Talk:Bavarian porn
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bavarian porn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]How do these movies look in comparison to the Danish "tegn" series. ("In the sign of the Taurus" etc.) which mixed very silly comedy with soft- and hardcore pornography. 惑乱 分からん 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct for a more formal tone
[edit]The second paragraph needs to be rewritten:
- to improve the structure to be more formal
- to avoid colloquial words and expressions, such as "slutty"
-- ToastieIL 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Schulmädchen-Report
[edit]Does it really belong to the Bavarian genre ? 193.56.37.1 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting move
[edit]Afaik, Bavarian porn is not or not yet an established term. The German term seems to be Lederhosenfilm, at least that's what the German Wiki article says. The concentration on Bavaria seems somehow wrong to me. Research shows that those movies have been produced and/or shot both in Bavaria and Austria. Some of the crucial filmmakers were Bavarian, others were Austrian. Basically it's the alpine background that defines the atmosphere, not just Bavaria or Austria. Then, the majority of these films isn't pornographic but softcore. On the other hand, Munich was obviously a place where several pornographic movies have been produced. Thus, the term Bavarian porn is too general and not specific enough to define a certain genre. Therefore I'd suggest either following the German example, and move the article to Lederhosen films (other possibilities: Lederhosen erotic films), or simply call it Alpine erotic films, or Alpine porn (I believe there have been other porn flicks that have also used the Alpine setting). --Catgut (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Broken Link
[edit]The Weblink is no longer active and should be removed or replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.178.69 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)