I’m getting really annoyed with false advertising when it comes to porn, how are they getfing away with it! It really puts me off studios and websites when they try and mislead, I have noticed this with a lot of products lately. The main offence in this area seems to be titles obviously suggesting they have anal in them when they don’t, it drives me nuts! The latest culprit I have seen for example is The Candy Shop’s “I’ve Got it all Backwards 3”. Great asses but not one anal scene when the slogan on the back cover is “black cock in the ass”. The film itself isn’t too bad but I resent the false bullshit, I wouldn’t mind if it has no anal but don’t lie about it! Has anyone else noticed that this trend seems to be getting worse?
Yeah you have to be part CSI and part detective, and always read between the lines and assume nothing and be very cynical. That's why I like to read reviews, but only a small percentage of the titles out there ever get reviewed by anyone. And that's why I like this forum where we can discuss stuff like this. I'm not sure if it's getting worse. Generally the boxcover photos are a good guide. I assume that the boxcover pics are gonna show the absolute best of the best shots, to the point of overpromising what is actually in the video. Generally the video will be 'less than' the boxcover. On rare occasions it will be 'equal to' the boxcover. But never will it be 'greater than' the boxcover.
[Link]
Ida Lupino Deactivated User
429 Posts 11/08
Posted - May 23 2009 : 3:24PM
Evasive Angles has been pulling this scam for years. A ton of "Big Butt" titles, photos of ass all over the box. Nowhere do they say "Caution- All scenes are vaginal with dude jerking off on the girl's butt".
With all due respect, the "BigButt = anal" line of thinking is just a big mistaken assumption on your part. You are not alone; it has been brought up by other members in other thereads. I don't fault the producers for that one. If it says 'backdoor' or 'anal' or 'rear entry' in the title then you should expect anal sex.
[Link]
Ida Lupino Deactivated User
429 Posts 11/08
Posted - May 23 2009 : 3:50PM
Of course it's a mistaken assumption, which is exactly what Evasive wants. Probably 50% of their sales are due to "mistaken assumption".
That is why I like Elegant Angel and a couple of other studios like Brazzers so much... to me, the way they do box covers is just right. The front shows off the the biggest star (or whatever) of the flick, and the back cover shows off each performer. The box covers that just list who is in the flick, and just show random pics on the back is annoying. Another source to avoid feeling ripped off, other than reviews, is adultdvdempire.com because for many movies they list the scene index which lists the performers and the postions/acts they do in the scenes.
For me not listing the guys on the boxcover is a form of false advertising. I mean if you buy a food product they have to list all the ingredients in the product, why can't porn companies do the same? By listing only the girls you don't get all the info, very important info!
I'm just tired of the idea that the girl has to be bending over every second she's on screen. She walks in and you're just starting to enjoy looking at her butt and some douchebag says "bend over". If, at any point, she stands up straight, the fool is right on her to bend over again. Exactly where did the idea come from that a woman has to be bending over for her ass to look it's best? That's as idiotic as any other assumption.
In all fairness, it would be great if the went to every conceivable bother so the customer knows exactly what they're buying. That's why we're paying. We're paying to be catered to.
The consensus around here has shown broad support for grievances when "images" are the subject of contention. More leeway is generally granted for alleged cases involving written mis-statements, understanding the common likelihood of misinterpreting colorful language, for definitive detail. Not to deny of course, that this wasn't an attempt to mislead, as “black cock in the ass” is not a statement typically confused by the talent, but rather, that the written descriptions of covers are sometimes done by those unrelated to the film's production. Would this constitute a deceptive representation? Perhaps, but deniably flagrant. A false image otoh? Flagrantly deceptive, and tough to deny.
This kinda ties in with something I go through sometimes. I don't think it's "false advertizing" or the company trying to fool me but lately there seems to be more and more instances where I'm looking at a back boxcover and judging by the extreme close-up shots I sometimes think the guy in the scene is black because of the shade of what little flesh I see in contrast to the flesh of the girl. But after I get the DVD home and see the scene it's a white guy. It's not that big of a deal because I buy and rent because of the girl but it can be a disapointment if I was expecting an IR scene.
Yes. Personally, I now find it necessary to read review(s), find screencaps or obtain some information about the actual movie content before purchase/rental.
