Nude celebrities on the cover of “Rolling Stone” is nothing new. Neither are the stars of “True Blood” appearing nude.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that stars Anna Paquin, Stephen Moyer, Alexander Skarsgard are in the buff for the cover of this month’s issue.
The trio appear nude and covered with blood.
“To me, vampires are sex,” series creator Alan Ball tells the magazine. “I don’t get a vampire story about abstinence. I’m 53. I don’t care about high school students. I find them irritating and uninformed.”
For his part, Moyer explains the show’s appeal — with its bloody and graphic sex scenes — almost as if he were familiar with the centuries-old source material.
“If we go from a base level, vampires create a hole in the neck where there wasn’t one before. It’s a de-virginization — breaking the hymen, creating blood and then drinking the virginal blood. And there’s something sharp, the fang, which is probing and penetrating and moving into it. So that’s pretty sexy. I think that makes vampires attractive,” says Moyer. “Robert Pattinson is just hot, right?”
Dave in NY says
The cover is an unnecessary attempt to grab readers via sex and nudity… surprise, surprise… remember when Rolling Stone was actually relevant and was purchased for its articles?
I’d rather watch Spartacus: Blood and Sand.
Zergonapal says
You do know that Spartacus has just as much sex and violence right? If Rolling Stone did a cover for Spartacus would you reject that show as well?
Lord Bowler says
Lol. Yes I do.
And I do think the amount of sex can be a little bit too excessive at times. I would say the same thing if Lucy Lawless was on the cover nude covered in blood. Its just not necessary and its really a tease since Rolling Stone is not Playboy and you won’t see them nude in the magazine. So why buy the mag?
It would make much more sense as a cover to Playboy Magazine.
I thought Rolling Stone was supposed to be about music?