not lazy filmmaking while 2 years of meticulously planning between 500 people is lazy? Seriously?

Hey, I choose Birdman over Transformers but dude, come on. Filmmaking isn't art. It's entertainment. It can be art. But filmmaking is very, very expensive and is created for entertainment  and profit purposes. Making a movie that makes millions of people around the world want to see it is just as hard as writing a book that millions of people want to read. It is a skill and requires discipline. 

But you have made your point clear. To each their own. 

FSOG will appeal to many people and rightfully so. It had the potential to be a better movie than it is, but it is still a bolder film than any in a very long while. And I'm hoping that those who felt underrepresented by the movies being released go to see it in droves. I think they will love it.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Films are art. They are also entertainment or at least they should be. I also don't see why entertainment versus art has to be an either-or question. I like many Hollywood blockbusters. I also like many arthouse movies. And I like movies that fall between those two extremes. There are also exceptionally well made blockbusters, just as there are bad arthouse movies.

I also dislike the notion of "Normal people like this". Normal is relative. People are different and they like many different, often contradictory things. Fans of blockbuster movies have been known to embrace the occasional arty independent flick or quirky foreign film (which is often conflated with art in the US, which is wrong, because many of those films were considered entertainment in their country of origin). Hardcore arthouse fans do tend to enjoy the occasional well-made popcorn flick.

As for _50 Shades of Grey_, I haven't read the books, I don't care for BDSM and I have no interest in watching the movie (and for the record, I actually liked Twilight for what it was). The trailer don't look even remotely interesting and I don't expect any sort of transgressive sexual imagery from this movie either, simply because transgressive sexual imagery is not something that is possible in mainstream Hollywood film these days. BTW, _50 Shades of Grey_ has a 16 certificate in Germany and in most of Europe, whereas e.g. Robocop has an 18 certificate, because violence is considered a bigger deal here than sex. There have been movies with IMO explicit imagery (the porn star body double scenes in _Love Actually_, a German movie with naked couple groping scenes) that have been rated a 6 certificate (i.e. children over 6 can attend) in Germany!

What annoys me about _50 Shades of Grey_ - beyond the fact that the movie had its world premiere at the Berlin film festival, which is for arthouse and international movies as well as for the occasional smart and well-made blockbuster - is that this is apparently what is considered filmmaking for women these days. Now I'm a woman. However, if I were to go to the cinema this week, I'd watch _Jupiter Ascending_ (which is the movie everybody in my circles is talking about) or _Kingsman_ or even _Birdman_ rather than _50 Shades of Grey_. The movies I'm eagerly awaiting this year are _Avengers: Age of Ultron_ and _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ and maybe _Ant-Man_ (_Crimson Peak_ looks pretty good, too, based on the trailer). If I want billionaires, I'd rather have Tony Stark than Christian Grey. Women are not a monolith anymore than men are.

I dislike dividing movies into movies for men and women anyway, because plenty of women happily watch action movies, while plenty of men happily watch romantic comedies. However, while I would be happy to see more women centered movies, I'd love to see a Black Widow or Wonder Woman movie or another women centered action film or the all-female Ghostbusters (which sounds promising) or a good romantic comedy along the lines of _Harry and Sally_ and _Four Weddings and a Funeral_ (whatever happened to those anyway).


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

anniejocoby said:


> "Normal" in this context means average everyday people. Come on, lighten up. I'm quite sure everyone knows what tf was trying to say.


If you meant me, please notice I did put a smiley after my comments. I was actually laughing about the "normal", as I don't think most people only watch one kind of movie (some art films actually do eventually make it to big screen and them millions watch them and most of those people don't even realize they were originally at an indie or art theatre first. At least some get distributed wider here. I hope that's true in other cities as well, but our area is known for the arts), and I don't think art films are just made for the "technical" aspects, so you gave me a chuckle. Sorry if you thought I was offended. If you weren't referring to me, well, you still know I wasn't offended.  Have a great Sunday!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JV said:


> It's not a matter of what they're trying to say, it's just that it doesn't make sense. I don't know one average everyday person that only watches one type of film...in fact...that seems like it'd be a bit abnormal.


I know a couple of people that only watch one type of movie. Yes, they are very abnormal in my opinion. 
I also know at least one person that would live on macaroni and cheese if she had her choice.

Personally, I prefer a variety in everything I do.


----------



## ufwriter (Jan 12, 2015)

Films can be Hollywood blockbuster popcorn-munching films but still be done well. See: The Dark Knight, The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gravity, Inception. I would also add Interstellar to that list, but many people don't agree with me on that one.

As for 50 Shades, I won't be going to see it, but if it ends up on Netflix, I'll probably watch just to see how it is.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> JV, I'm starting to think that this will surprise you, but there are more people who would choose watching Transformers over Birdman. And these people aren't dumb or lesser is some way. Some people like Birdman. But many, many more people prefer Transformers. And yes, I know quite a few people, hell, I know almost a nation full of people who would prefer the latest popcorn movie over Birdman.
> 
> The purpose of movies in not intellectual stimulation. The purpose of studio films is to make a profit by being entertaining. If you find intellectual stimulation entertaining then great. But you have to realize that you are in the minority... the tiny minority. And if you don't realize it, look at the grosses of movies. People who work in construction, people who work as cops, people who work as teachers and office workers vote every week with their hard earned money.
> 
> ...


I don't have time to respond your novella as I'm writing, but I'll hit key points.

No, I'm not surprised, obviously, as I stated that his films were the top grossing films last year. And if you don't think entertainment has gotten dumbed down please go and look at the film industry when it was churning out Apocalypse Now and Godfather 2 and Bridge on the River Kwai vs today. They'll maul a Ridley Scott film in the editing room simply so it's shorter so that it can have more show times, whether it still makes sense to the viewer is a second thought. Quick cuts, explosions over story, that's dumbing down. We live in a country where 9 million people a night get their news from Late Night. This sort of intellectual bankruptcy permeates everything.

And normal people don't refer to it as lazy? Where did you get that definition? Oh...you just made it up.

And your documentaries on French New Wave mean what? ALL of them were drunk? I highly doubt that. And even if they were, so what? It still revolutionized the industry and it's still not as lazy as Bay. Marlon Brando refused to ever memorize his lines, very difficult guy to work with, is he a lazy actor? Uh, the answer is no. He's an icon.

Finally, your view on film is unfortunate and part of the problem with the industry, it is ART. Writing is also art. But you're entitled to hold that opinion, I think it's a harmful one. I'll tell you this, and it's proven itself time and again, the film makers and writers that view their work as art, well, that's the work that is remembered and studied over the years. Transformers will flake away like the dried up dog s*** it is, Birdman will still be studied in 20 years.

_Edited. PM me, JV, if you have any questions._


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Wow. After reading some of the slag fest on the movie on this thread I'm wondering just where the heck I was last night?

My take:
I didn't want to see it. Really. I couldn't get more than 20 pages in FSOG, why would I want to see the film? My wife pre-bought the tickets, so we had to brave the snow and cold to go. Then stand on line to redeem the tickets, and another line for the popcorn etc, then find our seats (assigned seats at a movie&#8230; boy I don't get out enough).

Okay, let the flames begin: I was shocked. Shocked I say!   

 *I was shocked at how much I enjoyed this movie!* I'm neither a critic nor producer&#8230; I'm simply a ticket buyer, so I can't analyze the film with credentials.

The film is more of an exploration of a D/s relationship as opposed to BDSM- Christian said that early on, and yes, the dynamic is different.

Nevertheless, I found the acting solid. The directing and editing was spot on, and the music was well done.

Look: this flick had one heck of a mountain to climb to have me even stay through the whole thing. I sat in my seat grumpy, put upon, and really, really disliked what little of the book I read.

And yet&#8230;
I will see the sequel.
FSOG- The Movie was a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks....

Let's do lighten up.  Conversation is starting to get a bit personal.  And let's PLEASE leave religion out of this. EDIT: to be clear, a comment was made that invoked religion; it's been edited. /edit

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Desmond X. Torres said:


> Wow. After reading some of the slag fest on the movie on this thread I'm wondering just where the heck I was last night?
> 
> My take:
> I didn't want to see it. Really. I couldn't get more than 20 pages in FSOG, why would I want to see the film? My wife pre-bought the tickets, so we had to brave the snow and cold to go. Then stand on line to redeem the tickets, and another line for the popcorn etc, then find our seats (assigned seats at a movie... boy I don't get out enough).
> ...


No one will flame you for having a good time. Some people enjoyed the film, I'm sure. We were simply discussing our views on the merits of the film, it's subjective.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

anniejocoby said:


> "Normal" in this context means average everyday people. Come on, lighten up. I'm quite sure everyone knows what tf was trying to say.


This. To be precise (in _my_ understanding of the original comment) "normal" in this context means popular, or appealing to the general audience. I consider myself a "normal" moviegoer (even though I almost never see movies in theatres). I don't make it a point to see "art" films because, well, in my experience they purposely aim to be high-brow and some are simply boring and/or pretentious. (Since I don't see most art films, I can't speak of all of them, and again, this is _my_ opinion; ymmv.) On the other hand, a lot of popular, high-grossing movies don't thrill me, either... too much stupid, too many explosions/car chases/shootouts simply for action's sake, plots that are thin enough to see through or don't hold water, etc.

Call me Goldilocks, because I prefer movies that are "just right." Not too pretentious and not too shallow. A good balance makes the best movie experience, imo. It should have meat to it, but not be so esoteric that you need a scorecard or discussion group to follow what's going on.

As for the Shades thing.... I didn't read the book, have no intention of seeing the movie, and like some others, just look forward to the day when it will fade from the headlines.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

Jena H said:


> This. To be precise (in _my_ understanding of the original comment) "normal" in this context means popular, or appealing to the general audience. I consider myself a "normal" moviegoer (even though I almost never see movies in theatres). I don't make it a point to see "art" films because, well, in my experience they purposely aim to be high-brow and some are simply boring and/or pretentious. (Since I don't see most art films, I can't speak of all of them, and again, this is _my_ opinion; ymmv.) On the other hand, a lot of popular, high-grossing movies don't thrill me, either... too much stupid, too many explosions/car chases/shootouts simply for action's sake, plots that are thin enough to see through or don't hold water, etc.
> 
> Call me Goldilocks, because I prefer movies that are "just right." Not too pretentious and not too shallow. A good balance makes the best movie experience, imo. It should have meat to it, but not be so esoteric that you need a scorecard or discussion group to follow what's going on.
> 
> As for the Shades thing.... I didn't read the book, have no intention of seeing the movie, and like some others, just look forward to the day when it will fade from the headlines.


