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

FFN_Johnson_Dakota2_JKING_011614_51307293

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.

FFN_Johnson_Dakota_JKING_011614_51307214

FFN_50_Shades_JKING_011614_51307222

FFN_50_Shades_JKING_011614_51307246

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

    • Nikkie says:

      Girlfriend looks plainer than a brown paperbag. Kstew looks like a supermodel compared to her.

    • Audrey says:

      She looks like a cougar trying to awkwardly seduce the younger man.

      Worst casting choice

      • holly hobby says:

        She does look older than her age. I can’t figure if that’s because of the hair color or style. The clothes aren’t doing her any favors either.

  2. MisJes says:

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

  3. Stef Leppard says:

    Jamie Dornan is hot.

  4. 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.

  5. Eleonor says:

    This movie has written MESS all over it.

  6. Lindy79 says:

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

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  7. gg says:

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

  8. 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. ;-)

  9. 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?

    • FLORC says:

      Maddie
      They can and do show bdsm in movies. It’s called p0rn.
      I see what you’re trying to say. Going along with ERW’s and Weinstein’s assessment of movie ratings and what a double standard it is.
      Ultimately this movie needs to be seen. I think they’re shooting for a PG13 rating. That’s why so much is scaled back here.

      This movie was never going to be good.

      • Lindy79 says:

        The whole selling point of the book was the sex.
        It sure as hell wasn’t the sharp writing, so by cutting it out they’re basically leaving a Lifetime movie.

      • fruitloops says:

        How could the movie be good when the book was scandalously bad? :-D There is no wand magic enough to fix that.

    • Decloo says:

      Not if you want an NC-17 rating. The only reason to tone down the sex is to open it up to a broader audience. You know, so the moms can bring the little ones along.

      • Jessica says:

        They don’t want an NC-17 rating because then the movie theatres will not show it. And if they refuse to show it then the production company makes no money.

  10. Migdalia says:

    *snores*

  11. 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!

  12. Green Is Good says:

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

    • blue marie says:

      I don’t even see how that’s possible? Can you imagine the inner rambling voice over that would run through the whole thing? What a piece of donkey farts. I hate that anyone is connected to this other than EL James who wrote the manure.

    • Jessica says:

      I heard that too. Clearly the author of the book is a moron if she thinks the movie will be just like the book. Movies are a completely different medium and have different requirements than a book. You just can’t put everything in a book into a movie. EL James is a moron who thinks because she managed to con $90 million from idiots that she has full control over the film. She doesn’t.

      • Lou says:

        She’s a fanfiction writer who got lucky. That this is popular terrifies me. Badly written, and BDSM is badly represented. Showing abuse as desirable and romantic is beyond dangerous in this day and age.

  15. 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.

    • holly hobby says:

      That’s because she has Don Johnson’s face, unfortunately. I think the only person who would think she is cute is Don’s wife and Diane Kruger.

  16. 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

  17. 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. ;)

    • jen d. says:

      Remember when Mickey Rourke was gorgeous? Ugh, what a waste…

      • Tig says:

        Waves hand- “I do”! He was so gorgeous in Diner and Body Heat- sad to see him now.

        I think Jamie D is very nice looking- I happened upon Marie Antoinette the other night- he was great!

    • Kelly says:

      YES THANK YOU, I keep saying this is just a child talentless ripoff of 9 1&2 weeks!!!!
      Most people don’t even know what I’m talking about!!

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. Lucy says:

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

  21. 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!

    • Another Ann says:

      I have never seen such under eye bags on a supposed 22 year old before. They either kept her in sleep deprivation for a week or they are doing this on purpose.

      The wardrobe is a mess, hair is a mess and makeup is a mess. It’s like they are deliberately trying to make her as unappealing as possible.

    • littlestar says:

      Wow, that’s weird. And makes sense as to why this Anastasia looks like a perfect mess.

    • carol says:

      but why?

    • Jessica says:

      That’s disturbing.

      What’s even more disturbing is that the author (and the millions of women who love those books) thinks the type of relationship depicted in the book is in anyway healthy and/or sexy. It’s not. It’s manipulation and abuse.

  22. 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

    • Allie says:

      +10000000

    • Emily C. says:

      This. Plus there are abusers running around looking for people to abuse and claiming 50 Shades is the way to go about BDSM. Which IT IS NOT. Everything about the relationship is sick and twisted. And to top it off, the writing is some of the worst I’ve ever seen.

  23. 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.

    • Brown Eyed Girl says:

      it is so going to be a train wreck. but a showgirls kind of train wreck, so possibly entertaining haha

  24. 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.

    • LAK says:

      Gosh that sounds like mills and boon/Harlequin description of sex.

      I think it’s part of the formula that they have to use euphemisms to describe sex. This author strikes me as someone who would have devoured those types of novels as a young girl. They are perfect for reading about sex whilst pretending to be reading an innocent book about romance.

      • jen d. says:

        You’re probably right!

        Interestingly enough, an old prof of mine in University wrote Harlequin novels. Apparently there is actually a formula followed for all the stories. She said they were easy to write – almost like mad libs.

      • orion70 says:

        Don’t most people outgrow that “scanning through the romance novels looking for the dirty bits” phase though?

  25. elle224 says:

    that chick looks really old to be playing someone so young

  26. 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.

  27. Nicolette says:

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

  28. Squeakie says:

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

  29. 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.

  30. Axis2ClusterB says:

    And people wonder why Charlie Hunnam changed his mind…

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.