I'm confused. I saw this movie on tv a few years ago (not cable channel) and other than the kids father being the moms uncle,, the movie i saw didn't show anything with he kids in the attic getting freaky with each other. Did they really cut that out for tv?
shareI think in the BOOK there was some incest between the older brother and sister, not in the movie.
Create a society in which you would like to live, not knowing what you're going to come into it as.
You're joking right? I haven't seen this movie since I was 11, and never read the book, and knew that was an incestuous relationship. It was definitely watered down, and very vague, and not outright stated, but it was there. The bathing her scene, the sleeping together, the grandmothers freaking out about it and cutting her hair. They just had to tone it down to make it palatable to audiences, like downplaying Idgie and Ruth's relationship in Fried Green Tomatoes.
shareFor some reason, some people need to see it - raw and tasteless. They do make movies just for people like that.
shareAnd they make Disney cartoons "for people like you".
shareYou mean for people who don't have a need to see incest to enjoy a movie?
shareThe book had the brother and sister having sex like it or not. The book didn't trivilize it or exploit it. The two kids agonize over it in a realistic manner and (in the book) they were in that attic THREE YEARS! The movie watered it down so much it was hopeless. They could have made it with the incest in there--just not show it. Hell, there have been TV movies on the subject! The Lifetime movie coming up is more faithful to the book and will keep the incest in. And, like it or not, incest DOES hapen. Just ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
shareI never said that ignoring it makes it go away. Nobody (at least nobody with at least an ounce of decency) likes child molestation, which never goes away. But it still does not make it right. (Well, to perverts it probably does)
And as some have said, there seemed to be some implied, subtly, in some scenes. But I know, that's not enough. You need it shown, raw.
Also, the movie did not seem to have them there three years. It seemed (to me) they were there about a year.Which is why people should be able to separate the two. But I know, some people can't. All they can do is think about and obsess over seeing the incest.
Look how defensive people get over it.
Read my post again. You're misquoting me all over the place.
I never said incest was all right. Point out where I said that. I just said it was in the book.
I NEVER said I wanted to see it raw! I SAID it can be done subtly which I prefer. You're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things I never said.
Also THE BOOK had them up there three years. I made that VERY clear in my post.
If you're going to accuse me of things make sure it's things I actually said!
And you're the one obsessing about the incest and getting defensive and making wild accusations against people over stuff they never said. If you can't discuss things like an adult don't bother. It seems you're one of those trolls who gets off on attacking people.
No, it was the trolls who attacked me for saying we did not need to see the brother and sister actually having sex. And if you noticed, I said that the movie seemed to have it there in some scenes, but it was subtle.
And as I have said over and over, many books have been made into movies and had things left out. And people did not say it "ruined" the movie for them. But for many here, the movie was "ruined" because it did not show the brother and sister having sex (the brother bathing the sister, them sleeping together, things like that just were not enough for them).
And it does not matter if the book had them there for three years, it did not seem to be three years in the movie. It seemed more like a year or so.
Thank you for not apologizing for all those things you falsely accused me of. You are really obsessed over this incest angle aren't u? And just because you don't think a movie has to be faithful to the book doesn't make you right. Lastly, these are ACTORS playing a role. It's not real.
shareYes, I know that. But you obviously cannot understand anything I say. All you can think about is how you need to see the brother and sister having sex in the movie.
And no, it is not an "obsession". I was attacked for simply making a comment over the obsession of others about the subject.
Also, it is not a case of *me* not thinking a movie has to follow a book exactly. I was simply making a point that most of the time, movies do not follow the book exactly, and yet many people enjoy the movie. But not this movie. And we all know why some just could not enjoy it.
Anyway, I am tired of talking about this. People can't understand what I am saying because all they can think about is how they need to see the incest. And it can't be subtle, it has to be clear and nasty, and don't tell me a brother and sister having sex can be "tasteful" in any way.
OK--pointless to argue with me. You are AGAIN accusing me of things I never said. You're really a sad person.
shareYou mean for people who don't have a need to see incest to enjoy a movie?
