Compare and Contrast: Porno Wonder Woman

Updated on March 31, 2011 By Ken Begg 13 Comments

This is the woman playing Wonder Woman in (really) a porno parody of the Justice League called Justice League XXX. (Why can’t Warners sue to stop these movies? Got me.)

Is it JUST me, or does her no doubt really cheapo costume look better than the one, even the improved one, being used for the new, David Kelly-produced, multi-million dollar network TV pilot? (Pics can be found in previous blog posts.) And why? Because–GASP! SHOCK!–they just went with the classic design. Imagine if the same costume here were done with that show’s budget.

I’m serious. This looks better, right? Or am I just being nostalgic?

Pin It



Related Posts

  • I dunno, I just think WW should be buff but beautiful. She’s an amazon after all. I want some armor and weapons, as well as the lasso and tiara.

  • Ericb

    “Why can’t Warners sue to stop these movies?” There’s some ownership shell game going on and Warner secretly owns the company that made this.

  • Ericb

    oops, that sentence shoould start with “Maybe.”

  • I assume this somehow falls under the parody and fair use clauses, although building entire commercial movies on these seems bizarrely lax. This isn’t the first such feature; at the very least there was an earlier Batman porno that aped the old Adam West show. (I have to admit, I admire the fact that the guy who played the Joker grew a mustache just so they could put his face makeup over it, ala Caesar Romero. That’s pretty funny.) So apparently these are legal. I just can’t quite figure out how.

  • P Stroud

    Copyright laws are pretty convoluted thanks to hundreds of years of lawyers and the black robed lawyers we laughingly call “judges”. Companies sometimes have to pursue copyright infringement to ridiculous extremes… like a when local theater company was forced to stop doing an on stage Star Trek parody….even if the company doesn’t really want to because of the bad PR that results. If they don’t vigorously defend their copyrights they can lose them. Yet the porno industry for some reason enjoys a special status apparently conferred upon it by the courts. Why this is can be a subject of very ribald proportions and perhaps can spawn a whole new genre of lawyer jokes.

  • Ericb

    It looks like they just photoshopped the costume onto the actress.

  • David Fullam

    Yep, that’s how a WW costume should look, porno or not.

  • Ken owns every one of these Extreme ComiXXXes. Once he theratened to show me his favorite, the M.O.D.O.K. / Giganta crossover. I was able to buy him off however.

  • Rock Baker

    Maybe the studios avoid going after pornos to keep them from getting more publicity? That kind of attention would only make such ‘films’ more legit, so I can see why, if you owned Wonder Woman, you’d turn your head and try to pretend something like this just isn’t real.

    It does make me rethink some things. Mostly, it makes me wonder if I really want Dinosaur Girl to become that well-known, since it would only lead to something like this.

    To the topic itself, I must say this looks much better than the televersion being thrown at us. The uniform seems to be the key, because this ‘actress’ actually looks like she’d make a very good WW. If this were softcore porno instead of the hard stuff, I might actually be generous enough to give it a view to see how it works on screen. It’s funny, really, despite the obvious cheapness of this costume, it really does look better than what they’re doing for TV. I guess it connects so well because its the image we all grew up with.

  • GalaxyJane

    OTOH, Ms. Preston probably won’t spend as much time actually wearing the outfit.

  • KeithB

    I think too, that your average XXX *wants* to identify with the source material as much as possible.

    Reboots need some way to differentiate themselves -if nothing else than to show they are “artistes”.

  • Aussiesmurf

    The length of a parody doesn’t disqualify it. Cf such movies as ‘Loaded Weapon 1’ (Lethal Weapon) and Spaceballs.

    Being a porno would actually strengthen the argument in favour of the film being permitted, because there can be no serious argument that WB had approved the movie or were seriously affiliated with it in any way.

  • Yes, but the fact remains that others are using Warners’ intellectual property to make money. I’m not sure how that flies. After all, even if you say this is a parody, there’s still the issue that they don’t even use other names for the characters, ala Marvel’s Squadron Supreme. The film is to be called Justice League XXX, and it features Superman, Batman and Robin, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc., all wearing their regular uniforms. The only real nod towards disguising them apparent from the stills is that their various emblems, like Superman’s S and Batman’s bat logo, have been replaced with Xs. However, otherwise the costumes are completely undisguised.