All the trailers are just face shots of the girls. I already know what they look like! I can't see what sex acts are being performed which is why I watch trailers. WTF?
I got it Hardware, but some don't get your wit in refering to US Attorney Dipshit...sorry, I mean Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - another stick-up-the-ass bible worshiper appointee of Christ himself, better known as "Dubya".
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 12 2006 : 12:54AM
WTF it's not like there isn't any penetration in the actual video the trailors are part of. I don't see how the federal government could declare the trailers obscene and not declare the film itself obscene so what difference would it make? Prosecutors would basically be saying "The gaping, creampies, DAPs, and gagging are okay but showing penetration in trailors that's stepping over the line."
My understanding of the issue is that legal advice was given to the company that it would be prudent to take steps to minimize possible exposure of hardcore material to minors. That's one reason and RLD is not the only company doing this.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 12 2006 : 12:36PM
I am still waiting for an explanation that includes common sense. Unless we are just talking about internet here, I was assuming the initial poster was referring to DVDs in which the actual release is going to be chalk full of penetration anyway.
Even on internet, you can find free part of movies(20 sec) on the internet(legally) just taping the girls name in yahoo video search, just turn the filter off...anybody can do that. so why trailer would be a probleme.
I hate these softcore trailer personally, i think its useless, most of the time its star you already saw in other thing or you saw the box cover and you know what they look like, a trailer is meant to show why to buy the movie, so you have to see what the girl look like in the scene(sometimes they look way different that on the box cover) you want to know if the action is great, if it include anal and such...
Like the trailers at clubjenna... its like 12 minutes or softcore...tell me the point of that, 12 minutes of just showing the girls in no action. I rather have a 3 min hardcore trailer...
What? Trailers w/o any action? Im living on trailers!! Oh my lord. Well I hope that most good us studios will move their HQs to europe, because this is really getting us to the 50s where a naked tit was considered hardcore porn! lol Hey its 21 century, we want to see it everything and raw...
I'm not sure how much good soft-core trailers will do, but it can't hurt to take ammunition away from those who want to kill porn. In case you haven't gotten the word from the anti-porn crowd, easy access to X-rated material on the porn is bad for the children.
In the face of the think of the children card, I certainly don't expect any Congressdweeb to stand up for PlantinumX's right to post hardcore trailers on the Internet for all to see. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised by Congressdweebs competing to see who can enact the most draconian measure to protect the children from the evils of sex.
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jul 12 2006 : 2:02PM
Yes, because after all, our population of 280 million in the US isn't a result of procreation, it's allowing illegal immigrants across the borders, lol...but I digress.
Lewis Black does great political humor on this type of shit. For those with HBO Comedy, I think his special is on tonight ~ well, not to plug it or anything. I'm not sure if this particular standup has it, but he touches up on 'Janet Jackson's titty being the end of the world' in on of his routines.
Trying to push companies out from posting full back covers, screenshots and trailers depicting actual action that takes place in the movie will have at least one side effect:
Many folks today decide on the covers, screens and trailers what to buy and what not. Everybody to his own taste. But when you actually dont know whats going on in the movie you have 2 choices: 1/ Spend more bucks on more movies and throw out the bad ones...:-( 2/ Buy less porn which may lead to bother customers so they will stop buying at all
I cant say which one most customers will choose, but in sales manager's point of view, I wouldnt be happy with either.
Nothing is better than happy customers buying what they really like and want to watch.
Mike Quasar, Overally I completely understand your words and why the the guys at the companies have to do this cut-downs and limitations.
But for me as a fan of this whole industry seeing the trailers, boxcovers etc. is not only to decide what to buy and what not but it is valuable knowledge. Yes, many of us create databases, collects informations, etc. to keep up with any news that will come. Ofcourse, there are reviews, there are good ones, bad ones. But one sight is better than thousand words so visually knowing exactly whats going on is a big advantage.
Speaking of deciding what to buy I cannot rely on hoping what exact company/director shoot. Praxis is a proof of that. A few years back I decided mostly on reviews (thats when I met site like ADT), but nowadays its unreliable and practicing this stupid method I will spend a lot of money on porn that turned to be shit or I dont like. Deciding is many times about choosing particular fetish, moments or environment that I like. Plain useless covers and trailers showing nothing wont help. But anyway thanks for ANY covers or trailers...SIGH!
Bottomline: I hope nobody jerks on trailers, or does? Oh, that would be really poor boy. Want a good jerk? Take a real girl! LOL
There's also another somewhat logical explaination.
AVN will run trailers (for free) if they're soft, but they won't run hardcore. The guidlines for AEE also specify no hardcore on the monitors.
This sounds great as a PR person until you realize this means the editor has to do a soft cut as well as the hard cut. That's extra time and money some places just don't want to spend when they can have one general purpose trailer.
This may not be the actual reason, but it supports the logic.
Sincerely,
Jay Moyes Black and Blue Media No smoke and mirrors, just hardcore service
Well, Quase already explained why hardcore trailers are now a no-go, because as much as I'm sure he enjoys providing you with porn, he enjoys not going to jail even more.
