MovieChat Forums > Fifty Shades Darker (2017) Discussion > are theyactuallygoing to showgoodexplici...

are theyactuallygoing to showgoodexplicit nudity from dakota johnson in

posted 8 years ago by lukejbarnett2002
28 replies | jump to latest

this? they better. I really felt gipped and felt like I was taken advantage of after watching the first film. taken advantage because the books were supposed to be so risqué and controversial and unconventional sexually.

they didn't show anywhere near enough bush from her in the first film and also not anywhere near enough ass. we only got an extremely quick up close shot of her bush and an extremely short shot of her bush from about 10 feet away. and we only got a fading extremely quick shot of her ass also. I need more ass and bush of Dakota!!! they better deliver in spades in this film on both counts.

[–] B_Light 8 years ago

I want some Jamie Dornan full frontal action. We only got to see a very little bit of the base in the first one, it was disappointing.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

I do think it's only fair if Jamie shows his penis that Dakota shows her vulva without a silly merkin on
Fair is fair, nudity equality and all that.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

but do you really believe that, saying "and all that?" that makes you sound sarcastic or disinterested in this and not into this and making fun of this.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Yes 100% fair is fair I am not making fun of it in any way. Its something I truly believe in. Its disgusting how the double standard has been allowed to continue.
I believe either no genitals ot both genitals , simple.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

so, let's do this people who are making this movie, let's show Dakota's pussy and ass more than they did in the last film. do you think they will do these things?

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Not a chance it will be Jamie's penis from the Hollyweird pansy vaginaphobes
We can live in hope though.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

or not live in hope at all, as this is Hollyweird with their gayness.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Just as an aside. Dakota never went full frontal in the last film. On the very very brief second that she appeared to show her pubis , she wore a patch and any hair was a CGI put in post production.

I am truly amazed how she can demand her co star show his penis without showing her labia, double standards again.

Its even weirder that the people who seem to want not to show vulvas in films appear to be American Men. I truly believe its a cultural thing that is almost religious in its nature.
Times will change but it will be slow, maybe in the sequel to the sequel!

ITS TIME FOR THE MERKINS TO COME OFF, ITS TIME TO FREETHEVULVA!!
Please read my Bio.

[–] MyaRose 8 years ago

Dakota's showed enough, her exposing her labia would be the equilant of Jamie doing full frontal while erect, no need to go that far! Full frontal from both is enough, plus they should at least one complete sex scene, no bad editing or fading to black!

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Dakota hasn't shown anything.
A quick biology lesson, sexually arroused genitals - erect penis = moist labia/swollen clitorus this would be porn
Just a vulva = just a penis - quite simple
You are right full frontal is quite enough , but she wore a patch in the last film , hopefully she will bare all if Jamie bares all, after all it's only fair!
(Rather like Rosario Dawson in Trance - rated R)

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

and you are exactly what is wrong with America, movies and why we never get equal nudity in movies in terms of dick versus pussy. saying that that would be the equivalent of him showing his erect penis???!!! how would that be the equivalent? his erect penis is not the same as just her pussy. because one; his erect penis is more sexual and overtly sexual than the other, her pussy.

not true. you are wrong, Dakota has not shown enough nudity because she still hasn't shown her pussy in one of these movies. no, you're wrong, it's not true that there is no need to go as far as having her show her pussy or him showing his erect penis.

also you are wrong and it is not true that there is no need to go as far as have her show her pussy. there is a need for that and It's to be true to the books and to give audiences what they need and crave, so they have to satisfy them fully and make the next movie explicit and sexual enough.

they need to give us a proper explicit, porn movie unlike the tame last film which had like no sex whatsoever and not any pussy. this is the 50 shades of grey series after all.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

but how come everywhere else in America it's liberal. the gays, marriage, pot, being anti American, i.e., Kapernick. how could it be almost religious in it's nature? what do you mean by that?

and she did show her bush in two shots in the last film. one where she is standing, in a medium range shot, the other where she shows her bush up close.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Look at the people on here, most of the people I end up arguing with are American men

Dakota wore a patch and pubic hair was a CGI effect. What you saw was Hollywood!

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

no true. I saw her bush in two shots.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

I think it's fact, what you saw was a bush of hair from the side, hardly explicit in any way, it could have been under her arm.

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

no it couldn't have as her arm wasn't right by her bush or hair. I saw her pussy area with her bush right by her pussy area and in another shot I saw her bush when she was standing and it was right by her pussy area then too.

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

It's a joke!
What I am saying is it's just pubic hair, her genitals were apparently covered the whole time.

Incidentally Jamie showed pubic hair as well!

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

but bush is pretty explicit. how is it not explicit to you? aren't you the person who said that everytime bush is shown on a woman, you always see a little bit of her pussy?

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

If it's real bush from the front yes!

If fake from the side or from a distance No!

[–] lukejbarnett2002 8 years ago

it wasn't that far away and the other shot was extremely close up.

[–] RealReviewer1981 8 years ago

Hall pass showed erect penis as did spy So why cant we see vulva? Joan Graves of Mpaa gave them R instead of NC-17.
Women are the biggest hypocrites ever. Glad Trump won and ashamed I supported Hilary

[–] jtodd3916 8 years ago

You guys are sick. Watch the adult porn channels if that's what you want to see. There were several articles written about this issue. Neither actor showed their genitalia- the pubic hair was CGI, and the shot of Jamie's partial penis was a body double. It was written in their contracts.

[–] MyaRose 8 years ago

the shot of Jamie's partial penis was a body double

Thats news to me and I'm all up in that nudity buzz LOL!

Dakota does show explicit nudity BTW she showed her Mons Pubis which is classified as female genitalia, had a wonderful debate on this a while ago, you should read back on it, it has pics and everything!

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

Let's not get too excited! The "explicit nudity" that Dakota showed is the same as most women would show wearing a string bikini in public!

ITS TIME FOR THE MERKINS TO COME OFF, ITS TIME TO FREETHEVULVA!!
Please read my Bio.

[–] MyaRose 8 years ago

Let's not get too excited! The "explicit nudity" that Dakota showed is the same as most women would show wearing a string bikini in public!

I've no problem getting into this again Cookie, but Dakota shows more than Jamie in FSOG! #FreetheWeiner

[–] stacy0912 8 years ago

#FreetheWeiner

They can't. If JD's D gets freed <---pun alert<---, then there will be H.E.L.L. at the nearest Imax, asap.

The horndogs of the female variety would be storming that $hit, demanding their right to see JD's D in all its brilliance on a stunningly clear, 52x72 foot screen. And those who have no access to the holy mecca of hot sex, will be demanding their D's, in 3D. And if, by God, they don't get their way, the poor seventeen year old managers, along with their middle aged workers, would get stampeded. Slushy machines would get pushed over. The real wieners would get thrown. Popcorn crunched underfoot. Chocolate delicious candies wasted. It would be an absolute nightmare.

So, for all our sakes and tax dollars, #JD'sDstaysunfreed

~Keep some room in your heart for the unimaginable~

[–] MyaRose 8 years ago

Lets not get a head of ourselves pun intended

More experienced and hotter actors have #FreedtheWeiner
I expect a couple of Grannies and Islundling may throw a wobbler, that's about it!

[–] CookieMonsterV 8 years ago

We will agree to disagree on that one!

ITS TIME FOR THE MERKINS TO COME OFF, ITS TIME TO FREETHEVULVA!!
Please read my Bio.