50 Shades of Grey Movie: Even Emma Watson As Anastasia Steel Will Not Get Men to Watch

Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame said this about her willingness to do nude scenes if cast as Anastasia Steele in the, impending Fifty Shades of Grey Movie: “I've been saying since I was 16 that if it's the right role and important for character development and the story, then of course I'll do it.”

Few film tactics reveal a character's essence more than revealing a character's breasts. Men get this, which is the main reason we like women showing their breasts on screen, the art of it all. But will a previously unseen pair of breasts make guys go see Fifty Shades of Grey? Let's figure this out.

Generally speaking, people like sex scenes in movies, but I'm not here to debate the morality of sexual voyeurism, artistic or otherwise. This is about Emma Watson and what she'd mean to this particular movie franchise. I think I get it. Emma Watson pranced about for eight films as Hermione, the geekily conservative member of an underaged, MMF threesome. We watched her grow up like a cinematic "girl next door" as her looks were like slowly boiling water to viewers' froggy lust. Now she's up for the role of one of the most celebrated sexual awakenings seen in recent cliterature. But will men go see this movie?

Women will watch this movie. If there's one thing Twilight taught us about young female readers, it's that they translate exponentially into young female viewers. But what about men? I've written in the past about how men can't enjoy Fifty Shades because it falls under "girl world" parameters, just like Twilight.  And that's not changing. 

Sorry, Emma, this really isn't your fault. I process my thoughts through typing, and two paragraphs was my best effort in convincing myself that you were worth $34.* But you're not. With the right persuasive techniques, a girl could convince me that you're worth $4.99 for the HD On Demand purchase via Time Warner Cable, which is oddly a preferable option to walking a few blocks to the Red Box (there's something incriminating about holding an actual DVD). The main reason? This movie simply doesn't have Lolita appeal because it's not 1962.

[*$34 Dollars is the usual cost for me to go to a movie with a girl. Two tickets, large popcorn and split the large drink. And yes, I need larges in that situation. There is no way this is cracking the solo-worthy option that costs me $22.50. Looper has been my soul-solo of the year. That was worth it.]

Here's a list of things guys would rather do than sit through a two hour movie about a rich, handsome guy-seducing a virginal girl:

1. Spend one-twelfth of the time watching the "good scenes" online.

2. Prepare for our fantasy football draft.

3. Watch Stripes, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin, The Whole Nine Yards or any other movie starring a lovable loser who gets the girl despite being as average at sex as he is average looking. You know, a man's man.

3. Participate in our fantasy football draft.

4. Pretend to listen to a girl tell us why this is actually a deep love story and not the fancy version of the BDSM story we're reading online at 5 minute intervals.

5. Eat beef jerky.

6. Self-loathingly tinker with our poorly-drafted fantasy football team.

7. Go to a local tavern and ask girls if they can touch their elbows behind their backs.

This list could be longer. It could continue to justify why women want to fantasize about a man like Christian Grey, who I have a pretty good hunch would never hit on a girl by saying, "Can I buy you a drink or do you just want the money?" It could continue to employ the adolescent technique of winning the perspective debate by simply caring less about the topic. But it won't, because there's a lot of things I'd rather do than type about Emma Watson in Fifty Shades of Grey.

Hello, Workaholics YouTube clips.