egafd.com

?why is a date with 'A date With Samantha Jane' so bad in terms of production, camera work, acting............etc, when was it shot, the cars look from the 1980's?

Elementary my dear Jenkins. The whole show had a budget of ?650.00. The protagonists were not professional actors; neither was I a professional cameraman. The cars were indicative of the modest standard of living that was the norm amongst most top-shelf models in the 90's.

The movie may have some rough edges ? but so do a thousand others that have been produced since. But hey, I reckon it stands up well as a fuck film - attractive couple, no nonsense fucking and sucking (just like in real sexual encounters) all set in a believable, real life, scenario. And most of all it has Samantha-Jane ? a model so distinctly pretty, with the sort of voluptuous body that just oozes sex appeal, that I still fancy shagging her today ? and I can?t really say that about any others since.


Officer Dibble

"dibble were you the camera man in that,"

I've already said as much.


"'cause your work ain't that bad,"

Why thank you, tucker. You're obviously a man who knows his onions.


"if it only cost you ?650 to make, then what did Samantha Jane and Vida and the stud get each?"

That's what is cost to make the Samantha and Gavin bit - the Vida bit was another matter.


"when/where was it made?"

1998, at Samantha?s gaff in Worthing, if I recall.


"Is Samantha Jane a real upper class person?"

I regret not. But who said she was, anyway? No, in a previous life Samantha was a hairdresser or something, over Hastings way (one of the Kent coast's less salubrious towns). Samantha-Jane could be best described as respectable working class - conscientious, no hairs and graces, doesn?t suffer fools and keeps a clean house.



Officer Dibble