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

[irishstormtrooper]

I don't really care. If I go see it at all, it'll just be to laugh at how ridiculously bad it is, so something like that would just give me more joke fodder.

 

[Wayte]

All the HP movies suck.

Why don't people seem to realize this?

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

Movies made from books always suck. Except maybe LOTR.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is phenomenal but as a set of adaptations it is most certainly inferior to Harry Potter.

I never much enjoyed the HP movies, they seem to miss all the cutesy details that I enjoyed so much. LOTR on the other hand, was epic either way, with ot without the details. That's just my thing though lol.

 

[Jekken6]

I thought the sixth movie was shit, because it seemed like they were trying to pander to the Twilight crowd. I have no intention of seeing the 7th movie if that is the direction they're going in.

In other words, you didn't watch the movie.

I've watched all the movies and read all the books. In this sixth movie, most of the plot and actual interesting stuff was minimalized or sidestepped completely to make room for alot of romance and teenage angst bullshit.

That is an absolute farcical lie. The "romance" was a mere subplot just as it was in the book. You're blowing that element way out of proportion.

I was just incredibly disappointed with the 6th one, that's all. There were some really interesting things in the book that got replaced by the things that mentioned.

 

[omega 616]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh so he's dieing so he doesn't need clothes, I hope you never have an open coffin at a relatives funeral, it could get weird. In fact why don't we all just walk round naked, since it's perfectly natural?

There is no reason for there to be nudity, in film or art. It isn't a necessary part of it, it's not like the head or character development.

Imagine you were a 10 year old, you loved the first few films but your parents didn't like the idea of you seeing nudity, so they won't let you see the film, your going to be ok with that? I think your going to be livid.

I bet the only reason you want the nudity is to see Emma Watson naked, which is a little sad. (or harry potter, how am I meant to know if your gay?) once you have seen one person naked it's pretty much the same for every body else.

What are the good reasons for the nudity? I can't think of any good reason to put it in.

 

[Scrythe]

Watson and Radcliffe would never do anything like that! That'd be like if Radcliffe starred in a play in which he gets naked and fucks a horse, or if Watson was in a nude bath scene in a movie!

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't like how they're over-sexualising the movies; it's pretty creepy and always done badly. I thought they crossed the line in the last movie when Ginny offers to tie Harry's shoelace and it looks like she's about to give him a blowjob.
Maybe if it wasn't targeted at children, and they weren't such horrible actors, and I thought either of them was attractive, then it would be ok. But honestly, it's just going to be awkward.

 

[Cakes]

Oh so he's dieing so he doesn't need clothes, I hope you never have an open coffin at a relatives funeral, it could get weird. In fact why don't we all just walk round naked, since it's perfectly natural?

You dolt, you completely ignored what I said and you know it. Need I simplify it for you?
HE WAS DEAD ALREADY
HE WAS IN LIMBO
THAT IS, A SPIRITUAL REALM
DO SOULS WEAR CLOTHES?
PROBABLY NOT.
NOT THAT COMPLICATED.

There is no reason for there to be nudity, in film or art. It isn't a necessary part of it, it's not like the head or character development.

Yet again, statue of David?

Imagine you were a 10 year old, you loved the first few films but your parents didn't like the idea of you seeing nudity, so they won't let you see the film, your going to be ok with that? I think your going to be livid.

You mean parents are going to have to do some parenting? God no.

I bet the only reason you want the nudity is to see Emma Watson naked, which is a little sad. (or harry potter, how am I meant to know if your gay?) once you have seen one person naked it's pretty much the same for every body else.

So either I'm a pervert or I'm gay. Nice personal attacks there bud.

What are the good reasons for the nudity? I can't think of any good reason to put it in.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/God2-Sistine_Chapel.png

 

[Cakes]

Actually, I'm intrigued. What are the going to call the eighth harry Potter film?

Deathly Hallows Part 2, probably? Considering it's not really an eighth film and just the seventh in two parts.

 

[xplay3r]

I agree compeletely, things are only as dirty as the majority makes it out to be, I mean modern culture demonizes breasts for no reason, and that's the only reason they're considered sexual. I mean if women were forced to where gloves and not show there hands, it would be sexual to see a knuckle or a cuticle.
If women weren't made to hide they're breasts guys would be crazy for the first day or two, with breasts everywhere then it would just become natural.
Nudity is not disgusting or perveted unless you implant in peoples minds that it is.
Stop saying it's naughty and it will cease to be so, pure and simple.

We have a culture which constantly states that breasts are sexual things. They're coveted, fetishistic. It follows that any breasts on show are there to be looked at as sexual objects for the sake of gaining attention. 'Course, no-one ever stops to think that a similar attraction might exist for the male body but hey, since when is -that- new?

Not everything to do with breasts is to please men. There are such things as attractive male bodies and women who, if you will, get horny. Not every display of flesh is sexual. If only everyone got over it like that.

