Either NS/DS guys are bunch of liars, or they have a moron working in their art and packaging department, or a moron as an editor.
I just picked up "Pleasures of the Flesh 10" which has the beautiful Bobbie Eden on the cover. On the back it says:
"Bobbie Eden takes it in the ass! This is worth the price alone. To see this beautiful vixen with a meat tube up her butt is simply the best. Join the rest of the cast of model perfect and sexually depraved sluts as they show case more anal and big cock penetrations than you can hope for. Winner of the AVN award for best foreign series. Find out why."
Bobbi Eden might take it in the ass, but it certainly wasn't in this film. Furthermore, there is only one girl who does anal here. What are these guys trying to pull? They used to be a good company, what is with all these false advertisement? are they hitting rock bottom that they have to lie to sell? Either way, I'm so pissed off I didn't see a new Bobbi Eden anal that I no longer will spend money on NS/DS products.
So the pictures on the back cover are fraudulent as well? You say there's only one girl who does anal but I see at least three or four from the back cover... If the whole cover is a lie, there's scenes that are pictured that aren't in the movie, this is a serious violation indeed from a normally reputable studio...
Click on beautiful Taylor Rain for great porn reviews!
As far as the content goes, thats about the norm for this line. Specializing in above average looks, but not particularly strong on anal, they would wisely deliver some, to at least keep us anal hounds sniffing the covers, when downshifting to beautiful looks, during our seasonal dry spells of weak anal releases. It's the back cover IMO thats distinctly more anal oriented than on prior releases which more accurately represented.
Hard to fault the cover designer alone, unless he also took the shots that imply the anal.
Sounds like a big screwup. I haven't watched many NS/DS DVDs but what I have seen from them is really good stuff -- I've tended to think of them as the "other" Evil Angel, in terms of consistency and quality (again, from what I've seen, and the way their style balances hardcore with class).
Yeah I agree with skronker. They're my favorite studio after Evil Angel. I've been wanting to check the title in question out too so when I get a chance to view it, I'll report back because that is definitely not acceptable on NS/DS's part. Sorry to hear you got shafted on this one p_ramezap. Email the studio and the place you got the DVD from. You should be able to get some type of reimbursement since it seems, and I only say seems because I haven't viewed the movie in question myself, you've been the victim of fraud.
I agree with p_ramezap 100%. I would also be pissed off bigtime if I would be scammed like this. I hate it when porn-companies use false advertisements to sell movies. I wonder why they do that? I mean don't they know they are only hurting themselves because customers will stop buying their movies?
I'm not a big fan of DS/NS movies anyway, I only buy their Biggz serie eventhough I haven't seen a new volume of that serie for a while now.
the original post was written in a bit of a "Fuck them! Fuck them in their fucking asses!" tone, which is understandable when you feel you've been ripped off like this, but isn't exactly the tone ADT likes to have (when possible. )
The edited version of the post is much better as far as that kind of thing goes. And FWIW, I agree with p_ramezap..
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - May 1 2005 : 12:11PM
This isn't the first time or the first studio to have a serious disconnect between the action in the film and the posed stills. I really don't think these things are intentional. A company like NS/DS has too much to lose by trying to fool the public. How can they not expect to get caught? Is it worth the extra sales in the long run? What it really points out is that there never seems to be one person overseeing all aspects of the production, checking to see if the stills submitted for the boxcovers reflect what the final edit shows. Performers names are routinely misspelled, making for a shoddy amateurish product and creating havoc with search engines. It wouldn't take much to iron these things out but I guess only the editor has enough stamina to sit through two hours of porn. Why would anyone else bother just for some QC?
I think a refund for every deceiving adult boxcover would be a couple of bridges too far. I mean in that case I want a refund for Gang bang Girl 35 because on the boxcover it says Ariana does a DAP which then was edited out because some guy at Anabolic didn't know how to do his job.
Ejac, if you'd read scipio's post earlier you'd see that the current post from p_ramezap was edited from its original form.
As to the subject, I agree completely with p_ramezap (along with skronker since they've been putting out some fantastic movies in the last year or so). With all the stills a company has to go through when putting together the boxcover and how they're not always shot as the scene is being filmed, I can understand when there's a shot or two on the boxcover that isn't in the movie now and then. The key words here and "now and then". To me it isn't a big deal because I think the photos are there to glance across and give a general feel of the movie. When you write something up for the boxcover, I believe it's meant to be read to let you know just what's there, and I don't blame him one bit for being pissed at NS / DS's BS on the back cover. There's a lot of people who want to see a specific girl do a specific sex act, and to write about it on the back cover naming one girl and then make it sound like almost every girl in the movie does that act as well only to have only one girl other than the one named do that sex act should leave people pissed. It should also have NS / DS recalling the product to put it out with a new cover very soon.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
When I originally made the post, I was so pissed off that I probably went a bit overboard with using profanity against NS/DS. Out of respect for moderators, I toned it down and edited some parts of it. I'm still pissed off though.
