(no subject)

[out_there]

Lost Boys slash. So hot. So wrong.

I couldn't help thinking that The Lost Boys reminded me of the Goonies (same fun, kids adventure vs clueless adults type of atmosphere) except with more vampires and far more subtext. Seriously, there were a couple moments when I seriously expected them to kiss (and wondered how they could be that obvious between brothers).

Well, apart from sniggering over the fact that there were two actors named Corey in the film, I also amused myself when noticing that Bill (from Bill and Ted) had ended up a vampire with bad hair, while Rob Lowe has always been ridiculously pretty. I want a picture of that particular Rob Lowe poster. Maybe make an icon out of it, or something.

Meanwhile, I know someone wrote "Rules of Attraction" slash. Was it you celli or dammitcarl? I have a strong suspicion it was one of you. I'm just asking because I've hired the film, so I'll watch it tomorrow (pretty, pretty Ian).

Comments

[deadspiders.livejournal.com]

Ack! In no way was I implying 'slash' was anything but m/m or f/f. I assumed that was a given. Mulder/Scully is NOT slash. :P Basically, I just meant that I've always considered "slash" to be non-canon, in that I personally WOULDN'T call QaF m/m fanfic slash, if the characters were together on the show. (Calling Willow/Tara BtVS fanfic "slash", for example, always irks me.) I've always associated slash with a deviation from the existing storyline and intent - a hypothetical "what if?" in a same-sex romantic context. My comment was basically saying that, given the obvious nature of the m/m overtones of TLB, calling it "slash" (and therefore non-canon) is a little ironic. I didn't mean anything by it. :)

[out-there.livejournal.com]

Mulder/Scully is NOT slash. :P

*g* Yeah, I figured you'd agree. I just thought that I should mention why I react to differing definitions of slash. It sets off internal alarms.

I've always associated slash with a deviation from the existing storyline and intent - a hypothetical "what if?" in a same-sex romantic context.

Hmmm... I guess it's a case of your attitude to the terms themselves, as well. I mean, I'm a pro-warning type of gal, so I consider slash to be a genre and a warning. Same for het.

If something's marked gen, I'd assume that it's basically characters interracting. I wouldn't assume a fic was sexual/overly romantic (ie. beyond anything shown onscreen) unless marked het or slash.

I guess it's a case of how do I define a "what-if". I assume that gen fic agrees with canon, like a missing scenes to the show, but it's not always something that is mentioned/acknowledged, hence part of it is always an original interpretation of what might have happened.

Okay, this is why I personally believe that slash has nothing to do with being canonical. It's very hard to define precisely what constitutes canon vs AU's. Is something mentioned in canon and extrapolated in fic still canonical? It doesn't break canon, but it's not part of the original canon of the show... In some small way, all fic is AU, and a what if scenario.

Just because I know that Willow and Tara dated onscreen, doesn't mean that a fic about them doing x is canonical. However, it does still include same-sex romance/sex, so I'd call it slash, and label it appropriately (as both gen and slash, I guess).

My comment was basically saying that, given the obvious nature of the m/m overtones of TLB, calling it "slash" (and therefore non-canon) is a little ironic.

*snerk* Yeah, I can't deny it. You are right. It's not subtext, it's text. I couldn't believe I was watching it with my mum, and just expected the brothers to kiss (and was wondering how the hell it managed to get it's rating with incest)...