Astro's Virtual DreamsReview

Author	Post
PornoBoy Member 145 Posts 7/02	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 9:02AM I kind of have a small bone to pick with this review. I too run Windows XP on my computer, have viewed this DVD and had NO PROBLEMS whatsoever installing it and running it. In fact, the voice activation ran flawlessly on my computer. I think Astro's should revise his review to state that he couldn't get the program to work and Metro's online assistance was no help to him, rather than saying the DVD doesn't work...which it does. My biggest question is if Astro has a compatible DVD software running on his computer...I know I had to download new DVD software to properly get this program to run...the DVD software that comes with Window XP didn't seem to work right...(I downloaded Direct DVD). You also need to make sure you install and set up the voice recognition program that is on the DVD before you run the movie... Granted, it took a bit of time to get everything set up properly (about 20 minutes in my case), but once I did, the disc ran flawlessly for me... Just my 2 cents worth... Edited by - PornoBoy on Apr 4 2003 Edited by - PornoBoy on Apr 4 2003 [Link]
futureofporn Member 658 Posts 1/03	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 11:22AM Can you play it on your DVD player? [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 11:56AM instead of picking a bone with a review, why not just write your own review offering a different perspective? [Link]
PornoBoy Member 145 Posts 7/02	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 11:57AM Yes, you can play it on a regular DVD player, but it's designed to play on a computer...the voice activation (obviously) won't work on a stand-alone player. [Link]
PornoBoy Member 145 Posts 7/02	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 11:59AM I'm not arguing with the gist of his review...just arguing that it was irresponsible to say that the DVD doesn't work at all when what he should have said was that he couldn't get the DVD to work properly on his computer- there's a big difference between the two statements. I guess no one agrees with me... Edited by - PornoBoy on 4/4/2003 12:00:03 PM Edited by - PornoBoy on 4/4/2003 3:04:11 PM [Link]

astroknight Questionable Moderator Tastes so good... 4187 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 2:12PM I thought I covered what worked and what didn't work on the disc pretty well. Otherwise how would I comment on the sequence lengths and what Nikita and Kelly did or were supposed to do? The voice activation, which to me is a part of the DVD for anybody who runs it on a computer, is the main draw of the DVD, and it didn't work at all for me. If I added anything to the review, it would be that I followed the instructions that came with the DVD to the letter, or at least tried to since it wasn't written for XP's setup and I had to search all over to try and find things they talked about. I found Virtual Deams to be like buying what was supposed to be the newest Mustang out there, with a six speed stick shift, a monster engine, and outfitted with stuff that would make James Bond drool. When it came in and I drove it home I found the most advanced thing in it was an AM radio and I got passed by a 1928 Model T because the Mustang wouldn't go into second gear and the dealer tells me I've gotta shift it manually. Yeah, the car worked, but not like it was supposed to and was so far away from what it was advertised to do that I would have been better off getting something else. Like Steph said, if you've had a different experience with a DVD that what I did, write a review yourself so others can know. I'm not trying to pick on PornoBoy here but since it's brought up here it seems like a good place to point out that if people just want to complain, then they're just a whiner and a part of the problem. If they want to write a review of their own, then they're at least trying to be part of the solution. [Link]
PornoBoy Member 145 Posts 7/02	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 3:04PM Astro - I know I stated I wouldn't comment any more on this, but I'd just like to add this so people can see where I'm coming from: You accused Metro of both "false advertising" and "fraud" in your review. But if the DVD works on my XP running computer (and I'm assuming many others, since I've read other postive reviews of this DVD on the web), how can either be true? I'll restate what the point I was trying to make: Just because the DVD didn't work on your computer, doesn't mean it doesn't work. And just beacuse you couldn't figure out how to install it, doesn't mean XP computers can't run the voice activation. I can't believe I'm defending Metro or this title, because I'm not a huge fan of either (I agree with Astro's other points in his review), but I kind of feel this is similar to saying that Red Light District's early releases (which wouldn't run on Toshibas...or some brand, I can't remember) don't run on any DVD Player. As Dennis Miller would say, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong! [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 4 2003 : 11:34PM astroknight wrote: if people just want to complain, then they're just a whiner and a part of the problem. If they want to write a review of their own, then they're at least trying to be part of the solution. Click to expand A solution to which problem? Edited: In case it wasn't clear, this was not a rhetorical question. Edited by - Walter Burns on 4/6/2003 3:07:57 PM [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 6 2003 : 6:03PM walter, from the context of astro's post i would say the problem is lack of info about dvds. reviewers help solve the problem by submitting their opinion/experience. criticizing a review does not add any info. contributing another opinion/experience does. [Link]
