Monday, 18 March 2013

Hollywood Babble On & On #999: 50 Shades of Wrong?

There's buzz buzzing about the buzzosphere that former Harry Potter starlet Emma Watson may or may not be playing the female lead in Universal's film adaptation of the "mommy-porn" publishing phenomena 50 Shades of Grey that taught a generation of women that abusive relationships are great as long as the abuser is rich and good looking.

Some are saying she's doing it, some are saying she isn't, while others are saying she's thinking about it, and it's become one of those situations where no one is exactly sure what's happening.

Sounds like a prime target for my patented PROS & CONS!

PROS:

1. A lot of people seem to think she's right for the part. I don't know, since I'm a man, I haven't read the book. From the reports about the book just about any attractive actress in her early 20s would fit the bill.

2. Universal is heavily invested in 50 Shades, having spent millions for the movie rights, and tens of thousands more fighting a porn-parody for committing the sin of laziness for not coming up with a proper porn parody title. That means that the film will be hyped to the ends of the Earth, and probably more than a few alternate dimensions. There's a chance that it could take Emma Watson more than just an actress from a hit franchise into a household name.

CONS:

1. The chance that 50 Shades could make Emma Watson a household name is a double edged sword. If the movie is bad, or a box office failure, she will then be permanently bonded to a big overhyped flop that will dog her for the rest of her career. You don't want to be known as the "chick from the failed porno movie."

Also I want you to think back to other actresses who starred in hyper-sexualized roles in hyper-sexualized movies. Most actresses who try that path become pigeonholed as "that girl who will get naked" and end up on Cinemax or in the DVD discount bin, and it's very rare for them to have much of a career outside of those kinds of roles until they get too old to get them.

2. Then there's the book itself. Last year it was a phenomenon, the trilogy selling 60+ million copies. But how many out of those millions are willing to admit buying the book without embarrassment? Will those people wait in line and ask the pimply kid in the booth for a ticket to see it as a movie?

3. Then there's the fact that this is a movie and not a book. The book's target audience was sexually frustrated women, and research shows that women enjoy erotic text over erotic images. Men however like  erotic images, but would then spend money to see a 50 Shades movie for the chance to see Emma Watson naked, or just download the relevant imagery after it's leaked online so they can "enjoy" it in the comfort and privacy of their own masturbatoreum. Besides, who wants to talk about around the water cooler in anything but an ironic manner so they don't come across as a sleazy perv.

And I'm not getting into the mess that will arise over it's MPAA rating and the editing that will have to be done to get it into theatre.

All of that doesn't bode well for the film, or its effect on her career, which she appears to be managing very carefully so far.

As you can see, the cons appear to outweigh the pros of this project. If I was her manager, I'd tell her to give it a pass.

3 comments:

Kanothae said...

I think the only way this movie can succeed is if they treat the license very liberally and DON'T make it into a porno. Either way it will most probably be awful.

Ken Begg said...

"If the movie is bad, or a box office failure, she will then be permanently bonded to a big overhyped flop that will dog her for the rest of her career. You don't want to be known as the "chick from the failed porno movie.""

Pfft, if that were true, then Elizabeth Berkley...oh. Never mind, then.

Kit said...

She has tweeted she will NOT be in 50 Shades of grey:

LINK