You mean for people who don't have a need to see incest to enjoy a movie?
I guess as a child watching the movie I never really suspected incest, I just thought they were probably locked up so long together they never really thought anything of bathing in front of eachother or anything like that.
Create a society in which you would like to live, not knowing what you're going to come into it as.
yeah the kids in the film didnt get involved in any activities regarding sexual behavior . However they were very confortable with being close
shareIt wasn't in the movie because 1) I don't think they wanted an "R" rating and 2) it just was not needed. Anyone (with a brain) could see how miserable the situation was. But for some reason, some people do feel they needed to see that to enjoy the movie.
shareSome people needed to see that? Sorry, but the incestous relationship was the heart of the story; it's what it made it so powerful and sad. Cutting that stuff out was what destroyed this stupid film from being anything more than a forgettable time waster.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]
Grow up. It was a major part of the plot in the book, therefore people that read the book would logically expect to see it in the movie. Why don't YOU do a search for movies that fit YOUR Pollyanna taste?
shareLMAO. What happened? Did your sister say "no" to you today? You seem really cranky...no incest for you these past few days?
Also, nowhere did I mention the book. I know it was in the book, yet I still managed to enjoy the movie without it.
And everyone else who wishes the movie to remain true to the book has some kind of a weird "need to see incest to enjoy a movie" thing going on with them?
They NEED to see it? They MUST have it or else they won't enjoy the movie?
That's not only ridiculous, it's offensive.
What's next? Prostitutes rising from the ground and spitting all over my lawn?
Why? Does the truth hurt too much? It seems that the main reason (some) people here just could not enjoy the movie was the lack of the raw incest.
I have seen plenty of movies based on books, and the movies did not follow the books exactly. Guess what? People I know who read the books enjoyed the movies anyway. Even with certain things left out. They managed to separate the movie and the book, and enjoy each on its own.
But not here. No incest, so they just cannot enjoy the movie.
I didn't get the vibe at all that it was an incest film aside from the mom and uncle. so I think yes they should have added it. 1. to be a more accurate representation and 2. to give across a point that was clearly missed
that said, i have zero "need" to witness incest, but theres a difference between doing it in a film, and porn. so please. grow up. all because people want to "watch incest" doesn't mean they get off on it. rather, ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS of books -> movies is what a lot of novel readers/film watchers want. myself included
As I have said before, many movies do not follow books 100%. But it is only with this movie that people have such an obsession, a need, to see one particular thing, or they just cannot enjoy the movie as it is.
And no, there is no difference what type of film it is done in. Incest is incest. Sick is sick. There is no way to make it "ok".
nobody is saying the act of it is ok. but by your "logic" any movie can stray from a book to be good.
FOR EXAMPLE: do Harry Potter without Wizardry. try it. it's not the only part of the movie, and it could offend some nutjobs out there. would the film work? NO.
and the way I see it, if a film is based off a book, it SHOULD follow key elements of the book. End of story.
also, since you are clearly so against this act, what do you think of them teaching about it in schools? honestly. it's not like some crazy taboo subject.
I don't agree with it. Truly, I don't. But all because I do not agree with it, doesn't take from the fact that it is an important part of a book, and should be kept in.
I cannot really comment on the Harry Potter. I never watched the movies or read the books (just not something that interested me).
But I have seen other movies (example: The Shining) and even with major parts of the book left out, people still enjoyed the movie for what it was. They did not obsessively keep dwelling on one thing being left out. They could separate the movie and the book, and enjoy each as they were.
But this movie - no incest, impossible to enjoy for some. So yes, they need to see it.
LMAO. What happened? Did your sister say "no" to you today? You seem really cranky...no incest for you these past few days?
Also, nowhere did I mention the book. I know it was in the book, yet I still managed to enjoy the movie without it.
