‘Fifty Shades’ is going to be ‘less racy’ than the book, with no ‘inner monologue’


Here are some photos from the Vancouver set of Fifty Shades of Grey from… last week or thereabouts. I’m sorry I didn’t get to them until now, but I do remember glancing through the pics a few days ago and getting quietly mad at the state of Dakota Johnson’s bangs trauma and costumes. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the films should be aspirational or anything, but I would have appreciated if they had at least styled Dakota to look believably sexy. Dakota’s a pretty girl – it shouldn’t be this difficult, nor should the film look THIS cheap.

Anyway, if you want further proof that the producers are totally and utterly pulling their punches and bungling every single aspect of this cursed production, here you go – E! News spoke to a source close to the production, who said: “It’s less racy than the book. They felt it would be too much, so they have dialed those scenes back.” Producer Michael De Luca basically said the same thing to Deadline:

Worry not Fifty Shades Of Grey fans: The movie of the book aims to give you what you want.

“We’re very conscious of not making anything gratuitous or exploitive while being faithful to the stories of the book and to the fans of the book,” said producer Michael De Luca this morning at the Sundance Film Festival. “We’re going to give them what they expect, which is an intense and erotic love story,” he added. “Obviously the film can’t be as explicit as the book,” De Luca noted. “A picture is worth a 1000 words. So to be erotic onscreen means I think an image is going to have way more power than reading the words on a page.”

The soon to be president of Production for Columbia Pictures (he officially takes the reins March 1) was in Park City for the second annual PGA Breakfast. In a free-ranging discussion with Producers Guild national executive director Van Van Patten, De Luca mainly discussed his career history. But it was on Fifty Shades that things got steamy.

“Not to sound corny, but it is, at its heart, a young love story. I think those things always work,” he said of the blockbuster trilogy of books. “No matter what you think about the book, those things are in that story and they are very cinematic. I think people love a good love story and the these two characters endeared themselves to 90 million readers so it’s hard to say that it didn’t connect on a deeper level than just its more sensationalist aspects, but it was the love story that did it for me.”

…Onstage, De Luca also had nothing but praise for author E.L. James on what is her first experience in a film adaption of one of her books. “She’s been great, she’s been collaborative and active,” he said of his fellow producer on the film. “She the true north, she’s the North Star for us with these characters so it’s been great being able to check with her.”

One change between the book and the upcoming film is the removal of the novels’ inner monologue by Anastasia Steele (being played in the movie by Dakota Johnson). “The book is explicit by design because the author wanted to get inside of the female character and wanted to in detail go through her experience,” De Luca told the crowd of PGA members. “On a literary level that was necessary but on film it is a whole different medium. In any adaption of a book, you have to lose some stuff and you have to combine some stuff. In the dramatic arch of a 2-hour or 90-minute movie, it’s a 3-act structure.”

[From Deadline]

TL;DR version: no dong shots.

Basically, the sex is going to be toned down significantly because the producers think that the loonies will only need to see a close-up of Dakota’s face as she moans or something. As for the loss of Anastasia’s inner monologue… I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing. It will take a little bit longer for the audience to realize that Anastasia is a moron without hearing her inner monologue. But on the other hand, a really exhaustive and accurate-to-the-book voiceover might have been the thing that would make this film into a cult-classic, something to hate-watch and laugh at. Without a really awful voiceover of Ana whining about anything and everything, the film will just be a watered down Lifetime movie.




Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

79 Responses to “‘Fifty Shades’ is going to be ‘less racy’ than the book, with no ‘inner monologue’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aims says:

    It’s like they made her the most unattractive as thet could

  2. MisJes says:

    Too bad they aren’t making it less shit than the book.

  3. JessicaC says:

    I heard or read somewhere that EL James is being an a-hole about how they’re not being totally faithful to the book and is clashing with Sam Taylor Johnson over the changes.

  4. Eleonor says:

    This movie has written MESS all over it.

  5. Lindy79 says:

    ” It will take a little bit longer for the audience to realize that Anastasia is a moron without hearing her inner monologue.”


  6. gg says:

    Those nun shoes she has on are a cock block if I ever saw one.

  7. Decloo says:

    Never read the books but is this one of the those stories where the ugly duckling turns into a swan? The actress is not very attractive and it looks like they are making her dumpy looking in every way. Also, in other shots I saw of her she had huge bags under her eyes.

    • MonicaQ says:

      It was honest to god Twilight fanfiction. They just changed the names. Christian Grey was Sparkle Motion, the boring chick Dead Eyes McLip Bite and there was some guy that worked in a hardware store that was supposed to be Ethnic Guy of Indeterminate Origin.

      I made it through 40 pages. I’m pretty sure Theodore Rex produced more panty pudding than 50 Shades.

    • fruitloops says:

      It’s more like she is this inexperienced (if you know what I mean) good girl and so this very experienced (but of course emotionally damaged) guy comes along and teaches her all his tricks (and of course she is the one who finally gets to him, deeply, trully, emotionally).
      I read it because trash genre is my guilty pleasure, but the book is beyond trash, it should be burned and never talked about again. ;-)

  8. Maddie says:

    I keep say it “Exit to Eden” bomb in the making. Not sure why Hollywood wanted to make this movie (well I do $$$$$) but to option it and then pull back on the sex scenes is pretty stupid.

    Plus you can show a person getting decapitated in a movie but not adults having BDSM sex…really?