astroknight Questionable Moderator Tastes so good... 4187 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 6 2003 : 6:11PM Walter Burns wrote: astroknight wrote: if people just want to complain, then they're just a whiner and a part of the problem. If they want to write a review of their own, then they're at least trying to be part of the solution. Click to expand A solution to which problem? Click to expand Sorry for taking so long to answer this. I was away for a couple days and just got back, but Steph pretty much hit it on the head. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who want to complain but never make any possible solution to what they're complaining about. I guess I got a little confusing there when I tried nailing it down to a specific subject. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 11:30AM Steph wrote: walter, from the context of astro's post i would say the problem is lack of info about dvds. reviewers help solve the problem by submitting their opinion/experience. criticizing a review does not add any info. contributing another opinion/experience does. Click to expand I don't agree with this at all. Normally, I would write a lengthy piece on the different kinds of information that reviews can and do provide, after which I would not only point out how these different kinds of information can be questioned fruitfully, but also that the questioning of reviews is perhaps the single most important function reviews can have. I don't think this lengthy piece is necessary in this context. I just want to say that I believe it is silly to state that criticizing a review in a serious way (this can be done according to two different criteria depending on the kind of information that is being scrutinized) does not add any info and that one has to write another review to do so. Suppose a review contains a simple empirically verifiable mistake: actress a instead of actress b. Should I write another review to point out this mistake? And if I simply "complain" about this mistake, doesn't this complaint add new information, which in this case is more valuable than the info in the review? I understand that reviewers get annoyed when someone complains about their reviews in a non-constructive way. But declaring reviews sacrosanct and stating that they are the only worthy vehicles of information is not a solution. Reviews ought to be the centre of cultural debate. If you believe that reviews are to be "protected" from this debate, you are part of the problem, not the solution, IMO. [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 11:43AM Walter Burns wrote: ... I just want to say that I believe it is silly to state that criticizing a review in a serious way (this can be done according to two different criteria depending on the kind of information that is being scrutinized) does not add any info and that one has to write another review to do so. Click to expand Keep in mind that reviews are read tens of thousands of times while the typical forum thread might get a few hundred reads. Also, not all companies that send in products for review to this site participate/read the forum. However, 99% of the companies have someone reading all their reviews. If you believe that reviews are to be "protected" from this debate, you are part of the problem, not the solution, IMO. Click to expand Can't wait til Steph reads this one. (Assuming it was directed at Steph.) [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 11:57AM I agree with WB 100%. Writing another review to marginally contradict somebody elses is no way to carry on. You could use the same argument to say 'don't write porn reviews, instead make your own porno that corrects the shortcomings of the ones you don't like'. Pornoboy is simply reviewing Astros review, that is all. What about if I read Astros' review and not Pornoboys? What about if I cannot get Win XP to work on my pc, should I tell everyone XP does not work? Clearly the issues Astro brings up are very important but it is misleading to to make the sweeping statement that something doesn't work at all, on the basis of just one observation. Now we have a second observation (that of Pornoboy) and we know for certain that the voice function DOES work. We are not talking about an issue of opinion here, this feature of the disc clearly can work effectively although any potential purchaser is clearly taking a big gamble. I believe that it would show balance for the review to state that another viewer HAS managed to get the voice funtion to work. SNP. Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 4/7/2003 11:58:40 AM [Link]
Drew Black broken crankshaft 8009 Posts 9/99	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 12:55PM Just in case you can read it here. [Link]
astroknight Questionable Moderator Tastes so good... 4187 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 1:05PM I don't think PornoBoy's criticisms of my review were a "marginal contradiction" as Sir Noel put it. I met all the requirements listed on the cover, but the main feature of the DVD didn't work. Sorry, but I don't think that's a simple mistake such as mislabeling a star (and I've updated more than a few of my reviews in the past when I've been wrong). The star's looks don't change from machine to machine, while the functionality of Virtual Dreams obviously does. My review shows my experiences with the DVD, which I see no reason to change it a this point. Do I think reviews should be protected from the debate? No, discussion is rarely a bad thing, but there's a difference between a personal opinion (I think Virtual Dreams was a nightmare.) and a fact (I meet all the requirements listed on the Virtual Dreams cover and it doesn't work.). This, however, isn't just a matter of being an armchair quarterback the day after the game. There is nothing stopping anybody from writing a review showing their experience with a DVD. [Link]

Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 1:09PM Drew Black wrote: Keep in mind that reviews are read tens of thousands of times while the typical forum thread might get a few hundred reads. Also, not all companies that send in products for review to this site participate/read the forum. However, 99% of the companies have someone reading all their reviews. Click to expand That is a different discussion all together, which can be compared to the difference between fundamental and practical research. Besides, the fact that a thread doesn't attract as much attention as a review, isn't nearly as important as the fact that the thread in question gets read by the reviewer whose review is being scrutinized. It will the reviewer the chance to 'defend' his view and thus make his view even more clear for himself. This is always positive, if not for the current review, then for the next. And of course, it will give the reviewer the chance to correct simple, empirically verifiable mistakes, if any did indeed slip into his review. Why should two conflicting reviews solve anything, either for the consumer looking for a vid, or the companies who are checking upon the reviews of their products. I say, let's discuss and debate reviews, so at least there is a valuable background to the different interpretation of different reviewers. I believe this kind of debate is helpful for both consumers and companies alike. Maybe it is possible to add simple links at the end of reviews to the pages where such debates are conducted in a serious manner. FWIW, I almost never read reviews. I only use them when I am having trouble IDing performers after I have seen a film. I believe in the following motto, which is also my sigline, which doesn't seem to want to come through in my posts: "If you want some truth, go and watch the film yourself so you can make up your own mind." I guess I could explain why I feel this way, but that would take too long. If you believe that reviews are to be "protected" from this debate, you are part of the problem, not the solution, IMO. Click to expand Can't wait til Steph reads this one. (Assuming it was directed at Steph.) Click to expand It was directed at anyone who believes that "reviews are to be 'protected' from a debate". I am not sure if Steph really thinks this way, but if she does, then yes, it is also, directed at her. [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 1:35PM I've just done a bit of a search Astro for problem dvds. There are hundreds of them but here is just one of those I found. It turns out that the film 'New York Ripper' will not play on the JVC XV-D701BK. If I, as a JVC XV-D701BK owner, chose to review this film, are you saying it would be factually correct and reasonable for me to state 'this dvd does not work'? My opinion is that this would be both incorrect and also grossly misleading to all those readers who happen to own a player other than the JVC XV-D701BK. Maybe if, by chance, I happened to purchase and review this disk just on its release, I may have assumed the problem was widespread; if I find out later that it only affects some people surely I should point this out? It may well transpire that it is a peculiarity of the Virtual dreams dvd that only affects a small percentage of pcs', so will you still be sticking to your guns if 99% of people find they can use the voice functionality? Even if you disagree that it is a 'marginal contradiction', Pornoboy writing another review will not alter your statement in any way, shape or form. SNP. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 1:54PM astroknight wrote: I don't think PornoBoy's criticisms of my review were a "marginal contradiction" as Sir Noel put it. I met all the requirements listed on the cover, but the main feature of the DVD didn't work. Sorry, but I don't think that's a simple mistake such as mislabeling a star (and I've updated more than a few of my reviews in the past when I've been wrong). The star's looks don't change from machine to machine, while the functionality of Virtual Dreams obviously does. My review shows my experiences with the DVD, which I see no reason to change it a this point. Click to expand I only used the example of the "simple empirically verifiable" mistake, because it is the least problematic kind of discussion. In fact, it is hardly a discussion at all. I am not asking anybody to change their opinions or views. When I am talking about debate and discussions, I am talking about debating the reasons why different reviewers sometimes appreciate the same work in so many different ways. You say "the star's looks don't change from machine to machine", but they do change from reviewer to reviewer. And that is what is at stake here. Look at the difficulties I am facing in the Babes of the week series, where I now have to rely on descriptions, instead of pictures. In the last paragraph, you write that "there's a difference between a personal opinion (I think Virtual Dreams was a nightmare.) and a fact". I say that difference is not always clear cut. Not in reviews of audiovisual texts. Here is something I wrote in RAME a couple of moths ago, as a response to Patrick Riley: Walter Burns wrote: You are misguided in believing that every factual matter can be described in a straight forward, unproblematic way. In fact, most descriptions of audiovisual texts are wide open for disputes, because just like a picture is worth a thousand words, so can a word be translated in a thousand pictures. In my line of work, this is meant by the statement that every observation is theory driven. Consider your (Patrick Riley's) review of "Extreme Teen 14" here. You describe the first scene as follows: Patrick Riley wrote: The first scene takes place in a cramped bathroom so, presumably because the cameraman can't sufficiently distance himself from the people, we're treated to parts of bodies. One moment he's focusing on the pussy, the next on the head, with I don't think, one full body shot in the whole scene. Even when he's focusing on the head he can't frame the shot properly; the girl is almost out of view on the left and the majority of the shot is of the walls of the bathroom. In another example we have a great view of Steve Taylor's butt as he completely covers the girl who's scrunched up against a wall. Click to expand The "theory" through which you are looking at this scene was described in the sentence that preceded this paragraph: "Specifically what's bad? The camerawork is worse than Ed's, worse than an amateur's" And so your description of the first scene only stresses the bad camera angles. I have also seen this video and I also didn't like it that much, but I have briefly analyzed this scene just to see if what you were claiming is anywhere like the scene itself. The bad camera angles you mention count for less than 1/3 of the screen time of that scene, and, in fact there were many instances where the composition of the shot was constructed around at least a medium long shot. In