So this- you described how I see myself as a moviegoer; and the issues you described you have with a lot of movies I second.

Which is why I was so pleasantly surprised in seeing FSOG.


----------



## Shei Darksbane (Jan 31, 2015)

I am boycotting that movie and everything to do with that book about abuse. :c


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JV said:


> Ah, see, you had me...then you had to knock Man of Steel...one of my all time faves.
> 
> I will say, the video of Gilbert Gottfried reading the book is priceless.


Man of Steel is awful even if you ignore that it makes Pa Kent as morally repugnant as Christian Grey and Superman just plain awful at superheroing. The plot is a loud, frenetic mess of characters passing the idiot ball back and forth that frankly lands in the middle ground of the Transformers movies.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Man of Steel is awful even if you ignore that it makes Pa Kent as morally repugnant as Christian Grey and Superman just plain awful at superheroing. The plot is a loud, frenetic mess of characters passing the idiot ball back and forth that frankly lands in the middle ground of the Transformers movies.


We'll have to disagree. I found it to be a refreshing incarnation of the Superman story. I believe Cavill is the best to ever dawn the cape. There also an incredibly moving emotional element to the entire thing. Also, Russel Crowe knocked it out of the park. Snyder does no wrong in my book and I can't wait to see what he does with Batman.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

JV said:


> We'll have to disagree. I found it to be a refreshing incarnation of the Superman story. I believe Cavill is the best to ever dawn the cape. There also an incredibly moving emotional element to the entire thing. Also, Russel Crowe knocked it out of the park. Snyder does no wrong in my book and I can't wait to see what he does with Batman.


I totally agree with your disagreement.
Uh... I mean, I disagree with the agree...
Ack.
Oh maaan...

Anyway- the Superman reboot was a fun movie! You're right! I agree! (Right?)
(Need to stop coffee and switch to beer)


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Desmond and JV, you must be the only people I've ever come across who actually liked _Man of Steel_. Most of the time, it's just 50 shades of hate.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Desmond X. Torres said:


> I totally agree with your disagreement.
> Uh... I mean, I disagree with the agree...
> Ack.
> Oh maaan...
> ...


Ha, no worries, I need coffee. I mean, I see both sides of the fence on Superman. I know what "fans" think Man of Steel did wrong. Those alterations, personally, didn't bother me. I love Snyder as a director, he was at the helm of Watchmen, which is my favorite superhero film of all time...so I just really enjoy what he brings to the table on these projects.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Desmond and JV, you must be the only people I've ever come across who actually liked _Man of Steel_. Most of the time, it's just 50 shades of hate.


Really? Man of Steel came out towards the of the end of my time as a critic and I attended multiple screenings and the theaters were on their feet cheering. I know a lot of people that loved it.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Man of Steel was "meh" as a movie and a travesty as a Superman movie.  But then I'm generally not on board with DC's "darker is better" vision of all things.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2015)

ʧ said:


> There are normal people, and experts (or critics). Bay appeals to normal people. Which is to say most.
> 
> There's a reason art house flicks are what they are. And there's a reason they aren't popular among normal people.
> 
> ...


To me, this thread is an interesting study on how words (spoken or written) can be inferred differently.

On one hand, the quoted post is inferred in the extreme/absolute. Meaning, a line was inferred when it came to the definition of "normal" and "popular".


> aren't popular among normal people


=normal people don't watch artistic/technical<insert your favorite definition>, _ever_.

On the other hand, the generalized inference.


> aren't popular among normal people


=most or many, not _all_.

I have done both (infer something in the extreme, and in general). I think _most_ (not all!) of us do. As a wannabe writer, I struggle with this sometimes, but realize I can only do so much, and the rest is up to the reader.

Okay, back on topic!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

There is a world of movies between Bay and Art House. I love a good popcorn movie. Bay's movies are nonsensical and, yes, lazy. A lot of people like them. That doesn't make them good.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Monique said:


> Man of Steel was "meh" as a movie and a travesty as a Superman movie.  But then I'm generally not on board with DC's "darker is better" vision of all things.


See, I'm the exact opposite. For the most part, I despise Marvel and their candy colored clouds approach. I love the direction that DC has gone with it, for me darker is better. Marvel has a few films that have satisfied me in that department, the last Captain America was spot on in terms of what I'm looking for in tone, as was the third Iron Man and the R rated cut of the last Wolverine film. It is just a matter of what you prefer, many of my friends are hardcore Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy fans...just not for me.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Yeah, I'm a Marvel fan. Generally speaking, I prefer the fun to the dreary. That is not to say they should all be brightly colored romps, but that's the universe I prefer.


----------



## Michael Parnell (Aug 25, 2014)

Monique said:


> Yeah, I'm a Marvel fan. Generally speaking, I prefer the fun to the dreary. That is not to say they should all be brightly colored romps, but that's the universe I prefer.


I agree.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Monique said:


> Yeah, I'm a Marvel fan. Generally speaking, I prefer the fun to the dreary. That is not to say they should all be brightly colored romps, but that's the universe I prefer.


Yep. I get to the point where I'm over all that angst.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

JV said:


> And if you don't think entertainment has gotten dumbed down please go and look at the film industry when it was churning out Apocalypse Now and Godfather 2 and Bridge on the River Kwai vs today.


Ok, now I just believe that you're saying stuff just to get a reaction. 

Godfather 2 (1974)
Other high art films they were churning out in major theaters that year: Flesh Gordon, Deep Throat 2, Mandigo (1975)

Apocalypse Now (1979)
Meatballs, 10, The Jerk

Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Invasion of the Saucer Men, Monster From Green Hell, I Was a Teenaged Werewolf

The intellectual bankruptcy permeating today: Boyhood, Gravity, 12 Years A Slave.

Isn't revisionist history fun?!



JV said:


> Marlon Brando refused to ever memorize his lines, very difficult guy to work with, is he a lazy actor? Uh, the answer is no.


Obviously my friend, we have very different definitions of lazy. Because as a guy who spent a huge chunk of my acting career acting with a nationally acclaimed theater company that performed Heiner Müller, Rainer Fassbinder,and Eugene Ionesco. A theatre where the director choreographed our every movements to make the performance art, I would call an actor who refused to learn his lines a little lazy. But to each their own. 

But to end on a point of agreement, super hero movies are fun. I think we can both agree that there is no way they can be described as lazy filmmaking.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Monique said:


> Man of Steel was "meh" as a movie and a travesty as a Superman movie.  But then I'm generally not on board with DC's "darker is better" vision of all things.


DC has doubled down on the 90's grim and gritty BS. you know, the style that nearly destroyed the entire industry twenty years ago.

Now we're to the point that they can't even imagine putting some bloody blue in Wonder Woman's costume because that yould be too bright then they wonder why Marvel is kicking their dreary 'no smiling' tails at the box office.

I will be front and center for Batman vs Superman , not because I have any hope of a good movie or Snyder turning in anything more than the stylistic trainwrecks he's known for, but because I want to be there to witness the moment Warner Brothers realizes they may have a problem in the DC offices and is forced to move to correct it.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Ok, now I just believe that you're saying stuff just to get a reaction.
> 
> Godfather 2 (1974)
> Other high art films they were churning out in major theaters that year: Flesh Gordon, Deep Throat 2, Mandigo (1975)
> ...


Again, I'm a film history buff, this is my main focus in life, and I don't say things just to get a reaction. My point is that films like Godfather 2 (over 200 minutes long) and films like Once Upon a Time in America (225 minutes long) and the Good the Bad and the Ugly are not getting churned out anymore--there was a time they were the norm. I'm not saying films like The Jerk didn't come out (though that's a higher level of comedy than what we're getting today). Studios no longer care about the art as much as they do squeezing in showtimes. There are many articles by heavy hitters in the industry talking about this exact thing. Take Kingdom of Heaven, a film that got released with over an hour chopped...the cut version is complete garbage. But when I saw the blu ray, with the hour added back in, it's an academy award worthy film. The same thing happened to Gods and Kings...simply to squeeze in showtimes. That's the nature of film now.

Really, Marlon Brando lazy? The Godfather, Last Tango in Paris, Apocalypse Now...the man is a god. That was his methodology. It obviously worked.

And the films you named didn't make box office...not at the level that the fluff made. They may be nominated for best picture, but do you know how many people have seen the best picture nominees? I saw a critic list the numbers the other day...but they're shockingly low...unless you count those that saw that abomination known as American Sniper (I'll save my critique on that in order to avoid the controversy that comes with it).

So yes, there is an intellectual bankruptcy, of course this is my opinion. Give the people mind numbing, poorly edited robot action or terrible looking CGI turtles...with a dose of Americans blowing the brains out of brown people...and you have a winner. Give them one of the most jaw dropping films in recent memory (Whiplash or Birdman) and they look at you like, "Huh?"

Of course, this is simply my opinion and what I've observed, but I believe it's one that many film professionals/hobbyists share. Hollywood simply isn't as daring as it used to be, which is a shame.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> DC has doubled down on the 90's grim and gritty BS. you know, the style that nearly destroyed the entire industry twenty years ago.
> 
> Now we're to the point that they can't even imagine putting some bloody blue in Wonder Woman's costume because that yould be too bright then they wonder why Marvel is kicking their dreary 'no smiling' tails at the box office.
> 
> I will be front and center for Batman vs Superman , not because I have any hope of a good movie or Snyder turning in anything more than the stylistic trainwrecks he's known for, but because I want to be there to witness the moment Warner Brothers realizes they may have a problem in the DC offices and is forced to move to correct it.


I'll take that bet. Guaranteed B v S dominates the box office. Also, I think DC's lineup through 2020 is much more promising and intriguing than what Marvel has going. To me, DC has the most iconic films in comic book history. They also have the most talent behind the camera (Nolan, Ayer, Snyder). But, to each their own, and may the best win.


----------



## RBK (Nov 28, 2014)

JV said:


> Really? Man of Steel came out towards the of the end of my time as a critic and I attended multiple screenings and the theaters were on their feet cheering. I know a lot of people that loved it.


I too found Man of Steel a really refreshing take on the Superman story.

I like your taste in movies, JV!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I'm real interested in how they expect to suck the joy out of Captain Marvel.

Like, how are you possibly going to do a story where a little kid gets the ability to become a super-powered adult from a wizard in the infinite grimness style of DC? And with Dwayne Johnson as Black Adam? Are they going to put a gun to his kid's head to keep him from gloriously chewing the scenery?