I believe in many cases, they are deliberately leaving the names of the male actors out and hoping the consumers won't notice. They're very much aware that some of the male performers are widely disliked and avoided. Rather than not using them, they just don't tell you they're in the movie. Edited by - randomprecision on 5/24/2009 10:26:07 PM
I'm a huge "in your mouth swallow it & take it" kind of movie fan so when i watch a movie that has "Swallow your load" on it, i expect it but what do i get, i get a facial and once the guys complete with shooting his load on the girls nostril, then she puts her mouth on there once or twice then pulls out and opens her mouth.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. The first part, "BigButt", you're right. it shouldn't mean anal. but it's not limited just to movies with anal in the title. for example, a movie called "Ass lovin," or someother version is created to be ambigous. I like anal, but don't need it. I love austin kincaid and she doesnt do it, but it isn't so simple when you pick a title. I guess one way around it, when they are being intentionally ambigous, maybe read the cast list...if you see anyone that doesn't do anal, maybe don't buy it. like if i see austin kincaid on the back of some "big tit and big ass" title, that's a clue. but it isn't just anal...it's other stuff too, like scenes without dp's snuck in double pen compilations. or scenes in swallowing movies that don't finish with swallowing.
but i generally dont get stung too much. i bought a few dvds because they were greatest hits of my fave girls, like 'exposed: featuring dee' where i could watch her in a bikini all day and love it, lol...my only other dvd buys were from direct recommendations from here on adt generally i like getting online sites like deluxepass, or a brazzers network because if you don't like, you can just go get something else.
A couple of thoughts: 1. The company's name is "Evasive" - there's a hint for ya. 2. I agree that there are too many "ass", "butt", etc. titles that are a sneaky trick to get into the anal market. That's why I wouldn't get anything without "action" shots on the back cover. And you have to make certain it's not the same girl in the various photos. The German "fisting" videos are known for trying to sneak that one girl several times. Just my 4 cents (inflation), Irish
The other trick on the fisting vids is the MAJOR differences between the boxcover pics and the actual video. You see an awesome boxcover pic with 3-way double fisting with a different girl's fist in each hole of the fistee. Then you buy the movie to discover that those 3 girls aren't even together in the same scene, so no way they could do what's shown on the boxcover. Fisting is in a class of it's own, since fistable ladies are so rare, the producers can get away with having only one fistable lady in the whole DVD and I won't gripe if the scene is done well, or she gets fisted in more than one scene. But it's not like the good ol' days of Anita Feller and Colette Sigma.
Perhaps the porn industry needs to come up with some kind of a standardized label for each porn film that briefly lists on the back cover the porn stars and the sex acts they perform in the film. Each porn fan has his own personal preference for the kind of sex acts he wants to see. And informative labels like that would help porn fans find the films they want to see. Which would benefit both the porn fans and the porn producers. Lack of information about the sex acts the ladies perform in the film often discourages porn fans from buying the film they might want to watch. Because such lack of information makes it hard for porn fans to judge whether the film fits their taste in porn or not. Keeping the porn fans uninformed and confused isn't in the interest of anyone.
Last person please turn off the lights 85 Posts 7/07
Posted - May 28 2009 : 3:09PM
[/quote] Perhaps the porn industry needs to come up with some kind of a standardized label for each porn film that briefly lists on the back cover the porn stars and the sex acts they perform in the film. [/quote] Now do you really think that an industry that is run by ex burger king workers, video store clerks, strippers and druggies are smart enough to pull together on something like this? I do like your idea for as long as the porn industry and DVD is still around.
I havent bought a DVD in 5 YEARS without checking out at least one online review, 90% from a forum near and dear. ;) After a few trials, you learn which reviewer's likes and dislikes mirror your own, which ones articulate the scenes succintly, then make a choice from there.
You guys know who you are, and your contribution is not unappreciated!!
If you don't break the rules, you'll never have any fun! 717 Posts 10/06
Posted - Jun 5 2009 : 8:17AM
Coming from the BBW side of things, Big Butt means just that. Girls with big asses. I can see how you might feel misled, but when I see a title like that it means something entirely different to me, than it does to you.
[Link]
Stalag Deactivated User
476 Posts 1/10
Posted - May 8 2010 : 6:54PM
If it ain't anal, keep "butt" out of the title. Why is that so difficult to get? Could it be that they do get extra sales from the anal chump? You betcha!
Posted - May 23 2009 : 2:38PM