other words, even be "simply" describing the scene, you were in fact building up your theory all along by stressing the qualities that supported your "theory" and leaving out the qualities that undermined it. Click to expand What I am saying here, is that any "opinion" is based on a selection of facts and that selection is theorydriven, is deductive in nature. It is "making meaning" of a text based on selected factual qualities of that text, which are salient to the the theory or "personal doxa", one is holding explicitely or implicitely. I agree with you that simply saying that this "personal doxa" is somehow wrong, is not very productive at all. I am saying that discussions between different ways of looking at things can yield new factual qualities, which any single reviewer missed in his or her own "personal doxa". This confrontation of opinions does yield new information. What I haven't yet said explicitely here, is that there is another way of approaching this "confrontation" between deductive and selective "opinions". This alternative way is what my professional research in film studies is all about, and is also the reason why I don't write or read reviews myself, except as a part of historical research. I have vaguely explained this alternative in this thread as follows Walter Burns wrote: This is one of my main epistemological concerns. How can we 'know' the world we live in? Through induction or deduction? While I favor induction (or fact driven research), I agree that ultimately both induction and deduction fail to really make us understand 'reality'. But, they fail for different reasons. And this is the beauty of it. The frailty of one is corrected by the strength of the other. (...) This is the reason why induction fails. Too many data, many of which are difficult or impossible to 'measure'. However, deduction doesn't do much better, by saying that it is not necessary to research ALL the "very vague variables". "Making meaning" is just that: highlighting what is supposed to be important in a subject. No need for carefull analysis of ALL the available data. However, a pre-conceived theory about the ontological order is necessary in order to distinguish between salient and unimportant data. "Theory-driven" research makes it possible to concentrate on characteristics which are salient, based on the theory that is used. But this also makes it an easy target for criticism, since one can always point to conflicting data which were not seen as salient within the theoretical concept that was being used. (...) What inductive analyses brings to the table is very important. What is to gain, is that this kind of analyses, which at least tries to understand ALL the variables, can act as a referee between different kinds of deductive reasonings. Induction can lead to the elemination of some deductive reasonings as total bullshit, something which different kinds of deductive reasonings can not do. They can only play yay or nay games. This is not to say that these yay or nay games are unimportant or frivolous. Far from it. The failing of induction to grasp ALL qualities of a subject, has lead to a modest approach to scientific research within film studies, which I fully endorse: so called historical poetics, which can be described as middle-level research directed as "piecemeal theories" which are devoloped through a very close dialectical process between empirical research and highly specialized theory-making. If you are interested in learning more about this, start reading the introductory chapters in Bordwell & Carroll's book "Post-Theory. Reconstructing Film Studies". Click to expand Since I don't write reviews and hardly ever read them, I will say nothing more about this subject. I don't even make any judgement calls whatsoever between Pornoboy and Astroknight's opinions. I am just pissed off by some indications that many of you who do write reviews, don't seem to fully grasp the methodological and epistemelogical groundrules of what is at stake here. Granted, this is hardly necessary for writing a valuable review, but it is important for a better understanding of what reviews can and cannot do. [Link]
Diesel Member 516 Posts 3/00	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 9:18PM I'll make this brief: I don't believe that PornoBoy's intent was to critique the review, but merely to point out some possible factual errors, as he clearly explains in his follow-up responses. (I have not seen the DVD in question, so I cannot determine who is "correct.") It's not a matter of offering a different opinion based on taste, but to elaborate on Astro's technical "problems" on the product. Diesel [Link]
astroknight Questionable Moderator Tastes so good... 4187 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 7 2003 : 9:44PM Sir Noel Plum wrote: It turns out that the film 'New York Ripper' will not play on the JVC XV-D701BK. If I, as a JVC XV-D701BK owner, chose to review this film, are you saying it would be factually correct and reasonable for me to state 'this dvd does not work'? Click to expand If the cover states that 'New York Ripper' will play on the JVC XV-D701BK, you contact the technical service people you're supposed to if you have problems, they basically tell you to make sure the picture side of the DVD is up when you try playing it and then ignore you afterwards, then yes, I would say that it is very reasonable and correct to state 'this DVD does not work'. [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 8 2003 : 4:04AM If the cover states that 'New York Ripper' will play on the JVC XV-D701BK, you contact the technical service people you're supposed to if you have problems, they basically tell you to make sure the picture side of the DVD is up when you try playing it and then ignore you afterwards, then yes, I would say that it is very reasonable and correct to state 'this DVD does not work'. Click to expand Ha ha, Fair enough. I tell you what, just let me end, in light of this, by giving you my review of every piece of pc software published in the last 5 years. Noel's mini review. Subject: Every piece of pc software published in the last 5 years. Comments: None of them work. SNP. Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 4/8/2003 4:04:19 AM [Link]