While many have used Banned Books Week to celebrate the freedom to read, others have been raising their own questions. If we are banning books, say these hypothetical people, why not start with Fifty Shades of Grey? Surely of all the books, the controversial “mummy porn” trilogy are the kind of books that deserves being taken off the shelves. Right?

This week at Hypable we have used Banned Books Week to explore the 10 most challenged books of 2011, as well as 10 frequently challenged books that we think you should read anyway. Yet across the internet, people have responded to articles in this vein by asking the same question – “Instead of banning these books, why aren’t we banning Fifty Shades of Grey?”

Banning ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’:

Let’s be clear. Just because Fifty Shades did not make an appearance on the 2011 Banned Books List doesn’t mean it hasn’t faced bans or challenges. Let’s remember it was only published in June 2011. Since then, many libraries across America have pulled the book from their shelves, not to mention that literal book burning. We can safely assume that come next year’s 2012 list, Fifty Shades will be right up there at the top.

And based on the response to our Casual Vacancy parental guide, we imagine J.K. Rowling’s new novel will be there alongside it, particularly as JKR is already the queen of wonderful story telling satanic witchcraft.

But now that we’re talking J.K. Rowling, we are all probably thinking “HOW DARE THEY JOKE ABOUT BANNING MY QUEEN” (or possibly “hmm, that new book could have used less vulvae”). Just think back to all the crazy people who tried to stop us from reading Harry Potter, who took it off school reading lists, out of classrooms, and off the shelves at public libraries.

They told us we were worshipping a pagan god, and society would be destroyed, and we were all converting to wicca. All because we crazy fans apparently thought the Harry Potter series was an instruction manual subtitled ‘Satanic Worshipping for Dummies.’

So let’s ponder that. If people are allowed to read Fifty Shades of Grey, what exactly do we think will happen? Maybe we will all turn into S&M fanatics, or start using non-disclosure agreements in our love life, or THE WORLD WILL END (it is 2012, after all).

Or maybe, some people will get to read a book they enjoy.

If you’d think “good riddance” if Fifty Shades (or The Casual Vacancy) was taken off the shelves of your local library, that’s totally fine. But if you want to be able to walk into that same library and borrow Harry Potter, To Kill a Mockingbird or Looking for Alaska, then you have to be okay with walking past Fifty Shades of Grey to get there.

And if the thought of that makes you too uncomfortable, then you have to accept that by restricting someone else’s reading, you are setting the precedent which may result in your favourite book being taken off the shelf.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to read the books they love. When books are taken out of public libraries, use is inherently restricted from people who may not be able to afford their own copy, let alone a Kindle and the e-Book version.

If you’re a parent, by all means monitor what your child is reading, as you might do for a film they want to watch or a video game they want to buy. But don’t stop someone else’s child from reading something that their parent has determined to be appropriate for them.

Here at Hypable, we have some simple advice. If you don’t like a book, don’t read it.

Maybe you think Fifty Shades of Grey is complete and utter crap, and you wouldn’t even open the front cover unless someone paid you an obscene amount of money, and then promised to wipe it from your mind with the Men in Black Neuralyzer.

Or perhaps you have read Fifty Shades, just for a laugh. Maybe you thought it was the next great love story, or read it with the Twilight soundtrack playing in the background. You may have read it as a unique framing device for a story about maturity, both emotionally and sexually. Maybe you like “mummy porn.” Maybe you just wanted to.

The beauty is, you shouldn’t have to explain your choice to anyone. But you should have a choice. And if you do, that’s all that matters.

Other Hypable articles that celebrate Banned Book week

How do you feel about banning ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’?

The upcoming 25th anniversary edition of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast includes a couple of first looks at next year’s live-action adaptation.

It’s hard to believe, but it’s been a quarter of a century since the animated Beauty and the Beast hit movie theaters. To celebrate the occasion Disney is putting out an anniversary edition, and its special features section includes a treat: Our first look at Cogsworth and Lumière in the live-action installment, as well as a glimpse of a scene within Gaston’s tavern.

As confirmed by producer Jack Morrissey on Facebook, this photo of Cogsworth (played by Ian McKellen) and Lumière (Ewan McGregor) is concept art, but it gives us a sense of the style that director Bill Condon is shooting for:

Read full article

The upcoming 25th anniversary edition of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast includes a couple of first looks at next year’s live-action adaptation.

It’s hard to believe, but it’s been a quarter of a century since the animated Beauty and the Beast hit movie theaters. To celebrate the occasion Disney is putting out an anniversary edition, and its special features section includes a treat: Our first look at Cogsworth and Lumière in the live-action installment, as well as a glimpse of a scene within Gaston’s tavern.

As confirmed by producer Jack Morrissey on Facebook, this photo of Cogsworth (played by Ian McKellen) and Lumière (Ewan McGregor) is concept art, but it gives us a sense of the style that director Bill Condon is shooting for:

cogsworth-lumiere-live-action-beauty-and-the-beast

While it’s nice to finally see a glimpse of a couple of the characters, a big question remains unanswered: How will these objects look once they have faces on them? (Cogsworth’s face might be hinted at in the center of the clock.)

