Last Potter movies question, with spoilers.

[Ghost]

I am going to ask a question about if something I read will appear in the movies happened in the book. The question doesn't give away any plot points, but the answers might. If you don't want to be spoiled, stop reading.

In fact, why did you even open the post? I clearly put "with spoilers" in the title.

You just like causing trouble, don't you?

Ok, the question: I just read an article that HP will get naked twice in the movies. It told how it happens, at least how one of them happens, but does Potter actually appear naked in the book?

And should he, considering this is considered a children's story?

[JupiterAmy]

1. Yes, he's naked in the book. In fact at one point, he's naked six times at once.
2. Whether or not Harry Potter is a children's story is debatable. And someone else can debate it. At any rate, Harry is a legal adult in the scenes where he's depicted naked.

[Julia]

1. Yes, he's naked in the book. In fact at one point, he's naked six times at once.
2. Whether or not Harry Potter is a children's story is debatable. And someone else can debate it. At any rate, Harry is a legal adult in the scenes where he's depicted naked.

Ok, are you kidding? I read the book when it first came out and just listened to the whole audiobook a few months ago and I don't recall any nekkidness. When did the naked happen?

I would think that I in particular would notice that kind of thing- so if it was there and I don't recall it at all- I'm kinda gonna be worried about myself.

Ok, nevermind- I couldn't even make it thru this post without going to google the answer myself. IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO JUMP OUT OF THE THREAD!!


















SERIOUSLY DON'T SCROLL DOWN ANY FURTHER OR YOU'LL GET THE FULL MONTY (SO TO SPEAK)
















Ok, apparently the nakedness is from the horcrux tempting Ron with images of Harry and Hermione and then later when he dies and is walking naked around the imaginary train station (at least that's all I found. What's this "six times at once" that you mentioned?). So apparently I did forget the nakedness during the train station thing, but I only recall sensual imagery during the horcrux bit. If they're pushing that up to showing some real skin then I have two things to say...

1) Actual nudity during that scene (even if it's just a bum) seems a little out of place for a Harry Potter flick- in fact that goes for any actual on-screen nakedness- I mean I'm certainly no prude (oh god, I could barely even write that without ROTFLMAO!) and I'm all for the naked- but in a HP movie?! Really!?

B)If Radcliffe is gonna show some skin during that bit then BY GOD Emma better bare some too!! Cause that is seriously quite a fantasy of mine (and of several other girls I know- on either team- and I suppose of like every male everywhere) And I'm quite sure even the hint of some nekkid Hermione action would drive ticket sales thru the roof. I'm actually surprised there haven't been "leaked" rumors about just that. I mean after they CGI'd her bigger boobs for the Phoenix poster why there isn't any buzz about actual possible nudity is almost baffling.



But seriously, as tantalizing as the idea may be- I'd still rather not see actual naughty bits in the next movie. Some sensuality during the one scene and the implication of nudity (out of camera view) during the second seems right, but anything more just doesn't fit with my idea of HP. Believe me, Hermione and her talented wand use will live on in my mind no matter what's on-screen next movie- I don't need the real thing in the theater.

And of course I'm referring to OF LEGAL AGE Hermione- no pedo stuff here.

[Ghost]

I agree with you. I never read the books, so I don't know how they were marketed, but remember how much bad press the last movie got for being "too dark for younger children!"? The movies are marketed towards tweens through young adults, so I don't think nudity would be appropriate.

[JupiterAmy]

Ok, apparently the nakedness is from the horcrux tempting Ron with images of Harry and Hermione and then later when he dies and is walking naked around the imaginary train station (at least that's all I found. What's this "six times at once" that you mentioned?).

The scene I was referring to was in the Seven Potters chapter. Several of the other characters take Polyjuice Potion to disguise themselves as Harry - and then strip down so they can put on identical outfits. Harry then complains that they are all being too exhibitionist with his form, and entreats them to use a little more discretion.

And then, yes, the other scenes you mentioned.

While these scenes do contain nudity, not one of them is sexual. Nudity =/= sex. There is very little sexual material in Harry Potter, aside from kissing, and the oblique inference that certain character have done it because babies are made.

There are a number of people that die, though, sometimes in gruesome and fantastic ways. There's a fair amount of violence and scary imagery. If you're desperate for someone to please think of the children, maybe that would be better worth your time? I mean, children are actually familiar with naked bodies, given that everybody has one. Not all children are familiar with violence and death. In any case, what's appropriate for a child to see should be determined on an individual basis, not for "children" in general, who in real life vary wildly.

Haven't you posted about this before? You seem to be bothered by this topic. What is it exactly that you fear the movie will contain? Gratuitous porn? Daniel Radcliffe's balls swinging around all over the place? I mean, really.

[Julia]

There are a number of people that die, though, sometimes in gruesome and fantastic ways. There's a fair amount of violence and scary imagery. If you're desperate for someone to please think of the children, maybe that would be better worth your time? I mean, children are actually familiar with naked bodies, given that everybody has one. Not all children are familiar with violence and death. In any case, what's appropriate for a child to see should be determined on an individual basis, not for "children" in general, who in real life vary wildly.

Haven't you posted about this before? You seem to be bothered by this topic. What is it exactly that you fear the movie will contain? Gratuitous porn? Daniel Radcliffe's balls swinging around all over the place? I mean, really.

Wait- is this directed at me or Ghost? Cause I certainly didn't mean to come off all "think of the children" crazy. Did I come off that way? Cause believe me I am not THAT GIRL. I was fed up with crazy american freak-outs about nudity but guns, gore and mayhem is a-ok long before Janet's boob at the superbowl caused everyone to lose their minds. If anyone here is all nudity all the time, it's probably me (and maybe BigEvil).

So no, it's not out of any concern for some kind of decency that these supposed nude scenes bug me. (Yes, there is far more scary violence and death in Deathly Hallows to be concerned about- if there's anything to be all 'for the children' about, the viscious, bloody battle at the end is it.) I think the nudity would bug me precisely because I didn't notice it in the books. You see- as I've mentioned, I'm as oversexed as they come. It's the main theme of almost every post I make here. But I didn't notice outright nudity in a series of books that I love because it didn't seem to fit into the story in my mind somehow.

It's not because I'm gay that the image of seven naked Harry Potters running around didn't leave an impression on me. And it's not because I have some warped impression that children of that age are innocent and pure so I somehow mentally censored those bits from the book (I know when I was that age I was ALL about the sex and nudity- there wasn't an innocent thought in my head! Ever!). The only reason I can think of as to why I didn't recall ANY of the scenes we're discussing before this post is simply that it didn't fit with my impression of the book. If that makes any sense.

Maybe it's because despite all the snogging and obviously erotic thoughts all over the place in the previous book, none of it was explicit or even anymore than vaguely hinted at. The books have been unnaturally innocent as far as the sexual side of the character's maturity went. I say unnaturally because in reality the teenage years are all about growing sexual maturity- impulses, thoughts, sex dreams, first girlfriends, spin the bottle, truth or dare, fun times all alone together in the library (ahh... sorry- distracting memories). So to have all that noticeably missing (aside from casual mentions here and there- and despite the romantic storylines) from the HP books... it gives them a kind of innocence, unnatural or not.

I mean, even in the seven naked Harrys scene there's not even a bit of innuendo (I just re-read it). Hermione doesn't take a peek at anything. Fred and George don't even make any jokes. Ron mentions Ginny lying about a tattoo- on Harry's chest! That's it. If these were real teenagers that had just become exact duplicates of thier friend, there would be NO END to the jokes flying around. Hermione WOULD have taken a peek. Ron would have hurt himself trying to STOP HER from taking a peek. Fred or George, or both, would have made comments about the SIZE of things. Harry would have defended himself quite loudly about how COLD it was in the room. And so on, and so in. It wouldn't have stopped until Mad-eye started screaming at everybody! But there was none of that. Just an unnatural innocence to a roomfull of naked identical boys who all happen to be that boy's friends.