Thank god Marvel is doing Captain Marvel, because Dc's Wonder Woman is going to be Elektra 2: Trying Too Hard Even Harder and will set back female superhero movies more brutally than Catwoman did.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm real interested in how they expect to suck the joy out of Captain Marvel.
> 
> Like, how are you possibly going to do a story where a little kid gets the ability to become a super-powered adult from a wizard in the infinite grimness style of DC? And with Dwayne Johnson as Black Adam? Are they going to put a gun to his kid's head to keep him from gloriously chewing the scenery?
> 
> Thank god Marvel is doing Captain Marvel, because Dc's Wonder Woman is going to be Elektra 2: Trying Too Hard Even Harder and will set back female superhero movies more brutally than Catwoman did.


Both Marvel and DC have released some dud films. I just happen to believe that Watchmen, the Nolan Batman's (didn't care for any of the others, including Keaton) and Man of Steel set the bar in terms of comic book cinema...they're just better films in my book. I find flicks like Thor and the first Captain America unwatchable...and Ant Man makes me laugh whenever I see the trailer, and it's not a good laugh, it's mockery. I think Suicide Squad, B v S, and Justice League are going to put DC neck and neck with Marvel in terms of box office. Marvel was onto something with their latest Captain America, I'll give them that. I also think they're heading that direction with Age of Ultron, in terms of tone, but that remains to be seen.

DC also sets the bar for comic books translated to television, for me anyway. I love Arrow and Flash. Can't stand Agents of Shield. I will admit that Gotham is awful...like I said, DC is not perfect.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Wow. Read through some of this thread and quickly got reminded how... interesting... things get on kboards now. I could be wrong but it really feels like folks are intertwining quality with what's "their cup of tea." I'm not a big fan of dinosaur erotica but I'm not going to bad mouth all of it and say it's garbage and lacks literary merit.

I've not read FSOG or plan on seeing the movie. But I'm bothered by folks who want it "gone from the earth" or say things along those lines. Whether its fan fiction or not, it's an author who like many of us, had a story, published it and went from there. EL James, with all the baggage, got a chance to do what many of us dream about. She sold many books and made a movie.

I've read many books written by folks in Kboards and on this thread. Not all of it was my cup of tea. But I didn't wail on it. I moved on and wished you success with your audience. EL James found an audience. Good for her. Just like the directors who either have or don't have talent. They found an audience and made it work. Isn't that why we are all here? To find OUR audience so we can tell OUR stories and not the ones publishers will allow?

Sometimes I read the comments on these threads I truly wish for the days back in December 2011 when I devoured posters comments for the knowledge, encouragement and wealth of resources. Nostalgia is a *#$*#. I'm done. Back to the bickering.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Maximillion said:


> Wow. Read through some of this thread and quickly got reminded how... interesting... things get on kboards down. I could be wrong but it really feels like folks are intertwining quality with what's "their cup of tea." I'm not a big fan of dinosaur erotica but I'm not going to bad mouth all of it and say it's garbage and lacks literary merit.
> 
> I've not read FSOG or plan on seeing the movie. But I'm bothered by folks who want it "gone from the earth" or say things along those lines. Whether its fan fiction or not, it's an author who like many of us, had a story, published it and went from there. EL James, with all the baggage, got a chance to do what many of us dream about. She sold many books and made a movie.
> 
> ...


Well said. I remember 2011 on Kindleboards very well. I learned so much here. KB is the reason I make a wonderful living as an author now.

And Maximillion, someone told me that they fixed a few of the issues with the book in the movie. It really isn't a bad movie. And if you're open enough to check out dinosaur erotica, you might want to give FSOG movie a try.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

I don't plan on watching it, but yesterday I went to the movie theater to watch American Sniper, while in line a teenage girl approached me and asked me if I could buy her a ticket to shades. She had her money out and she swore she was 17 but she forgot her ID at home. Yeah sure. I was taken aback, but had to say sorry, but no.

I actually felt a little bad, I remember trying to sneak in to watch Porky's when I was underage in 1982.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Maximillion said:


> Wow. Read through some of this thread and quickly got reminded how... interesting... things get on kboards down. I could be wrong but it really feels like folks are intertwining quality with what's "their cup of tea."
> 
> Sometimes I read the comments on these threads I truly wish for the days back in December 2011 when I devoured posters comments for the knowledge, encouragement and wealth of resources. Nostalgia is a *#$*#. I'm done. Back to the bickering.


Yep. And not just that, but this thread doesn't even BELONG in this subforum.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

SevenDays said:


> Yep. And not just that, but this thread doesn't even BELONG in this subforum.


I will agree that this is most likely a "Not Quite Kindle" thread, through and through.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Maximillion said:


> I've not read FSOG or plan on seeing the movie. But I'm bothered by folks who want it "gone from the earth" or say things along those lines. Whether its fan fiction or not, it's an author who like many of us, had a story, published it and went from there. EL James, with all the baggage, got a chance to do what many of us dream about. She sold many books and made a movie.


Dream or no, James is going to get someone killed either by advertising an unsafe versio of BDSM or by encouraging women to 'work on' raging sociopaths who will eventually kill them.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Dream or no, James is going to get someone killed either by advertising an unsafe versio of BDSM or by encouraging women to 'work on' raging sociopaths who will eventually kill them.


I'm don't know...if people are stupid enough to follow her advice...or what's in her books...I just have a hard time drumming up pity for them. It's like the people that chase the videogames rather than policing their own kids. I don't blame James. I don't blame the videogame. It's called personal responsibility. The book is fiction. I'm not going to blame John Woo if I decide to dive over a couch with dual 45's and end up blowing my own head off because he made it look cool in a movie.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Dream or no, James is going to get someone killed either by advertising an unsafe versio of BDSM or by encouraging women to 'work on' raging sociopaths who will eventually kill them.


Yes, and their deaths will be ALL HER FAULT. Please don't be ridiculous.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> Yes, and their deaths will be ALL HER FAULT. Pleaae don't be ridiculous.


What? I blame Marilyn Manson and Satan for Columbine /sarcasm


----------



## Vivi_Anna (Feb 12, 2011)

JV said:


> You actually just made my point. Basic instinct had to be chopped numerous times before it was let through with an R rating. However, make torture porn, like I mentioned earlier, and it skates through with a smile. Again, sex in America, very taboo. Violence, woo hoo!


I totally agree with your point. It's horrible how as a society we glorify violence, but sex... nope that needs to be hidden, like its a shameful thing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2015)

Just to weigh in, I am not generally in agreement with JV though never have I ever actually commented on threads he is in because.. well I couldn't be bothered. This is the first thread where I actually agreed with a lot of what he said and understood it was coming from a place of knowledge from his previous role as a critic. (lets be fair, if you don't know what you're talking about, you don't last long as a critic.)

Fifty shades of gray is a film about abuse, it isn't a clever film, it isn't a film for the ages, it isn't a film people will be talking about in ten years. It has some moderately attractive actors who seem to have no chemistry together and a ridiculously bad script to work from. It is coasting on the women who loved the book and will no doubt make some money. 

The OP seems to like the film and that is fair enough, he also seems caught up in his own ego (not an attack, just a comment) and is using this thread as a way of showing not only his view on the film but his own videos that he uploads to youtube. Yes, you used a Hulk figure to demonstrate.. something. Very clever I am sure but not relevant here. 

The book was bad and the film, once the immediate hype has died down will not do well. 

My one argument with JV is his love of the latest Superman film... sorry but it wasn't a good story. Much like the Avengers, you had a huge portion of the film dedicated to one long fight. I am a massive Superman and DC fan and I was bored. I can't stress how upset I was about being bored with that film. A lot of filmmakers seem to think that you throw enough CGI at a film, you can forgo story and you really can't. Let's not mention how ridiculous it was he let his father die, killed countless thousands in the big fight and then actually killed the bad guy at the end... everything about that is opposite to what Superman has always been. 

TLR, this film will make some money initially but it is in no way a film for the ages. No one will talk about it next year, let alone a decade or three from now. The book would have disappeared into nowhere too without the hype about the film.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Rhayn said:


> Just to weigh in, I am not generally in agreement with JV though never have I ever actually commented on threads he is in because.. well I couldn't be bothered. This is the first thread where I actually agreed with a lot of what he said and understood it was coming from a place of knowledge from his previous role as a critic. (lets be fair, if you don't know what you're talking about, you don't last long as a critic.)
> 
> Fifty shades of gray is a film about abuse, it isn't a clever film, it isn't a film for the ages, it isn't a film people will be talking about in ten years. It has some moderately attractive actors who seem to have no chemistry together and a ridiculously bad script to work from. It is coasting on the women who loved the book and will no doubt make some money.
> 
> ...


I feel like I have a secret admirer...sort of...I wish you'd have commented in the other threads, the more the merrier.

A lot of people feel that way about Man of Steel.....it just did it for me, what can I say? I get the same push back when I tell people that Spring Breakers was one of my top 3 films of 2013. I don't mind being in the minority from time to time


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2015)

Hah, I am a believer in the whole, if you can' say something nice, then just don't... so tend to lurk a lot. 

Nothing wrong with being in the minority. I frequently find myself thoroughly enjoying films many people hated. Superman though... sigh... at least if Michael Bay made it, we would have had less explosions and more story and that's one of the few times you could say that about Bay... 

Spring Breakers was ok but not brilliant, Birdman I skipped to the end and then forgot about. Just not to my taste. That isn't to say I don't have a fairly eclectic taste when it comes to books, film and music but those you have mentioned just don't really do it for me.


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Rhayn said:


> Just to weigh in, I am not generally in agreement with JV though never have I ever actually commented on threads he is in because.. well I couldn't be bothered. This is the first thread where I actually agreed with a lot of what he said and understood it was coming from a place of knowledge from his previous role as a critic. (lets be fair, if you don't know what you're talking about, you don't last long as a critic.)
> 
> Fifty shades of gray is a film about abuse, it isn't a clever film, it isn't a film for the ages, it isn't a film people will be talking about in ten years. It has some moderately attractive actors who seem to have no chemistry together and a ridiculously bad script to work from. It is coasting on the women who loved the book and will no doubt make some money.
> 
> ...


  Haha!

As the OP I think you missed my point of everything. But before anything else. FSOG - the movie, is absolutely, 100% not about abuse. BDSM and the BDSM being represented in this film is as much abuse as masturbation is self-abuse. But if you think that's the case then, yes, for you this movie is about abuse, and I respect that.

So after everything I said, your walkaway is that I liked the film? Ok. How many times did I say that this was a film that I didn't love? But okay. I'm sure my defense of the film can be interrupted that way.

