Jules Jordan

is it just oral or is there some penetration?

Her Ass Made Me Do It

Edited by - Silent Jay on 2/28/2003 7:18:50 PM

[Link]

- Pornmaster Mike

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 2/28/2003 10:44:22 PM

[Link]

Diesel

Edited by - Diesel on 2/28/2003 11:48:14 PM

[Link]

i was planning on getting FF2 & FH4 monday Should i reconsider

Her Ass Made Me Do It

[Link]

are you behind this?
do you work for these people or something, I have never seen anyone on such a "mission" before.
I havent seen one reviewer be put off by the watermark yet.

[Link]

No, the watermarks is not that bad. After about 10 seconds my mind completely blanked it out. I had to keep forcing myself to look down at the corner to see if it was still there.

DenverDon

[Link]

Jules, keep up the good work!

[Link]

The watermark is not bad at all. It will be your loss not purchasing those two hot titles! Just buy it and enjoy. It's being made out to be a bigger issue than it really is!

Enjoy!

[Link]

On the other hand, if you have a huge flatscreen and are a home theater enthusiast / "video control freak" it will probably bug you that you can't override it.

bono-ONE, how does it rate compared to the first Feeding Frenzy? Aurora's and Shyla's scenes from FF were unforgettable.

Edited by - Laszlo on 3/1/2003 1:50:45 AM

[Link]

The only reason I have voiced my opinion on this as loudly as I have is because I think you shoot some of the best porn out there today, and I feel it's totally ruined by the watermark being on the screen. If it were Private, Vivid, or VCA I wouldn't care one bit if there was a watermark because their stuff isn't very good.
I buy a LOT of porn, if you don't believe me ask Pornmaster Mike who works at dv-depot. I buy all of my dvd's from his store. He will attest to the fact that I'm a serious collector of porn on dvd.
The watermark bothers me and ruins my enjoyment of a movie.
And, no I don't run any kind of web site, I don't even have a dvd drive on my computer nor would I even know how to copy a dvd, hell I don't even know how to burn a cd never mind a dvd. I don't have the time or patience for that sort of thing, I have a real job.
If you are so upset about piraters sue their ass, but I refuse pay $25-$30 to watch advertising on a dvd throughout a whole movie.

Edited by - M.B. on 3/1/2003 8:32:12 AM

[Link]

Thanks for the 'first impressions' of FF2 Bono, i'll also be getting this (my fist viewing of Melanie Jagger and also of Jessica Darlings long awaited return to the screen!)

[Link]

The criticism of this on-screen graphic has nothing to do with Mr. Jordan's talents, his right to protect his property, or any other personal or financial issue of his.

I simply object to ANY foreign imprint or design placed artificially and editorially on any video or cinematic work. This includes multiple angle icons, "station identification" logos, or anything else which is not a necessary or artistic part of the movie.

I firmly believe that M.B.'s complaints (like mine) stem from genuine and sincere concerns over such watermarks violating the artistic and visual integrity of Mr. Jordan's typically excellent creative work. The DVD is - for now - the best home entertainment medium we have, and the most demanding fans want to see their favorite titles au naturel .

The decision not to buy any product with watermarks is obviously and simply to send a message that certain loyal customers and enthusiasts find elements of a certain product unacceptable. Granted, the loss of two individual sales may mean nothing when compared to the overwhelming popularity of the FEEDING FRENZY series, and is probably meaningless in the grand scheme of the adult business (and life for that matter!), but at least the studio once again knows that there are protests and dissenting opinions out there.

Diesel

[Link]

It's true that there are times that I don't notice it because I am looking somewhere else. but a few times a minute I notice it and it annoys me.

I'm not going to go as far as M.B. and completely boycott JJ titles. However, while buying JJ titles has been the norm for me in recent years, it will now be the exception.

In the past, if there was any doubt in my mind whether I should buy a particular DVD or not, 99% of the time I would buy it. Now, for me to want to buy a JJ DVD, there will have to be a performer that I really really want to see. If there is any question in my mind, the answer will be "Fuck it, I already have DVD's with this girl, and I already have JJ DVD's that haven't been damaged by graffiti. I'll watch them and save $25."

I figure that the watermark will save me about $200 per year.

I know that my local video store has already cut back on the number of "sale" copies of JJ DVD's that they bring into their store. They told me that a couple of other customers who were also buying JJ titles regularly have told them "Don't bother bringing one for me anymore."