As for getting a refund, thankfully it was a rental but I let the store manager know that he was effectively also ripped off by false description on the box cover and he pulled it off the shelves, and gave me a free rental.
You know, it's one thing to put pictures on the box cover that are not in the film, but to write false description on the box cover to support their false claim is bullshit on top of bullshit. What are they thinking?
The front box cover explicitly states that Bobbi Eden does anal. That is fraud. However, who is the redhead chick who does anal in the top right corner?
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - May 1 2005 : 7:04PM
I'll back up picman's assumption of how this sort of thing can happen every once in a while. Most studios don't have ONE person who's done all these things: seen the movie AND the boxcover AND the copy text (if the director himself doesn't do it).
If it's something that usually doesn't happen with that studio, I'd recommend this... let the studio know. maybe they'll do something to help make up for it. It also lets them know that there's a potential loophole in their post-production communication steps that they aren't aware of.
Whats the point of using stills anyway? I think THATS false advertising....technology is good enough now that they can just use screencaps for this purpose. Mainstream DVD movies don't use photoshoot stills now do they?
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - May 2 2005 : 12:18AM
One more mistake in the cover of a New Sensation/Digital Sin title. If you look at the rear cover the Axel Braun's Anal Retentive #4, it would seem that Melissa Lauren is getting double analed in the cowgirl position. Melissa did in fact report doing a double anal for Axel Braun. However, that scene is missing from the DVD (possibly because Digital Sin wants to cater to a gentler audience).
Anyway, I was very irritated when I found out that the scene was cut. I want to see my lovely Melissa get daped.
Actually i did a DAP that day, in this scene. i dont know why, they edited it out of the movie.
weird for an anal title to remove the DAP action, but what do you want... there will always be mistakes as most of the people doing the boxcovers do not watch the movie, and some directors don t check the box or just overlook at it.
I understand they are probably mistakes and I would give most studios one if not two free passes first.....but mistakes or not they are unfair and not thier problem that you got screwed by...like Tricia said tell the studio...tell them you buy/rent x amount of videos a year and they will not longer have your business because of this and you will tell three friends the same. ****** The big part ******Stick to this of course of action, even if it means missing out on seeing a favorite girl of yours...remember empty promises/threats are also useless.
[Link]
anal aficionado Deactivated User
Goodbye Friends 293 Posts 3/05
Posted - May 2 2005 : 1:13AM
i sent New sensations an email pointing out this discrepancy. i also provided them with a link to this thread. Let's hope they do something to correct this problem...
I wasn't aware of these previous acts of "mismanagement".
A slip-up is one thing, but recurring? With as calculating, and prudent as covers have long since become, are we now supposed to assume they simply weren't paying attention? It would be interesting to see if Melissa's DAP, conveniently shows up in another title.
When was the last time one of these "Pleasures of the Flesh" titles, provided a covershot of straight sex, for a scene that included anal? I'm pretty sure I'd notice it. Infact, when I decide on a title, I'm very well aware, as I'm sure most of you, of who's doing anal, and who's not, who's taking a mouthful of cum, and who surely is not, (if applicable) who's getting vag creampied if there is one, and if there's a remote possibility of any anal CPies. All that solely through the pics. I couldn't imagine any self respecting porn enthusiast, yyet unaware of how carefully detailed and descriptively captured the cover pics are, and how carefully worded the captions are that refer to them.
Just as the Studios clearly understand, how closely customers will analyze, scrutinize, then summarize the title, before comparing it against competing releases. Falsely describing a films content, not only cheats the consumer, but disrupts the level playing field for those studios, who ARE in good faith, describing their content.
Make no mistake, the boxcovers are the playing field. Everyone is, and has been, fully aware of the rules, as well as the stakes.
Edited by - Endless Loop on 5/2/2005 2:17:07 AM
Edited by - Endless Loop on 5/2/2005 2:18:11 AM
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - May 2 2005 : 2:12AM
p_ramezap,
I'm late getting back to this thread. Thanks for editing your original post. It was the profanity that I was referring to.
Actually, I agree with the intent and upset you have in your original post.
I was wondering the same thing, but I didn't see the first post, either.