And yes, I have an ego. I'm not going to fight that. I'm sure that I'm the only one here that does, so I apologize for that. But never in my wildest dream did I think that me using a Hulk doll to review FSOG would be clever. I was trying to be silly. I make silly, humorous videos. The reason why I kept mentioning it in my posts was because JV kept pushing me to give an intellectual defense of FSOG when all I wanted was to be silly and have fun with a cultural touchstone.

But hey, happy you were able to get that off of you chest and give that OP what's-what. That will show him for participating in KB again! Good for you!

Maximillion,
Yes, I very much miss the kindleboards of 2011. Remember how people didn't attack others back then. Ah the good old days!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> Yes, and their deaths will be ALL HER FAULT. Please don't be ridiculous.


Not ALL, but she's helping. And profiting on the misery.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

JV said:


> Perfect example of WHY this is NOT a boundary pushing film. If anything, it's regressive. Women's sexuality is taboo in this film, despite the books supposedly being about female sexuality.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/fifty-shades-of-grey-sexism-female-sexuality_n_6671194.html


The books were about how hot the author thought the Twilight vampire would be as a Master, and that's about it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

Alex Anders said:


> Haha!
> 
> As the OP I think you missed my point of everything. But before anything else. FSOG - the movie, is absolutely, 100% not about abuse. BDSM and the BDSM being represented in this film is as much abuse as masturbation is self-abuse. But if you think that's the case then, yes, for you this movie is about abuse, and I respect that.
> 
> ...


You seem to think I am attacking you, I really aint. You state several times that you like the film, you have transformative moments during the film where you weny 'ahah' and were able to redefine your feelings about poor literature... or something like that. No matter what, anyone reading this is going to come away with the understanding that you liked the film and that despite you writing BDSM, the film showed you new stuff.... yeah... Ok.

I recall a post where you shared a video of your thoughts and motives of sex scenes or something, which is fine. Some people found it amusing, you got to share your work and everything so it's all good. It did nothing for me and I ignored it after a few minutes cursory viewing. Everyone's happy.

In this thread you are clearly stating you are in favour of this film. You are dismissive of other films and I think it is justified that you defend your position on this film. Everything you have said so far is so very far from a rebuttal of everything others have said that I am still waiting for you to say why this film is worth anyones time.

If in 2011 people on Kboards didnt challenge you then I am sure it was a place of milk and honey but if you put an opinion out there (in this case over the internet) you need to be able to debate it without thinking that anyone who has a different view is attacking you.

I am not attacking you. I have a very firm understanding that the story from the books is abusive at best and distinctly rapey at worst. I would be upset if my own daughters read the darn thing and thought that even BDSM relationships were like that.. I have yet to see anything about the film to hint that it may be anything other than mediocre at best and poor at worst, whilst riding on the hype of the books which were atrocious.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Not ALL, but she's helping. And profiting on the misery.


She's not responsible anymore than video games and music are responsible for school shootings. We are missing a big chunk of personal responsibility in this country. When I saw liberals in California trying censor and restrict games it made me ashamed to be one. Parenting. Personal responsibility. If the MPAA and ERSB disappeared tomorrow art would be the better for it. I can't stand FSOG, but EL James isn't responsible for the actions of idiots, they'll be doing the gene pool a favor.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Okay, this post is coming from another century (take note of that gray hair in my pic). I haven't read the book because I found the subject matter unappealing. Probably won't be seeing the movie either--for the same reason.

Also I see myself as a thoroughly modern woman. One who says, "Just say *no* to handcuffs! In bed or out."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

If it isn't safe, sane and consentual,  it is not BDSM.  If she was ever coerced, it is abuse.  
Now back to the OP, if you want to do a Web series on BDSM, I beg of you talk to people in that community.  So did you like the movie?


----------



## Alex Anders (Apr 11, 2012)

Rhayn said:


> You seem to think I am attacking you, I really aint. You state several times that you like the film, you have transformative moments during the film where you weny 'ahah' and were able to redefine your feelings about poor literature... or something like that. No matter what, anyone reading this is going to come away with the understanding that you liked the film and that despite you writing BDSM, the film showed you new stuff.... yeah... Ok.
> 
> I recall a post where you shared a video of your thoughts and motives of sex scenes or something, which is fine. Some people found it amusing, you got to share your work and everything so it's all good. It did nothing for me and I ignored it after a few minutes cursory viewing. Everyone's happy.
> 
> ...


Honestly Rhyan, I don't even know how to respond to you. I look at your covers that are splattered with blood. And I read your statement about how FSOG is abuse and your previous post about me, and I have no idea how anything I say will do anything but lead to more personal attacks. So I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion and move on.

I'm not here to get into flame wars. But yeah, you're right, if I dare start a thread on a forum that I have incredible sentimental attachment to because it lead to me being an author, I should be ready for anything in response. Because we all aren't humans after, we're authors. Right! How you talk to other people doesn't matter if they are an author.

Yeah, I think I'm going to stop posting here. This place isn't a heathly environment anymore.

And just as a final note for all of those who were interested. The network pulled the trigger on the project, and minutes ago I was told that they are sending my book and pitch to the network as one of their top picks. So it is probably that my book will be made into a web series.

I wish everyone luck here.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Alex Anders said:


> Honestly Rhyan, I don't even know how to respond to you. I look at your covers that are splattered with blood. And I read your statement about how FSOG is abuse and your previous post about me, and I have no idea how anything I say will do anything but lead to more personal attacks. So I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion and move on.
> 
> I'm not here to get into flame wars. But yeah, you're right, if I dare start a thread on a forum that I have incredible sentimental attachment to because it lead to me being an author, I should be ready for anything in response. Because we all aren't humans after, we're authors. Right! How you talk to other people doesn't matter if they are an author.
> 
> ...


Good luck, Alex--this sounds exciting!

And as to those "personal attacks?" I suggest you not take them as personal and carry on. Everyone's opinion on a movie is as valuable as everyone else's--including yours, mine, and the Hulk's. 

Again good luck.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

Alex Anders said:


> Honestly Rhyan, I don't even know how to respond to you. I look at your covers that are splattered with blood. And I read your statement about how FSOG is abuse and your previous post about me, and I have no idea how anything I say will do anything but lead to more personal attacks. So I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion and move on.
> 
> I'm not here to get into flame wars. But yeah, you're right, if I dare start a thread on a forum that I have incredible sentimental attachment to because it lead to me being an author, I should be ready for anything in response. Because we all aren't humans after, we're authors. Right! How you talk to other people doesn't matter if they are an author.
> 
> ...


Conrgatulations on that, it is always good news to hear someone is doing well. Please do not think that anything I have said is meant as a personal attack against you. Not sure why you think this place is no longer healthy but if that is how you feel then no one can really change that but you.

I hesitate to post often because people often take things the wrong way over the internet which is bad, when it is a forum for people who want to make a living from writing it is terrible. I honestly meant no offense and anyone leaving a community weakens it so if you are doing so because of me, then I assure you that I will avoid commenting on your posts in the future.

Really do have absolutely zero interest in any flame wars especially here.

Edited to add, my covers are covered quite liberally in blood because of the genre they are in. They are zombie fiction and nothing but, I do not try to describe them as erotica, romance, adventure or anything else. They are horror/post apocalyptic pure and simple and the covers show that.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> Honestly Rhyan, I don't even know how to respond to you. I look at your covers that are splattered with blood. And I read your statement about how FSOG is abuse and your previous post about me, and I have no idea how anything I say will do anything but lead to more personal attacks. So I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion and move on.
> 
> I'm not here to get into flame wars. But yeah, you're right, if I dare start a thread on a forum that I have incredible sentimental attachment to because it lead to me being an author, I should be ready for anything in response. Because we all aren't humans after, we're authors. Right! How you talk to other people doesn't matter if they are an author.
> 
> ...


Don't leave over this. Different views make the world go around. I hope everything was clarified as simply my opinion. Debate is good. Different views are good. You're passionate about what you do, that's what matters. So stick around and congratulations on your success.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JV said:


> She's not responsible anymore than video games and music are responsible for school shootings. We are missing a big chunk of personal responsibility in this country. When I saw liberals in California trying censor and restrict games it made me ashamed to be one. Parenting. Personal responsibility. If the MPAA and ERSB disappeared tomorrow art would be the better for it. I can't stand FSOG, but EL James isn't responsible for the actions of idiots, they'll be doing the gene pool a favor.


Are there actually videogames about how awesome it is to shoot up your school? If there are, then yeah, their creators are partially responsible if someone is convinced to shoot up their school by them.

If not, this argument is invalid.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Are there actually videogames about how awesome it is to shoot up your school? If there are, then yeah, their creators are partially responsible if someone is convinced to shoot up their school by them.
> 
> If not, this argument is invalid.


She isn't telling people to go enter into BDSM, is she? I think not. It's ABOUT BDSM. Grand Theft Auto is about crime, is it responsible for every car jacking and bank robbery? Is HEAT responsible for the North Hollywood shootout? Are Sopranos responsible for organized crime? Is Breaking Bad responsible for meth production? Just because there is a story ABOUT something doesn't make it an instruction to do something, big difference. This about personal responsibility. I believe your argument is invalid.

Personal responsibility.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

This has gotta be the most boring subject on this board.
Didn 't learn a thing that will help me.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Okey Dokey said:


> This has gotta be the most boring subject on this board.
> Didn 't learn a thing that will help me.


+1


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> And really, in terms of boundary pushing, I would say that it exceeds Secretary and critics liked that. The problem is that this is just a weaker storytelling experience over all compared to Secretary.


[list type=decimal]
[*]Secretary had an erotic/hot male and an interesting female lead.
[*]Despite a variety of problems (e.g. that masochism was linked to cutting, and BDSM to mental illnesses) the D/s part mostly worked and it depicted an actual and positive BDSM-relationship.
[*]The sub in Secretary is realistic in how she provokes play out of her Dom and sees the whole thing with a twinkle in her eye. As does the Dom.
[*]Spader and Gyllenhaal are infinitely better actors.
[*]Secretary was an arthouse movie making very few compromises.
[*]No product placement and two very realistic characters.
[/list]
I could go on. The reasons for why Secretary was liked are numerous and not found in Fifty Shades. I only watched excerpts and the trailer and that is enough to tell me I won't ever submit to such torture.

At the moment the rating of Fifty Shades is in the cellar and not looking to get much better. Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal movies have better ratings. That may probably be of no import to the cash flow, but I doubt Jamie Dornan will be able to recover from this for the next decade or two.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Dream or no, James is going to get someone killed either by advertising an unsafe versio of BDSM or by encouraging women to 'work on' raging sociopaths who will eventually kill them.


She already did. There are a couple of related (to the book) deaths.