As far as I'm concerned, JJ Productions titles went from being at the top of my list to being somewhere slightly above Sunshine and Leisure Time.

[Link]

If you aren't familiar with the screenshots on the page that Jules' post refers you to, the top half is from Jules Jordan movies, the bottom half from Chrisoph Clark movies. ALL of these are STOLEN!!!! And the site is charging $19.95 for people to view these!!!!

MB - in some of the other threads, I have explained why we are not suing most of these companies, so I'll be brief about it here: we would be spending A LOT of money to sue a "company" that would just end up folding and starting a new site with a new name.
Right now, it is very difficult for a smaller company with limited legal resources to go about that process.
We DO send cease-and-desist letters, but they aren't always effective, in fact, they are usually not very effective.

At any rate, I am relieved that most of you here do agree that the watermark virtually fades from consciousness. For those of you who don't agree, or maybe would agree, but are opposing it on principle, that's OK too. It was a difficult decision for us to make, and we will be continuously evaluating that decision on the basis of it's effectiveness.

Thank you,
Tricia Devereaux
Manager, Evil Angel DVD

[Link]

If these clips were not available on the Internet, do you think that the people subscribing to these sites would otherwise purchase the DVD?

Or does Jules have his own pay site that is potentially losing subscribers because of the lack of exclusivity of his content?

I guess that I don't see how the watermark helps anything. From what I can tell, people who are subscribing to these websites really don't care about video quality, so they really don't care about watermarking. On the other hand, people who buy DVD are more likely to care about video quality and therefore are more affected by anything that affects that quality.

[Link]

I don't know if those people would purchase the DVD. However, Evil Angel offers through affiliate programs VOD and video clips through our own site buttman.com, and jules's site julesjordan.com. If people wanted to look at those clips on the internet, we'd like them to HAVE to do it on a site that we either own or have licensed our stuff to.

[Link]

he's a giant perv he is! hehe jk M.B., you're a good guy!

- Pornmaster Mike
http://www.adultdv-depot.com

[Link]

It seems to me that the way to beat pirates is to offer better content than they do. That has to be tough for an individual company, because the pirates can "cherry pick" the content that they want.

But if the elite companies got together, you could kill the competition just by putting out content that they can't get. You could have "preview" clips of movies that aren't released yet and you could have "Internet exclusive" content similar to things being added to DVD's (behind the scenes, interviews, etc...).

I realize that what these other websites is doing is wrong. I would love to see them in jail for stealing from all of the companies. But you have made it clear that pursuing this course of action is not the fiscally responsible thing to do. I have to respect that decision.

But, given the fact that you're going to allow these sites to continue to exist, it just seems to me that the right way to beat them is to offer something better than they are. Damaging your own product to make it less desirable to the thieves just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Link]

...somewhere slightly above Sunshine and Leisure Time.

[Link]

3 for ADT!!!

[Link]

I think I need to stop reading the threads about the watermark.

[Link]

That is consistent with what I wrote in my previous post in this thread. There will still be movies of yours that I will buy (like FH4), but there will be a lot more that I won't buy specifically because of the watermark.

When I buy a movie, I go through the plusses and minuses about the DVD. DVD's from some companies or directors start with a pretty good chance that I will buy that disc as long as there is at least a single performer to whom I am attracted. DVD's from other companies/directors start out neutral. Other companies start with a strike against them. The lowest group has to put out something that there is no way in the world that I could pass up.

This last group includes Leisure Time & Sunshine. If LT released all of the "Canyon Video" releases that they did with a young Christy Canyon, I would snap them up, I already did the same with the early Seymore Butts stuff released by Sunshine.

To me, your DVD's have gone from the first category to the one with a strike already against them. I'm sorry that you don't like this, but that's the way it is.

It's a sad thing that the most positive comment that people have made about a feature that is intentionally on your DVD's is "It doesn't really bother me". It's even sadder that you would consider this to be a positive comment.

I'm still waiting from someone to say that they actually like the watermark. Isn't that supposed to be why features are added to DVD's?

Sorry bono. Unfortunately, I think that it will be a long time before threads on JJ DVD's ignore the watermark. The best bet is not to mention it at all in the initial post. At least that way, there might be a fair argument that the thread has strayed.

[Link]

The first question I have, was elicited by this comment from Diesel:

The other question, was elicited by this comment from Tricia:

[Link]

Also in the intial thread when Jules announced the watermark, he said

As much as I dislike the watermark, I have to give Jules credit for announcing the watermark ahead of time. Most other directors would have just added it without saying anything ahead of time.

