Were you contacted by anyone? If so, I think that should be stopped immediately.

[Link]

I have been contacted twice about a review, once by a starlet, Lainey, saying thank you to a review of her scene in Runaway Butts 2. And once from Mason, thanking me for the honest review of Dirty Trixxx 1 and explaining that Michelle was totally into it her scene, even though I wasn't. They weren't critiscms, obviously. but...

Porn is in the eye of the beholder, I happen to love just about everything Joey Silvera does, but Service Animals 11 just didn't seem "right" to me, so I rated it as I did for that reason.

Oh, and I love feedback from directors, stars, studios about their body of work as well what they thought of my review. It makes what I do seem worthwhile, as well as what they do.

---BIGmike's AEE Adventure (photos from) thread ---

Edited by - BIGmike on 2/18/2003 9:41:17 PM

[Link]

A lot of great reviewers (BIGmike, MLyons & Saki are very good examples), set out clearly what they like and don't like, and why. That approach has the advantage of being clear, but I think it sometimes also creates a mindset in readers that the reviewer is either for or against a particular set of things.

Personally, I'm for or against very few things. I don't want to be regarded as prejudicial against some things, because I'm not. My motto is that virtually anything can be done well and I look forward to seeing that achieved in different genres and ways.

So I'm trying to address aesthetics (whether or not the action looks good and works well) rather than content (whether or not I tend to like this sort of thing in general). And regardless of what the content is, I generally make no judgment about it , other than whether I liked it or not.

Of course that's how I think today - I don't know about my old reviews. And of course, none of this was included in the review, hence the problem. I might have to link to my FAQ ...

Thanks again for your support.

[Link]

I agree with BIGmike, it's great how you can say what you thought of something, and maybe even get feedback from an industry rep's point of view. And I'm glad to see that they're willing to contact consumers.

[Link]

My review of Service Animals 10 got a lot of attention because Steph posted a messege/review, in this forum, submitted by Brandon Iron, countering my negative review.

I'm not a big fan of rough sex or of gagging oral, I try to make that point clear.

I didn't like Service Animals 10 because it seemed too much like the shit from Wax Lardcore.

As for reviews, I'v reviewed Service Animals 10, 11, 12.

Rieekan, it's cool that there are many viewpoints of a DVD. It's gives different perspectives of the same movie, like Service Animals 10, I didn't like it a lot, but Mlyons did like it. Just a different point of view. GREAT

---BIGmike's AEE Adventure (photos from) thread ---

[Link]

Mike L.

[Link]

Content and form can be easily seperated and studied as distinct qualities when discussing ordinary objects. For instance, when we look at a bottle of wine, the form is the shape of the bottle, while the content is the wine.• Both these qualities or properties have no structural ties with each other. I can poor the same content in a different form and I can use a different form for containing the same content.
This is not true anymore when dealing with images. Form and content can not be seperated any more. If I change the form of an image, the content will change as well. In fact, form and content can't exist without each other. This is especially true for film images. Most aspects of film form — especially aspects dealing with cinematography and montage — can be described as "empty forms", which are of a polysemic or even pansemic nature. They only derive their meaning in relation to other formal aspects, usually aspects of mise-en-scene. To give a simple example: look at framing. A close up is always a close up of a subject and that subject will carry different meanings, depending on the way it is framed.
The solution to this problem is to look at both the stylistic elements and the thematic elements as being part of a total formal system. This means that it is much more useful to study the different kinds of formal relationships between the stylistic system and the formal/thematic system of a work, than to try to seperate form from content.

Now, if I understand you correctly, what you are really saying, is that you don't care much for "fetishistic" pleasure, but you are primarily interested in "voyeuristic" pleasure, especially in "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle". It is a bit unfortunate that I can't explain this now in more depth, since I only just started to explain my personal view on a possible systematic porn pragmatics, by concentrating on "blissful rupture" only.
However, I would still like to know your thoughts about both this piece and my first Personal View, I posted last week.

• A third quality that can be discussed sperately as well: substance or material: the bottle can be made of glass, or plastic, or whatever. Images/signs also have substance. However since the substance of cinematic images rarely bare any significance within the signifying process, I will leave it out of the discussion. However, this doesn't mean that qualities of substance don't have any influence on aesthetic evaluation at all. The love for DVD and the dislike for VHS on this board is a testament to that.

[Link]

Some good comments about form and content.

Within the area of visual presentations (movies, porn, or whatever) they become intertwined and mixed. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two. They are as one.

I can sit and watch a movie, or something on TV, and be in rapture, communing with what is presented, but the person sitting next to me can be totally baffled and wondering WTF!

It's different strokes for different folks. The Director know what vision, or message, he want to get across. It may hit and sychronize with my chords, or it may affect the person sitting next to me.

I have watched things where others are laughing and rolling on the floor, and I am wondering why? At the opposite end, I have choked up with laughter and am nearly flopping on the floor and find that others are looking at me wondering what set me off.

Am I right and they're wrong, or are they right and I'm wrong. Difficult to separate, and either answer is probably not correct.

DenverDon

[Link]

While feedback from the industry isn't necessarily always self-serving, feedback from consumers is much more helpful to me.

[Link]

I also don't have any more reviews to do from that studio and don't plan on reviewing any more from that studio.

I like a lot of stuff, and have been contacted by lots of readers asking for more movie titles of a particular actress, which I try to give, if possible. I like getting emails from industry, but especially the stars, that shows that they care enough about their body of work to take the time to read and respond.

I remember one email from Steve Holmes a long while back, rubbing it in my face , how great a female performer was in a title I reviewed.

---BIGmike's AEE Adventure (photos from) thread ---

Edited by - BIGmike on 2/19/2003 4:51:16 PM

[Link]

At any rate, I will get back to you on this after tomorrow, but the short of it is: I regret, constantly, daily, my inability to articulate my true thoughts and modes of thinking in words, either written or spoken. English is my only language, but it doesn't even suit my needs completely.

My use of content and aesthetics was regrettable, but it was all I could come up with on short notice, and I was most aware of the deficiencies of both terms as I wrote them. In essence, all I can say is I make differentiations, on a completely personal and arbitrary basis, for which there is no accurate description in any language, at least not without coining Neologisms (which I admit is a favourite pastime of mine).

For better or worse I equated those to content and aesthetics, when they really have no definitive equivalence.

Anyway, that was a really long-winded way of saying I can't explain how I do or see things. But when I have the time I will try, probably vainly, to clarify this.

[Link]

Edited by - Walter Burns on 2/20/2003 12:56:59 PM

[Link]

One essay down. Another 2,500 words in 9 hours to go.

Actually, in essence, if I read your post closely enough it would probably be something similar to that. Just pretend I didn't say content and aesthetics okay?

[Link]

I would have thought the single most significant reader of any review is the subject him/herself and if they contact you they have not only read your review but have considered its contents to the extent they feel compelled to reply.

There must be a point beyond which feedback tends to pressure or enticement (as already mentioned) but whilst this must be wrong, I have to agree generally with Brandon Iron in as much as a right to 'review a review' seems reasonable, and a chance to discuss points sensible.

[Link]

Did the reviewer really like your movie or was he intimidated into saying he liked it?

[Link]

Although I wouldn't presume to speak for her, I believe dumblonde was referring to the notion of someone emailing a reviewer in order to intimidate them into changing their review. On that count, I agree with both dumblonde and Bill, that sort of activity should be reported and stopped.

But that wasn't the case here. I was contacted by Brandon with regards to discussing the matter of performer safety. Brandon made no mention of any other part of the review, and didn't even request that I address the topic. And although I decided to start this thread, no part of the review or scores were changed in any way.

That's all there is to it. A slight misunderstanding but all conduct has been above board and I want to thank everybody for their comments, posts and emails.

[Link]

If you don't like what people think of your videos, why not try to improve them instead of using these tactics?

[Link]

Can you add in some comments about World Class Ass, or the review instead of just attacking. That is what this thread is about.

[Link]