----------



## HezBa (Jan 24, 2012)

Okey Dokey said:


> This has gotta be the most boring subject on this board.
> Didn 't learn a thing that will help me.


Then why are you here? Why did you continue to read 6 pages if you were so bored. I actually think the topic of FSOG is interesting in and of itself, but this topic is even better thanks to the fact that it hasn't dissolved into bickering about smut being evil, and James is a horrible writer, Mommy porn, yadda yadda yadda, like so many others.
I, personally, like hearing about different people's views about something that is important. Maybe FSOG isn't your cup of tea, but it is significant if only in regards to the discussions and debates it spawns. Women's sexuality, abusive partners, BDSM. All of this is interesting to me. If you don't agree, then again I have to ask, why are you still reading it?


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Alex Anders said:


> But when a person who has written over 100 erotic stories can see a movie in their genre and then have an ah-ha moment in the middle of watching it about what BDSM is at its heart, it means that the movie is more than eye candy.


I hope you are aware that the majority of kinky people from all predilections and sexual orientations consider 50 Shades to be the *least *representative of what BDSM is and means and the *most offensive* towards kinky people.



Desmond X. Torres said:


> The film is more of an exploration of a D/s relationship as opposed to BDSM- Christian said that early on, and yes, the dynamic is different.


D/s is part of what B*D/S*M encompasses. It's not opposed to BDSM. Misconceptions and misunderstandings are the basis for why BDSMers criticise these books and this movie.



cinisajoy said:


> If it isn't safe, sane and consentual, it is not BDSM. If she was ever coerced, it is abuse.


This.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> Yes, and their deaths will be ALL HER FAULT. Please don't be ridiculous.


Oh please...it absolutely would NOT be her fault. There's this thing called free will, CHOICE, if you will. Grown adults doing stupid things of their own free will have no right to blame it on anyone else but their own stupid selves. We live in a society where self-accountability has become a thing of the past. People throw caution to the wind in favour of carrying out silly behaviours and the moment things go awry, they blame their OWN actions on someone / something else. Now THAT'S ridiculous.

Edit: apparently Lydniz' post was sarcasm. Wasn't aware of that at the time of my reply. My bad for misunderstanding 

Sent from my SGH-I527M using Tapatalk


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Lydniz was responding sarcastically to someone  else who thought James would be at fault.  Please reread the exchange.  

Betsy


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Fictionista said:


> Oh please...it absolutely would NOT be her fault. There's this thing called free will, CHOICE, if you will. Grown adults doing stupid things of their own free will have no right to blame it on anyone else but their own stupid selves.


Accountability goes both ways.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

I get and totally agree that adults should take some personal responsibility for their own actions.

It still does not relieve James or the book of the fact that FSOG is not representative of healthy BDSM. And the _problem_ with that is many readers believe it _is_. So they are not looking to do more research into it, only taking the word of an author who has come across as an authority on the matter. It may be 'fantasy' to them, in their head, but some incorrect associations are being made with the reality of BDSM.

They have access to the same information we all do, in this day and age. The internet is a vast repository of information. It's unfortunate that many of the fans of FSOG won't use it to understand what BDSM truly entails. Their guide book will be...wait for it....FSOG.

So, yeah, many folks in the BDSM find the book a problem and they find the laissez-faire attitude towards FSOG with no corrections to ensure proper and accurate information is given irresponsible and more than a little irksome.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

Nic said:


> Accountability goes both ways.


Uh, she wrote a FICTIONAL story, not a "how-to" book. If people can't separate reality from fiction, that's on them, not E.L. James.

Sent from my SGH-I527M using Tapatalk


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

The last few posts lead to a larger discussion that is absolutely germane to the WC.  What is the responsibility of a fiction writer in portraying a subject matter accurately?  The scope of this extends way beyond BDSM.    Any medical issues?  Law enforcement?  Firearms and their usage?  Other areas with less risk?  Or is only important in some instances?

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> The last few posts lead to a larger discussion that is absolutely germane to the WC. What is the responsibility of a fiction writer in portraying a subject matter accurately? The scope of this extends way beyond BDSM. Any medical issues? Law enforcement? Firearms and their usage? Other areas with less risk? Or is only important in some instances?
> 
> Betsy


The writer absolutely has a responsibility to ensure the subject matter of their work is accurate. If you are writing a fantasy novel for example that has a blacksmith. Make sure you know how the blacksmithing was done, how the forge was set up, what tools were used, everything about the process because while 99% of the people might not notice inaccuracies, someone will.

If you want to be taken seriously, if you want your work taken seriously then you need to do the research and make sure it is accurate. Anything less is lazy at best and in cases such as FSOG where people will copy what they read, irresponsible.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

Fictionista said:


> Oh please...it absolutely would NOT be her fault. There's this thing called free will, CHOICE, if you will. Grown adults doing stupid things of their own free will have no right to blame it on anyone else but their own stupid selves. We live in a society where self-accountability has become a thing of the past. People throw caution to the wind in favour of carrying out silly behaviours and the moment things go awry, they blame their OWN actions on someone / something else. Now THAT'S ridiculous.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I527M using Tapatalk


I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and every person who blames someone else for their own problems is one person I lose any interest and respect for.

In this case the author has to take some responsibility too. If you write something like she has that is not accurate and could be dangerous, then when some idiot kills or hurts themselves because they copied it, she is in part responsible.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

FSoG -- I thought it was satire. I really did. I thought James had written a hilarious, satirical send up of materialism, power and so-called "chick-lit". I thought was meant to be read as Bridget Jones meets Twilight. The goddess references and her subconscious passing out -- that is funny! I didn't take it seriously and as long as the media doesn't try to tell me it "says" something about my middle-aged sexuality, I'm okay with it.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

I'm sorry, I refuse to blame an author or a piece of art--no matter how much I dislike said art--for murder, incest, violence, or an abusive relationship. Does FSoG depict a healthy relationship? In my opinion, no, but so what?  None of us can define the word 'healthy' for everyone. Nor is the responsibility of a writer or filmmaker to traverse the road most virtuous.  Do that, and get ready for others to blame a lot of genre writers for the unrealistic glorifying of a lot of bad, bad things to which we've become desensitized.

Healthy relationships, responsible gun ownership, financial accountability...fiction has a small, small responsibility in those areas. 

Some of this veers mighty close to the "let's blame porn for rape and body dysmorphia" territory, something I've never been comfortable with, since it becomes an exercise of morality confirmation bias.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Author responsibility.    Let me think about that one.    Here is something to think about.  I hear this quite frequently, well big name did it, so why shouldn't/can't I.    Maybe because it is a not a good idea and they only got away with it because of their status or money.

I do think the author should have a responsibility to present things in a realistic light.  
BDSM please research and talk to people really in the lifestyle if you want them as your target audience. 
Mysteries, same idea.  Make sure it works for the fans of that genre.
Thrillers, yep there too.

Now I do not think on fiction books that the author should be responsible for anyone else's actions.
Non-fiction is a different ballgame.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Fictionista said:


> Uh, she wrote a FICTIONAL story, not a "how-to" book. If people can't separate reality from fiction, that's on them, not E.L. James.


That unfortunately is not how life works. I also don't think artists or authors are not at least in part responsible for what they write and cause. As I said: it goes absolutely both ways.

If you include the exact method of mass destruction in a thriller, writing a "how to easily poison a whole city" which works in reality, then I will hold you accountable for showing wannabe terrorists and idiots how they can achieve that. You don't want me doing that? Don't write a recipe for desaster and publish it to the masses and believe you're a saint without a care.

Nothing ever stands on its own. Everything has to be seen in a context, and the context of something like Fifty Shades is that it builds on misconceptions already reinforced by the media and pushes them. People come to grief. Not because just this one book tells them, it happens because they are led to believe this and like books tell the truth. That it's a clusterf**k and everyone copies everyone else quite a few people don't realise.

You can't act without taking responsibility for what you do. You write [crap], you take that responsibility and don't shove it off entirely.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

> FSoG -- I thought it was satire. I really did. I thought James had written a hilarious, satirical send up of materialism, power and so-called "chick-lit". I thought was meant to be read as Bridget Jones meets Twilight. The goddess references and her subconscious passing out -- that is funny! I didn't take it seriously and as long as the media doesn't try to tell me it "says" something about my middle-aged sexuality, I'm okay with it.


This.^

In addition, I thought the OP was more about wanting to explore why FSOG became such a bestseller and _how_ or _if_ he could duplicate that success.

Moreover, I think EL James incites a lot of jealousy over her success. Sad.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> She already did. There are a couple of related (to the book) deaths.


But I guess that's totes okay then because she only encouraged them. I'm sure their families feel much better for that fact.

It's always amazing how 'personal responsibility' only seems to be a thing in cases where you aren't likely to have to take it.


----------



## hardnutt (Nov 19, 2010)

Lydniz said:


> i wd jn in th dscussn bt m hving to tp ths wth my nse as crrntly chnd to rdtr.


As long as you enjoy it!


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

Princess Charming said:


> Moreover, I think EL James incites a lot of jealousy over her success. Sad.


Oh! The 'you're just jealous' blank just got filled. I almost have BINGO.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

Nic said:


> That unfortunately is not how life works. I also don't think artists or authors are not at least in part responsible for what they write and cause. As I said: it goes absolutely both ways.
> 
> If you include the exact method of mass destruction in a thriller, writing a "how to easily poison a whole city" which works in reality, then I will hold you accountable for showing wannabe terrorists and idiots how they can achieve that. You don't want me doing that? Don't write a recipe for desaster and publish it to the masses and believe you're a saint without a care.
> 
> ...


Think as you will. Doesn't at all change my opinion on the matter.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Fictionista said:


> Think as you will. Doesn't at all change my opinion on the matter.


I agree with you. It's a slippery slope. People don't like the idea of personal responsibility. It's much easier to blame a video game, or a book, or a film for their idiotic behavior. If someone is so weak minded that they're swayed by media to either get themselves killed or kill others, it's on them, period, end of story. Trying to blame or censor art is easy...it's cheap...and it's what the powers that be do when they're too lazy to search for real answers.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

You can't blame it for 'influence' because you cannot prove that. But you totally can blame someone who says 'drinking and driving is awesome and you should do it', even in fiction.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The problem is that 'artists' are the ones who don't want to take responsibility over how they effect the world around them.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem is that 'artists' are the ones who don't want to take responsibility over how they effect the world around them.