Wow, what a stupid comment. yeah, lets just mkae a movie based on a book with incest as the MAIN THEME, and then cut out the incest. Then lets make a comedy without jokes and a porn with no sex or nudity. FYI; the BOOK (I'm assuming by your insipid comment that you don't/can't read) gets every bit of it's intensity from the fact that the brother and sister fall in love and become physical. it's what makes the story so brutal, and sad. Without the incest you just have 4 kids hanging out in an upstairs room. But maybe you are right Kitty; maybe the sex just ruined the book "50 Shades of Grey." It would have been so much more successful without sex. Btw, your comment makes me think that you are one of those Christian FREAKS that think the human body is a dirty thing to be ashamed of. If that is the case, it must suck being so psychologically damaged. Anyway, don't watch the big bad Lifetime movie version of "Flowers In the Attic," because I think they are "going there" with the incest theme. And I know an upstanding person like you has no interest in that "filth.." Have a good day, and try not to touch yourself :)
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]
Well you are just so easy to insult, because you are a moron! THE BOOKS ARE ABOUT INCEST. What else needs to be said to make an idiot like you understand? you are a waste of space, and one of the dumbest people i have ever met on this site. Insinuating that i have some kind of fixation on incest when i watch a film based on a book about incest and there is no incest.. Duh, lady. Anybody familiar with the source material would just be confused by the movie. Any NORMAL, intelligent, thinking person would wonder why such a huge part of the book isn't in the movie. Only an incredibly stupid person would accept such ridiculous censorship in their entertainment. Only a very dimwitted person would not feel like their intelligence was being insulted by watching such watered down drivel. And what is with your passionate hatred of the subject? Were you a victim of incest perhaps? Or are you just another dumb American housewife with nothing better to do than pick fights with strangers on the internet? Don't forget, it was YOU who insinuated that there was something wrong with ME because I had a problem with censorship. Yeah bitch; I only read "Flowers in the Attic" because incest gives me a big old hard-on! Yeah you stupid cow; and i read the Bible too because i get off on all that sex and violence. I hope you don't have kids because stupid people shouldn't raise children, and i hope you don't drive because stupid people make the roads dangerous for others. People like you deserve to be bitch slapped.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
He probably put you on their ignore list, like he did myself (she??). I said the same thing as you, and this person just can't seem to grasp the concept of book->movie should be accurate. fans don't want to "See" incest. they want an adaptation of a novel to a movie to be accurate.
/SMH /Facepalm
Yeah. I believe "it" is a "she." Her screen name is something like 'kittylitter," and she seems to have some problem with the book's subject matter. She comes across as really dumb, but maybe she's just nuts! I hope she put me on her ignore list; i mean i insulted her enough...
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
well you have to be nuts or dumb to bring up the SAME thing over and over again with nothing to go on. as soon as someone says they want the movie to be like the book, she flips out saying they are sickos or whatever, only wanting incest.
still, I have never seen anyone on this board claim they enjoy the act.
if she has so much against it, then don't see the movie. It's as simple as that. I haven't read the book tbh, and only just heard of the movie with lifetime doing their remake. I Imdb'd it, and decided to watch the original. If it wasn't for this board I wouldn't of even thought it was about incest. The bath scene, as weird as it was, came off that they were just really close. I'm intrigued to read the novel, not because I'm intrigued by the act of incest, but because I love books that relate to a humanistic nature. (some favorites include Catcher in the rye, Lord of the flies, Will Grayson Will Grayson) This type of story that takes place in our world, and focuses so much on character seems like something I'd enjoy. I have no intention of *beep* my brother or sister after this, or have I ever. I just like well written novels. and movies that follow closely.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the World who disagree with what you said. There are still many people who approve of censorship, and even book burning of controversial works. I can't help but blame religious fanatisicm for this kind of unhealthy mindset. Anyway you should read the book to this film; it is written in a style that seems to be aimed at younger readers, but the subject matter is very adult. It's a good read, and very tastefully written. I'm happy to see that the upcoming movie version will be dealing with the same things that the book deals with. I just hope that poor woman doesn't watch it; her heart might stop!
