1. justme says

    The nicest actors always play the best villains. I didn’t know he was in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. Very much looking forward to seeing him as someone other than Draco.

  2. Dback says

    Luminum, the Theban Band used to have a whole bunch of HP slash art, as well as some terrific, hot “Lord of the Rings” art and manips. Google it, or try may have to poke around on that last one, but there’s lots of fun distractions.)

  3. justme says

    MT, although when art does and does not cross the legal line into kiddie porn is a complicated issue with different answers in jurisdictions all over the world, I don’t think any semi-sane country would consider an image of two shirtless teenagers cuddling to be pornographic. Obviously, Conan’s network doesn’t. Since the show’s still on the air today, looks like the US government doesn’t, either.

  4. say what says


    Rupert gint is worth around 50 mill US and only 23 yrs old

    I doubt he cares about a future career at all since interest a year alone while sitting on his ass is probably around 2 mill at least after taxes

  5. sparks says

    It just occurred to me that Tom Felton easily looks like he could be Ryan Gosling’s little brother.

    And don’t get me wrong, it’s not an insult. I think Ryan is stunning.

  6. Anonymous says

    @ MT,

    I read your comment above about kiddie porn, and I have a related legal question. Wouldn’t your comment be considered evidence of borderline mental retardation in most jurisdictions?

  7. breckroy says

    What constitutes aging “well, “@Anon? Both look like any number of actors and actresses or normal people in their 20s. Are they hot or beefcakey? Muscle models? No, but something tells me they never set out to be Kellan Lutz, for example. They are children who grew up to look like they do and have hours and hours and hours of experience on movie sets, doing high profile press, having to act like professionals, and growing with/interpreting a character. To claim they aren’t aging well (when they look like perfectly normal people, albeit with regretable facial hair, endemic it seems among young men in the arts these days) is preposterous, and to claim they have very little left of their careers is ridiculous. The most fortunate of child/teen actors goes on to a successful adult career, and it is hardly ever tied to how “hot” the child actor grew up to be…and even hot ones have many years of direct-to-video lows or even semi-retirement (Drew Barrymore and Ricky Schroeder come to mind) before high profile projects sweep them back to stardom. And let’s face it, the only true looker among them is the young lady…all the young men are more normal than hot, even as adults…which means they may actually get to play interesting parts and do great work instead of being cast in insipid, substance-less parts for the next 10 years.

    You sound jealous and bitter and that’s just tragic, but don’t transfer your personal issues to these fine, affable young men.

    And @Anonymous — assuming MT wasn’t speaking of the picture being shown, but of the idea that people create sexual art (often involving depictions of nudity and sex acts) of minor characters, what’s wrong with asking? It may have been meant to stir the pot, or it may have been a legit question. I think the answer that was given was pretty good. Why get nasty back? What’s with the “anon/anonymous” commenter trend today?

  8. Lexxvs says

    @ANON, You are certainly right about the aging thing –I would rather call it the growing up process- that usually changes some children’s features too dramatically to keep on summoning them for roles that could’ve easily derive from what was seen in them in their younger years. But I wouldn’t say that their careers have little left because of it. It will depend on their acting abilities and on whether they can find a new niche matching their new facial traits. And who knowS, maybe they can even jump into even more interesting roles. By the way maybe the guy was having just a bad sleep day.

  9. Nat says

    “I read your comment above about kiddie porn, and I have a related legal question. Wouldn’t your comment be considered evidence of borderline mental retardation in most jurisdictions?”

    The question may have been poorly phrased, but I’m not sure what the issue with the sentiment is. I realize that some of the slash writers/artists are teenagers themselves, but there is a serious issue with any grown adult fantasizing about/depicting underage characters having sex.

  10. Teka says

    @MT, @NAT,

    Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton are older than 18 years old. They’re actually about 22 and almost 24 year old, respectively. So, nothing underage about them. Now, if you’re referring to the characters, they would be about 17 years old in the book. But, regardless, those photos that Conan showed are not porn. At best (or worst), they’re sexualized scenes, I guess. That’s the same as Britney Spears in the “Baby, One More Time” video (which, I guess, she must be around 17 too when that video was made. In short, I don’t think there’s a lot of weight for anyone to take it to court as kiddie porn.

  11. Nat says

    “Daniel Radcliffe and Tom Felton are older than 18 years old. They’re actually about 22 and almost 24 year old, respectively. So, nothing underage about them.”

    I’m not talking about the actors. Nor am I laying the kiddie porn charge on this material, or restricting my criticism to one particular photo. I’m talking about the proliferation of sexual material related to the characters they depicted – characters who were far younger than 17 when the series began.

    As I noted, a good portion of this material is generated by adolescent girls. But as I also said, I find it more than a little disturbing when I hear of adults fantasizing about the sexual lives of adolescents. That’s all. And one does not have to go out of one’s way to find it.

  12. Artie Rimbaud says

    @ Beckroy, @ MT,

    I agree with you that it’s perfectly legit to engage in a more general discussion about sexual art depicting minor characters. But readers and commenters have to agree on standard Internet conventions, otherwise no one will know what anyone is talking about. Unless you say otherwise, the comments on a thread are taken to refer to the content of Andy Towle’s particular post. I think that’s a reasonable Internet convention.

    Beckroy, you’re “assuming MT wasn’t speaking of the picture being shown”. If that’s the case, the commenter has to say so, or everyone will be hopelessly confused as to the commenter’s opinion. As confusing as the comment was, I doubt MT was actually referring to the pictures on Andy’s post. I’m sure that Conan’s audience and mainstream audiences in general would find such an opinion bizarre.

  13. Reverse Polarity says

    In the US, generally you can’t criminalize thought. So it isn’t illegal to think about sex between minors. Really, why should it be? As long as the thought remains in your head, and you don’t act on it, then nobody is harmed. Kiddy porn, on the other hand is illegal, specifically because it does harm children. You can only look at kiddy porn if someone shoots pictures or video of kids having sex and puts it online. So looking at kiddy porn is illegal, because kids are harmed in the process of creating it.

    Now on to the slash art… it would only be illegal if actual photos of minors having sex were used in the creation of the slash art. If you paste a picture of Draco’s face on the body of a twink, then it isn’t illegal (assuming the pic of the twink was over 18). It is silly and tasteless, perhaps, but not illegal. No minor was harmed in the creation of the slash art. (It undoubtedly violates copyright, and doesn’t have proper model releases and so on, but technically it isn’t kiddy porn.) The pics shown on Conan’s show were really about PG rated, and wouldn’t be considered kiddy porn, even if the actors themselves had been photographed that way when they were minors. They’re merely shirtless and hugging; everything else is in your own imagination.

Leave A Reply