50 Shades of rotten tomatoes.

G

Gillvane

Veteran
26% on the tomatometer is not good. Did anyone see it so they can comment on if the tomatometer is accurate? I didn't go see it myself. There was so much hype, it was on all the talk shows, radio, tv, etc. but apparently that didn't translate into a decent movie.


Why was the book so popular with millions of copies sold, but the movie tanked? I think maybe the movie version was just to tame like the Bettie Page move. A movie about a stripper, with no stripping is generally a disappointment. A movie about kink, with no kink in it, probably not going to entertain the people going to see it.


www.rottentomatoes.com/
 
Gillvane said:
26% on the tomatometer is not good. Did anyone see it so they can comment on if the tomatometer is accurate? I didn't go see it myself. There was so much hype, it was on all the talk shows, radio, tv, etc. but apparently that didn't translate into a decent movie.


Why was the book so popular with millions of copies sold, but the movie tanked?
Click to expand...

The movie's already made 270 million in less than a week. Certainly not tanking. With critics maybe, but the critics savaged the books too and readers(mostly female) ate it up.
 
Batutta said:
The movie's already made 270 million in less than a week. Certainly not tanking. With critics maybe, but the critics savaged the books too and readers(mostly female) ate it up.
Click to expand...

There's some sour grapes on Rotten Tomato...

I personally am surprised with the International boxoffice numbers. I've not seen the movie yet, so I can't really comment on the details. But it seems that it hit is target market fairly well. I've had the book, bought it when the movie was first announced, but never read it... but I think it was a best seller in its target market as well...

It would seem that some women like a 'safe' voyeresque view of such things... Perhaps its on the order of "Sex in the City" of 15/20 years ago...
 
Gillvane said:
Why was the book so popular with millions of copies sold, but the movie tanked? I think maybe the movie version was just to tame like the Bettie Page move. A movie about a stripper, with no stripping is generally a disappointment.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Bettie Page performing as a 'stripper' in the sense of a club... her fame was from still photos or film clips.

But there's a stage musical and film based on the life and times of Gypsie Rose Lee, that has no actual down to the shrubbery stripping...
 
Batutta said:
Lowest common denominator males get Michael Bay movies.
Click to expand...
I resent your comment, we can still be friends though. As for 50 Shades, I thought the trailer looked pretty decent so iI'll see it some time.
 
Batutta said:
The movie's already made 270 million in less than a week. Certainly not tanking. With critics maybe, but the critics savaged the books too and readers(mostly female) ate it up.
Click to expand...

Well box office does trump rotten tomatoes but often they are kinda the same. When Rotten Tomatoes said John Carter sucked, they were right, and the box office was terrible.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I don't recall Bettie Page performing as a 'stripper' in the sense of a club... her fame was from still photos or film clips.

But there's a stage musical and film based on the life and times of Gypsie Rose Lee, that has no actual down to the shrubbery stripping...
Click to expand...

To put it another way, Bettie Page has been an icon of sexy for many, many years, and the movie was not sexy, not even a little bit. It would be like a a movie about Mohammed Ali with no boxing in the movie, or very little boxing, and only the most boring parts.
 
Gillvane said:
To put it another way, Bettie Page has been an icon of sexy for many, many years, and the movie was not sexy, not even a little bit. It would be like a a movie about Mohammed Ali with no boxing in the movie, or very little boxing, and only the most boring parts.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure one could do a Cassius Clay movie with nearly 'no boxing'...

But... in the case of any 'sex' topic one has the issue of the MPAA rating, which tends to allow far more depictions of violence in R, than 'sex', and many many films which perhaps should have been NC-17, if rated at all, are toned down to fit in to the 'R' box.
 
No doubt, if you craft a book carefully enough, you can lead the reader down a certain path suggesting the direction, and then the reader fills in the 85% blank with her own desires and ideals.

Movies are explicit. Different story.

I have not read the book, nor seen the film, but I do sense it could have dared to be a bit more scandalous. More Lars von Trier.
 
Gillvane said:
Not an apt comparison, since the movie about Stephen Hawking ADDED sex, instead of taking it out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . what?

You said something about doing a movie about Ali which barely touches boxing, which would be a strange thing to do. Doing a movie about Stephen Hawking which barely touches SCIENCE is also a strange thing to do (of course, they did it anyway). Not sure what "adding sex" to the Stephen Hawking movie has to do with it?
 
AndreeOnline said:
No doubt, if you craft a book carefully enough, you can lead the reader down a certain path suggesting the direction, and then the reader fills in the 85% blank with her own desires and ideals.

Movies are explicit. Different story.

I have not read the book, nor seen the film, but I do sense it could have dared to be a bit more scandalous. More Lars von Trier.
Click to expand...

I think that's a valid point. In a book you can write someone is naked, leave it at that, and the readers will use their imagination to fill in the rest. Just saying someone is naked isn't writing anything particularly pornographic, but if you film that (with close ups), it's an entirely different story.

I think you get the same thing with violence, although the American movie rating system is comfortable with violence in a way they are not when it comes to sex. You could write "He walked into the room and saw the body was mutilated..." and leave it at that. The audience will fill in the blanks with more gore in their imagination than you could probably describe with words. But in a movie, you need to show a mutilated body, which is an entirely different thing to do.
 
David Jimerson said:
Ummm . . . what?

You said something about doing a movie about Ali which barely touches boxing, which would be a strange thing to do. Doing a movie about Stephen Hawking which barely touches SCIENCE is also a strange thing to do (of course, they did it anyway). Not sure what "adding sex" to the Stephen Hawking movie has to do with it?
Click to expand...

Well, if you make a movie about a famous person and don't pay any attention to what they are famous for, obviously you'll have to ad something else that is interesting. IN the Theory of Everything, perhaps it's not sex necessarily, but Stephen Hawking's relationships instead of his scientific theories that make the movie interesting.

If you make a movie from the book 50 Shades, which apparently has a lot of soft core BDSM sex scenes in it (or maybe they are hardcore I don't know not having read the book) then you'll have to make an excellent love story I guess if you want to keep it interesting. It wouldn't interest me, but it might satisfy the target audience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top