|
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 26, 2009 21:08:36 GMT -5
I bought the issue specifically to see how they would handle it... it's fairly tame actually.... but the "centerfold" has marge in a sheer nightie that does show her breasts. honestly, i was surprised they allowed that. But really, the Q&A with her is pretty funny, and I could've done very well with just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Oct 27, 2009 7:13:31 GMT -5
but the "centerfold" has marge in a sheer nightie that does show her breasts. honestly, i was surprised they allowed that. I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're surprised that you saw breasts in Play-freakin'-boy? |
|
|
|
Post by kpcoulditbe on Oct 28, 2009 0:41:26 GMT -5
centerfold? for a cartoon character? hahaha!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 28, 2009 2:20:13 GMT -5
but the "centerfold" has marge in a sheer nightie that does show her breasts. honestly, i was surprised they allowed that. I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're surprised that you saw breasts in Play-freakin'-boy?Let me rephrase that: I'm surprised the company that owns the intellectual and commercial property known as the simpsons allowed for partial nudity of one of their characters outside the realm of comedy. i.e. bart's "doodle" in the simpsons movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Oct 28, 2009 2:51:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're surprised that you saw breasts in Play-freakin'-boy?Let me rephrase that: I'm surprised the company that owns the intellectual and commercial property known as the simpsons allowed for partial nudity of one of their characters outside the realm of comedy. i.e. bart's "doodle" in the simpsons movie. ...You are? |
|
|
|
Post by kpcoulditbe on Oct 28, 2009 6:24:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're surprised that you saw breasts in Play-freakin'-boy?Let me rephrase that: I'm surprised the company that owns the intellectual and commercial property known as the simpsons allowed for partial nudity of one of their characters outside the realm of comedy. i.e. bart's "doodle" in the simpsons movie. I can't speak from personal experience but i read that it's just an angle that she flashes her "intangibles". I.E you see her back in the picture and the characters see the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 28, 2009 9:30:31 GMT -5
Captain Serge Stiles: Yes I am. I've always viewded the simpsons as a more kid (10 or up) friendly cartoon. I'd expect it more of family guy. Let me rephrase that: I'm surprised the company that owns the intellectual and commercial property known as the simpsons allowed for partial nudity of one of their characters outside the realm of comedy. i.e. bart's "doodle" in the simpsons movie. I can't speak from personal experience but i read that it's just an angle that she flashes her "intangibles". I.E you see her back in the picture and the characters see the other side. In one picture you you see her back, but in the other, you actually see the "girls" through a sheer nightie as i said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nightspade on Oct 28, 2009 10:37:50 GMT -5
Captain Serge Stiles: Yes I am. I've always viewded the simpsons as a more kid (10 or up) friendly cartoon. In one picture you you see her back, but in the other, you actually see the "girls" through a sheer nightie as i said. Silly Zephyr. Ti ts are for kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 28, 2009 16:44:11 GMT -5
Captain Serge Stiles: Yes I am. I've always viewded the simpsons as a more kid (10 or up) friendly cartoon. In one picture you you see her back, but in the other, you actually see the "girls" through a sheer nightie as i said. Silly Zephyr. Ti ts are for kids. Touchee... And i didn't spell touche' wrong, i just want touchee. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Oct 29, 2009 0:45:35 GMT -5
Captain Serge Stiles: Yes I am. I've always viewded the simpsons as a more kid (10 or up) friendly cartoon. I'd expect it more of family guy. Or it's just a matter of what you're allowed to show on television, and obviously you don't have a restriction to show tittays in Playboy. |
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Oct 29, 2009 11:58:56 GMT -5
Captain Serge Stiles: Yes I am. I've always viewded the simpsons as a more kid (10 or up) friendly cartoon. I'd expect it more of family guy. Or it's just a matter of what you're allowed to show on television, and obviously you don't have a restriction to show tittays in Playboy. But the Simpsons isn't necessarily a risque show, so therein lies the surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by elvisjj on Nov 7, 2009 17:54:54 GMT -5
Well if Kim Possible was on the cover of Playboy magazine you could just imagine what a seller that would be, not to mention Disney executives freaking out.
Kim let's face it is a very beautiful young woman now and Marge, well let's just say she's not everyone's type. Mind you Ron might get a bit upset too if Kim posed for Playboy not to mention Kim's parents.
I've always looked at Kim Possible and Kim especially as an innocent girl and I like to keep her that way, if they want to plaster Marge Simpson on Playboy all the power to them. Marge isn't Kim, she never had that innocence Kim has, so Marge fits Playboy better then Kim ever would.
Mind you in a poll if Kim Possible was on the cover she'd out sell Marge Simpson a billion to one and you can take that to the bank Disney and Hugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by garnetblack on Nov 11, 2009 22:15:08 GMT -5
She'd never do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muzzlehatch on Nov 15, 2009 20:10:50 GMT -5
The Simpsons is airing the Playboy episode tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by KillerBebe Obeys Zita on Nov 17, 2009 14:36:11 GMT -5
The Simpsons is airing the Playboy episode tonight. So was it no more than a tie-in gag to drum up viewers? |
|
|
|
Post by Muzzlehatch on Nov 17, 2009 21:20:27 GMT -5
Looks like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by teztor123 on Dec 4, 2009 6:38:45 GMT -5
Disney has always been very protective of their copy right. There was an awards show like the Oscars once that had a girl dressed up as Sleeping Beauty walk down one of the side isles. They did it without Disney's permission and were sued.
Now - this only applies to things that are making money.
Those day care centers for example are commercial establishments. If you're 10 year old has drawings of KP up in her bed room - you don't have to worry - but - if she starts making money in that room where her decorations are part of the money making scheme - then she needs to look out.
Partly - this is to keep from establishing a legal precedent that they allowed someone to make money off of their copy righted material. If they do that - someone else can do the same thing and site the previous case as justification.
Now - if the day care center had gotten their decorations from Disney - then they would be cool. But if they got them from a non-authorized source - then they weren't cool.
If Marge Simpson is in Playboy - she is in there because the people who own the copy right to her image have been paid.
It amazes me sometimes that people get all outraged over the commercial use of some fan artists fan art without his permission or an attribution - and yet - have no problem with people making money off of something that is owned by Disney. While both are wrong - the Fan Artist has no commercial right to the material in the first place, so he is actually BETTER OFF if the people stealing his work don't acknowledge him and get him involved in the law suit.
*shrug*
|
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Dec 4, 2009 13:03:11 GMT -5
But, what about extensive use of their work as 'fan art', such as game modifications which only use the original game engine as a base (e.g., like Counter Strike: Source to Half Life 2), audio plays, machinima, etc? It can only go so far, methinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muzzlehatch on Dec 26, 2009 22:38:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KillerBebe Obeys Zita on Dec 26, 2009 23:12:12 GMT -5
The quote: "The Na’vi happily commune with nature in their planetary Eden until nasty humans arrive from planet Earth to strip mine their resources. Pandora is the galaxy’s only source of the supremely valuable mineral called unobtanium, which sounds like something the villain would be after on an episode of “Kim Possible.”"
|
|
