ComicBookMovie.com: "Supergirl XXX"

[JarodRussell]

Christopher wrote:

---

As Dennis says, it's protected speech as long as it's presented as a parody. It's no different, legally, from Saturday Night Live doing a sketch about Superman or Star Trek -- they're using the actual copyrighted names, but in the context of something that's clearly a parody, so they're not trying to compete directly with the original by passing their work off as the real thing.

I could really do a Star Trek parody with characters called Kirk, Spock, McCoy on a starship called Enterprise? Or a Terminator parody with John Connor, Sarah Connor, CyberDyne Corporation and the Terminator?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, Saturday Night Live did - and does - that kind of thing all the time.

I'm sure that if the studios felt someone was actually damaging their property by use of trademarks, etc they would go after them legally on some grounds or another, if nothing else to try to intimidate them. Paramount did shut down a TOS-based live show some years ago on the grounds that it represented "appropriation rather than parody."

[Christopher]

Dennis wrote:

---

Well, Saturday Night Live did - and does - that kind of thing all the time.

Indeed so. SNL has done some famous and beloved Trek sketches, notably "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" with John Belushi as Kirk, Chevy Chase as Spock, and Dan Aykroyd as McCoy (which you can watch at Hulu). When Shatner guest-starred in the '80s, they did a great sketch called "The Restaurant Enterprise," with Shatner as Kirk, Kevin Nealon as Spock, and Dana Carvey as Khan, the restaurant inspector (and with the guy who played Sulu in "Last Voyage" reprising the role). They also did a T. J. Hooker sketch in the same episode.

[A beaker full of death]

The Supergirl one doesn't look as impressive as either the Batman parody or the really impressive Dark Knight parody.

[FreezeC77]

I know about the laws regarding parodies... but it still seems pretty warped that Disney can sue and shut down a little Mom & Pop eatery calling itself the Magic Kingdom, while you can have a movie like this be perfectly legal and make money for the producer based off the works done by another company.

[JarodRussell]

Christopher wrote:

---

Indeed so. SNL has done some famous and beloved Trek sketches, notably "The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise" with John Belushi as Kirk, Chevy Chase as Spock, and Dan Aykroyd as McCoy (which you can watch at Hulu). When Shatner guest-starred in the '80s, they did a great sketch called "The Restaurant Enterprise," with Shatner as Kirk, Kevin Nealon as Spock, and Dana Carvey as Khan, the restaurant inspector (and with the guy who played Sulu in "Last Voyage" reprising the role). They also did a T. J. Hooker sketch in the same episode.

Yeah, but these were just short 5 minute sketches embedded in a show. What about a full feature film?

[Sindatur]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Yeah, but these were just short 5 minute sketches embedded in a show. What about a full feature film?

Harry Potter Powers That Be didn't allow anything to go unchallenged, but, at least one that presented itself as parody, rather than being deamed plagiarism was allowed, I believe.

[Gaith]

FreezeC77 wrote:

---

I know about the laws regarding parodies... but it still seems pretty warped that Disney can sue and shut down a little Mom & Pop eatery calling itself the Magic Kingdom, while you can have a movie like this be perfectly legal and make money for the producer based off the works done by another company.

It's only illegal if the copyright holders sue, and I'm sure Big Comics is scared shitless by the media firestorm that an anti-porn parody lawsuit would inevitable create. They thus deem it safer to let them be, circulating amongst a mostly hidden subculture. A mom and pop restaurant, however, wouldn't get anywhere close to the media attention, so they feel free to crush those with abandon.


As for the whole porn parody craze... I find it depressing. I'll not lie and say I don't enjoy porn/erotica in modest doses, but I like my adult material to be, if not legitimately amateur, then at least small-scale. It's pretty much impossible, imho, to spending large amounts of time, energy and money on porn and not have the resulting business be creepy as hell. If a porn performer wants to throw on a Trek uniform or a Supergirl miniskirt, great. But a whole scripted, scored, edited and "acted" porn parody feature? Ick.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's no sense in which a porn parody is "creepier" than porn in general.

[Gaith]

Not creepier than non-parodic corporate porn, no. Creepier than stuff amateurs make in their own homes, then upload just for kicks? Oh, hell yes.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That stuff's the creepiest. Homely strangers having sex, and the lighting is even worse than Brazzers.

[Myasishchev]

JRS wrote:

---

They should have picked someone more..eh..slender and younger(?) to play "Supergirl". This actress is way too busty for the role.

Concur. Like someone said, she looks more like Power Girl as drawn by a hacksturbator like Michael Turner, when a Supergirl porno needs to be based on slightly less disturbing imagery by Ian Churchill.