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I personally don't think the book was about incest. It was more about a Religious Grandma and Greedy Mother punishing kids for other people sins and money. The survival and making the best out of a sad situation was more of the plot in the book. Yes the book had incest but it wasn't the main part of the first book. I definitely agree the incest and the Grandma mental abuse was the main attraction in the other bpoks in the series. I enjoyed the movie but the book is definitely a great read.
shareI disagree I think the heart of the story was making the best of the prison. Surviving a religiously vicious Grandma and Greedy Mother who will do anything even kill her children was more important than that incest to me. I personally think the movie was good even though the book was better.
shareI thought they toned it way down for the screen. Probably didn't want to have to rate it R or scare audiences away. There were freaky, incestuous undertones almost from the beginning, though.
What kind of teenage boy WANTS to go into the bathroom where his sister is taking a bath and scrub her back? (And don't say "because she's hot" - do YOU do that with YOUR sister?)
They also mentioned that they slept in the same bed frequently. Again, what teenage brother and sister do that? They had virtually no sense of modesty or reluctance to undress in front of each other.
I agree with suednim1960. You could totally tell from the beginning that some kind of incest was occurring. But really, could you blame them? They were locked up in the attic together for YEARS and during their most sexually curious years at that so I think it was just a ticking time bomb that of course things like that would occur!
shareThis series of books was really popular with younger readers, so people forget that they dealt with some controversial and adult issues. Including the incest theme, which is at the heart of all of the books in the series. But the rules for books is different than movies, where you generally can't get away with as much. The makers of the film were aiming at a young/teen target audience. If they even suggested an incestous relationship between the brother and sister it would have recieved an 'R' rating, especially in 1987. Happily things are a bit different these days, where the subject of sexuality doesn't make people so uncomfortable.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Really?! So you didn't notice the hints throughout the movie...?
shareAccording to director Jeffrey Bloom, Kristy Swanson and other sources, the original cut of the film did feature the relationship between Cathy and Chris in more detail; the original ending was also different than in the theatrical version. Because audiences reacted negatively to the preview screening, most of the scenes were cut.
No Rose Garden
November 15, 1987 | Sheldon Teitelbaum
Teen-age girls can handle the graphic depiction of incest in a book--but not in color on the big screen. That's what producer Chuck Fries and distributor New World found out in tests for their gothic thriller, "Flowers in the Attic," due out Friday with critical re-cutting.
The movie's based on the 1979 best-seller by the late V. C. Andrews that involves the erotic awakening of a brother and sister locked away in an attic by their insane mother. But its path to film has been rocky. Consider:
An early cut of the film was screened last December for Valley fans of the book--primarily adolescent females--and test cards indicated they were revolted. "I don't know whether this was conscious teen-age hypocrisy or what," writer-director Jeffrey Bloom told us. "Maybe young girls just don't want explicit sexual titillation. If a boy takes his shirt off, that's cool. But if it goes any further, they get uneasy."
An executive source at Fries added that the book presented the sex as a natural outgrowth of a relationship developed under duress over several years. The movie condensed that into a period of months. "And what may have seemed reasonable over the course of four years seemed dirty over the course of a summer."
The Valley girls also gagged on a scene in which Victoria Tennant, playing the mad mother, disrobed in front of her father, to be whipped by Louise Fletcher, her fanatical mother. "We dropped the skin," said the exec.
Bloom's original ending--one not even the Valley girls got to see--showed the children discovering they could merely walk unopposed out of their attic prison, into the sunshine. To symbolize growing up, Bloom said, with "the way to freedom clear."
But Fries thought it lacked drama and tried a new finale: Fletcher attacks her grandchildren with a meat cleaver. When that proved too horrific for Valleyettes, it was toned down. But a new version screened in January--Tennant falling from a window to her death entangled in a trellis--met with hoots of derision from an older audience in West L.A., according to Bloom and others close to the picture, who said that Tennant herself refused to do the scene (a double was used). So a March release was scratched.
Bloom, unhappy with the continued editing, was allowed out of his contract with Fries, although his name remains on the credits.
More previews in San Jose and Ohio with yet another ending (we'd never tell) were more successful, said a Fries source, and "Flowers" will bloom in 1,100 theaters Friday.