Vivid Sucks!

Author	Post
darkcloud Member 77 Posts 6/01	Posted - Oct 28 2001 : 8:46PM Wake up Vivid! Its almost year 2002 and do you know what DVD quality is? All Vivid DVD sucks, their picture quality is VHS quality at best. Their picture quality looks "old" for some reason. Why even make DVDs Vivid? You shoot your movie with old VHS camera and paste them into DVDs. Vivid probably use the same camera as 10 years ago to film their current and all productions. The camerawork are all sorry, they suck at everything. Furthermore, Vivid's attempt at Interactive genre is pathetic. Deep Inside series? Were the boys bull? Whatever whatevers? ALL JOKES. Thank god for new companies like Digital Playground and Digital Sin. Unlike Vivid they take full advantage of DVD technology and quality production. Edited by - darkcloud on Nov 1 2001 [Link]
Mr. Hand Member 146 Posts 5/01	Posted - Oct 28 2001 : 10:33PM I'm not the biggest fan of Vivid either. But as far as picture quality goes, I believe the reason many of their titles have that "VHS quality" is because they are shot on film. Perhaps someone else out there can confirm this. I'd doubt if anyone from Vivid bothers to participate in this forum since they're too busy to talk to us common people!! Edited by - Mr. Hand on Oct 29 2001 [Link]
bono-ONE All-Star Member SAMCRO 8570 Posts 8/00	Posted - Oct 29 2001 : 9:01AM I am currently watching the Deep Inside Dasha dvd and for once I actually enjoyed the Vivid experience,lol. I thought the picture quality was fine throughout and the scenes selected were pretty good for the most part. I have been one of many who has gotten on Vivid here for their lack of hardcore stuff but I was pleasantly surprised at the Dasha scenes and thought they were pretty good, not Anabolic mind you but not totatlly tame either. Dasha did some anal and was even dpd and she took some nice facials in a couple scenes so Vivid doesn't suck totally,lol. [Link]
TheKid New Member 3 Posts 10/01	Posted - Oct 30 2001 : 8:25PM Vivid really needs to make better DVDs. For such a high profile studio, they sure do make shitty transfers, inexplicable edits, and all sorts of useless extras. Why don't they answer our complaints? They can learn a thing or two from Wicked, VCA, Private and Odyssey who do care enough to post here. [Link]
cooper99 New Member 5 Posts 12/99	Posted - Oct 30 2001 : 11:25PM Seriously, I have no Vivid titles in my collection. Unless Vivid start getting their act together on producing respectable high-quality dvds, it's going to stay that way. Video quality sucks big time, nowhere near as good as titles from Anabolic/Diabolic. [Link]

VictoriO Member 379 Posts 8/01	Posted - Oct 30 2001 : 11:26PM the only thing that I like about Vivid/Raw DVDs are the Mr. Marcus' Neighborhood DVDs. They are decent! Nei lo mo-ah! Yuk ngoh? (Translation- You motherf*cker! Hit me?) -Quote taken from HK movie 'Long Arm of the Law 3'- [Link]
ookz Member 251 Posts 1/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 4:54AM Not all Vivid SUCKS! But almost all Vivid Wave and some Vivid RAW SUCKS! Edited by - ookz on Oct 31 2001 [Link]
Gabriel Nine Senior Member Firecracker 1273 Posts 8/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 11:39AM The main reason I have been put off buying the few Vivid discs that sound like they might appeal to me is the editing of the DVD version from VHS (more capacity, less movie - does this make ANY sense?), presumably to fit their bollox interactive nonsense etc in there instead - which is itself very much in the "just because you can , doesn't mean you should " category. [Link]
Mr. Hand Member 146 Posts 5/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 1:20PM quote: The main reason I have been put off buying the few Vivid discs that sound like they might appeal to me is the editing of the DVD version from VHS (more capacity, less movie - does this make ANY sense?), presumably to fit their bollox interactive nonsense etc in there instead - which is itself very much in the "just because you can , doesn't mean you should " category. Click to expand Gabriel Nine, Vivid no longer edits out scenes from any of their DVD's that have been released within the last year or so. So if you're interested in a Vivid DVD that has been released recently, you shouldn't have anything to worry about that. You're right though and it still doesn't make up for the fact that they've ruined many of their older titles with this ridiculous practice of giving us less and charging us more money!! Perhaps Vivid has become TOO BIG to care about their customers. [Link]
TheKid New Member 3 Posts 10/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 3:30PM Why does Vivid use that multiple angles menu during the movies in the top right corner? It's so big and ugly. It kind of ruins the best moments during the sex scenes. [Link]
Wally Senior Member 1821 Posts 8/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 4:01PM What is it that makes Vivid such a high profile studio,a BIG company really I don't understand,I need somebody to be kind and explain that to me................Thanks. [Link]
Diesel Member 516 Posts 3/00	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 4:28PM As it just so happens, I am researching and writing an extensive (but not necessarily in-depth) article on Vivid Video for Adult DVD Empire. But in brief, Vivid is popular because of their well-known line of Vivid Girls which have attained some recognition in the mainstream. I mean, what other studio has been clever enough to market a Vivid Girl Calendar in stores like Tower Records or Sam Goodys? Vivid also shoots on film a lot (instead of videotape) and although a lot of their overall quality has a lot to be desired, the look of film gives the productions a prestigious feel (subject to debate, of course). And, I must point out that director Paul Thomas has created some excellent movies: BORDERLINE, BAD WIVES, THE MASSEUSE movies, the ON TRIAL series, the BONNIE & CLYDE series and so forth. These are some of the best flicks ever made in the industry (though the DVD treatment of these modern classics has been somewhat appalling). I agree that Vivid DVDs are problematic and I have complained loudly about their quality control. But the fact is that there is a lot of merit to the studio's products and how well they have built up their image. Vivid is probably the most well-known and "accepted" porn studio in the mainstream public. Diesel This week at Adult DVD Empire, Diesel's Den ogles the most beautiful women in adult videos... [Link]
BIGmike B-I-G-m-i-k-e 2335 Posts 3/01	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 4:35PM I have yet to buy a DVD from Vivid, mainly because I've seen some of their films on VHS, and didn't care for it. [I do have 4 DVDs from Vivid Raw, which I consider seperate from Vivid] They DO NOT have the raincoat factor that I look for in porn. In my opinion, the reason they are big is they do a lot of publicity, like Wicked. I know people who don't watch porn but they know a Vivid girl when they see them on TV. [Link]
snowman872 RainCoatReviews.com 400 Posts 6/00	Posted - Oct 31 2001 : 10:35PM quote: Wake up Vivid! Its almost year 2002 and do you know what DVD quality is? All Vivid DVD sucks, their picture quality is VHS quality at best. Their picture quality looks "old" for some reason. Why even make DVDs Vivid? You shoot your movie with old VHS camera and paste them into DVDs. Vivid probably use the Click to expand I can't say I agree with this. At least on the Vivid Raw titles I have seen, the picture and sound quality is an improvement over VHS. I've seen DVDs that were really not an improvement. If you want to see something bad, check out LBO's Max Hardcore Maximum Moments DVD. This disc truly looks worse than the VHS tape, very soft focus and lots of artifacts. And not all transfers from that era look like this. In contrast, Rosebud so far has done an excellent job with some of their old titles from the early 90's (Deep Cheeks, Anal Cuties of Chinatown). Snowman [Link]
darkcloud Member 77 Posts 6/01	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 3:38AM Vivid is a BIG company because many years ago they made good quality VHS movies. I dont remember the titles but I watched some starring Chasey Lain, Christy Canyon, and Janine. But now Vivid sucks....I agree with you guys that Vivid is too big to care. Nowadays, Vivid just can't make 4.5-5.0 movies. [Link]

greybeard Member 181 Posts 8/00	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 8:49AM F Everyone's I: It's probably worth noting that the very _first_ "Vivid Girl" was none-other-than Ginger Lynn! She did most of her best-regarded work for Vivid back in the mid-80's, for pantheon directors like Henri Pachard and Bruce Seven. She was one of those primarily responsible for the success of the label. But that was a loooong time ago -- hell, that was even back when Paul Thomas was still doing some acting! Oh well, the bigger they get, the harder they fall! (The label, not PT) [Link]
JS Member West Palm Beach, Florida, USA 21 Posts 2/00	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 2:03PM Okay guys and gals, here is the thing with Vivid: A vast majority of their features are shot on FILM as opposed to video. When film is transferred to a high quality digital format such as DVD, the grain begins to show. Most other porn companies (with a few exceptions) are shooting on video. The video to DVD transfer will be clearer, and have less artifacts. I'm not trying to make excuses for Vivid here, just offering up a plausible explanation for some of the problems viewers are mentioning. I would have to agree that they should do better transfers though. If you go back and look at some the their old VHS releases from the early nineties, the film to video transfers are lousy there as well. As for the editing of re-releases, this has been mentioned many many many times before. For awhile, I was compiling a list of cuts on DVD and VHS, but I abandoned the effort because I was getting too many reports of edits which I couldn't verify due to the lack of a DVD player at the time. The edits on VHS exist for one reason: MONEY. Vivid started trimming their features for time in the eighties. They had to keep up with the competition (VCA, Caballero, etc.) They did so by making their older titles available for a very low price. This took a toll on the company, so they began shortening the features to fit 75 minute tape stock. They saved on average 25 cents per copy by using the shorter stock. With DVDs, the editing exists so they have room for all the extras. It's also resonable to assume that they are (inadvertently) mastering the time condensed 70 minute versions of many films as opposed to the full length originals. According to Ed Solis of Vivid Interactive, they have no plans to stop the editing at this point. [Link]
Wally Senior Member 1821 Posts 8/01	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 3:57PM Ok,so many years ago they made good quality movies,looong time ago they have beautiful,natural women working for then,so basicly they are history,memories,Right?.....and who are those so call vivid girls,when I watch "E" all I see is Wicked girls Jenna Jameson,Serenity,even Chase Lain is a Wicked girl,when I see Playboy all I see is Julie Ashton a VCA girl or Tera Patrick a AE girl,ok maybe Cassidey but for me she was an Anabolic/Diabolic girl........and talking about so many girls how about those Private girls!!!!!! [Link]
greybeard Member 181 Posts 8/00	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 3:59PM OK -- if Vivid has "no plans" to stop the editing at this point, then I continue to have NO PLANS TO BUY ANY VIVID PRODUCT! [Link]
BIGmike B-I-G-m-i-k-e 2335 Posts 3/01	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 4:13PM Of the reviews of Vivid DVDs that I've read, they all say that there are missing scenes that were in the original. I have four Vivid Raw DVDs, the ones that I have, have basically the same extras on them. Plus, Vivid doesn't deliver enough bang for my buck. Other studios can put 2 or more hours of hardcore sex on DVD, but the majority of Vivid features are only about 70 minutes. Why pay more for less, when you can pay less for more [Link]
greybeard Member 181 Posts 8/00	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 7:47PM BIGmike: The point is, many Vivid features ARE longer than 70 or 75 minutes -- just not on their DVDs! Case in point -- Bad Wives runs something like 140 or so minutes on VHS, on DVD it's cut in half! If I want to see a Vivid feature, I'll swap for the VHS in Excalibur's exchange program. I'd rather watch a used VHS from Excalibur and see the whole damn feature than give Vivid a penny of my money for their ripoff DVDs! Come on, folks -- let's let Vivid know how we feel! Those a-holes may not contribute/post to ADT, but I sure-as-hell bet they lurk here fairly often. I ain't buying a single Vivid DVD until they stop trying to rip off us consumers! Who else feels the same?? Start posting! [Link]
M.B. Senior Member 1679 Posts 2/01	Posted - Nov 1 2001 : 9:21PM I usually don't but Vivid titles. The only ones that I own are a couple of the Jenna titles that she did for them early in her carrer. But I did recently buy Deep Inside Janine because I dig her, and it is an all girl dvd which I also like. This disc is approx. 2 hrs 50 min of uncut Janine scenes, that's not including the extras. The extras I have not seen before, but it consists of some Blondage stripping action (no sex, no nudity, why bother?) and about 4 or 5 more lesbo scenes (none of which have Janine in them, more nonsense). But all in all I am very happy with this disc, they also threw in an extra disc as a bonus (The Coven which totally sucks). But the picture quality is good. I read somwhere that this disc was made especially for dvd, which I think means that it is not available on vhs. This could explain why it's better than most of their discs. I was also dissapointed that there was no interview with Janine, which should been included in a Deep Inside movie, it would only make sense. It was pretty good, and worth the money I spent on it. And this is coming from a guy who usually only buys Evil Angel, Anabolic, Diabolic discs. [Link]
wendy divine Member 116 Posts 7/01	Posted - Nov 8 2001 : 1:50AM I can't say I know much about their quality on DVD's. All I can say is that most of their stuff that I've done has been shot on video. I do know that a few things might have been shot on film but, for the most part I think it's on video. Also, certain projects are not funded well. There are no makeup artists on a lot of projects. And, money is spent on other things rather than talent or what you think it should be spent on. But, that is just what I know. That's my two cents anyway. :) [Link]