Is her chest even real, btw?

It's made of atoms.

Gaith wrote:

---

As for the whole porn parody craze... I find it depressing. I'll not lie and say I don't enjoy porn/erotica in modest doses, but I like my adult material to be, if not legitimately amateur, then at least small-scale. It's pretty much impossible, imho, to spending large amounts of time, energy and money on porn and not have the resulting business be creepy as hell. If a porn performer wants to throw on a Trek uniform or a Supergirl miniskirt, great. But a whole scripted, scored, edited and "acted" porn parody feature? Ick.

They can both coexist. There's reasons to recommend both.

But if you're gonna try to do story, try to find actors who can act. James Deen is actually pretty keen comedically, for example. Sasha Grey has been in an actual feature film, and although it sucked badly, it was very obviously Soderbergh's fault because he thought what people who had rented Grey's cinematic debut wanted to see was a Goddamn treatise on the economic downturn instead of, you know, a story about a ultra-high-end prostitute played by ultra-high-end pornographic actress Sasha Grey.

I think she's out of the porno game these days, although she actually would be good casting for a Supergirl, if you could convince her to put on a blonde wig.

Anyway, I do sort of agree that nerdsploitation pornos are a little creepy, but for entirely different reasons. Like, I know people jack off to Zatanna. Paul Dini has actual sex with Actual Zatanna. Steve Englehart probably magically married Mantis decades before Grant Morrison was casting spells on himself with the Invisibles. There are people who think they're in relationships with anime characters and people who wish they were ten feet tall and really want to share genetic information through their hair.

It's a weird blurring of fantasy and reality. It's a little off-putting. There's a difference between being a bit turned on by a drawing of Fire and Ice and actually following through with an elaborate narrative about a climate-controlled threesome with them, you know? Is it necessary or wise to interpose sexual fantasies into someone else's narrative?

Not to say there's anything wrong with it. Indeed, I shouldn't say that such pornos are creepy in and of themselves, but rather that I suspect that such works are manna from heaven for a particularly creepy demographic.

Of course, I like women with gasmasks on. I already am the creepy demographic.

FreezeC77 wrote:

---

I know about the laws regarding parodies... but it still seems pretty warped that Disney can sue and shut down a little Mom & Pop eatery calling itself the Magic Kingdom, while you can have a movie like this be perfectly legal and make money for the producer based off the works done by another company.

How is that warped? Parody, pornographic or not, is vital to artistic discourse. Some jerk who stole the name for her restaurant is not.

[Kestrel]

Myasishchev wrote:

---

I think she's out of the porno game these days, although she actually would be good casting for a Supergirl, if you could convince her to put on a blonde wig.

Dammit, now you've got me wondering what superheroine Sasha Grey should be in a comics-based porno.

The answer is Huntress of course.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Grey seems to go back and forth as far as the "retirement" is concerned, as many porn actors do.

I imagine the producers were far more interested in the audience who'd like to see Alanah Rae playing Supergirl than in satisfying the expectations of comic geeks who fantasize about Supergirl herself.

[Myasishchev]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Dammit, now you've got me wondering what superheroine Sasha Grey should be in a comics-based porno.

The answer is Huntress of course.

You, sir, just blew my mind. That's just too damned apt.

This being the way the Huntress is ordinarily drawn, of course; a realistic Huntress would have to be about 50% bigger than Sasha Grey. But if you can't suspend disbelief for a porno film... well, that's just sad!

But, great, thanks. Now I'm on a superhero porno dream casting kick, which is bad and undermines all my feminist and diversity credibility.

I'm sort of amazed they didn't tap Nikki Rhodes to play Barbara Gordon. She's pretty cool.

And wow, fun (and sourced!) fact about Nikki Rhodes from Wikipedia:

She was a straight-A student, started college at the age of fifteen, and attended two and a half years of law school

You see this? This right here? This is me jealous.

And Katsuni would make a ridiculously faithful Cheshire. Behold my credibility saving throw: it's ethnically correct casting. YES.

And hell, a Roy Harper porno (I cast James Deen! because he's great, which is good because the guy's basically unavoidable) is bound to be 100% less depressing than any actual Roy Harper comic.

Dennis wrote:

---

I imagine the producers were far more interested in the audience who'd like to see Alanah Rae playing Supergirl than in satisfying the expectations of comic geeks who fantasize about Supergirl herself.

An extremely valid point, although 1)I don't see it as necessarily different than casting any movie and 2)Alanah Rae just doesn't do it for me, neither in the context of Supergirl nor in the context of her fucking somebody.