Reviewers Recommend Sweat Equity 5 - review by Captain Jack Director: Laurent Sky, Julia Grandi Starring: April Snow, Sawyer Cassidy, Serenity Cox, Eva Generosi. Read review
The desire of the both the producer and male talent to gain or maintain credibility with the female talent in the industry. And I'm guessing most men in the indusrty aren't complete assholes. Edited by - rlankford on 1/8/2013 4:16:02 PM
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 4:20PM
I considered that, but: 1- Is this really a credibility driven industry for most? 2- If producers and talent don't do it in order to maintain credibility with the female talent then you are saying that all those performers and producers who did do it in the above-mentioned scenes don't care/have no credibility? This goes back to point 1. Edited by - hoochimama on 1/8/2013 4:29:22 PM
If these things had such an promotional advantage that you need them... wouldn't it be still much easier to fake and stage these "accidents"? Then you have definitely no legal problems to fear, you still have credibility with the agents that send the talent, with the male and female talent (because they are all part of the acting "as if" an accident had happened)You don't mention that you would like to understand any ethical reasons to avoid that... is that because you already understand the ethical reasons? Or because you would not like to understand them?
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 5:37PM
wouldn't it be still much easier to fake and stage these "accidents"? Then you have definitely no legal problems to fear, you still have credibility with the agents that send the talent, with the male and female talent (because they are all part of the acting "as if" an accident had happened)
Click to expand
If I understood you right you mean staging and faking the "accident" together with the female talent? But that would mean the performer really no longer had that sex act on her "DON'T" list, and in that case a producer like EA could already afford to immediately shoot her "first". It does raise another point though: a lot of sex acts on girls' "DON'T" lists are only there because they plan to shoot those later in their careers, not because they personally refuse to do the act. These particular cases could do staged and faked "accidents" where the performer would only briefly engage in the act, or get really close to doing it pretending it's against her intention, by accident/mistake. I see this working in everyone's advantage because it teases the fans thereby creating even more interest in seeing a "real" scene of her doing that sex act which increases interest in the girl and the producer will likely sell more of that scene because of it, he's got something rare that fans of that girl will surely want to see unlike her regular scenes of which there are already dozens of. Example: Karlie Montana, her jump from G/G to B/G was one of the most wanted in the past decade. However, she didn't just go from purely G/G to a full B/G scene, for years she teased us with scenes where dudes groped her, where she was in a FFM without touching the guy, where she had softcore sex scenes with dudes in fetish sites, where her mouth got really close to a cock in Porcelain just to tease us. I believe teasing us like that made us want to see her do the B/G that much more than if she had never been in the same shot as another man.I'd have a hard time believing ethics would stop a lot of people from making more money if it was legal and practical, factors like the one rlankford mentioned seem more credible. Morality can even stand on both sides of the issue, say you've got a renowned racist performer, white supremacist pornstar, someone who has gone on record saying she hates black people , spouts nazi propaganda, kkk, that sort of thing. Then some producer puts her in a reality porn type scene where she's blindfolded and sucking a bunch of different dicks trying to determine which she prefers. Unknown to her one of those dicks belonged to a black man (his name was in a list she previously oked /saw his test but nowhere it read he was black). Edited by - hoochimama on 1/8/2013 5:59:13 PM
Setting aside the ethics and that not everybody's a complete dick, the woman has to sign a model release which surrenders all the rights to the producer allowing them to distribute and market what they shoot as agreed with no threat of legal action. If she refuses to sign the release because of bullshit like your example, no producer with half a brain would sell it without a release. There's not just the threat of a lawsuit from the woman filmed but the producer could get into a world of shit for not having a release form which I'm sure is required for record keeping and proof of age and consent. Edited by - JigglyBoobs on 1/8/2013 5:41:27 PM
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 5:56PM
Obviously no proper producer is going to sell something without a model release, but do the performers get paid if they don't sign the release? The money issue shouldn't be that much of a problem for the established performers we're talking about here. But what if the performer didn't even realize a sex act on her don't list was shot(blindfolded, tied up etc scenarios, sleep roleplay etc scenarios)? Do porn contracts have "no jizz on feet" clauses that would let her win a case in court if she only found out about it after having signed the model release and seeing the scene on the net?