What responsibility though? Again, everyone talking about this "artist is responsible" slant is being so vague and that's what's truly dangerous. I come back to one of the major controversies...should Manson be blamed for Columbine since the shooters said he was their influence? Should GTA be blamed for any car jackings or shootings that happen if cited as an influence? Should we blame the Bible and the Koran for every awful act done in their name (I ask this with no horse in the race, as I am not religious)? Where does the line begin and stop? Should McCdonalds be blamed and sued if someone spills hot coffee on themselves (it has happened), after all, they created that coffee?

Or does the artist have to specifically instruct the consumer to act?


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

JV said:


> I agree with you. It's a slippery slope. People don't like the idea of personal responsibility. It's much easier to blame a video game, or a book, or a film for their idiotic behavior. If someone is so weak minded that they're swayed by media to either get themselves killed or kill others, it's on them, period, end of story. Trying to blame or censor art is easy...it's cheap...and it's what the powers that be do when they're too lazy to search for real answers.


I wholeheartedly concur. People are so quick to play the victim card that it has become absolute madness.

Do we then start blaming the writers / producers of TV shows like Criminal Minds, The Following, Law & Order etc. if / when a viewer carries out the acts they see on those television shows? If someone decides to make the actions of a make-believe _fictional _character / situation _their reality_, I fail to see how the creators of those shows should be held accountable. It's a slippery slope of censorship that I has a writer have no intentions of subscribing to.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Fictionista said:


> I wholeheartedly concur. People are so quick to play the victim card that it has become absolute madness.
> 
> Do we then start blaming the writers / producers of TV shows like Criminal Minds, The Following, Law & Order etc. if / when a viewer carries out the acts they see on those television shows? If someone decides to make the actions of a make-believe _fictional _character / situation _their reality_, I fail to see how the creators of those shows should be held accountable. It's a slippery slope of censorship that I has a writer have no intentions of subscribing to.


The gap between blaming the artist for horrific acts carried out by weak and disturbed minds and falling back into the age of burning books isn't as large as people would like to believe.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

JV said:


> The gap between blaming the artist for horrific acts carried out by weak and disturbed minds and falling back into the age of burning books isn't as large as people would like to believe.


And that's the part that worries me.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Oooo, slippery slope arguments! Those are totally valid and---wait, not they aren't.

Look, if you tell people how awesome a thing that will kill them is and how they should do it, and they they do it, part-- PART -- of that is on you and no matter how much you want to hold up 'art' as a shield, that doesn't change your status as a catalyst for that action and the fallout. Whether you choose to take responsibility for it and actually be mindful when you engage in acts of creation doesn't change that the moral responsibility exists.

Nothing you say is going to change the fact that if James had been even the tiniest bit more mindful, some people would still be alive.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Monique said:


> This thread really should be in NQK, but I saw this headline yesterday and it made me laugh: Dominatrixes Descend on Downtown
> 
> http://patch.com/california/losalamitos/dominatrixes-descend-downtown-protest-depiction-sm-fifty-shades-grey


EXACTLY! This^^

"It's not a character defect, it's not a mental illness," Tara Indiana told City News Service prior to a protest at the film's opening. "It's a sexual orientation."

As a psychologist I had a difficult time getting a read on either character. And I am in the business of getting a read on people.

Christian Grey built a fragile sense of self around an unfortunate childhood that left him with an insecure attachment style and an overbearing sense of control on himself and everyone around him. Anastasia is a passive, dependent-style woman with no previous sexual experience who is dazzled by all things sparkly and hunky Grey.

None of the above has anything to do with the BDSM community. Christian is predatory. He knows people, he knows how to manipulate emotions, and in the process of doing so he forgets how to manipulate his own. He falls victim to the feelings he has for Anastasia and that is still not clear with his abundance of sexual experience. I really hope it's not just because she's a virgin, but the cynic in my suspects it is. The pure-hearted virgin can only truly belong to another man because no other man has yet taken her 'innocence'. *sigh*

I don't buy that Christian fell for her in such a big way that made him forget his own sense of control, which should be so rigidly and deeply embedded, that I almost suspect him of faking the entire "My feelings run so deep that they are more real than most men's feeling" as a part of his own fantastical scenario whereby he can be saved from himself. It's psychologically messy to be sure (but I feel like even as I attribute these psychological complexities, that I'm imposing my own interpretations that weren't made clear by either the book or the movie, which is a shame), and not really erotic in my opinion. I couldn't relate to the movie's portrayal of the characters at all because it all seemed so silly and emotionally immature.

*Ducks from flying objects*


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Oooo, slippery slope arguments! Those are totally valid and---wait, not they aren't.
> 
> Look, if you tell people how awesome a thing that will kill them is and how they should do it, and they they do it, part-- PART -- of that is on you and no matter how much you want to hold up 'art' as a shield, that doesn't change your status as a catalyst for that action and the fallout. Whether you choose to take responsibility for it and actually be mindful when you engage in acts of creation doesn't change that the moral responsibility exists.
> 
> Nothing you say is going to change the fact that if James had been even the tiniest bit more mindful, some people would still be alive.


Again, you're dodging the hard questions and you're keeping it vague because you don't have solid ground to stand on. The only person hiding is you, behind generalizations and vague arguments. I gave you VERY specific examples. You can't tell me where the line begins and ends. The slippery slope argument is valid because it has HAPPENED (see history). Your only argument is, "she wrote about BDSM in an irresponsible way"...okay Vaal...did she tell anyone to go do it? How is that any different than people blaming manson and video games or McCdonalds coffee? It's not. Bottom line, you've got an ax to grind with FSOG but you don't have any solid ground to stand on.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

KJC said:


> EXACTLY! This^^
> 
> "It's not a character defect, it's not a mental illness," Tara Indiana told City News Service prior to a protest at the film's opening. "It's a sexual orientation."
> 
> ...


Wrapping you up in pillows. I must protect you from the flying objects.
Hugssss and thank you.


----------



## mythsnake (Oct 22, 2014)

Fictionista said:


> Do we then start blaming the writers / producers of TV shows like Criminal Minds, The Following, Law & Order etc. if / when a viewer carries out the acts they see on those television shows? If someone decides to make the actions of a make-believe _fictional _character / situation _their reality_, I fail to see how the creators of those shows should be held accountable.


Legally, no, but morally...if Brianna Wu's crazy stalker decides to kidnap and recreate last week's episode of SVU that was based on her (and other female targets in gaming), I will never watch that show again because their portrayal of the situation was beyond irresponsible. Because that story is a "based on real events", the show's creators should know that the crazy dude (who I absolutely believe their crazy dude is based on) is just crazy enough to see it as a manifesto and think he will be immortalized as a martyr for following it. I really, really wish they would have thought it through more.

As for purely fictional stories...I think as authors, who often don't want to acknowledge the impact our words and stories can have on real people's lives, because it's safer to do so. After all, people wouldn't call for the banning of books if they believed them to be innocuous and inconsequential. I'm absolutely opposed to censorship because I believe books and media are strong influences in our lives, and because I believe that, I also believe that with writing comes moral responsibility; it's not something to be embarked upon lightly and without forethought.

I write Aztec science fiction and fantasy; I could have just taken what I'd learned in school and what I'd seen from television and wrote my stories without any further research. No laws says I can't do it that way, but if I did, I would end up perpetuating harmful stereotypes. But what does that matter? There aren't any actual Aztecs still around to be harmed by those stereotypes, right? Actually, there are still lots of indigenous peoples living in Mexico, and it's an important part of Mexicans cultural heritage, and after centuries of having that connection questioned and torn apart by colonialism, they are struggling to reclaim those roots. Those stereotypes I grew up with have been used to demonize the use of their native language and draw suspicion on their desire to rediscover their cultural roots, particularly by law enforcement, both in Mexico and the United States. I absolutely don't want to be a part of that problem, so I research, I took classes on the history in college, and I joined discussion groups on Facebook where the history and culture and the issues are discussed, by the very people feeling the brunt of those harmful stereotypes. I'm a guest in their culture, and I consider it my moral obligation to not use them as a doormat to wipe my feet on on the way to success. I will fail along the way, but at least I tried and listened and changed my point of view.

This is the problem I have with FSoG. It doesn't seem that the author took the time to learn about the culture she was writing about, and in doing got it completely wrong in harmful ways. The author took Twilight, which had problematic social relationship at its heart to begin with, and then switched the window dressings and ended up with an emotionally abusive relationship passed off as BDSM. Those who aren't familiar with the culture are eating it up as truth and calling it "romantic", and readers have become so attached to its portrayal of BDSM that they attack abuse survivors who speak out about the relationship in the books and ignore those who actually live in the culture. This kind of backlash happens all the time, particularly with works portraying minority cultures: the word of the non-member author is given more value and "truth" than those inside the culture who complain about it being done wrong. What I worry about in the case of FSoG is not that someone's going to copy it, but rather that it normalizes abusive relationships at the expense of victims seeking justice in the judicial system. It's hard enough for victims of abuse to get justice without further muddying the waters of what is and isn't consent.

If James wants to be lazy and doesn't care about the culture, that's her call, but she's not exempt from having criticism leveled at her for making that choice. And like a lot of people, I vote with my wallet, which is why she will never get a dime of my money, for the books or the movie. I save it for authors who actually care about what they write about.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JV said:


> Again, you're dodging the hard questions and you're keeping it vague because you don't have solid ground to stand on. The only person hiding is you, behind generalizations and vague arguments. I gave you VERY specific examples. You can't tell me where the line begins and ends. The slippery slope argument is valid because it has HAPPENED (see history). Your only argument is, "she wrote about BDSM in an irresponsible way"...okay Vaal...did she tell anyone to go do it? How is that any different than people blaming manson and video games or McCdonalds coffee? It's not. Bottom line, you've got an ax to grind with FSOG but you don't have any solid ground to stand on.


I'm not dodging hard questions, you're asking completely irrelevant questions.

Marilyn Manson does not tell kids how great it feels to shoot up schools. GTA does not tell you how great it is to kill people--in fact, most GTA games are more equivalent to Scarface in that in the end, crime cost the main character and in the full timeline, everyone but the (anti)heroic CJ ends up dying by the sword.

James however provides examples of 'bondage sex' that will get you killed and never makes a note of it while talking about how great it is. She also glorifies beyond the pale (even the pale that Twilight managed) sticking to unhealthy and abusive relationships without batting an eye.

Her case is different because she promotes a very specific action she isn't being blamed for a mindset, she's responsible for saying 'Hey, this is a very specific thing and it's so great you guys, you should do it'.

And yes, if McDonalds had actually done the things outlines in the suit as opposed to the facts that came out later, they absolutely should be held responsible.

