Page 2 of 2
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:35 pm
by Lizard
Sadly Dibble, I think you only grasp half the point of my post.
I dont want to see a model in a ball gown, I,m not bothered if it,s jeans, crop top, dress, just underwear, whatever! just as long as it stays ON for a while Actually my own personal favourite ARE, jeans, crop tops, shoes, or sexy skirts and stuff. I,m just saying films that start with total nudity, and sweat away for 2hrs do nowt for me, and I suspect judging by some of the replies here, others have similar views.
Lizard..(knows what he wants, but never gets it)
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:53 pm
by Officer Dibble
Well Lizard, the only point we seem to be differing on is the question of the girl's sartorial sensibilites. Which is of course down to the idividual taste of the viewer. But if you don't want to keep getting offered the unimaginative kind of movies you are talking about why not critisise the relevant Brit producers. Why not say "Hey, your lastest movie is crap, beacuse...." If you don't say anything and continue to buy these crap movies simply becuase you don't have much of a choice the producrs concered will think everthing is tickety-boo and contuine churning the stuff out.
Officer Dibble.
OT Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:53 pm
by mike johnson
Richard Burton was indeed a lucky guy--but what about Roger Vadim, married (IIRC) to Brigette Bardot,Jane Fonda, a couple more lovelies, & fathered a child on Cathereine Deneuve. Or the late John Derek, who wed Ursula Andress, Linda Evans, & Bo.There ought to be a law....
Re: OT Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:19 pm
by jj
If you look at it this way: neither managed to hold on to those women for very long- it doesn't seem quite so bad.
But bad enough...............
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:20 pm
by Lizard
I dont really need to Dibble, I just buy what suit,s ME! and there,s plenty of suitable viewing available. We wont split hairs over what is suitable attire! I earn a good living doing my job, and if producers reading this thread feel that they could increase thier sales/income by reading comment,s here,
then they have the chance to act. Balls in thier court, we are mere bystanders in the great porn scheme of thing,s, but I do think that trends change anyway, what goes round etc.
You never know!
Lizard.....( his cup overfloweth )
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:37 pm
by jj
I thought this thread was about nuns?
Sorry.
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:44 pm
by marcusallen
JJ.
I mentioned once before about nuns & Pix (I lay the blame totallay on one of my bodyguards). I'd publish, but no-one could pay me enough.
Hint, hint.
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:52 pm
by magoo
I agree with the other posters in this thread. We need more eroticism in porn. Some sexual tension and build up rather than just gaping anuses.
I am not so bothered what the girl wears but agree we should see the clothes stay on for a bit.
My main irritation is that we never get to see the girls personality come through because she is usually scripted even in gonzo which should be spontaneous. You will notice for example that all the girls in Ben Dover films say the same old lines about how british men cant shag (cue Pascal) and that they all say they have never done anal before.
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 12:30 am
by jj
Never mind: that Dina Jewel photoset is still floating about.
Now THERE's a girl as could make you see the point of Papism.....
Re: VIEWING HABITS
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:06 am
by Cheeky Charley
I agree ... knickers and specs should sometimes remain on, though the knickers not too long please!