As stupid as some people can be, I'd be beyond shocked if anybody fell for that. It may have been "done" already but those scenes were blatantly staged. Whether it's ethical to make a racist perform IR is irrelevant. The greasiest weasel of a lawyer can probably press for a rape charge arguing that consent was NOT given as the plaintiff did not know the identity of the male she had sex with when blindfolded. For you to say you're not naive is laughable. I hope for everyone's sake a moderator closes this topic before it gets more ridiculous than it already is.
^Someone on this forum (who shoots porn) said he requires performers sign 2 releases; 1st one before the shoot and the 2nd one after the shoot. Not sure whether that is normal or unusual.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 7:46PM
(1) A legal contract between the two parties. (2) Said contract stipulates what is to be done, what the performer is to be paid, and how and when they will be paid. (3) That legal ID and age verification has been obtained. (4) Model release. But, most importantly, no legitimate producer, director or studio is going to risk everything by filming performers without a contract and a signed release. The girls are not prostitutes. I'm not aware of normal production circumstances where the girls are paid upfront. I hope Mark Spiegler sees this thread and weighs-in on what "standard procedure" is for you (as he is, arguably, the most respected and professional agent in the business).
Yes, I agree. There is genuine interest among porn fans to see porn ladies perform sex acts that they've been refusing to perform for some time. Because the harder it is to get something, the more desirable it seems. People rave about the 1st anals for pretty ladies, but not so much about their 2nd or 3rd anals, for example. That's why I say that porn scenes in general would be more interesting to watch, if the lady in each scene plays hard to get at first, before the guy finally manages to persuade her. Her playing hard to get will make her seem more desirable for the guy and for the audience too. It will make the sex hotter, because the woman will look hotter, psychologically speaking that is.
In addition to what has already been said, there's also the fact that some of these acts pay more (interracial and anal for example). So you can't actually shoot those things without letting the model know beforehand that you're going to pay them more because they're shooting it. And because it affects how much they're getting paid, I'd imagine it would be somewhere in the model release which, as has been stated, gets looked at and signed before the scene even starts.
^ I think it's nonsense to talk about really tricking porn stars into doing something they don't expect to do. But staging such tricking and acting it out might work well in porn. Because it adds some suspense and surprise for the viewers. It's like in a mainstream movie, it's okay to stage a gun fight and have people shoot each other. But doing it for real, without acting, would be out of the question.
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 9:23PM
So it stipulates what is to be done, i.e what sex acts the performer has to do in order to get paid at the end. So it doesn't state what isn't to be done, i.e what sex acts the performer can't be shot doing/can't be shown in the final edit?It was my impression, reinforced by earlier posts, that the contracts performers and producers sign mostly state what sex act the performer has to do in order to get paid, and that the producer isn't forced to pay extra for every sex act recorded that wasn't stipulated in the contract (how would that even be feasible given how broad the definition of a sex act/fetish/gimmick is). I think it was Asa Akira whose first MMF anal spontaneously evolved into a DP of her own volition, do you think the producers in that case were obligated to pay her extra for it? Edited by - hoochimama on 1/8/2013 9:39:36 PM
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the sex acts are listed in a very general sense (i.e. blowjob only, vaginal, anal, double penetration, etc.), and there's an understanding as to what is and is not included/allowed in those general descriptions (i.e. you don't have to pay extra if a blowjob involves titty-fucking, or if the scene has some foot fetish stuff involved). Once you start talking about something that would raise the pay rate for the scene (i.e. anal in a scene described as vaginal), then yes, you do in theory have to have a discussion about paying extra. Also, in theory, a girl can add a sex act to a scene that wasn't stipulated in the contract and, in theory, she could probably even say that she was willing to forgo being paid extra money for it. But only the girl would be able to make that decision, not the male talent and not the producers of the movie. In Asa's case, and since her agent posts here he could probably answer this himself, I'd imagine that once she made the decision to allow it to be turned into a DP, they probably brought her agent into the conversation behind-the-scenes (even if it was while the scene was shooting) and made a simple agreement in regards to the money issue (whether it was her agreeing to not get paid more or just a simple addition to the money they were already paying her).
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jan 9 2013 : 3:28AM
I've asked this same question to directors in the industry. The answer is basically because the directors don't want to risk antagonizing female performers into not working for them anymore. According to what one director told me, if there is no such risk that the girl will get upset and walk out, or if she poses no likelihood of injuring his reputation (e.g., she's a first-timer, or newbie to the industry who doesn't know anyone and has no clout), then he'll go for it. But if he's shooting a veteran performer who's a "big name", carries a lot of weight in the industry, and can cost him shooting gigs, then he won't try it. In other words, it all depends on how much the director knows he can get away with.It was? You might be exaggerating a bit.It is legal, but perhaps not practical. While no laws are being broken, the girl might still complain about the director to her agent, and that agent might possibly decide not to send anymore performers to that director. So that would dissuade producers from doing it.This is actually a good idea. But given the way the industry works nowadays, I can't see it realistically being done, except by a producer with enough gumption to do it.This has been debated before. Suffice it to say that this statement is up for argument.Are you actually comparing fucking in a porno to shooting someone with real bullets?
In each scene? How silly. The very fact that it's rare is what makes it interesting. If every scene had a model playing up that she doesn't want to do this or that, it would get as boring as anything else in porn that's overdone. There are sites who specialize in "model didn't know it's coming" scenarios, from a few years ago Creampie Surprise comes to mind for instance. Nobody can say with a straight face that it's still as intriguing the 50th time you see it play out.
Reminds of the infamous BoobSquad scene where the guy "accidentally" rams his cock in the poor girls ass. Anyhow, I predict this thread getting shitted on with the quickness. Lets salvage it while we still can with a list of the all-time best unintended sex acts ever recorded. Yes?
I'm not sure if I understand your sense of humor. You seem to contradict yourself here. How does showing an easy woman in almost every porn scene, without much variation, make porn interesting to watch? If rarity is what makes it interesting, then porn scenes, showing easy women, should very rare indeed. I think it's hard for many porn fans to relate to the 'Easy Woman' fantasy. Because most guys don't have much experience with such women. A more usual fantasy for a guy to have is to imagine how he would get a sexy woman who doesn't immediately say 'yes' to him. Because that's the experience of most guys in their life with women.
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 10 2013 : 3:07PM
Makes sense, I suspect studios like elegantangel and bangbros can easily get away with a bit of anal fingering of established anal dodgers that hadn't been previously discussed(gianna michaels), or evilangel of cockslapping apprehensive lesbian asses in group sex scenes(carol gold) with little consequence. On the other end of the spectrum a lot of pornstars' "rare" scenes are from early in their careers where they probably didn't know how things worked, what they shouldn't do and worked their way up through no-name producers(zemanova's handjob, carol goldnerova's titfuck, emily marilyn's blowjob etc). At the same time those producers are probably only trying to take advantage of newbies to get slightly better footage that they know they should be paying extra for since it's worth more or the girl hadn't planned on doing. I doubt they're thinking that years later that girl will be a huge pornstar renowned for avoiding that specific sex act making that scene extra rare. They don't have the same data (and thus reward potential in sight) as a producer who knows how desired such footage is by her fans. It all boils down to risk vs reward and how well these studios can assess it. And on the subject of rewards:Maybe because I was hyped for it too, but the fan demand for it across boards for years on end can't be denied. I don't know of another case where a girl's B/G was asked for for so long, so loudly. But what I'd like to get at is: I believe that the fact that through those years she did get close to B/G without ever going all the way, pushing that boundary by getting her face next to a real dick without touching it, by letting a dick touch her legs, feet, by letting a dude cum over her ass, made her fans all the more interested in those scenes, and in her first "real" B/G scene. I think that if a girl who is known for avoiding a sex act has a scene come out where that scene pushes the boundary a bit, teases the fans, then you not only get sales for those bit by bit scenes(likely from these lowscale producers who possibly tricked her) but you increase the demand for the eventual "real" scene where she goes all the way and thus more money is spent by the fans all around. That added hype might even create new fans since her name will show up on "rare scenes" lists or "I can't believe she did that!" threads(I wouldn't have paid attention to Sandy/Zsanett Ergerhazi if not for her B/G teasing). These are synergies that aren't being taken advantage of when a glamgirl who has not even done G/G or a toy suddenly does full B/G, or when a girl who has not even had a toy in her butt jumps to DP.But a lot studios are already shutting