Responsibility means nothing if people who cause things to happen shirk it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

mythsnake said:


> As for purely fictional stories...I think as authors, who often don't want to acknowledge the impact our words and stories can have on real people's lives, because it's safer to do so. After all, people wouldn't call for the banning of books if they believed them to be innocuous and inconsequential. I'm absolutely opposed to censorship because I believe books and media are strong influences in our lives, and because I believe that, I also believe that with writing comes moral responsibility; it's not something to be embarked upon lightly and without forethought.


*DING*

But as I've seen far too often from authors, 'art' seems to mean 'I never have to be thoughtful about the impact of anything I do'.

Also it's sad that the question here is one of legality rather than, you know, whether it's right or not.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

mythsnake said:


> Legally, no, but morally...if Brianna Wu's crazy stalker decides to kidnap and recreate last week's episode of SVU that was based on her (and other female targets in gaming), I will never watch that show again because their portrayal of the situation was beyond irresponsible. Because that story is a "based on real events", the show's creators should know that the crazy dude (who I absolutely believe their crazy dude is based on) is just crazy enough to see it as a manifesto and think he will be immortalized as a martyr for following it. I really, really wish they would have thought it through more.
> 
> As for purely fictional stories...I think as authors, who often don't want to acknowledge the impact our words and stories can have on real people's lives, because it's safer to do so. After all, people wouldn't call for the banning of books if they believed them to be innocuous and inconsequential. I'm absolutely opposed to censorship because I believe books and media are strong influences in our lives, and because I believe that, I also believe that with writing comes moral responsibility; it's not something to be embarked upon lightly and without forethought.
> 
> ...


While I see your point I disagree. The saying, "you can't please everyone" applies here. Artists can't account for every idiot, for every sick mind, for every impressionable soul, if we tried, we'd never get anything done. I want my art unfiltered. Raw. I don't want to produce my works walking around on broken glass. I don't want to live in that kind of society. Some of my favorite games, movies, music, books have at some point had people pointing fingers, trying to scapegoat. Art is created with the understanding that MOST people can tell fact from fiction. Is Natural Born Killers, a film I find hauntingly beautiful, to be blamed for the shooters that have called it their inspiration? Absolutely not. You can not account for those without a moral compass. It's impossible. We will end up in a world without art because everyone is too afraid to move...better not walk too aggressively, wouldn't want to inspire little Johnny to shoot up his school.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm not dodging hard questions, you're asking completely irrelevant questions.
> 
> Marilyn Manson does not tell kids how great it feels to shoot up schools. GTA does not tell you how great it is to kill people--in fact, most GTA games are more equivalent to Scarface in that in the end, crime cost the main character and in the full timeline, everyone but the (anti)heroic CJ ends up dying by the sword.
> 
> ...


To that end, GTA provides very specific examples of crime. It could be argued that the same level of repercussion is present in GTA that is present in FSOG. They both have conflict. The guys in GTA don't end up behind bars...sure there is some blowback from their crime, but they shoot 50 cops and they're usual A-OK.

The point is, neither one is TELLING you to go and do that specific thing. I LOVE the Hostel films...but they aren't telling you to tie someone to a chair and torture them. James isn't telling anyone to enter into a BDSM relationship based on her examples. For god sake, it's twilight fan fiction with sex added in, that's like blaming Twilight for representing Vampirism in an irresponsible light.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Quoting from the book: "_Fifty Shades of Grey_ is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. "

Note she says incidents. Sorry boys but she covered her butt nicely.

Though I would have preferred a do not try this at home without consulting a professional.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> *DING*
> 
> But as I've seen far too often from authors, 'art' seems to mean 'I never have to be thoughtful about the impact of anything I do'.
> 
> Also it's sad that the question here is one of legality rather than, you know, whether it's right or not.


It's not legality for me at all. I think it's both legal and morally okay, make no mistake.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Quoting from the book: "_Fifty Shades of Grey_ is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are the product of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. "
> 
> Note she says incidents. Sorry boys but she covered her butt nicely.
> 
> Though I would have preferred a do not try this at home without consulting a professional.


You know, I often wonder why American society seems so...below the bar in terms of intelligence. Why do we need warnings on microwavable boxes telling us they'll come out hot? Why do we need warnings on stoves and knives and lawnmower blades telling us they're sharp? Seeing the arguments in this thread of, "oh man...FSOG is causing people to die cause they think it's safe and accurate!" ...now I know. The intellectual prowess of our general population seems disturbingly low.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

JV said:


> You know, I often wonder why American society seems so...below the bar in terms of intelligence. Why do we need warnings on microwavable boxes telling us they'll come out hot? Why do we need warnings on stoves and knives and lawnmower blades telling us they're sharp? Seeing the arguments in this thread of, "oh man...FSOG is causing people to die cause they think it's safe and accurate!" ...now I know. The intellectual prowess of our general population seems disturbingly low.


Well the fact that we live in a society where one can choose to stuff their faces full of MacDonald's Big Macs on the regular, and then actually blame MacDonald's for making them obese and go as far as to file a lawsuit against them shows how far we dropped below the bar in terms of common sense.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JV said:


> You know, I often wonder why American society seems so...below the bar in terms of intelligence. Why do we need warnings on microwavable boxes telling us they'll come out hot? Why do we need warnings on stoves and knives and lawnmower blades telling us they're sharp? Seeing the arguments in this thread of, "oh man...FSOG is causing people to die cause they think it's safe and accurate!" ...now I know. The intellectual prowess of our general population seems disturbingly low.


On all of your examples, I rather agree. When it comes to BDSM, I am going to disagree with examples. 
We can start with bondage. Does the average person know how to bind wrists without cutting off circulation? Do they know one should check periodically to make sure circulation is not being cut off? How long can you safely keep someone tied up? Should you ever leave a bound person alone in a room? 
See the first one could lead to major health problems if you don't know the proper techniques. Oh and on the last question, the answer is NO. If something goes wrong, the one that tied the person up can and has found themselves confined to a small space without the bondage gear for an extended length of time.

There are also right and wrong ways to whip someone. Again the major damage factor.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JV said:


> It's not legality for me at all. I think it's both legal and morally okay, make no mistake.


Because some worthless and intangible value of 'art' is more important than human life and suffering.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Because some worthless and intangible value of 'art' is more important than human life and suffering.


You're making the mistake of believing that art is taking human life. There was death and destruction long before there was art. Art is not the causative factor nor should it be neutered simply because people lack personal responsibility and a sound mind. If they didn't blame it on art they'd blame it on something else and you and others would be demonizing it. This entire line of reasoning is speculative, at best.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

What is the purpose of art? Is it simply to express or is it to communicate? I prefer the latter and with that comes some responsibility.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Well, this thread has gone on long enough for me. Interesting hearing all the opinions. I've said all I need to say on it. Moving on to other threads.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

JV said:


> The intellectual prowess of our general population seems disturbingly low.


Because mistakes are made by people, and the company needs those warnings because mistakes happen and they don't want to be liable. That's why.

Also, if you are in the middle in terms of intelligence, then according to statistics and standard deviations, then 50% of people are technically less intelligent than you. Be careful with blaming low intelligence on the individual person, though, that makes one seem lacking in compassion and an understanding of the human condition. We don't blame animals for their lack of sentience, so let's not steer towards the path of blaming people for not 'doing things the smart way'. After all, the rich blame the poor for being poor, but we all know that MOST of the richest people in the world inherited their wealth.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Monique said:


> What is the purpose of art? Is it simply to express or is it to communicate? I prefer the latter and with that comes some responsibility.


Precisely. If you seek to engage people's thoughts and emotions, you must be mindful of the potential outcomes of doing so.

This is exactly the reason_why_ I write what I write. I want to encourage people to kindness, to fun and to using whatever power they have to help others. When I present a dangerous action, I take care to portray it as dangerous because as much as my job is to lie to the reader, I know that there is a measure of reality when it comes to what I'm giving them and a sacred trust that goes with it.

We are all potentially selling loaded guns. But I take care to sell it in a box labeled 'gun' with a safety and the ammo in a separate box.

James is providing guns in a box that says 'maximum fun device' and instructions to lick the barrel.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Wrapping you up in pillows. I must protect you from the flying objects.
> Hugssss and thank you.


 All those pillows are...*yawwn* making me sleepy. I might nap now.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

KJC said:


> Because mistakes are made by people, and the company needs those warnings because mistakes happen and they don't want to be liable. That's why.
> 
> Also, if you are in the middle in terms of intelligence, then according to statistics and standard deviations, then 50% of people are technically less intelligent than you. Be careful with blaming low intelligence on the individual person, though, that makes one seem lacking in compassion and an understanding of the human condition. We don't blame animals for their lack of sentience, so let's not steer towards the path of blaming people for not 'doing things the smart way'. After all, the rich blame the poor for being poor, but we all know that MOST of the richest people in the world inherited their wealth.


Perhaps intelligence is the wrong word. I'll just say this, I do believe there is such a thing as willful ignorance. I also think there is an epidemic of people avoiding personal responsibility. I think both are only getting worse. The bulk of this thread is, in my opinion, a symptom of that problem.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem is that 'artists' are the ones who don't want to take responsibility over how they effect the world around them.


Do we really think artists are responsible for the influence their work has? I think it's an ethical consideration, not a moral one. Especially in a society that encourages art to be constructed within the confines of a capitalist system. E.L. James is rewarded with enormous sums of money for this art, she didn't start out with it being expected to be such a huge success, would we have blamed her for a death if she wasn't so influential?

Truly, think about it. If she'd had a niche following, but someone attended to her book's practices ad they died, wouldn't we just shake our heads at the person who hurt themselves?

I don't think this is a black and white issue. I create art to inspire, inform and move. Some people create art to offend and anger. Art influences, that's the point of art, but it is also at the consumer's discretion with how they act and behave after they've consumed that art.

This is definitely a fantastic topic for debate 

*Edit*...provided we don't get personal about it...passion is great guys, for subject topics!


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

KJC said:


> Do we really think artists are responsible for the influence their work has? I think it's an ethical consideration, not a moral one. Especially in a society that encourages art to be constructed within the confines of a capitalist system. E.L. James is rewarded with enormous sums of money for this art, she didn't start out with it being expected to be such a huge success, would we have blamed her for a death if she wasn't so influential?
> 
> Truly, think about it. If she'd had a niche following, but someone attended to her book's practices ad they died, wouldn't we just shake our heads at the person who hurt themselves?
> 
> ...


^ first time I've been able to say this on this thread in awhile: Agreed!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

It doesn't matter whether or not you're popular or not. You need to show a little thought about whether or not what you put out there is harmful.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

KJC said:


> I don't think this is a black and white issue. I create art to inspire, inform and move. Some people create art to offend and anger. Art influences, that's the point of art, but it is also at the consumer's discretion with how they act and behave after they've consumed that art.
> 
> This is definitely a fantastic topic for debate
> 
> *Edit*...provided we don't get personal about it...passion is great guys, for subject topics!