Unfortunately, it appears that when Jules said "we would like your opinions on this after you see the finished product.", he really meant "we would like your positive opinions on this... If you don't like it, I'll argue with you."

Edited by - Bill on 3/1/2003 8:55:32 PM

[Link]

I do agree with you that Jules seems very defensive when he finds out that people don't agree with him on this issue. As a commercial artist, maybe he ought to think about his strategies in this regard.

[Link]

Edited by - Bill on 3/1/2003 8:55:32 PM

I respect your opinion but when you and M.B. bring it up every topic, its almost like your trying to persuade people to "boycott" my movies. This I dont agree with.
So far 3 people have commented negatively and about 10 have not been bothered with it. Of course no one "likes" it, it does not ad anything, but i beleive it certainly doesnt detract from anything.
Understand people, I watch a TON of porn for enjoyment, if it was anything bothersome, i would NOT have added this "mark".

If you dont trust my opinion, shouldnt you trust John Staglianos, who ultimately had the decision whether it stays or gos?

People...lets talk about the hot chicks in this movie,..the watermark topic has already been had in about 5 other threads.

...somewhere slightly above Sunshine and Leisure Time.

[Link]

When I saw M.B.'s post, I was going to ask him not to turn every JJ thread into a commentary on the watermark, but then I went back and read bono-ONE's initial post in this thread and realized that he was the one who brought up the topic. Therefore M.B.'s comments were appropriate.

Personally, I do hope that people will stop buying your DVD's because of the watermark because this is the only way that you are going to get rid of it. However, I don't think that the fact that I don't like it will stop anyone from making up their own mind.

Also, the fact that you don't find watermarks "bothersome" doesn't prevent them from bothering lots of other people. Network executives don't find their logos bothersome either, but go on over to the AV Science forum (a relatively high-end Audio Video forum) and take a look at how many threads there are bitching about network "bugs". Recently Showtime tested these "bugs" on a few of their movies and got bombarded with e-mails from people threatening to cancel their service.

If it were a good idea, don't you think that mainstream video companies would be doing it?

[Link]

Sales are NOT the most important thing here. We are extrememly upset that there are people out there stealing the intellectual property of someone else and no one is the wiser.

[Link]

Firstly, with regards to the movie, I have to say, beautiful work Jules! That was the first Flesh Hunter I've ever seen, and I was impressed.

Secondly, with regards to the watermark, it meant nothing to me. I remembered reading about it, but to be honest, I didn't even notice it until the second time I watched the movie. I don't look at it as a "feature", so much as I see it as a deterrant(against piracy).

I would look at it like this: Any Jules Jordan movie with a watermark is still better than 95-100% of the stuff out there without a watermark!

[Link]

A quick search returned 150 sources for download (covers included).

These companies steals from the original stealers so I can't see a easy way out.

[Link]

Diesel

[Link]

666/GGG movies also have a logo on their movies but nobody complains about them.

[Link]

I'm told in the 50's you could leave your front door unlocked; now of course you can't. We could all harp on about how good that used to be, but the fact remains if you value your contents you lock your front door. I just see this as JJ doing what he feels he has to do.

Personally though, I would rather see the double J logo than 'julesjordan.com' - if you're going to have a tag on-screen at least make it an aesthetic one.

My only real worry in all of this is that it will end up the same way as television. Here in the UK we are lucky in that are main channels have no logos onscreen of any description. If, however, I put the satellite or cable tv on every picture there is a tag and they are getting larger and larger - I saw MTV Europe the other morning and it had THREE sizeable tags on the screen: I would hate us all to become desensitised to these things and for them to proliferate the way they are on tv.

[Link]

If no one complains or cares about movies that they buy containing ads for websites throughout then it is only a matter of time before all the companies put their logos on their movies. The advertising world has sure done a great job "desensitizing" their consumers.

[Link]

I tried this once before with a large interracial site which was stealing content. I mirrorred the site under a different (yet similar) name resulting in the removal of all debated content.

I'm currently keeping a list of sites stealing a certain company's content. You not only go after the 'dummy company', but you go after the server, the credit card processor, the ISP.

By publicly stating it's not worth it gives these assholes ammo to keep stealing.

I can't tell you how many Red Light District paysites there are out there. Funny thing is, RLD doesn't get a dime. And neither do any of the other rip off sites.

WW
Unemployed and standing in a soup kitchen

[Link]