Regarding the misrepresentation: I agree with Ivor.
I get angry when just a particular angle is on the boxcover that doesn't show up in the scene. I'm thinking of one particular instance I came across recently that showed a girl taking anal in missionary, with the camera angle from below. Then, the scene didn't even have her taking anal in missionary at all. May seem petty, but I'm picky about the camera angles I like, and might not have purchased the video if I had known the truth. The pic, in part, sold the movie for me.
If I saw something I liked on a boxcover, I had always assumed it would be in the scene.
I understand they take separate photos after the scene many times. But if it's good enough for a pic, why not for the scene?
Easy, time. Some things that make a great still photo can kill a person physically. You can do a few quick poses, maybe lasting thirty seconds, and get a few great still shots, but in the same time you might only get fifteen seconds of decent video footage that would be hacked together into something barely watchable.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
What bothers me the most about Digital Sin titles the last 6 months or so is that they don't time mark their chapters. They have the running time of the movie from 0:00 to the end, but that is it. You can't check on how much of the movie is left to view, you can't check how much time has elapsed in the current chapter or how much time is left in the current chapter. This is annoying a hell. The worst part about it that there are chapters, but whoever is doing their dvd's is too damn lazy to mark the chapters time wise on the disc. It doesn't take much effort at all to time mark the chapters, seeing stuff like this makes me think twice about forking money over for their discs. It shows a lack of care in the product they release to their customers. I don't know how they could release discs like this and have it go on for so long and not have someone, anyone at the company make sure that this simple task is done on their discs when they are being authored. This happened last year for about 6 or 7 releases, then they went back to time marking the chapters, now they have switched back again to not marking them. And I have gone back to not bying Digital Sin titles due to a simple easy step not being taken by someone in their dvd department.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - May 2 2005 : 9:53AM
Are you looking at the same porn world I am? I would guess that nearly every production company has screwed up a boxcover showing something that isn't in the movie. That doesn't mean it's acceptable but it is standard. The bar has always been set too low in porn.
I would not hesitate to request a refund on a product that has been improperly labeled/advertised.
This kind of thing happens many time with a lot of studios, the problem we have is that there are several persons involved in that process and sometime the comunication is not at the top. When I shoot a movie I send the tapes to the company with a description of what I shot, that description goes to the guy working on the box covers and the tapes go to the editing... If I shot something and the quality of the picture or the energy is not that good at this moment then the editor just takes it out of the movie but the guy in the art department may not be informed... Knowing personnaly many people in that company (directors and managers) I really don't think they tried some trick, it was just a mistake... The shooters of that company in europe are trying their best to deliver good products, this is a fact!!!
Couldn't agree more. I recently bought Girl Crazy #1, and although I can't say the boxcover pictures are directly misleading, nonetheless all the surrounding publicity bigs this series up as a lesbian gonzo series, and I think any reasonable person would expect - at the very least - anal in almost every scene. But nothing like it! They even have those two anal princesses Anna Nova and Lauren Phoenix in a scene together, with no anal. I mean, come on!!! Talking about fucking cheaping out. It makes my blood boil. Suffice to say I won't be giving another penny to these charlatans.
Funny, I never associated gonzo with heavy anal. I associate gonzo with a style of shooting, and I always thought myself pretty reasonable...
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
[Link]
Ejac Deactivated User
851 Posts 9/04
Posted - May 2 2005 : 11:26AM
I've seen some pretty big discrepancies in various titles, but there are also companies who make sure everything they advertise is accurate. JT/GGG is one excellent example. I've noted before how demanding JT is of cast and crew, and the same can be said for its advertising. Like any other company or product line, it just comes down to Quality Assurance.
The commitment to honesty and the level of importance placed on QA is up to the owner(s), not the employee(s).
I agree that it may be seen as "misleading", however I also agree that it was most probably not intentional. I have seen so many box covers that have photos of women who aren't even in the movie, yet they are featured on the back cover of that movie, I pretty much consider it a common mistake.
Most of it has to do with the fact that the box covers are made up for stills, and stills are the first thing shot when a porn shoot is going on. The artists aren't working off the actual movie. They're working off the stills art work.
I know that I've screwed up and sent at least one still to a reviewer on an art work disk that was not in the movie. Believe it or not, it's easy to do even if you've seen the movie. Moving pictures are difficult to look at frame by frame, so you go with what appears to be part of the sequence you're watching.
