sombrefan: (Default)
[personal profile] sombrefan
I was curious to know what was happening with it ever since it was announced last September.

Anyhow this is from the director who posted the following in March:

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER - A XXX PARODY is currently in Pre-Production at New Sensations. I am shooting it shortly. Just prepping final rewrites as we speak. Have meetings with the stunt team this week, and then go into casting shortly. Glad to see you are looking forward to it. I just wanted to take the time to make sure I put out something that Buffy fans and Porn fans can appreciate. I will keep you posted.

If you're that way inclinded you can click here and read more about adult film forum members suggesting which porn stars should play the female characters. Obviously that's NSFW and just a bit icky.

Apparently porn studios can't be sued if the tacky ripoff is dubbed "parody". It's also where the money is these days in the porn industry. And yes, the irony of the porn industry exploiting one of tv's greatest female icons had not escaped me.

Btw we're having Buffy #34 discussions in the comments so stay away if you're waiting for the trade and don't want to spoiled.

Date: 2010-05-17 08:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gossi.livejournal.com
I'm almost certain they can't use the name BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, that will become problematic for them.

Date: 2010-05-17 08:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
Have a look at the parody films the director has ummm directed.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3529203/

And if you have time, read Bleeding Cool's coverage of the Batman porn parody (based on the 60s tv show).

http://bleedingcool.com/?s=batman+xxx

Date: 2010-05-17 08:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com
Yet it's just as recognizable if they call it Fluffy the Vampire Layer. It's parody, after all.

Date: 2010-05-17 08:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gossi.livejournal.com
Yeah, they should just change the name. Fox and various other parties own the BUFFY brand name.

Date: 2010-05-17 08:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com
These is grotesquely amusing to me in light of the parody-esque quality of the softcore porn images of #34. It's almost like the comic thankfully got there first. :-/

Date: 2010-05-17 09:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
I think they can get away with it because it's a parody and under copyright law that's ok. Plus none of the major studios have yet challenged the porn industry over it.

Date: 2010-05-17 09:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com
I was reading up on this because of the fanfic kerfuffle and they have to justify it as parody, I believe. They can't just call it parody. It has to actually be parody. Which I guess is easy enough for a porno to do because it has to reimagine the story in a parodied situation.

Date: 2010-05-17 09:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
I just view #34 as sex not porn. Weird sex but not softcore porn intended for people to masterbate too.

Date: 2010-05-17 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
"Which I guess is easy enough for a porno to do because it has to reimagine the story in a parodied situation."

Yes. I think Disney will be the first company to take this matter head on. I can't seem a family styled organisation being too thrilled the likes of their characters like Iron Man, Captain America being turned into porn profit.

Date: 2010-05-17 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com
It depends on how you define it. The images are similar to the images you can look up online that are called softcore porn. Legally, organizations recognize the images as violating non-pornagraphic rules (photobucket for example). I felt it crossed the line into pornagraphic territory not by the coy nudity, but by the extreme position changing mid-coitus to show how teh awesome it was. It was the gratuitous representation of the sex that pushed it into porn territory for me.
Edited Date: 2010-05-17 09:09 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-05-17 09:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
"It depends on how you define it."

Material specifically designed to get the reader off.

"Extreme position changing mid-coitus to show how teh awesome it was."

Frantic weird sex then. I don't think it was gratuitous, just long. Artistic expression sometimes needs a stop watch.

I can actually see why people were offended by it and I can also see why others weren't that bothered. My sitting on the fence can be a gift and a curse.

Date: 2010-05-17 09:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com
Haha, in that instance I think there were some Bangel fans getting off. Some fans even wrote in to say that it sexually aroused them and Meltzer was all 'what a compliment!' And I'm sure it fell out the same way as most porn does--many are offended, many are lured in by the sexual depictions and react to it.

It's not porn, it's art!
Edited Date: 2010-05-17 09:22 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-05-17 09:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
"Some fans even wrote in to say that it sexually aroused them"

Eeeeewww. That's taking shipping a bit too far. I can see why some critics view us as an oversexualised fandom.

Date: 2010-05-17 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ruthless1.livejournal.com
Next up - the first ever Buffy Furry convention!
::headdesk::

Date: 2010-05-17 10:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
"I can see why some critics view us as an oversexualised fandom."

What, more then any other fandom? Or society in general for that matter?

Date: 2010-05-17 10:51 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-05-17 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eilowyn.livejournal.com
I think when the author comments that he's flattered people want to go read his sex issue alone in a dark room, it constitutes pornography, but Emmie generally describes the situation better than me. I just add extra snark so I'm not constantly repeating "OMGWORDYMCWORDISON!" to her posts.

Date: 2010-05-17 11:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eilowyn.livejournal.com
I don't necessarily think it was an issue of shipping - no admitted Bangels I know of in the online fandom were discussing how aroused they were - the way Meltzer phrased it, I was imagining teenaged fanboys needing the dark room to read the comic. To dismiss aroused reactions as a shipping tendency really ignores the fact that regardless of who the characters having sex are, it came across as pornographic.

When you factor in that it was Buffy, hero to a generation of young women, shown so exploitatively, that's when the squick factor transfers into indignation.

In terms of oversexualized fandom, I think the fact that the show dealt so forthrightly with sexuality (while rarely treating sexuality exploitatively - you could argue Buffy's early costuming sexualized her too much as a teenaged girl, Cordelia was always shot to best display her assets, and Spike practically ran around naked in season 6, but compared to media at large, sexuality was treated frankly and fairly while occasionally delving into the morass of other shows) makes it a fandom that is honest about its own sexuality - it may come across as oversexualized, but that's because it's a show that does give freedom from sexual repression.

Date: 2010-05-18 06:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
Nah, we're just a very horny fandom compared to others.

Date: 2010-05-18 07:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
And you can back up this statement how, exactly?

Date: 2010-05-18 08:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
We like to bear our breasts at actors. 20th Century Fox licenced Spike panties for us. Spike panties! We write lots and lots of slashy fic about our favourite characters having sex. We see subtext on screen all the time. We're really quite horny.

Date: 2010-05-18 08:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
And you really think that the Buffy fandom is the only fandom to do this? Oh dear, I think you need to look at other fandoms more. *g*

Date: 2010-05-18 12:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
I really don't care what happens in other fandoms. This is the one I want to love and snark at.

Date: 2010-05-18 12:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
Where did Meltzer actually say the comment as I'm trying to find the relevant quote?

Date: 2010-05-18 01:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
Thing is though you're making sweeping statements about a fandom that can't be backed up at all.

I do have contact with other fandoms, and I'd say that on the whole they're all the same, to say nothing of the internet at large.

Date: 2010-05-18 02:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] simonf.livejournal.com
"Thing is though you're making sweeping statements about a fandom that can't be backed up at all."

No I'm not. I'm making a comment about a fandom which is backed up by personal observations and facts. I did however forget to include the example of an actor storming off in a huff from a convention cause a couple of fans fondled his bum.

Date: 2010-05-18 02:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com
And what about a year or so ago in the Supernatural fandom , where at a con a fan literally hurled themselves at one of the main stars and had to be prized off?

Every fandom has examples such as the one you cite.

Profile

sombrefan: (Default)
sombrefan

August 2011

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 27th, 2026 08:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios