JesusFuckingHChrist. Jesus God Fucking Almighty.Ahhhhhhhh.. FuckMeSillyWithAFuckingSomething....
Sorry, I can't talk or type. This just arrived in the mail today and it's one of the best movies I have seen in forever. I love it. I love it. I should write a review to explain it, but I can't fucking think of words yet. Awesome.
This movie actually looks really good. Aweome cast too.
[Link]
Bandit One Deactivated User
No Place That Far 612 Posts 9/02
Posted - Feb 6 2007 : 9:55PM
Checked this out today- although the women are absolutely beautiful in this installment, the most dynamic camera shots are rarely held for more than a fleeting moment or two during the sex scenes. Erik's photography during the setup/tease is awesome, but once the camera is handed over the quality of the camerawork and shot selection wanes.
The appearance of Max Hardcore was disappointing. Not cool.
Here's to wishing someone shoots Erika in a foot fetish/sex scene in the future. Good Gawd, this girl's pretty!
Jail Bait #2 was far better overall.
[Link]
married_lucky Deactivated User
202 Posts 11/06
Posted - Feb 6 2007 : 10:50PM
What does "jailbait" mean in this context...are they suggesting the women are not of legal age?
Pretty Much. Even though they are. Its like a play on being a high school girl. Like every other movie out there. Only good.
[Link]
Haze Deactivated User
769 Posts 7/04
Posted - Feb 6 2007 : 11:35PM
Shouldn't it be illegal to market a movie with girls supposedly being underage? Not trying to be a stickler but its explicitely trying to exploit girls as being "supposedly" under the age of consent even though they are of legal age.
I thought this was illegal, because it's in some of the disclaimers that you have to sit through - something like "all performers and the characters depicted are over 18 years of age". In the Red Light disclaimer they've been misspelling depicted ("depected") and it pisses off the copy editor in me.
But apparently the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that it's unconstitutional to prevent a legal actor/actress from portraying a minor (this is apparently why the charges against Max Hardcore were dropped -- but that sick fuck had performers saying they were 12). In a way it's no different from a 21-year-old actress playing a high school kid in a mainstream movie like Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Legal-aged Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh both went topless even though their characters were clearly jailbait.
[Link]
married_lucky Deactivated User
202 Posts 11/06
Posted - Feb 7 2007 : 4:27PM
It makes it very difficult if not impossible to be a FRIEND of the industry when put into a position that indefensible.
I'm pretty sure this qualifies as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, at least in the minds of the 12 that will matter....sometimes it's cool to be on the edge, but not when it's the edge or line between smart and stupid.
Titles like this hurt your friends and give ammunition and legitimacy to those that would ban it all. IMO
Obviously, they are not really underage. Why should it be illegal if they're actually adults and it's just a name? I don't really think that was the best choice of names either, since, obviously, it can be a sensitive topic but hey. I don't see why people shouldn't be free to call a movie "Five monkeys skullfucking each other with their big toes" if that's what they wanna call it.
All I know is that its a subject that has some unusual stipulations, regarding "intent". For example, did you hear about that 30 year old man last week, who got busted, posing as a youngster, registering to attend middle school? He was ultimately found to be living with three other molester freaks. Later, it was reported that two of those are being charged for having sex with this 30 year old, on grounds they're intent was for him to be a 6th grader. Yup, the freaky, got freakier.
Back on topic,
Does anyone know if Lela Star finally takes it up the ass in JB3?
I believe this sorta title could call into the category of "Virtual Child Pornography". Which, last I heard, is still illegal.
Now, I haven't seen this (yet), but can anybody post whether or not the characters' exact ages are ever revealed? It could be on the packaging or in the dialogue, doesn't matter.
If not, then I can see how this gets around the law. Sure, the title Jailbait 3 implies kiddie porn, but that's all it is - an implication. That's no more illegal than a music video by Jojo.
Sure. And with the movie "Batman", they are quite obviously suggesting that when you see this movie, you will really and truly see a man who is also a bat. "Murder In The First" obviously is suggesting that you will see real murder when you watch that movie. The list is endless.
Don't agree in the slightest. Porn is sexual fantasy. FANTASY. Are you going to police fantasy? I could watch almost any "barely legal" title but, in the privacy of my mind, imagine the action happening to giddy, clueless young teens. Illegal? No. (Sick? Well, that's an altogether different question, isn't it?)
So why not call a spade a spade?
After all, we all know they're of age.
[Link]
married_lucky Deactivated User
202 Posts 11/06
Posted - Feb 8 2007 : 8:05PM
Jeff Daniels does a funny shitting scene in Dumb & Dumber... ...so I guess using that rationale we should start seeing women being shit on in porn?
married_lucky, why do you even post on this forum if you dislike the porn industry so much? every post i see by you is you harping about how bad it is or how messed up the performers must be. it's like you need to feel morally superior, that's part of how you get off or something.
i thought this thread was supposed to be about this DVD and instead it's pointless bickering about the title.
the whole "barely legal" thing is nothing new. there are hundreds teen themed titles and scenarios, for decades now.
and i mean there are titles out there like Anal Rippers and Tear Me A New One. of course there's no actual ripping of anal cavities or tearing of new orifices in them. they're just ridiculous over-the-top titles.
that's porn for you. it's fantasy, it's bullshit. it's always been like this. there were those Taboo movies from the 70s that had an incest theme, for pete's sake. of course no incest took place, it was just some stupid role-playing to up the kink factor
so all this high-horsemanship about the title Jailbait 3 is really moot.
nope, no anal for Lela. to be honest, i don't care if she never does it. she's awesome and her scene in this DVD is awesome. tremendous energy, she and Everhard must have burnt a 1000 calories. but still lots of foreplay. the scene goes on for 45 minutes and half of it is build-up.
Now that I think of it, the "Daddy" thing that's been popping up in so much porn lately is kind of disturbing. It's fairly easy to ignore if it's only a brief statement in one scene but when you've got girls saying "Fuck me daddy" in every scene, I dunno.
You know it's only giving anti-porn folks ammo and does anyone really want to hear that in a porn flick?
I was waiting for the post to get back on track. It's really a great movie, although I was drunk off my ass when I made the initial post.
The first scene with Erika is terrific, once you get past the 30 minutes of pick up time. I also agree that Lela Starr's scene is hot as a roasted fart.
Get off the fucking "underage appeal" bullshit. I don't give a shit if the movie is called "People Fucking". I bought it for the hot sex, and it delivered.
A roasted fart? Classic!Well, I don't really care. I just don't think it's necessary to have the underage thing going on in order to have a hot movie. Most porn fans (who like Mr Everhard) would buy the movie strictly based on it the stars and the action. The "Jailbait" thing is for shock value and just might shock the wrong people. We all know they're not underage. And looking at the cover, none of them even remotely look underage. But that doesn't matter to the anti-porn crowd. They'll use it if they can possibly find any way. And I don't think it would be a good thing at all for porn for the underage theme to go any further than it already has. I'm just thinking about the future. We can do without this. I'm sure the action is fairly standard (as Everhard action goes) but some people obviously aren't going to see anything but that name and those teenybopper outfits.
Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. JMHO
[Link]
Ejac Deactivated User
851 Posts 9/04
Posted - Feb 11 2007 : 9:39AM
Things don't usually become issues, until people on high horses or other motives make them issues. How high's your horse?
What would you be willing to tolerate / how hard would you be willing to fight to retain your freedoms of expression (what's left of them)?
Hey...like I said, it wouldn't really bother me. I can ignore little fantasy bits thrown in there even if they're not my cup of tea. I'm not on a high horse. But I'm not everybody. Somebody will eventually make it an issue and considering how sensitive some people are about this topic, it won't be pretty when it happens. I just know that's the last thing porn (and porn fans) needs.
Choose your battles. This one is pointless. If you want to make a free speech case, you'd better build it out of something that doesn't piss 90% of the country off. I'm just saying I don't think we need this in porn and it's bound to ruffle feathers sooner or later. If you want to see some people go apeshit...this is one issue that can do it.
Edited by - randomprecision on 2/11/2007 11:15:14 AM
[Link]
married_lucky Deactivated User
202 Posts 11/06
Posted - Feb 11 2007 : 11:12AM
I believe on this issue, we are now on the same page.
I don't know how high the horse is but it left the barn a long time ago. The only guy who really pushes it w/the "underage" thing is Max, and his scenarios are so absurd you can't take any of it very seriously. I think "Jailbait" is a great title, and much preferable to "Overflowing Cum-Filled Assholes," or whatever that one was. If there was actual interest in policing illegal sexual activity of minors, the place to target would be strip clubs, Craig's List and those skeevy internet sites you always hear about but never see.
Absolutely. Who on this forum is really so holy as to be unable to openly admit their lust for Erika?
The only problem I have is - as threesomebody alludes to in mentioning the half-hour pick-up - that Everhard is going to ask me to give up the better part of a month to watch one of his movies.
Any chance of a 90 minute edit for those with ADD? Cheers!
Posted - Feb 2 2007 : 8:49PM