New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Introducing Kalani Luana

"I’m also a really big pleaser and I love giving blowjobs."
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 808 > Difference In Style
AuthorPost
rogrtipe
RogReviews.com

1103 Posts
11/99
Posted - Jun 12 2002 : 3:52AM
I just finished reviewing Dripping Wet Sex by Tabitha Stevens for Simon Wolf Productions and found something intersting. Last week I reviewed 100% Haven and Perfect Pink 13 by Jill Kelly Productions. I noticed something and wanted to get some feedback.

(By the way, this isn't a knock on either production company, just something I noticed.)

Dripping Wet Sex really blew the other two movies away in my book. 100% and PP 13 had great casts, but the sex had that blurry look with the cheesy background music. The scenes were all shot with that digital slow motion look that is so popular with "couples" porn.

DWS had none of that, but it was a very similar movie in most other respects. The sex was still more "female" friendly than Anabolic/Diabolic stuff and there were condoms in all of the scenes.

My wife couldn't stand the JKP stuff because of the elements listed above...so my question is this. Does the Vasoline on the lens- bad music in the background- dreamy slo-mo sex REALLY appeal to couples?

If this style works, who does it work for? (And no this isn't an attempt at a flame war) :-)

I was really disappointed in PP 13 and to a lesser extent 100% Haven because I REALLY like both Haven and Jenna Haze, but their scenes were just stripped of heat by all the extra stuff. Am I crazy?

Thanks
Rog

HoustonDon
Member

Houston
561 Posts
11/99
Posted - Jun 13 2002 : 10:30PM
Roger, I agree with you. I reviewed DWS #1 and made some references to JKP. I could have been a lot harsher in respect to what JKP dvds have become but my hope is that they fix the problems. I haven't noticed too many reviews of JKP dvds over the last year-perhaps they are gun shy about reviews (I remember an email I received from them last year that attacked me based on what I wrote in a review-is it any wonder why I haven't seen fit to buy anything from them since?)...

Slo-mo doesn't kill a dvd for me but it is best taken in small doses. The same holds true for a softer focus. I prefer the razor sharp crispness that many high end productions have. Que sara, sara.

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00
Posted - Jun 13 2002 : 11:28PM
Roger wrote:
"Does the Vasoline on the lens- bad music in the background- dreamy slo-mo sex REALLY appeal to couples? "

Not to any couples I know. I've often wondered that myself.
However, these things are hardly at the top of the list of things that couples I know find to be a turn-off in porn.

They dislike it because ( top 5, in order of importance in my informal survey, from couples and singles, roughly equal number of males & females ):

1. All the anal & double anal, DPs and especially GAPES
2. All the skanks & ugly guys
3. All the circus act type sex
4. All the facials
5. All the group sex

So, the slo-mo, warm fuzzy muzak, condoms etc. would be on that list, but much further down.
The average porno is pretty disgusting to people who have never seen one. They're having hotter sex than anything they can rent, so there's no reason to go there.

BIGmike
B-I-G-m-i-k-e

2335 Posts
3/01
Posted - Jun 14 2002 : 6:17AM
(I remember an email I received from them last year that attacked me based on what I wrote in a review-is it any wonder why I haven't seen fit to buy anything from them since?)...


Whoa, that's not good. If they were to make an inferior product, then a negative review is warranted to hopefully make them take a look at their whole process.


I've written some negative reviews for some Elegant Angel titles and they haven't attacked me, and I have recieved a lot of email from them regarding reviewed titles.

---BIGmike, over and out!---




Jump To: