Cruci, what kinda vids do ya watch?

Peace

[Link]

chrissy, reviews are subjective. directors/owners know this. i can almost guarantee that male/female talent dont lose work because of a review! that makes very little sense. unless its the same thing being said consistently in every review!

[Link]

To answer your question, Ejac, all you have to do is click my avatar to see my reviews and what type of movies I watch and enjoy.

In fact, in my latest "Tight & Asian 5" I toyed with a slightly new format; some new, some old...same ol CJ.

Edited by - Crucifixio_Jones on 5/15/2005 11:16:08 PM

[Link]

Myself, if I'm being brutal about it, I would say that simply by being in porn, a woman (or man, I suppose,) pretty much signs away her right to have comments on her beauty (or lack thereof,) be taboo. Just as a movie reviewer has a right, and indeed an obligation, to comment on any poor acting he or she finds, so too does a porn reviewer have an OBLIGATION to comment on the looks of the performers. Enthusiasm and (in some cases,) acting are big factors as well, but let's be honest; Rosanne is not going to get me off, no matter how enthusastic she is. The point of porn is to arouse, so it goes beyond a question of whether the reviewer has a RIGHT to judge the looks of a starlet; it's a responsibility. If they think that the entire female cast of a particular movie is unattractive, then I would very much like to hear that opinion, before I go out and spend money ont he DVD. It should be a major facet of every review, since it is one of the largest factors in the enjoyment of the films.

Looks are subjective, yes, but a well written review will provide REASONS for opinions, which allows readers to listen or disregard as they see fit.

Now, of course, a lot of reviewers (and men in general,) are simply too picky. There is no need to make a comment about Charmaine Star's breasts hanging a little to the left, or Krystal Steal's knuckles being too bulbous, or any similarly rediculous things. But if a reviewer finds a starlet to be genuinely unattractive, I would like to hear that, and to hear why. DVDs are not free, and the point of a review is to allow me to make an informed decision. It's irresponsible to neglect one of the major factors in the enjoyment of porn, regardless of how it makes the performers feel.

[Link]

Also, in another thread there is mention of the growing picky-ness in their porn selection and that is mainly due to limits on spending for entertainment and people having particular likes. I rely on fellow reviewers to narrow my purchases and I don't think I'm alone.

Given the choice between watching a naked Rosanne Barr or Monica Sweetheart do the nasty, who do you think the majority of ADT'ers would vote for? Sorry to say but our culture values the beautiful.

[Link]

I will try my best to give a brief handle on how I feel about this, my own humble opinion... It should be a combination of "scenes", that breaks down to the "plot", rather what I would term more appropriately, setups. :)

In addition, camerawork, editing, and subject matter, and a whole stuff of things termed under the umbrella of let's say "scenes" (behind-the-scenes, story, how the sexual and visual act is potrayed, etc).

A higher percentage is given to these above details what constitutes a good film. However.....

In combination with a mention of the performers' looks and/or performance from a thorough reviewer is very helpful too. This really goes both hand in hand either for men or women performers. A certain degree of pleasantness in the countenance department is always good for a medium like this as it obviously visual to the senses. Looks can also be classified together with performance. An example when a reviewer points out that in a certain scene, an actress seems out of character and is apparent. Especially true in certain hardcore cum swallowing movies where the actress might visibly gag or go out of character for a moment, thus moving us out of the fantasy. We have to feel that the actress is loving it, or else it kills wood (for us guys, that is). So looks, in my books, is also kinda like tied and mixed up with acting performance. Like Gia Paloma, she ACTS! Love her. I got a whole bunch of favs too, but Ms Paloma makes a good example here for the moment.

That's it, I have tried to be brief in giving my 2 cents.

[Link]

Perhaps for some people looks do not matter at all, but for myself, that's not the case. Each review is different and will bring their own bias' to their writing. For example bono-ONE wrote above that he looks for the positives in any review he does - that's fine, that's bono's writing style.

My own is different and I aspire to my own version of "honesty" so I write about what I see, so I find I tend to be quite critical with my reviews.. But on the other hand I don't give good looks a free ticket either, in my partially-written review of Double-Parked 11, I make note than Angel Dark's performance is that of "a beautiful manneqin".

I live on the other side of the world from almost all of you, so I'll never meet any of you and so that means I have no motivation to be a slavering fanboy in case I meet some of the porn industry someday but by the same token it means I have no axe to grind based on personal experiences.. When I review my only agenda is to write a truthful opinion of what I'm watching.

My reviews are a mix of fact (who did what to whom) and opinion (the lighting was shitty/the performers were really into each other/the looks of the blonde in this scene did nothing for me whatsoever).

If you're putting yourself out there for all to see, then your appearance is open to judgement. If this is true for Johnny Depp and Steve Buschemi, then it's even more true for Brandon Iron and Frank Gunn as porn is intended to appeal to the prurient interest. While I refrain from the bullshit of calling the women in porn "whores" and sluts" if someone looks like a shovel, then I'll call a spade a spade.

Opinions are just that. Honest ones are best. After all, how boring would it be if everyone wrote reviews the same way?

scipio

edited to add:
I also agree with what both RLD_Fiend and Pocketcomb's posts on this had to say.

Edited by - scipio on 5/16/2005 1:40:11 AM

[Link]

Ejac - yours are great too, man, keep up the good work. Someone else has to wade through the GGG stuff besides me!

Edited by - RLD Fiend on 5/16/2005 1:49:46 AM

[Link]

Did I mean to hurt the guy and have the review seem like a complete personal attack on him? Heck no, but at the same time I am sorry that I forgot to put in a few lines that I think change much of the mood of my review of the scene. In that way, fucked up and I have updated the review. Currently I can't get in to update it, but as soon as I do I'm going to e-mail the performer and the studio because I do think it makes a big difference.

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

Geezz this thread has taken off like the game of telephone, putting wording in my mouth and twisting it around in such a way that it even confuses the hell out of me, the message poster!

Crissy

[Link]

Most, if not all of us, get where ya coming from :)

No worries.

[Link]

- Looks have a LOT to do with how a movie is reviewed. Personally I am “attracted” to energy and performance as much as looks. For other people it is all about jerking off to the prettiest girls in town. I can see how someone could do a review without ever mentioning if the girl (or guy) is attractive or not. One could stick with “blonde”, “green-eyed” and “short.” However, I honestly feel that how a performer looks is important, in fact it is vital information. More important to some readers than to others of course, but important to almost everyone.

- That said beauty is SUBJECTIVE. If I review a movie and call a girl “pretty” that doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree. The same goes for words like “ugly” “fat” or “gross” though I almost never use any of the above to describe a performer. They say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and I agree. Any time I discuss the looks of a performer, it is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. And I go out of my way to let any new readers know that that’s how I feel about it. I’m a lot nicer than many critics when it comes to describing women who for whatever reason just don’t do it for me. Still, I catch tons hell, deal with plenty hate-mail and have met some genuinely upset performers for the handful of “negatives” I have written. (More on that below.) Bottom line, what I think is “pretty” may not be something you agree with. Of course the same can be said about commenting on someone’s performance. Isn’t that subjective as well?

- As a critic I have to address the issue in this manner. I made a choice a long time ago to be honest with the readers rather than suck up to the performers/directors/companies. It is a choice everyone has to make at some point. Do you write what you honestly think even if it means you have to face someone at a party who you weren’t kind to? Or do you ignore your true feelings and write stuff that will get you pats on the back and adoring flirtation from porn girls? Making that choice wasn’t hard for me, but dealing with the repercussions isn’t always easy. A reader who feels let down will probably just go to another site. Maybe he/she will call you a “sell out” at worst. A performer who feels slighted will write angry emails, throw fits at shows or freeze you out when they sign a contract. (Not ALL of them. Without naming names, there have been some performers who are very cool and understand that not everyone is going to fawn over them and that it isn’t personal.) Companies who dislike a negative review can (and sometimes do) cut you off. Directors can and will make threatening phone calls or even worse in some cases. It’s not a pretty picture to be sure.

- As a porn fan I don’t think I would continue reading reviews that didn’t at least mention how a girl looks. When I was new to porn, way back in the 80’s I noticed that according to the critics in charge, every porn chick was beautiful. That never added up to me. In their reviews, Sharon Mitchell and Ginger Lynn were equally attractive. Janey Robbins and Stacey Donavan were equals in both looks and energy. (Though it was clear to me that they were exact opposites in both areas.) As I said above, I am not all about “classic” beauty, but it matters. I’m not a huge fan of the pretty girl, Vivid stuff and some of the best looking women in porn are flat performers who don’t turn me on. On the other hand, if Anabolic is shooting a truly beautiful new girl then I am going to be more likely to want to check it out. Pretty is good, hot performance is better, but when you have both….that is what I’m looking for.

- As a person I can see the point of the original post. “If you don’t have anything nice to say….” I get that. I also get that beauty is subjective and yes I get the fact that if you polled every girl in porn, maybe three of them would find me “attractive.” I don’t pretend that this isn’t the case and I am sensitive to how my words may hurt someone. Look, I have a mother, a sister, a wife and female friends who I love dearly. I don’t want to ever hurt someone’s feelings. I will never go out of my way to pick on a female performer. (Or a male performer or director for that matter.) Words like “ugly” or “fat” are almost never used in my reviews. On the other hand, I won’t lie about how someone looks. Not to save their feelings, not to make companies happy, not to make more money, not for anything. Would it be easier to kiss everyone’s ass and be loved by all? Hell yes it would. It would cut down on the stress considerably, but at what cost? Hopefully people know when they read what I write that it’s honest. That if I really like a girl that it’s because I’m speaking my mind. You don’t have to agree with my assessment of someone, but hopefully people respect that it’s genuine.

- Kimi said that she felt that subjective opinions on performer looks have no place in a review. I disagree with her while at the same time seeing her point. I’ve read plenty of reviews where critics just can’t see through their own personal tastes. There are a lot of women in the biz right now that I am not at all turned on by, but who give energetic scenes and are popular with fans. I recognize that and try to give credit where it is due. I can’t change what I find appealing, period. I can’t be turned on by someone who doesn’t turn me on. On the other hand I have seen people make it all about their own feelings and in those cases I can see exactly where Kimi is coming from. I just don’t believe in an “objective” standard of beauty.

- Finally….Porn is SUBJECTIVE, period. Whatever makes your dick hard, makes your dick hard. (Or your pussy wet.) You can’t change that. If you like pretty girls, if you like Asian girls, if you like skinny girls, if you like tattooed girls, if you hate gaps in teeth, if you hate short hair, if you hate girls who look like that little know-it-all from high school, those are all part of what makes you tick. I can’t even explain what I like and don’t like about certain performers. The subjective nature applies to looks, weight, performance and even things like camera angle, fetish appeal, who does the talking or what color a girl’s shoes are. It is all subjective. One can write porn reviews that never mention any of these things in a critical manner. One could avoid calling a girl “cute” or a scene “hot” or a story “interesting” and just stick to the facts. For some readers that would be perfect. For some writers it would great. But in the end would it really be telling anyone anything. Wouldn’t it be like reviewing the new Springsteen album by discussing only song length, listing the chords used and perhaps laundry listing the lyrics?

Whew….way too long and I probably just made 1000 new enemies. Hopefully someone understands what I was trying to say.

I heard this great quote today that I think applies. “It’s a totally subjective process in which we try out best to look at things objectively.”

LATE
Rog

Rog Reviews

Edited by - rogrtipe on 5/17/2005 4:13:59 PM

[Link]

I've had my share of disapproving and downright nasty reactions to some of my reviews--mostly by directors. I've even gotten one or two rather disturbing and amazingly spiteful emails from self-proclaimed fans of my reviews. (???--I still don't get that one...)

I don't know what to say. It's all water off a duck's back. My reviews speak for themselves. I don't feel the need to defend them.

I can't not be honest about how I react to things in a review. It's just not in me. That said, though, I do try my best to look for the good things to take with the bad.

Honestly, threads like this are fascinating to me, but ultimately, I'm gonna write what I write. Like it or lump it. :)

Once again, +1 Rog.

Edited by - MLyons on 5/17/2005 5:42:19 PM

[Link]

I guess, once again I'm the bad guy here cuz I like to point looks in my reviews, and flirt and so on. but if I don't do it this way I will be lying to myself. I do reviews because I dig the girls a lot. my bad.

<<<<[[[[

[Link]

I didn't watch Schindlers List hoping to see "hot jews" being persecuted. I watched the movie based on it's artistic merit and quality storytelling. On the other hand, I don't watch porn for it's artistic merit. I watch it to see hot women fucking. Porn was invented EXPLICITLY to provide a physical sexual release for the viewer. In order to achieve this goal, most people would prefer to see good looking women having sex. I always judge a movie based on the physical attraction of the actresses before I decide to purchase it.

Unfortunately, being judged by your looks is just a fact of life. If you decide to act in film and put yourself in front of an even larger spotlight, you are asking for more criticism. If you can't stand the heat..........

[Link]

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

Edited by - MLyons on 5/18/2005 9:04:06 AM

[Link]

I will say I can see how this can go both ways though... The way I (still) see it a good performer, male or female, is a good performer regardless if he/she is pretty or not

And we all know there are pretty boys in porn too....

[Link]

I've found through feedback over the years that with males, the way they present themselves on screen matters more than looks in many cases. Guys like Max or Wesley Pipes are unappealing to many viewers because of way they are on screen or what they way. On the other hand some guys who aren't the best looking guys....nope, not gonna name names....are fan faves.

Now to open up another can of worms.....male LOOKS might actually be more important now than ever. It used to be a non-issue because guys would be hired because they could get hard, stay hard and get off on cue. Now that virtually every guy is on some sort of "performance enhancing" drug, it is easier for guys to do what used to be tough. It is certainly possible that porn producers could look for better looking guys and then give them a bottle of Redi-Wood.

And for smiles....if a porn guy has his feelings hurt by being called "ugly" or whatever I have some advice for him. He should go to the mirror, take a look and think "Yeah, but I get to fuck (mostly) hot chicks for a living." As they say......SCOREBOARD!!!!!!!

LATE

Rog

Rog Reviews

[Link]

And now I have to go review a movie filled with girls who are all far too pretty for me. :-)

LATE
Rog

Rog Reviews

[Link]

most of the guys in the business, i would suspect either dont read reviews at all, or ignore them for the most part.

personally, no one has made fun of my looks yet, although I do have a large cranium with no hair on it, other than that I dont have any tattoos or piercings, so i think i am in the clear. :)

[Link]

"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling

[Link]

scipio

[Link]