  9. GMarchetti says:

    “It will take a little bit longer for the audience to realize that Anastasia is a moron without hearing her inner monologue. (…) But on the other hand, (…) that would make this film into a cult-classic, something to hate-watch and laugh at.”

    LOL, loved it!

  10. Green Is Good says:

    You know it;s going to be crap when even the on-set photos are a HUGE turn-off.

  11. Lindy79 says:

    I don’t think I could even hate watch this.
    I was given the book with all the best bits marked with a post it and I still couldn’t, the writing was just too bad.

  12. Marty says:

    They also say the author and Taylor-Johnson are butting heads because the author wants the movie to be exactly like the book. Smh, this movie sounds like such a mess! I’m just glad Charlie Hunnam got out while he could.

  13. JenniferJustice says:

    I don’t mean to be cruel, but why are they trying to play off this girl as being even mildy cute or good-looking? She is almost homely. The book character was plain in that she didn’t wear makeup or make fashion statements, but she was “lovely in a quiet way” and so didn’t need to wear makeup or dress for attention. This gal is NOT attractive. Sorry.

  14. QQ says:

    They think they are being slick, this is just a ploy so people dont Throttle this chick over that Inner Goddess bullshit, or walk out en masse …or commit seppukku right there in the theater

  15. NYC_girl says:

    How about if we all forget about this and just watch “9 1/2 Weeks” instead? Oooh, yeah!!! We can watch gorgeous Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger get it on, enjoy the cinematography and everyone is happy. Well, they’re not happy in the end of the movie but at least she does what she needs to do. ;)

  16. Corrie says:

    First time ever, you and I have completely agreed Kaiser. Yes, wtf happened to Dakotas look and wtf is up with those dumb bangs. They’re flailing here. Bad.

  17. GeeMoney says:

    Oh man. Dakota Johnson’s career is going to stall before it even starts. Why did they think that making this movie was a good idea?

  18. Lucy says:

    May God forgive me but I think Jamie looks HOT in his Grey costume.

  19. Melymori says:

    I think Lainey said it perfectly, they’ve styled Dakota to the author image and likeness…it’s kind of creepy: http://photos.laineygossip.com/articles/fifty-shades-02dec13-01.jpg

    They even gave her bags under her eyes, ugh!

  20. Jasmine says:

    There is nothing intense or erotic about any of those books, like absolutely NOTHING. And it’s not a love story she is in a abusive relationship and last time I checked abuse is not love ugh

  21. Another Ann says:

    It just occured to them now that the sex scenes might lead to an NC17 rating?

    They really, really should have gone the HBO cable series route. They could have included all the sex and nudity they wanted without repercussion.

    This is going to be a train wreck.

  22. jen d. says:

    It’s going to less explicit than the book? I always thought I was vanilla, until I read 50 Shades and realized that I must be some kind of freak, because I thought it was tame (I only managed the first book and half of the second, so maybe it gets more erotic later on). It’s primarily vanilla sex, and it the only thing that’s different is the frequency of it. There’s BDSM, but I don’t remember being very shocked. She doesn’t even say vagina until page 200. It’s always “the apex of my thighs,” “my womanhood,” and other nonsense like that. They probably removed the inner monologue because there’s no way any actress could talk about her “inner goddess doing the samba” with a straight face. Meryl Streep couldn’t do it. I challenge anyone here to do it with a straight face next time you’re talking to friends.

  23. elle224 says:

    that chick looks really old to be playing someone so young

  24. Aly says:

    This movie is gonna be absolutely awful. Nothing good can come from a book that mind numbingly stupid. Love story…lmao! This will be good to get when it’s out on DVD so my girlfriends and I can drink wine and laugh at it.

    Anyways I’m probably the only one that doesn’t think this guy is cute? Like idk, he does nothing for me. And Dakota isn’t even remotely good looking but hey, famous parents get you far in Hollywood.

  25. Nicolette says:

    Charlie Hunnam is a genius for dropping out of this mess.

  26. Squeakie says:

    I’m SO glad Charlie hunnam pulled out of this mess, Jax Teller is so much better than this!

  27. Emily C. says:

    The characters didn’t endear themselves to anyone. People read it for the porn. Take out the porn, and all you’ve got is an abusive relationship between two idiots. Well, those sell, I guess.

  28. Axis2ClusterB says:

    And people wonder why Charlie Hunnam changed his mind…

  29. Dommy Dearest says:

    That actress is NOT cute in the slightest.

    Not surprised they aren’t going to make it racy since of course. I’ll have to keep my tv on mute when GoT or TB comes back on HBO if I want to see decent scenes. They should go ahead and scrap this movie now. Least they won’t be nominated for Razzies… Or maybe not since after this movie they won’t get work.

  30. aquarius64 says:

    Of course they’re going to tone it down. If they stick to the book it’s a NC-17 rating. They won’t be able to show it in US theaters, it they try, it’s loss of money.

  31. Peanut buttrr says:

    As far as adaptations fo, I don’t think anything will, ahem, top Cuff Me, the OffBroadway Musical Parody of 50 Shades.

  32. Kelly says:

    I don’t understand why people are cruelly insulting this woman’s looks. I think she’s pretty and attractive, her style is obviously made out to be non-sexual, but she herself is nice.
    It seems a bit hypocritical because I think most young women would love to look like her in real life, maybe they’d just wear different clothes, that’s all.
    The book may be crap and the story total sheit, but slamming the woman’s appearance seems going a bit too far really.
    If anything, the Once Upon A Time sheriff looks pretty ordinary and plain here. He looked better on that show.