Fifty Shades of Grey

Tools    





Chappie doesn't like the real world
That's awfully similar to the plot of a Saw film - why is the controversy so disproportionate.


Then why is the controversy so fixated on this film, versus say a "Saw film". In the plot of the Saw films, the main character stalks his targets, controls, alienates, and abuses them - and does it because he supposedly "cares" about them (just like you described the plot of this film) - not to mention the torture in Saw films is way worse.

So the only key difference here is that one involves "sex" and one doesn't.

I'm not gonna speak for you personally - but the reason that this controversy as a whole is so disproportionate strong is because it involves "sex" - this is why films with graphic torture and dismemberment don't get as much controversy as a 5 second scene of a nude pop start "twerking" - we're still a lot more "Saudi Arabia" in our mentality than we'd like to believe.
Yeah, you are definitely without my permission to ever speak for me.

0 to Crazy in one post. At least you're consistent.

I'm not going to argue with your nonsense simply because you don't really know how, but If the real issue with the movie is just people being prudes, then why are writers of erotica and people heavily involved in the bondage community so up in arms against it?

Hmm... Wait I already know you're answer. Taliban!



Registered User
Yeah, you are definitely without my permission to ever speak for me.

0 to Crazy in one post. At least you're consistent.
Thank you. Actually no though, in SC's thread I admit I derailed the discussion from talking about personal issues to a political rant - in this thread however this is all totally on topic, since the "movie controversy" is a big part of the thread.

I'm not going to argue with your nonsense simply because you don't really know how, but If the real issue with the movie is just people being prudes,
I made strong argument in favor of this - I listed movies with similar scenarios like Saw (ex. film protrays hero as "sympathetic" - he tortures people because he supposedly "cares" about them - he recruits victims into his 'cult' who look up to him as some sort of genius, etc) - but with the sole difference being that they don't involve "sex".

Or what out Silence of the Lambs? That film won an Oscar, and had a similar "Stockholm syndrome" type relationship between Jodie Foster and a psychopathic killer - where is all the controversy over that film? Again, no sex.

Like it or not we are influenced by outdated prudish thinking a lot more than we even realize (hell, even Miley Cyrus "twerking" managed to make 'controversy' 30 years after Madonna did more explicit stuff in her music videos). And these examples do a great job at making the case. We won't give a poop about torture, but flash a pair of titties and we'll be all up in arms.

then why are writers of erotica and people heavily involved in the bondage community so up in arms against it?
I mentioned I'm more against a "Bondage community" than I am a silly movie - bondage in sex is one thing, but a community devoted specifically to Bondage is more of a paraphilia than a normal sex drive

To me being against a film which would be PG-13 without the "sex", but in support of a "Bondage community" seems backwards.... so... I just don't understand this at all.

IMO being "against the movie" is just dumb, since the film's not seriously portraying in any way that this is "normal" - it might be giving the character depth and making him seem slightly sympathetic, but this is the norm in a lot of films with dark characters and it makes them more interesting - I can't think of any reason to be "against the movie" unless someone is just prudish, or can't mentally differentiate between a movie and real life.

Hmm... Wait I already know you're answer. Taliban!
No Hamas

\
The sex scenes are less shocking than what has occurred in tons of books that I've read that weren't erotica. All these people that acted like they never knew S&M existed until they read the book are either lying or living under a rock.
This part I agree with - many of these are the same inbred people who've never seen a woman's butt before and were "shocked" over Miley Cyrus twerking, not realizing she had been outdone by Madonna and others 30 years earlier.



Chappie doesn't like the real world
You bring Saudi Arabia into it once again. You have neither read the book nor seen the movie yet you compare it to Saw based on a very brief discription I gave of the character's behavior, then you talk about twerking and yet you're saying, "No, this time I'm making good arguments." No, you're really, really not.

If you insist on trying to join conversations you need to learn to stay on topic, focus and stop making wild comparisons to make a point when the two topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's simply foolish and you do it every time.

I'm done tilting at this particular windmill. Didn't you ever hear any of this in school?



Registered User
How 'controversial' do you think this film would be if it was about a platonic relationship? (ex. Protagonist meets wealthy long lost father - then later finds out he's an abusive psychopathic murderer)- be honest here - it'd be a flash in the pan if the "S" word wasn't involved. That really should sum up the controversy nicely.



Chappie doesn't like the real world
The controversy isn't about the sex. Why don't you read things and not just post things your brain vomits? Geez Louis. People, most of them people who also right erotica, have a problem with the man's behavior outside of the bedroom and the female character being a brainless twit. But Again you haven't read the book or seen the movie so this is all assumption isn't it? What's that saying about people that assume?

If you think my problem with the movie is sex then why wouldn't I have the same problem with movies like Short Bus, Nymphomaniac, AntiChrist or Blue is the Warmest Color? Those movies are far more sexually graphic than anything happening in this movie.

Again you can continue to derail every single conversation that has any chance of being smart or interesting by continuing to pull from every single direction possible in the off chance that one is a hit and you end up accidentally making a valid point.

Your example is exactly what I'm talking about. What in the world does that scenario have to do with what I find problematic with the movie? Do you even know what I find what it is I find problematic with it?

You want it to be sex, so you, as always, made it what you assumed it was about instead of actually reading and comprehending.

Why am I having such a feeling of déjà vu?



Registered User
The controversy isn't about the sex. Why don't you read things and not just post things your brain vomits? Geez Louis. People, most of them people who also right erotica, have a problem with the man's behavior outside of the bedroom and the female character being a brainless twit. But Again you haven't read the book or seen the movie so this is all assumption isn't it? What's that saying about people that assume?

If you think my problem with the movie is sex then why wouldn't I have the same problem with movies like Short Bus, Nymphomaniac, AntiChrist or Blue is the Warmest Color? Those movies are far more sexually graphic than anything happening in this movie.

Again you can continue to derail every single conversation that has any chance of being smart or interesting by continuing to pull from every single direction possible in the off chance that one is a hit and you end up accidentally making a valid point.

Your example is exactly what I'm talking about. What in the world does that scenario have to do with what I find problematic with the movie? Do you even know what I find what it is I find problematic with it?

You want it to be sex, so you, as always, made it what you assumed it was about instead of actually reading and comprehending.

Why am I having such a feeling of déjà vu?
Just finished watching it - I really shouldn't have used the "Saw" analogy at all, since this movie is closer to "Leave it to Beaver" than "Saw". This still illustrates my point though - how a movie with graphic torture, kidnapping, etc generates less controversy than a movie with light bondage scenes.

Overall this movie was a fairly run-of-the-mill film with the only twist being the S&M kink, which was extremely tame, and the guy's mild obsession. Not to mention that everything which happened in the film was consensual, there was no 'abuse' whatsoever outside of consensual S&M (the "contract" wasn't even legally binding, it was done just for legal affirmation that it was consensual which made perfect sense in the context of the film, and the lead actor's status as a prominent billionaire).

As far as the objection to the "guy's behavior" goes - that's pretty unfounded given that the film was intended to be about a guy with a mildly dysfunctional sexual preference. It'd be like watching a horror film and then getting "shocked and offended" when people get killed. By that standard no one should watch anything other than "Andy Griffith Show" reruns on TV Land - what a boring reality that would be.

As far as the girl being a "brainless twit" - I disagree, I think she was pretty well acted - I thought of her character as a pretty nice and genuine girl, and given her portrayal as a young recent college grad who'd never had a boyfriend before, I'd say any naivete on her part was pretty accurate to many young people in real life. Anyone who can't empathize just doesn't have a heart, or never had a normal childhood. Or they're just jealous because they don't get attention from attractive billionaires, hah :P

If the objection is simply to an allegedly "brainless character" being in a film at all, even when it's fitting (simply because said brainless character has a vagina) - well 10 bucks says the same PC gestapo doesn't have a problem with brainless male characters in films like The Hangover, or in awful sitcoms like "Friends", "Big Bang Theory", "Everybody Loves Raymond", etc (while I'm on it, the lead character in "Everybody Loves Raymond" is way more of a dysfunctional and exploitative character than the dude in this film is, but that's another rant).