It's not just porn that does this either. Look closely at the back cover of American Pie 2 and there is a still from a scene that was never shown in the movie. The same thing happened with the first video box cover for Fast Times at Ridgemont High , which was printed with the scene that was edited out where Sean Penn's character was getting high in the bathroom of the burger joint. That scene was never in the original movie. However, they put that scene in for the tv runs of the movie.
[Link]
arthur Deactivated User
165 Posts 9/04
Posted - May 3 2005 : 1:44AM
Does it matter if the mistake was intentional or not? The bottom line is the consumer gets screwed. That's why I'm for a strong consumer affairs body to which the porn industry is as accountable as your local Wal Mart.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - May 3 2005 : 6:31AM
IMO - screencaps on a computer screen or TV look great. Screencaps printed at high-res printer resolution don't look very good at all.
And as far as I can tell, pretty much every mainstream DVD I own has the stills for the cover (and the poster during the theatrical run) taken from still camera shots, not screencaps.
I also agree that misleading boxcovers are becoming the norm at Digital Sin. I was duped into thinking that the lesbian movie Tongues and Twats would have no toys. By the title, description and pictures on the back of the box I thought I was getting an all-girl movie that had oral and finger action only. But to my dismay there were toys in the movie. Take a look at the box for Tongues and Twats and tell me this isn't misleading.
Ok, so they made a mistake on the stills they picked. How do you explain the text description on the front cover and the back of the cover? it specifically says that Bobbie Eden does anal, as in that being their highlight of this film.
M.B. if you have very specific likes and dislikes, I have to ask why you aren't checking the free reviews here on ADT before renting or purchasing a movie?
Box covers aren't reviews. They have never been meant to be reviews. They are simply there to entice the consumer into buying the movie.
Box covers are marketing. They are about pretty pictures and making your cock hard so you'll buy the film. Many times the pictures chosen don't even begin to cover every scene in the movie. There's only so many good pics from any shoot, and so much space on the box cover.
Is this done to "mislead" the buyer? Hell no. It's done because there isn't supposed to be a scene by scene break down on every box cover. That's what a review is for! All the art work on the box cover is there for is to market the main theme of the movie.
Reviews are where you're going to find out exactly what is in every scene, or if the actress on the cover is in the movie. It's also where you'll get some idea of how well the box cover portrays what's in the movie. Why? Because reviews are not supposed to be about marketing. They are about what marketing can't give you -- full reporting on content.
That isn't saying that ANY production company is doing anything to mislead the public. But they are doing what every form of marketing does: They are pushing a product by making it look it's best. It's all image .
Here's a very recent example of what I'm talking about: I can't give out stills from Smash's release that has the ONE picture the still photographer took on set showing them using a Phallyx toy, if in that picture, the chick looks fucking cross eyed and there's a big ass zit on her tit for the box cover or a review piece. That will never sell a fucking movie either.LOL
As an "insider" I can tell you that half the time, you are at the mercy of the photographer as to what images you even have to work with. Then you have to deal with what stills are even usable. Then you have to figure out which ones portray the movie most closely.
The FACTS are saved for the publicists and news media to hash out. That's where you get what you appear to be seeking M.B. Read reviews if it's really important to you that a porno doesn't contain anything that you don't want to see.
I'd also suggest that instead of just fuming about it, drop an email to the company and tell them exactly what the problem was. It's possible that they have no clue. Most companies have a direct email lnk on their website. If not, then look for a press release for that company. There will be a contact number on it for you to use to complain.
try http://www.newsensations.com or http://www.digitalsindvd.com for these movies.
That is the legitimate complaint to make! That should be addressed to Digital Sin, because someone screwed up between the editing department and the box cover artists.
I would guess that there is probably an edit of her anal scene that was first considered, and then it was dropped for some reason. Someone didn't tell the box cover artists to remove the anal reference when they changed the edit of the movie. Since I am not in that loop anymore, I'm guessing in this case.
Maybe Tyrone can comment on what changes were made and why?
I'm irritated with Digital Sin too. Assume the Position 4 is a total ripoff. There's a DP scene with a nice looking blonde on the back cover, but the scene is not even on the DVD.
While we're on the subject of misleading boxcovers, Fusxion's Just My Ass Please 3 includes Jessica Sweet, but she does not do anal. Just my ass please sort of implies all the performers do anal scenes. Of course the back cover of the DVD also says ALL ANAL! in bold letters.
I've stoped purchasing DVDs from both companies, because if I can't trust the cover, I'm not going to take a chance.
It would almost be nice if there was a special "deceptive DVDs" thread that would give people a head's up on DVDs that don't show what they claim to contain.
Audrey Madison Interview
Posted - Apr 30 2005 : 10:58PM