And if explicitness is not in the books, then it wouldn't make sense for the movies. It's just the wrong tone. I know that scene would probably be hilarious with multiple copies of Radcliffe running around naked. And I certainly hope they can film it and throw in some of the natural teenage ribbing that would take place like I mentioned- so the films continue to feel a little more real-life-like than the books. But even if the actor does the scene in the buff (which I know he's more than comfortable doing), that doesn't mean they have to show his butt on screen to prove he's in the buff. Cause I still can't help but feel that just wouldn't fit.

[JupiterAmy]

Wait- is this directed at me or Ghost?

It wasn't directed at you, sorry. I used your reply as a jumping-off point to discuss the whole thread, and I should have been clearer.

Anyway, I guess where we're differing is the idea that any nudity would be "explicit". I don't know where Ghost is getting his information (he said he hasn't read the books), but I'm sure that any news piece that focuses on the idea that "omg harry potter will be naked in the next film" is probably as context-free and sensationalized as possible. The actual end result will probably be a complete non-issue, and as memorable as it was in the books (which for you was not very).

This thread seems to presume nakedness = sex = explicit = inappropriate, and I don't follow. He's just naked. And as you point out, not even realistically-teenage-naked at that.

[Ghost]

The article I read basically stated that he would be nude twice, one being where Ron is tempted by images of HP and Hermoine, the other not described. It didn't go into any detail beyond that.

This thread seems to presume nakedness = sex = explicit = inappropriate,

You make these kind of presumptions a lot. You did this in another thread too. I didn't ever even imply that it was sexual or explicit, only that he is naked, and yes, it would be inappropriate for smaller children. It might not be an issue for you, even when you have children, but the movies were marketed towards children. Up until the most recent one, the movies were considered family friendly by everyone except the religious extremists that had issues with witchcraft.

One thing that really bothers me is the fact that people defending things like this, stating that it is wrong to feel that nudity is inappropriate for a children's show and other similar issues, is that fact that they use the same logic they are arguing is wrong. It is not your place to determine if something is appropriate for someone else's children. Yet, you seem offended that some people do.

The biggest issue I have is this, the first three movies were great kid movies. The latest three movies started getting more and more violent, with the last being very inappropriate for smaller children. I am assuming that the last two will be even darker and possibly more violent. Now add nudity and they have made the movie inappropriate for small children, even though the series was marketed as being family friendly. This is going to cause problems in families when children that were allowed to see the first movies are now not allowed to see the later ones (and I am sure the MPAA will give any male nudity an R rating). Parents that don't get the information about the movie are going to be pissed when they see the movie with their kids and find out that it is no longer 10 year olds playing at a school for magic.

I do agree with you that people make too big of a deal about sex and nudity and not enough about violence, but that is a different topic. Unfortunately, Hollywood can't produce anything original anymore and it is considered a new idea with the add an additional explosion. That's why the only thing on TV is:CSI, CSI Los Angeles, CSI Miami, CSI Snowflake, ND, Law & Order, L&O SVU, Criminal Intent, Criminal Intent Parking Enforcement, NCSI, American Idol, American Idol Recap, American Idol Awards Show, So You Think You Can Dance, SYTYCD Recap, SYTYCD Awards Show, Dancing With The Stars, DWTS Recap, DWTS Awards Show, America's Got Talent, AGT Recap, AGT Awards Show, and now they have the acapella version of all the American Idols show.

[JupiterAmy]

I find it hilarious that a person who has habitually made sexual overtures toward nearly every woman in this community wants to discuss propriety.

[Ghost]

Now I have to ask, is this directed at me or at Julia? Because I am nowhere near as blatant as she is. Or are you one of those hypocrites that believes that it is okay for a woman to behave in a certain manner, but if a man does, he is a misogynist pig?