down or getting sold for pennies. Is it because they turned off too many agents and can't get performers or because the fans of a girl aren't willing to pay for her new scene that is similar to all her previous 20 scenes? Even the likes of max, facial abuse etc seemed to get the occasional non-newbie despite their bad rep. So is the risk getting overestimated especially in these circumstances? And you rarely get these boundary pushing scenes either, usually they just jump from dodging one sex gimmick entirely despite fan demand, to doing a full scene of it on a DVD cover, no in between teasing, so is it possible the reward is also getting underestimated? I'd just figure studios would be willing to take more risks and get creative when their business is already at risk. If you can't shoot as well as your competition (few smaller studios can) and you aren't shooting something that hasn't been shot before where is your competitive advantage? Differentiate and take the risks the bigger studios can't.If nothing else it would make for an interesting civil rights trial _______________________________ Please ID these PlayboyTV girls https://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/playboytv-foursome-identification-thread/ Edited by - hoochimama on 1/10/2013 3:08:44 PM Edited by - hoochimama on 1/10/2013 3:11:42 PM
Pretty sure Max Hardcore did two releases....and filmed both signings. A couple of these filmed release signing sessions were introduced as evidence in his trial I thought? Might be wrong. To the OP: read Ashley Blues Girlvert book sometime. She describes, in very graphic detail, how porn directors often get talent to do more than they originally agreed to during the initial release signing. Some of it is the enticement of extra money, but I'm willing to bet a lot of it is just plain, old fashioned slimy sales tactics. Read her book.....highly recommended. Edited by - lubenluv on 1/10/2013 10:37:36 PM
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jan 11 2013 : 8:38AM
Well the Purrfect Productions/sexsymboldynasty scenes of Stacy Moran and Julie K Smith(softcore performers/b movie stars) getting brief vaginal penetration with the cameraman/stuntdick going "it's just the tip!" rate way up there for me as it's the biggest boundary jump of them all: first B/G and being established softcore glam/b movie actress it's not like I ever expected to see that. Different from the girls who start off soft glam/sex and upgrade to hard G/G in less than a year, you know to expect B/G from them in years 2-3.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jan 13 2013 : 1:11PM
I agree with Dan on this. One of the most annoying things about porn now is how it portrays all the women to be insatiable nymphos. They're not allowed to show any femininity whatsoever. The men don't even have to try to fuck them. All the guy has to do is just walk into the room, and the girl just jumps onto him like she's been in heat for 10 straight years. It would be so much better to see the women act like women for a change, instead of just men with tits.I remember that scene. My only complaint was that it didn't last long enough.If you go to a car show and see a brand new mint condition Lambourghini that is being sold for an affordable price way below the MSRP value, are you going to take it, or are you going to argue with the dealer to charge you more money? Likewise, if you're a producer who's shooting a hot new girl in her first scene, and you know you can get her to do anal for less than what you'd have to pay a "pro," then you'd be crazy not to do it.It's the second reason. If there are 20 companies that are all shooting the same girls doing the same thing, then there is nothing to make any of those companies stand out from the rest. Unfortunately, the porn industry hasn't figured this out yet.If you're a director who relies solely upon the big established modeling agencies to supply you with talent, then it goes without saying that you are not going to want to piss off those agents and risk cutting off your talent supply. The thing about Max Hardcore and the guys behind FacialAbuse is that most of the girls they use do not come from established agencies. Some agents won't even allow their models to shoot those types of scenes. Thus, if you're a director who doesn't have to rely on the agencies because you acquire your talent from other sources, then there's really no need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the agents. You can just go ahead and do whatever you want.I agree, and have said the same thing several times here before. But it's like talking to a brick wall.It would also be quite ironic. Edited by - realtip on 1/13/2013 1:13:47 PM
Not "tricks" per se, but I think Ed Powers' thousands of titles would be a gold mine for you guys into this reluctant stuff. Very often he has had girls on, they just masturbate, then they come back, they do lesbian, then they come back, reluctantly, they do him, then they come back, then they do an anal (New Ends series). One of my all time favorites is a one and done (actually two and thru) girl named Julie McIntire. Was on with Ed and wouldn't do penetration, then came back and did it...OH so relectantly....in MDD 137 Ed must have dozens if not hundreds of case like that. Hotmovies has a lot of titles you can preview PPM and then buy/dl the scenes. (And spare me the usual fat smarmy guy with a little dick comments. I think Ed rocks)
Sweat Equity 5 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Jan 8 2013 : 4:05PM
