Page 1 of 2

Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:56 pm
by Tiffany
Hi Guys,

I really want to know what make a good female performer! Do you tend to go for pure filth or the look of the actress??

Tiff
xxx


Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:18 pm
by Pianaman
Neither particularly.

A girl can be stunning but a cold fish or dirty as anything but lacking in real passion.

It's the real look of horniness and being turned on that does it most for me. Its not about what she looks like or does (though they play a role) but how she does it that counts the most.

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:37 pm
by eduardo
Yeah sure the looks are majorly important but I like the girls who have bags of enthuisiasm. The girl who looks like she's actually enjoying it rather than going through the motions makes a major difference.

Take Chasey Lain, she is one major looking top class babe but she was so wooden and sterile in her films. I still have a few of her Dvds but they don't rank along my favourites.

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:58 pm
by Deuce Bigolo
Looks are important but not the be all and end all
Some mouth wateringly beautiful ladies look great in stills but this doesn't translate well onto film for various reasons ie can't act,only in it for the money

So is performance...ie enjoying themselves for real
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a pornstar look off set supposebly in ecstacy I'd be a rich man indeed

BUT if the film has no EROTIC BUILD UP before the sex scene its just more robotic predictable repetitive PURE FILTH which can be found in tens of thousands of films

cheers
B....OZ

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:12 am
by colin
naturalness does it for me, that's why Becky Jordan is so good. she was just made to be in adult films, the little minx!!!

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:27 am
by eduardo
I agree about the build and if not then it's robotic sex mate. Look at the films that Private make. Great looking birds, great locations and sets but the sex is so sexless.

No passion, no enthuisiasm and it is as you say just robotic.

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:24 pm
by Pianaman
Yeah - Becky has exactly the right attitude. Natural, cheeky, throws herself into everything with passion, calls a spade a spade, gives as good as she gets, and knows how to have fun - my kind of girl.

Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:15 pm
by mart
But just imagine having the elegance and glamour of Private combined with the performance of Tiffany and friends. Have you seen those clips she has got on the other Forum?
To coin a phrase "Phwroar what a Scorcher!!!".

Mart


Re: Looks Vs Performance

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:26 am
by Deuce Bigolo
Ain't that the truth....if they were enjoying it and not just in it for the money then you would think they would have done more films

Compared to the Yanks(and to alesser extent brits) their output is negligible

Anybody that in any Job just for the money is in the wrong profession IMHO

I read a while ago about a producer saying he could get 3 Euros for 1 Brit Girl money wise but performance wise it was always the Brit Girl because she was there for the sex as well as the money

Sarah Young said something similar about the Eastern Euros...that they were only in it for the money and the sex was just something to be endured

Formula sex would be a good description...Privates specialty

cheers
B....OZ