I don't see any intellectually honest thought behind this 'controversy'.

It's about a girl who becomes infatuated with a guy who turns out to be a psychopathic murderer.
Nope, this is a complete lie, sorry. The character is never a murderer; I also read the cliff-notes for the 2 sequels and he never commits a murder in those books either

In fact I took your word for it before watching the film (which is why I used the "Saw" analogy) and now I wish i hadn't. Everyday I learn more and more not to believe everything I read on the internet.

My impression with BDSM is that it's roleplay, so they have brief moments when they get to play master and slave and it's enjoyable because it's something that they wouldn't do every day. Whereas Christian is permenantly controlling so it's not exactly roleplay- it's real.
That's incorrect - the BDSM itself is unrelated to obsessive behavior outside of that context - all of the BDSM in the film is entirely consensual; Christian's obsessive attitude toward her is a separate issue, and could easily exist in a non-BDSM relationship as well.



Nope, this is a complete lie, sorry. The character is never a murderer; I also read the cliff-notes for the 2 sequels and he never commits a murder in those books either

In fact I took your word for it before watching the film (which is why I used the "Saw" analogy) and now I wish i hadn't. Everyday I learn more and more not to believe everything I read on the internet.
Can't tell if you're joking or not. If you read the posts just before and after that one, you'll find that was just a screenplay idea I had.



Chappie doesn't like the real world
Can't tell if you're joking or not. If you read the posts just before and after that one, you'll find that was just a screenplay idea I had.
He's not joking. He just doesn't bother to read before responding.



Welcome to the human race...
Saw didn't generate much controversy because everyone knew it was a horror film from the outset and the average person is not likely to re-enact the overly elaborate death-traps from the series, let alone become a serial killer of any variety. Fifty Shades of Grey is dangerous because it is marketed as erotica and its BDSM bent, no matter how inaccurate or misinformed, leads to unsafe attempts at replicating the sort of sex featured in the film - at best. At worst, it can be used to normalise physically and emotionally abusive behaviour. Stuff like that being seen as "acceptable" because it was featured in a hit movie that everybody saw and validated is considerably more dangerous on a broader scale than a lone serial killer trying to be the next Jigsaw.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Registered User
Can't tell if you're joking or not. If you read the posts just before and after that one, you'll find that was just a screenplay idea I had.
Sorry, your post which said 'I don't want to read the book though' made it sound like your above post was talking about the movie



Registered User
Saw didn't generate much controversy because everyone knew it was a horror film from the outset and the average person is not likely to re-enact the overly elaborate death-traps from the series, let alone become a serial killer of any variety.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eveal-PIN.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/ny...ucks.html?_r=0

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/kristi...exter-inspired

Fifty Shades of Grey is dangerous
...that's not histrionic at all

because it is marketed as erotica and its BDSM bent, no matter how inaccurate or misinformed, leads to unsafe attempts at replicating the sort of sex featured in the film - at best.
Consensual light BDSM is a totally acceptable sex routine - people who are heavily into BDSM to the degree that it's a paraphilia have a psychiatric issue - there's no evidence that watching 50 Shades of Grey 'turns someone into a sadomasochist' anymore than there is that "playing Grand Theft Auto makes you a cop killer". This is "Jack Chick" style thinking.

Also, the BDSM in the film was tamer than something you'd see on a low-budget free erotic video on Google search - the only scene with actual 'violence' was a final scene where the woman asks the man to whip her to see what it's like, and then tells him she'd never enjoy that lifestyle and leaves. And one other scene with a light spanking.

It doesn't sound like you saw the movie. There was more violence in a Pirates of the Caribbean film than this. I'm not kidding

At worst, it can be used to normalize physically and emotionally abusive behavior.
That's a non-sequiter to me, especially since the controlling behavior was protrayed as the prime dysfunction in the relationship and the one thing keeping them from being a couple, rather than as "normal" or desirable. The actor's obsessive behavior never ventured into actual abusive behavior by any court's definition, so essentially the concept behind the movie is that the relationship could be salvageable if he could learn to let his controlling attitude go, and learn to have a relationship which wasn't centered just around bondage.