Also on the Beauty and the Beast 25th Anniversary Edition is a shot from the the “Gaston” musical number. From left to right we see Alexis Loizon as Stanley, Josh Gad as LeFou (just over Gaston’s shoulder), and Luke Evans (with his back to the camera) as Gaston.

live-action-beauty-and-the-beast-gaston

Update: And here’s another look at the movie, courtesy of this person on Twitter — this time we get to see Dan Stevens as human Beast!

human-beast-dan-stevens

We’ll be curious to get our hands on the anniversary edition in September, because we expect we’ll see more from the new movie than the two stills above.

Disney released the first trailer for the live-action Beauty and the Beast in May. It was very much a teaser trailer, as it didn’t provide any looks at the characters — except Belle (Emma Watson), appearing through the glass casing protecting the film’s iconic rose.

In fact, the trailer’s first looks at the various settings (Namely the Beast’s castle) fell in line with the visual style we see in the above concept art.

Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens hit theaters March 17, 2017.

Apple — always one to push the boundaries by simplifying their products as much as possible — is reportedly looking to remove the all-important Home button in next year’s new iPhone.

Apple loves making their products as simple as possible. The iPod was a success because of how clean it looked compared to other MP3 players. With Apple TV, Steve Jobs bragged about how few buttons the device’s remote had.

But since 2007, every new iPhone has had the same number of physical buttons, switches, and ports: A ringer switch, a lock button, volume up/down buttons, a USB port, and a headphone jack.

Read full article

Apple — always one to push the boundaries by simplifying their products as much as possible — is reportedly looking to remove the all-important Home button in next year’s new iPhone.

Apple loves making their products as simple as possible. The iPod was a success because of how clean it looked compared to other MP3 players. With Apple TV, Steve Jobs bragged about how few buttons the device’s remote had.

But since 2007, every new iPhone has had the same number of physical buttons, switches, and ports: A ringer switch, a lock button, volume up/down buttons, a USB port, and a headphone jack.

That changes next month, when Apple is expected to announce that the iPhone 7 will be lacking a headphone jack. Instead, users will be listening to music via the Lightning port (which you currently use to charge and sync your iPhone).

And for 2017, Apple will reportedly go one step further by removing the Home button.

Ah, the Home button. It’s always been there for us — it’s our captain for navigating the iPhone. We use it to switch between apps, we use it to get to our Home screen, we use it to summon Siri, and we use it to read our finger print. Back in the “old days,” we used it to force quit apps when they froze on us.

In a new report, Bloomberg says Apple is planning to remove the Home button for the 2017 iPhone, which will presumably be called iPhone 7s. It’s billed as a “major redesign of the iPhone for 2017 that focuses more heavily on the display.”

Previous rumor mill reports have suggested that Apple will ditch the Home button in order to decrease the size of the top top and bottom bezels, thereby making the phone not as tall, or using the freed up space to add more screen.

Here’s a mock up of what that could look like, via TapSmart:

borderlessmockup1

What remains unclear is how users will be able to unlock and navigate their iPhone without the Home button. Reports have suggested that the whole screen will serve as a TouchID surface and a Home button (using the 3D Touch feature Apple launched last year).

Interestingly, next month’s release of iOS 10 will introduce a new way to unlock your iPhone: You’ll have to press down on the Home button to activate an unlocking. Previously, all you had to do was rest your finger on the Home button while your lock screen was awake.

Disney is making another live-action movie, and this time it’s James and the Giant Peach, to be developed by Director Sam Mendes.

To refresh your memory, James and the Giant Peach is the terrifying delightful children’s movie directed by Henry Selick and based off of the Roald Dahl story. It features nightmare-inducing adorable stop-motion animated bugs that helped James float away from his mean aunts in a — you guessed it — giant peach.

The original film was an interesting mix of live-action characters in the beginning and at the end, with stop-motion animated sequences throughout the middle.

Read full article

Disney is making another live-action movie, and this time it’s James and the Giant Peach, to be developed by Director Sam Mendes.

To refresh your memory, James and the Giant Peach is the terrifying delightful children’s movie directed by Henry Selick and based off of the Roald Dahl story. It features nightmare-inducing adorable stop-motion animated bugs that helped James float away from his mean aunts in a — you guessed it — giant peach.

The original film was an interesting mix of live-action characters in the beginning and at the end, with stop-motion animated sequences throughout the middle.

Now, according to Deadline, Disney is developing an all-live-action remake of the film. Nick Hornby will write the script, while Joe Roth is in negotiations to sign on as a producer.

If Mendes’ name sounds familiar, it’s because he directed the last two James Bond features, both Skyfall and Spectre, as well as 1999’s American Beauty.

You can check out the trailer for the horrifying original film below:

As of late, Disney has been announcing live-action versions of its properties left and right, including The Nutcracker (which has a huge cast of well-known actors), The Little Mermaid (with Lin-Manuel Miranda attached to help write the music), Beauty and the Beast (starring Emma Watson), and Cruella (starring Emma Stone), among others.

With the amount of remakes — especially in the live-action department — it’s no wonder James and the giant Peach is the latest to be announced.

Do you want to see a live-action ‘James and the Giant Peach’ movie?