Under The Skin
- Thread starter Walker
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
PsychoCenobite
Super Freak
The guy with the facial disfigurement (Adam Pearson) lives in my area. I've seen him about quite a bit and I think he did some work on TV and a poster campaign about his condition:
https://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/n...ured_man_to_skydive_for_Face_Your_Fears_Week/
Hope he invites Scarlett Johansson over at some point!
PsychoCenobite
https://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/n...ured_man_to_skydive_for_Face_Your_Fears_Week/
Hope he invites Scarlett Johansson over at some point!
PsychoCenobite
fosing
Super Freak
i got nothing from that trailer.
somebody. someone. vs. something
somebody. someone. vs. something
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 15,220
- Reaction score
- 158
I read the book (unfortunately).
In the book, the girl is horrifically ugly, she is a stitched together version of a human being, she wears jam jar glasses to hide her face and lures men into her car with her giant boobs..
so yeah, Scarlett Johansson is perfectly cast.
....having said that, i like this trailer a lot.
In the book, the girl is horrifically ugly, she is a stitched together version of a human being, she wears jam jar glasses to hide her face and lures men into her car with her giant boobs..
so yeah, Scarlett Johansson is perfectly cast.
....having said that, i like this trailer a lot.
I read the book (unfortunately).
In the book, the girl is horrifically ugly, she is a stitched together version of a human being, she wears jam jar glasses to hide her face and lures men into her car with her giant boobs..
so yeah, Scarlett Johansson is perfectly cast.
....having said that, i like this trailer a lot.
....Did you in fact read the book? Because Johannson's character is the furthest thing from a "stitched together version of a human being."
Isserley [her character] is in fact an alien driving all over the Scottish Highlands, picking up male hitchhikers. She is surgically altered to resemble a human being, she isn't actually from this planet.
Why is she picking up hitch-hikers all day every day? is she a sexual adventuress? NOOOOPE. Why she picks them up and what happens to them next is the crux of what goes on. Its not pleasant reading, but I can say.... it'll put you off veal for life. [Hate veal anyways...] With that said this film looks like it deviates from the book somewhat.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 15,220
- Reaction score
- 158
Jesus Christ, what an ***. Yes, I read the book. You have even contradicted yourself in your own post.
* Because Johannson's character is the furthest thing from a "stitched together version of a human being." ...and then you say...
* She is surgically altered to resemble a human being, she isn't actually from this planet.
Troll.
She is stitched together. As I said. She is a shaved, dog/bear style furry alien who has been shaved. Spine straightened and has been surgically stitched back together to resemble a human being.
She is in constant pain because of it.
Who said she was a sexual adventuress? Just you I think. But her fake breasts in the book are her main asset to lure stupid men in, and she hates them, both her fake breasts and the men she attracts.
She wears thick jam jar glasses and too much make up to try and cover the scars. And her weird "human copy" physiognomy. She has basically been chopped up and stitched back together. She is not attractive
in the book, but ugly and base. And she hates her appearance because she considers humans physically disgusting and animalistic.
So Johanson, one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood is hardly faithful casting to the book. The script for this is very different though.
They have changed a lot, which I think is good, because parts of the book are pretty stupid.
Did YOU read the book?
Not sure why it would put you off veal in particular, since a lot of other animals and livestocks are killed at a younger age than veal calves. Pigs for example.
"Under The Skin" would put you off all meat if you are squeamish, just because it literally goes through the slaughter/butchering process pretty accurately but with humans.
I guess if you are a little unknowledgeable about what you are putting in your mouth (especially pork sausage), you may be deeply affected by it's over simplistic analogies.
* Because Johannson's character is the furthest thing from a "stitched together version of a human being." ...and then you say...
* She is surgically altered to resemble a human being, she isn't actually from this planet.
Troll.She is stitched together. As I said. She is a shaved, dog/bear style furry alien who has been shaved. Spine straightened and has been surgically stitched back together to resemble a human being.
She is in constant pain because of it.
Who said she was a sexual adventuress? Just you I think. But her fake breasts in the book are her main asset to lure stupid men in, and she hates them, both her fake breasts and the men she attracts.
She wears thick jam jar glasses and too much make up to try and cover the scars. And her weird "human copy" physiognomy. She has basically been chopped up and stitched back together. She is not attractive
in the book, but ugly and base. And she hates her appearance because she considers humans physically disgusting and animalistic.
So Johanson, one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood is hardly faithful casting to the book. The script for this is very different though.
They have changed a lot, which I think is good, because parts of the book are pretty stupid.
Did YOU read the book?
Not sure why it would put you off veal in particular, since a lot of other animals and livestocks are killed at a younger age than veal calves. Pigs for example.
"Under The Skin" would put you off all meat if you are squeamish, just because it literally goes through the slaughter/butchering process pretty accurately but with humans.
I guess if you are a little unknowledgeable about what you are putting in your mouth (especially pork sausage), you may be deeply affected by it's over simplistic analogies.
Last edited:
Yup.
Never read the book but this looks disturbing and mysterious. I'll check it out. Not at the theater though. I rarely go the the movies nowadays.
Wow, I got about one sentence into that and stopped reading. There is absolutely no reason for that level of vitriol and its beyond inappropriate. Take it elsewhere, for I am not interested. Also, thanks for spoiling the book for those who have not read, and not even using spoiler tags. Good job.
Back on topic! Yes do check out the book, its quite interesting. I doubt I will hit the theatre myself, but eventually see it yes.... unless I hear really bad things. I have a hard time believing that Hollywood has the nerve to take the kid gloves off for this one.... and for the full impact to be delivered, they'll have to take them off.
Wont happen. *sigh*
Lets hope so! The book sure was.
I looked over the Amazon comments before buying, which were very spoiler-y for anyone thinking of doing likewise; but they were pretty accurate, as in "you think about this one for a while after you get done reading it" and a few people were like "This was so seriously messed up I could not even finish it!!"
Its not anywhere near that bad imo, but its pretty... interesting. I admit I would have liked to see someone other than Johannsen as Isserley. For one thing, [please excuse the following] she does not have anywhere near the, er .... the rack needed to pull off this role, and judging by the trailer she isn't getting one. Hmmm.
I want an interesting and cringe-inducing film that avoids [as much as possible] "torture porn." Hopefully that is possible.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 15,220
- Reaction score
- 158
The heart and point of this story is torture porn. Explicitly showing the brutality that we treat animals with, in the food creation process. That's the entire point of the book.
Juxtaposing what animals have to deal with and our perceived notions of whats morally right and wrong. Shining a bright light on the reality of eating meat. Which in it's essence is
literary "torture porn" I know that's what the author intended. Google it. I guess you just skimmed.
And I actually hope the movie stays away from this a bit more, as well, and it looks like it has.
The director is top notch and not mainstream so hopefully we get something odd and worthwhile.
Juxtaposing what animals have to deal with and our perceived notions of whats morally right and wrong. Shining a bright light on the reality of eating meat. Which in it's essence is
literary "torture porn" I know that's what the author intended. Google it. I guess you just skimmed.
And I actually hope the movie stays away from this a bit more, as well, and it looks like it has.
The director is top notch and not mainstream so hopefully we get something odd and worthwhile.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 15,220
- Reaction score
- 158
Wow, you accuse someone for lying and BS, then can't take it when you yourself are called out.
And you should try the spoiler tags yourself...bye, bye now.
Apologies. My bad. I thought Ramatuelle had pretty much posted most of what I said previously (she had).
But still, apologies and I have spoiler tagged my previous post.
Last edited:
Wow, you accuse someone for lying and BS, then can't take it when you yourself are called out.
And you should try the spoiler tags yourself...bye, bye now.
Apologies. My bad. I thought Ramatuelle had pretty much posted most of what I said previously (she had).
But still, apologies and I have spoiler tagged my previous post.
Thanks. It's not a big deal. I just prefer not to know too many details.
Similar threads
