A lot of discussion has been floating around the Internet this past week, after Axel Braun posted a sneak peek image of adult film actress Kimberly Kane, dressed as Wonder Woman for the upcoming, Wonder Woman XXX: An Axel Braun Parody.


This is most certainly an excellent costume, but we haven’t see it in action yet. I do agree with many who question why the adult film industry can do a better job with costumes and getting these movies out than the big studios. The answer to the first part is rather simple – look at the awesome cosplay that is being done each and every day by fans. As far as why the porn industry does a better job of getting out the movies faster than the big studios, the answer is also simple – the adult industry has a lower overhead than the big studios, and thus the risk is lower. Companies like Vivid are cranking out movies super fast, so while Wonder Woman XXX may get a lot of attention, it will be nearly forgotten by “fans” about by this time next year.

As far as quality goes, I think what makes Axel Braun’s films work (beyond the sexy-sexy) is that he is a fan, and we’ve seen a crap ton of really awesome fan films online that do the characters and properties proud. Braun is simply taking what is best about porn and mixing it with the best that is a fan film, which results in people going nuts over a picture of Wonder Woman that looks like Wonder Woman…


About Author

Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment. You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...


  1. I saw this photo elsewhere on a blog, no caption; no context and thought “Wow – what a great Wonder Woman.”

    Total shock to learn it was a porn star. Disappointing in a way too – a sure sign I’m getting old or losing my mind!

  2. This garbage is just the 21st century Tiajuana Bible. It’s pure exploitation of base instinct to make quick cash. Regardless of whether he’s a fan of comics or not, by definition, pornography is not art.

  3. “This garbage is just the 21st century Tiajuana Bible.”

    Yeah, and?

    “It’s pure exploitation …”

    Oh, I see, you’re one of those people. Shine on you crazy diamond.

    ps: Kimberly Kane was in the Escapist’s video D&D series called “I Hit It With My Axe” – She’s a huge nerd. Added 2d8 + [CHA mod] awesomeness

  4. My point is that it exploits the viewer, not the actors. I assume you thought I meant the inverse? It’s empty filler churned out to maximize return with minimal thought or creative input.

    It means nothing to me that the actress plays D&D. I can see why someone would think its cool that someone whose work they admire has similar interests to their own, but my point is that this work doesn’t really have a place in that discussion. In the case of pornography, artistic decisions involving structure, message, themes etc will always be secondary to the primary purpose of arousal/titilation. It’s extremely limiting artistically. I’m not saying sex has no place in art or entertainment, but the definition of pornography is that it has no artistic merit. It just takes advantage of the audience’s need to get off.

    • Having made a thorough search I could find no dictionary definitions of pornography that mention lack of artistic merit. Some definitions of obscenity point in that direction, but only in the most subjective ways.

      The most apropos definition suggests that pornography is; “material (as books or a photograph {could be read as motion pictures}) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.

      Art is defined as ‘ the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced’.

      Nothing about one of those definitions excludes the other. Art is a creative endeavor meant to elicit an emotional response.

      Pornographic images can be art by its very definition. They may not be your cup of tea, but they can be artfully produced, contain artistic elements or presentation. Here, the aesthetic is at least in part presented in a well crafted costume, aesthetically superior to other attempts at such a costume, but the alleged caretakers of the propery. For all I know the finished film might be very funny, very erotic, completely offensive or, with any luck all of the above.

  5. It came up in the first google hit for me. Dictionary.com

    1. obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.

    It’s also language used by the Supreme Court when trying to pin down a definition for obscene material. You can rightfully respond that none of this is helpful, and that saying pornography is not art because pornography lacks artistic merit is a tautology, but I think it rings true if you are honest.

    Some erotica is more concerned with its medium or its message than with sex acts, and in my opinion that is the most helpful indication. Joe Casey’s new book Sex is a good example of that. I didn’t care for the first issue, but the comic is concerned with larger themes than simply getting the audience off. On the other hand, technically briliant work can be mere porn. Milo Manara is one of the greatest illustrators the medium has known, but SOME of his work is pretty base, a clear excuse to draw fetish material, and doesn’t totally pass the sniff test.

    Anyway, These movies are just capitalizing on intellectual property they do not own and stringing together completely disparate scenes of sex acts. There is very little thought given to narrative or composition because that is not the point of the movie. They are exploitive and disposable.

  6. Not a ‘fan’ of pornography in general, but equally have no strong negative views on it either. All I have to say is appart from the slightly too high cut line of the costume at the bottom it looks extremely good and I wouldn’t have been surprised if it was the offical DC costume for a film announcement.

    And as a red blooded male, I have to say she looks stunning in that costume.

  7. I’m glad Stephen gives us a place to talk, but I find it sad when someone uses this privilege to intentionally insult community members. To come into our refuge and state your opinion as fact is not appreciated. As vast as the subject of art is, a definition given on the Internet or from a group of men and women whose rulings often change depending on their political makeup, is not awe inspiring. to some, this may be art and to some, this may prove to have a redeeming value, even if it is just 5 minutes of physical release. the fact the actress does play DnD does matter to some, as we are still a community of nerds, whether it be porn nerds or DnD nerds. Regardless of all that, I would hope you would come here to be positive and supportive, not condescending and superior. If you dont agree with a story, either don’t read it or make a constructive argument for your point, not a trollish wall of text. If you are just a troll, mission accomplished as I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading your posts and typing mine, but at the end of the day, I feel good about myself. If you made this post in all seriousness, then I feel sorry for those who have to spend time with you .

    I generally don’t post and after I hit “post comment” I will not come back to this thread, so feel free to tear apart my argument and try to belittle me to your hearts content.

    Stephen, thank you for posting a wide variety of geek, nerd, comic and movie related stories.

  8. I definitely didn’t mean to make anyone here feel attacked. I can see how my initial comment is antagonistic, and my obliviousness to that was admittedly self centered. I thought it was generally accepted that the difference between porn and erotica is a lack of “art” (whatever that is) and I didn’t think that I might be offending porn nerds.
    My point is simply that these “parodies” have little thought behind them beyond appropriating someone else’s creation/art/intellectual property and selling it in manner of the lowest investment/highest return. I think it’s exploitive.

    Although it’s arguably no worse than the way comic companies have exploited comic creators throughout history, and hell, William Marston would probably dig it.

    • I’ve got to say then that this would, by your own definition, have to be considered erotica then. There is clearly time and effort put into that costume design and its manufacturing.

      If it was simply ‘porn’ (by your definition) then she would be in an off the rack ill fitting costume from a local shop.

      You can’t be ‘offending’ me as I’m not remotely a porn nerd, I had never heard of the director or the actress before reading this post (and a quick Internet search tells me both are pretty famous), but random posts berating subjects that the poster doesn’t fully understand annoys me.

Leave A Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.