To do with the breasts on show thing, it pisses me off that women can't take their shirts off on a hot day, for example. It's illegal actually, indecent exposure. The thing is that if I was to go shirtless I wouldn't want everyone around going "Ohhh! Breasts!" I'd want them to treat it as no different to a guy taking his shirt off and strolling around ie. perfectly ordinary and acceptable.

Exactly the culture dictates that breasts are naughty things so they are, it's precieved that they are, it's a pretty stupid taboo.

Also I'm a male so I didn't say anything about what girls are attracted to, physicly, on guys, because I honestly have no clue, and I didn't want to be presumptious.

I agree, girl should have just as much a right as guys to be topless, in fact there's a group of women who protest the law of indiecent exposure on breasts, topless. There's no reason girls have to keep them hidden. and guys wouldn't "ooh boobs" if it was normal to see them.

 

[sln333]

If this is true it seems like they're trying to ruin the movies as much as possible. It's stupid. Diehard Harry Potter fans would be upset because this didn't happen in the books. I read the books and enjoyed them; I'm not a diehard fan though. I've seen movies 1-5. The movies aren't bad, but I think this would destroy them. It's in the gossip section of the site so I think it's a made up story.

 

[F. Josep]

I think that doesn't happen in the book (the vision of them naked seen by Ron because of a horcrux).

And Emma is 19. In fact she's older than me

 

[omega 616]

Oh so he's dieing so he doesn't need clothes, I hope you never have an open coffin at a relatives funeral, it could get weird. In fact why don't we all just walk round naked, since it's perfectly natural?

You dolt, you completely ignored what I said and you know it. Need I simplify it for you?
HE WAS DEAD ALREADY
HE WAS IN LIMBO
THAT IS, A SPIRITUAL REALM
DO SOULS WEAR CLOTHES?
PROBABLY NOT.
NOT THAT COMPLICATED.

There is no reason for there to be nudity, in film or art. It isn't a necessary part of it, it's not like the head or character development.

Yet again, statue of David?

Imagine you were a 10 year old, you loved the first few films but your parents didn't like the idea of you seeing nudity, so they won't let you see the film, your going to be ok with that? I think your going to be livid.

You mean parents are going to have to do some parenting? God no.

I bet the only reason you want the nudity is to see Emma Watson naked, which is a little sad. (or harry potter, how am I meant to know if your gay?) once you have seen one person naked it's pretty much the same for every body else.

So either I'm a pervert or I'm gay. Nice personal attacks there bud.

What are the good reasons for the nudity? I can't think of any good reason to put it in.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/God2-Sistine_Chapel.png

Since you think I never acknowledged it last time, let me reassure you I didn't but just to make sure you full assured, the ancient Japanese believed you took with you, to the other side, what ever you were buried with or in. There is still no feasible reason he can't be
clothed.

Can you not see me referencing you in what I type? We were talking just about a film then you brought up the statue and I said ART and film, the statue has nothing added to it by it's wang waving around, happy now? If you took the statue and cut it off from the waist up, it wouldn't effect the statue's identity, unlike cutting the head off.

You totally avoided the question and restated what I did, if you were a kid who loved the other films would you be angry you couldn't see the new film, due to your parents objecting to the nudity? To which you say, "the parents would have to do some parenting? god no" that doesn't answer it, that is hardly the point.

The nudity does nothing but exclude the film the to it's main demographic.

There were no personal attacks, you have provided no reasons as to why the film would be improved by seeing a girl and boy naked? So I suggest a reason, being careful not to assume your sexual preference and you take it as me calling you a pervert or gay?

Instead of providing a reason to put nudity in a film you put a picture with nudity in? That isn't a reason to put it in a film.

List reasons why there should be nudity in this film. So far there hasn't been one reason to put it in except the one I suggested and you took as an insult.

 

[Cakes]

Since you think I never acknowledged it last time, let me reassure you I didn't but just to make sure you full assured, the ancient Japanese believed you took with you, to the other side, what ever you were buried with or in. There is still no feasible reason he can't be clothed.

Okay, so now that we've agreed souls have clothes because the ancient Japanese said so...

You totally avoided the question and restated what I did, if you were a kid who loved the other films would you be angry you couldn't see the new film, due to your parents objecting to the nudity? To which you say, "the parents would have to do some parenting? god no" that doesn't answer it, that is hardly the point.

The films and books became darker as they went on, as the characters matured. This film is not going to be appropriate for children, considering the violence that will be in it if it at all adheres to the book. It will be rated thusly. Any reasonable parent would not send their child to this.

The nudity does nothing but exclude the film the to it's main demographic.

IT IS NOT AIMED AT CHILDREN.
Have you read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Well, there's torture, murder, racism, all the elements of a great children's film.

Can you not see me referencing you in what I type? We were talking just about a film then you brought up the statue and I said ART and film

...I'm pretty sure the statue of David counts as art there buddy.