Very true. It isn't black and white. I see art as a collaboration. That means both parties are involved and responsible. Do I think EL James should be locked up? No. Do I want censorship? No. But do I think celebrating things that hurt people is potentially dangerous? Yes. Potentially. That's why we discuss them. That's why we draw attention to the wftery.

Also, passion is good. Personal attacks just lead to threadlock and that's not good.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

JV said:


> Really folks, if you want to hear all the juicy stuff Vaal won't say to your face (technically speaking), head on over to his Twitter, it's hot, hot, hot! Give him a follow or two while you're there, sure he'd appreciate it!


Posting stuff like this doesn't exactly lend credence to you as the voice authority on acting like an adult.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Monique said:


> Posting stuff like this doesn't exactly lend credence to you as the voice authority on acting like an adult.


Really now? So making it known that a KBOARDS member is taking threads and posting them on twitter with sarcastic childish jabs that he won't come out with in here is somehow...what? Wrong? Childish? Not quite getting it. He's done it with multiple people here...naming names or going off on his little tangents, while smiling to their face. People were oblivious until I called him on it and let them know that their laundry was being aired for 226 people. I'm going to keep doing it, as I think people would like to know when someone is sneaking behind their back like that.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> It doesn't matter whether or not you're popular or not. You need to show a little thought about whether or not what you put out there is harmful.


I have to admit, when I first read the books I didn't think there was anything harmful about it, except for the obvious perpetuation of gender stereotypes and the anti-hero villain being saved by the virginal girl who can supposedly cure his deep emotional pain by being meek and submissive. _Ugh. _Someone very close to me worked with sociopaths for a living, in a therapeutic context, it's almost impossible to treat them, and it's for this reason I have even more sympathy for them... I find it difficult to produce blame for those who cannot choose their biological origins (that's not something I want to debate though, it's an example of how the story is fantasy). It's pure fantasy to think someone with such deeply entrenched personality factors can be cured by an unbalanced and unequal relationship.

^^ this feels like the real danger here.

The fifty shades craze has produced all manner of sex toys, board games, and other merchandise. Do we blame E.Ll James if someone buys one of these products and hurts themselves?

I cover very profound psychological issues in my books, and I know they are potentially triggering for some, yet I still produce my art because I think it helps raise awareness of how psychological issues can arise from combinations of biological and psychological underpinnings. I'd feel horrid to know it triggered off something for someone, that led to their death. Absolutely horrid. I'd take my books down, but at the same time, what if 100 more people come to me and thank me for helping them to feel heard, understood and how to help others with these issues.

It's a tough one to be sure.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

JV said:


> Really folks, if you want to hear all the juicy stuff Vaal won't say to your face (technically speaking), head on over to his Twitter, it's hot, hot, hot! Give him a follow or two while you're there, sure he'd appreciate it!


I actually don't care at all. I write controversial fiction, personal attacks are not about me, they are about the people making them.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

KJC said:


> I actually don't care at all. I write controversial fiction, personal attacks are not about me, they are about the people making them.


That's true, it does say a lot more about them. Good perspective and one I think I'll adopting from now on on here.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

JV said:


> That's true, it does say a lot more about them. Good perspective and one I think I'll adopting from now on on here.


Opposite opinions are the basis of good debate. Debate uncovers the facets needed to form a solid and objective opinion on a topic. Our beliefs are important to us, so it's important to engage others in debate about our beliefs to make sure that the opinions we have, hold up to scrutiny. In some ways, we need others with different opinions to challenge us so that we don't become complacent and lazy in our thinking. We might even be thankful these differing opinions exist.

""*off my soap box now.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

KJC said:


> I have to admit, when I first read the books I didn't think there was anything harmful about it, except for the obvious perpetuation of gender stereotypes and the anti-hero villain being saved by the virginal girl who can supposedly cure his deep emotional pain by being meek and submissive. _Ugh. _Someone very close to me worked with sociopaths for a living, in a therapeutic context, it's almost impossible to treat them, and it's for this reason I have even more sympathy for them... I find it difficult to produce blame for those who cannot choose their biological origins (that's not something I want to debate though, it's an example of how the story is fantasy). It's pure fantasy to think someone with such deeply entrenched personality factors can be cured by an unbalanced and unequal relationship.
> 
> ^^ this feels like the real danger here.
> 
> ...


I would put money on you a) making it clear that triggering stuff is properly warned and b) actually dealing with the issue in a properly researched and thoughtful manner.

That's the opposite of what James has done. She's actually depicted practices (ignoring a safe word for example) that can very well end in death.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> She's actually depicted practices (ignoring a safe word for example) that can very well end in death.


I see your point, but I still can't bring myself to hold her accountable for someone dying from attempting to recreate scenes from the book. I mean, it's distasteful, it's shocking, it's irresponsible, but is she morally responsible? I can't bring myself to think she's morally responsible for the deaths.

Certainly, like any product that is mass produced, maybe there should be warnings about recreating scenes from the book. Wouldn't that be the publishers responsibility, or the responsibility of the books stores that stock her book in such huge quantities?It does seem a little absurd to put a warning in the book about that for fiction that is so obviously not meant to be a reflection of real relationships, or the practices within the bondage relationship.

I don't think anyone could have predicted that the public would take it so literal.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

KJC said:


> I see your point, but I still can't bring myself to hold her accountable for someone dying from attempting to recreate scenes from the book. I mean, it's distasteful, it's shocking, it's irresponsible, but is she morally responsible? I can't bring myself to think she's morally responsible for the deaths.


It's not necessarily a recreation. It's just the very idea that you can ignore that precaution. She should not have done that. It's irresponsible regardless of any legality.

And if someone does do that and dies, and she doesn't feel a measure of responsibility, she's as big a monster as the one she made a leading man.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Second quote because something isn't letting me edit again:



KJC said:


> I don't think anyone could have predicted that the public would take it so literal.


I can't imagine anyone who has paid attention to popular culture in the past hundred and fifty years could have failed to predict it. She depicts something that is largely alien to the general public as super-sexy and a thing you should do if you want to be a sexy man.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Lots of reports . . . . . go find something else to do . . . . . I hear there are threads featuring cute bunnies.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Multiple reports on this thread. Any future posts in this thread that come across as personal attacks will be deleted without comment. If it persists, we'll put the members on post moderation or temporary ban. Please refrain.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Second quote because something isn't letting me edit again:
> 
> I can't imagine anyone who has paid attention to popular culture in the past hundred and fifty years could have failed to predict it.


Can you explain that further?

(As an aside, there is some debate about whether art reflects an already existing culture, or whether culture reflects art, maybe it's a feedback loop)


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

KJC said:


> Can you explain that further?
> 
> (As an aside, there is some debate about whether art reflects an already existing culture, or whether culture reflects art, maybe it's a feedback loop)


The core principle of fiction is, unfortunately, that it is like reality unless otherewise noted. People assume the thing you're talking about is real unless they have a reason not to. There is never a reason given why ignoring a safe word is a bad plan and no consequences for it, so it's entirely predictable that people not otherwise informed would that that at face value. Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The core principle of fiction is, unfortunately, that it is like reality unless otherewise noted.


Huh... I've never seen fiction that way. By its definition it means not true.

Wikipedia defines it this way: "Fiction is the classification for any narrative work whose creator does not claim responsibility for the work's faithfulness to reality; in other words, a narrative not guaranteed to present only true descriptions, real people, and actual events."

I find that definition interesting in light of the discussion we're having. I mean, that's the wonderful thing about fiction, is that it highlights parts of reality in such a way that it can't possibly be reality.

Am I the only way who thinks about it this way? Hrm.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Let me put it this way: when you first crack open a book, are you certain the local gravity is earth-normal in the story until the author says different?


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

The actress's hairy legs and armpits distracted me and I just couldn't get past it long enough to concentrate on the movie.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> Let me put it this way: when you first crack open a book, are you certain the local gravity is earth-normal in the story until the author says different?


If they opened the story line with 'he took a whip...' then yes, I'd assume the gravity was normal, from the narrators point of view, not from mine.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Not sure how to get into the more contentious discussions. I am just a reader. When I read fiction, its fiction. As a victim of both violence in general and domestic violence and then some,  I know the difference between fiction and non fiction. 50 shades is fiction. 
In light off all this discussion I have decided to read all 3 books of the series. I initially had dnf'd the first at 40% back in 2012 or so. I want to watch the movie so I want to be informed. Sue me.  

I am a long time romance reader so I am used to the themes and tropes that by today's standards would not be considered PC anymore. 

I am smart enough as a reader not to take what I read as reality. I guess I just give more credit to other readers to look at fiction as what is is, fiction. 

If I wanted to explore the BDSM lifestyle, I would not look towards fiction books to learn the ropes. But then I never looked to fiction books for that for any kind of subject. 

I think overall there is a interesting discussion to be had. But it often goes off the rails.

But if nothing else, this discussion has got me to revisit a series I didn't really think much about anymore. So there is that.  

I am on a reading run so I can plow through books right now like there is no tomorrow and I have some nice reading series challenges going. Might as well.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Actually, after being near-frozen, I have a better explanation.

Jon Rogers talks about two types of 'facts' in television in the commentary on the show Leverage. 

One is called 'Orange Box', named after the fact that the flight data recorder or 'black box' on an airplane is colored bright orange so it can be spotted in wreckage. Orange boxes are things that are actual facts that trip the audience's suspension of disbelief and they are likely to wrongly call BS on you. (Further reading: TVTropes Aluminum Christmas Trees and Reality is unrealistic').

The other is 'Ledger', named for the false 'fact' ont he show that pre-digital revolution, banks had extra-large deposit chutes because shop keepers had to drop off their ledgers with their take at the close of business. This is a 'fact' that the audience will let go right by because it's reasonably plausible and will often pass it on to others as if it were true because they're sure it is.

Ledgers need to be handled with care because people are so sure they're real information that they will act on that information.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Atunah said:


> If I wanted to explore the BDSM lifestyle, I would not look towards fiction books to learn the ropes.


D-did you do this on purpose?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Vaalingrade said:


> D-did you do this on purpose?


There is a purpose in everything I say or do, mostly.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

coming back from a beautiful warm day with friends in San Diego to multiple reports about this thread.  Locking it while I review.

Isn't there a DWS thread somewhere?

Betsy
KB Mod

EDIT:  Right now, I don't see this thread reopening today.  Feel free to PM me to make a case for reopening.


----------