As has been said, reviews are your best bet, and/or rentals if available in your area.
I don't know why you're making "good jerk, get a real girl" comments when we're discussing porn. I know I don't watch them for the "acting"...
My advice as a customer is, now that they won't show what acts take place in the trailers, write them down scene by scene for each girl on that preview page. who does vag, anal, dp, cum swallowing, cream pie, dp, dap, dpp. This is why I watch the trailers, to get an idea who does what, and based on that I make a decision if I will spend money on that film or not.
This is why I watch the trailers, to get an idea who does what, and based on that I make a decision if I will spend money on that film or not.
[/quote]
Yep, for me it's just that simple. I just wanna know which hole it's in, Dammit! R rated trailers are uselsess in this regard. Would love if this all lead to companies listing sex acts by performers to compensate for the softcore trailers...but I won't hold my breath. That'll happen the same day they stop cutting away from the money shot to show the guy's "O" face.
I cut my first soft trailer for my August release and it felt weird! Regardless, you have to abide by whatever rules seem in the company's interests at the time. I have asked the people who put up www.brandoniron.com to make a trailers section where every hard trailer for every movie I put out from Platinum X would be available. That's a start!
I love this particular paragraph...well, I think (I'm no fucking lawyer!):
He (Judge Gary Lancaster) read the U.S. Supreme Court, in overturning the Texas sodomy statute in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) to say that "public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consensual, sexual conduct even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."
...and so goddam right he is! Just to spite the interest of a particular society, must we stone only the 'sinners'?
Alot of interesting stories here, including the one linked above. I oughta read the "news" more often, even if it is AVN. That said, stories like this make me want to go postal on the moral-right. They just should keep their friggin' nose out of it.
XRentdvd has a great feature which makes you confirm being over 18 before allowing you to view explicit images. Nice work! Seems like a good contribution to common sense.
I know some of the online store sites let you watch hardcore trailers once you are confirmed as an adult. Also, I think the point about scene descriptions (as ADE has for many films) and who does what in the film is very useful (because if I'm expecting anal from a particular performer and there's none there, it can be very sad), those are perhaps more useful than trailers or the screenshots. I make use of all of these and look up reviews in shopping around and deciding what to pick up... without them, or unless I really trust the reputation of the directors, I'm very unlikely to buy a dvd. But hardcore trailers aren't a must at all for me.
And of course, I totally understand what Mike Quasar was saying and would never criticize the companies (not that anyone here is doing that) for trying their best to not get screwed by the stupid govt. anti-sex crusaders.
This is confusing me. When children use the internet, they should be supervised. It is their parents job to keep them from anything that could possibly harm them. Why is this responsibility suddenly crossing over to strangers who have no legal obligations towards other peoples children?
lol just do a research under yahoo video for a particular star or a particular act and here you go, plenty of free porn that can be view by kids, and its not there little filter than can block them. so this is stupid.
Showing a softcore trailer is like playing a single of the past album to promote the new album, pointless, or showing Angelina jolie in her last movie to promote a new one. Its as much pointless as that, plain and simple.
ive never even looked at a trailer, so i could cares less if they are softcore or not :) screenshots are where its at !
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Aug 23 2006 : 5:00PM
In America, there are many of us who enjoy adult entertainment that believe so as well, Janet. However, the majority of whiney complainers that use "the children" as their excuse either have none of their own, or are too fucking lazy to supervise (and moderate) the activities of those they do have.
Another reason, as evidenced by our foreign affairs, American government (and the people who heavily support) just can't help be nosey as fuck, and have no life of their own that they need to meddle in other's business.
If the main feature is full of hardcore...how will cutting it out of trailers help? Aren't you just minimising the amount of porn on the dvd?
If they're going to take you down for the trailers they're going to take you down for the main feature.
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Aug 23 2006 : 8:09PM
How so?? We haven't gotten THAT bad just yet here in the US...although, I'm sure such restrictions to what people do in their free time are forthcoming.
Unless your trailers are more hardcore then your feature why worry?
If as Brandon says your actually limiting exposure to minors, then it's too late. The kid has already seen the film to get to the trailers.
On a seperate note, when will people learn that the internet is mainly about accessing porn. All the other crap that gets in the way should be put onto some other seperate network. You would probably only need one small server tucked away in someones broom cupboard.
[Link]
Eric381 Deactivated User
What are you looking at? It 2452 Posts 3/05
Posted - Aug 23 2006 : 8:58PM
First of all, my understanding is this is just the online version of the trailers? Not the actual trailers contained in the movie themselves, no?
No, it's a question of content being released for any & all to get their hands on. The PXP/RLD trailers weren't protected by a member/password account as I recall. That said, it means that anyone, any age who could operate an online computer, could access them.
You must understand, the biggest leverage these wholesome conservatives have right now is "doing it for the children" and it appears to me (an outsider who doesn't routinely follow the fine print) that the 2257 stuff isn't helping the issue, thus restricting producers further.
Posted - Jul 11 2006 : 8:10PM