Stuff like that being seen as "acceptable" because it was featured in a hit movie that everybody saw and validated is considerably more dangerous on a broader scale than a lone serial killer trying to be the next Jigsaw.
That statement fails substantiation - it's simply 'begging the question' and strikes me as paranoid.

Again if your conclusion is taken literally, we might as well only watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver or the 700 Club out of "fear" that we might turn into a killer, abuser, etc due to some subliminal message in the film, etc etc.



please don't quote the UK's Daily Mail as proof of anything approaching reality . Its reputation here in the UK of exploitative and exaggerated information is legend here and a source of derision amongst reasonable people.



Registered User
please don't quote the UK's Daily Mail as proof of anything approaching reality . Its reputation here in the UK of exploitative and exaggerated information is legend here and a source of derision amongst reasonable people.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/matthew-tin...w-spine-448868

I think you should research the story before immediately dismissing it just for being on "Daily Mail".



http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/matthew-tin...w-spine-448868

I think you should research the story before immediately dismissing it just for being on "Daily Mail".
I'm sorry but have no idea of the remit of the Daily Mail so I don't think you can pontificate on their news stories.



Registered User
This certified genius really knows how to dig a hole.
You're really going to need to come up with better red herrings than that. lol

Just a hint, making a vague rebuttal statement without listing actual faults in the argument just reveals an inability to critically discuss a subject. Anyone can type "your argument sucks", "evolution is a hoax", or banality like that - but that's a lazy man's argument.

My god the irony isn't even worth mentioning
It's "God", not "god" - now that's irony.

it's just so adorable.
No need to put your obsequiousness on display for everyone to see, really now junior.

But in the real world however, it's over $300 million in opening box office proceeds, against the opinion of a "guy" on the internet who's likely so distanced from real-life interactions that he'd be more likely to be laughed at than accoladed for expressing his fringe, PC views in any actual social situation - you know with... people... in real life.

I'm not normally one to use the 'ad populum' but in this case it serves as a wake-up call to someone deluded enough to think that they 'speak for any % of the population in real life more significant than that which frequents NSM or CPUSA rallies.



I don't really need to repeat everything Godoggo said, she's on top of it. Also, here's the gem you left in my profile:

You should probably change your interests from "art and friends" to just "art" - that would be slightly more accurate to real life I'm certain
All you do is feint, correct? I too know BDSM folk who despise this book, maybe you're the one who shouldn't think s/he speaks for anyone besides him/herself.



Registered User
I don't really need to repeat everything Godoggo said, she's on top of it.
Beautiful cop-out for actually articulating an argument rather than leaving a snarky faux-"rebuttal."

maybe you're the one who shouldn't think s/he speaks for anyone besides him/herself.

I too know BDSM folk who despise this book,
You actually think a "BDSM subculture" speaks more for the population than $300m in opening box office returns?

Sorry Charlie, political correctness is actually the fringe outside of certain segments of the media and the internet - the success of shows like Bill Maher, South Park, the Sopranos on HBO are great testament to that. Some narcissistic minded individuals on the internet who's only hobbies are 'art' and chatting with friends on some "womyn's studies" forum might be delusional enough to believe that their views hold any amount of the mainstream significance at all - but that's due to their lack of actual face-to-face interactions with actual people.

If a person posts on Stormfront.com enough, they might also get the idea that white supremacy views are 'the norm', but IRL would be laughed or scowled at for having the audacity to assume that anyone in real life would have any interest in garnering their insignificant 'approval', and avoiding 'digging that hole' to begin with. But yeah, I'm sure the wealthy and talented lead actress is devastated that she hasn't had the privilege of earning the 'approval' of some patronizing keyboard warrior on a little corner of the internet - you sure showed her - hah



Registered User
It is so, so obvious when someone's gotten under your skin.
I get annoyed easily when people claim to "speak for sizable group" when they really do not, yes you're right. Just like how I'm annoyed when fringe groups like the KKK claim to "speak on behalf of white people", when in reality 99% of the white population would want nothing to do with them.