Instead of providing a reason to put nudity in a film you put a picture with nudity in? That isn't a reason to put it in a film.

How's the back-pedaling working out for you?
You claimed nudity can't be done tastefully, ever. I gave you several examples. Realizing I had called you out on your shit, you back-pedaled and suddenly you were only talking about the movie.

List reasons why there should be nudity in this film. So far there hasn't been one reason to put it in except the one I suggested and you took as an insult.

Considering I haven't seen this yet-to-be-made film, and have no idea how they're going to execute this scene, I can't really say...which was much better than your bullshit about nudity always being in bad taste.

 

[PhantomCritic]

Don't personally care, gave up on the HP films a LONG time ago. Heh, it will probably cover up the parts that people came to see anyways.

 

[Nargleblarg]

Wow would this actually make the film series any better? But even better this would still be a nice wake-up for the 8 year old children who would most likely see this movie.

 

[WestMountain]

Who wants to watch Daniel Radcliffe naked?

 

[Marksman18v]

I don't see wy this would even be neccesary.
There is more then enough porn on the internet that beats the spangas out of that.

And Watson isn't that hot mate.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

Well if you're hoping for a glimpse of something, you'll be disappointed. Allow me to explain what happens in the book for those who haven't read it.

Spoiler

It's a vision given to Ron by a cursed item to shake his self confidence when he's trying to destroy it. He by this point totally loves Hermione and is afraid she doesn't like him because he's too plain compared to Harry, so the Horcrux (wank word, I know) shows him a vision of distorted versions of Harry and Hermione together. So in the film it'll be entirely hidden, mist, shadows, etc

Ah yes. That scene was quite rivetting in the book. I hope they do it justice in the films, but I shant hold my breath.

 

[omega 616]

Since you think I never acknowledged it last time, let me reassure you I didn't but just to make sure you full assured, the ancient Japanese believed you took with you, to the other side, what ever you were buried with or in. There is still no feasible reason he can't be clothed.

Okay, so now that we've agreed souls have clothes because the ancient Japanese said so...

You totally avoided the question and restated what I did, if you were a kid who loved the other films would you be angry you couldn't see the new film, due to your parents objecting to the nudity? To which you say, "the parents would have to do some parenting? god no" that doesn't answer it, that is hardly the point.

The films and books became darker as they went on, as the characters matured. This film is not going to be appropriate for children, considering the violence that will be in it if it at all adheres to the book. It will be rated thusly. Any reasonable parent would not send their child to this.

The nudity does nothing but exclude the film the to it's main demographic.

IT IS NOT AIMED AT CHILDREN.
Have you read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Well, there's torture, murder, racism, all the elements of a great children's film.

Can you not see me referencing you in what I type? We were talking just about a film then you brought up the statue and I said ART and film

...I'm pretty sure the statue of David counts as art there buddy.

Instead of providing a reason to put nudity in a film you put a picture with nudity in? That isn't a reason to put it in a film.

How's the back-pedaling working out for you?
You claimed nudity can't be done tastefully, ever. I gave you several examples. Realizing I had called you out on your shit, you back-pedaled and suddenly you were only talking about the movie.

List reasons why there should be nudity in this film. So far there hasn't been one reason to put it in except the one I suggested and you took as an insult.

Considering I haven't seen this yet-to-be-made film, and have no idea how they're going to execute this scene, I can't really say...which was much better than your bullshit about nudity always being in bad taste.

Well it's more of a reason to have clothing than anything you have (not) suggested to be naked.

If I was to describe harry potter's basic premise it would sound like a children's film, so no matter what comes up in it, it will always be a children's series. Makes me worry about adults these days.

Oh dear, thats what I am talking about statue being art ... there is no need for nudity. Seriously, have you been reading my posts properly?

So copy and paste these examples into your next quote 'cos I missed them, the only one I can remember was you posting a picture of the Sistine chapel, although I am not sure why you did it. list the reasons how nudity improves a film about wizard or anything with nudity in (except porn).

I'll talk about nudity in anything, I was talking about the film then you introduced the statue of David, then the Sistine chapel and I included them in my responses to you now your saying I've only been talking about the films? Your chatting alot of bubbles.

What is much better than my "bullshit"? From what I can tell you have just said nothing is better than my "bullshit". Care to elaborate?

All you seem to be doing is insulting me, I don't think you have made one point for the nudity.

 

[eljawa]

I thought the sixth movie was shit, because it seemed like they were trying to pander to the Twilight crowd. I have no intention of seeing the 7th movie if that is the direction they're going in.

In other words, you didn't watch the movie.

I've watched all the movies and read all the books. In this sixth movie, most of the plot and actual interesting stuff was minimalized or sidestepped completely to make room for alot of romance and teenage angst bullshit.

The sixth book had a shitty plot, just a midway point between books 5 and 7. Romance took up most of the book.