With Pamela that tape was exactly when it was needed (popularity started to decline etc.), so personally I'm pretty sure it has "leaked" intentionally.
> you should make sure that you keep all copies of the sex tape and
> then you can make a deal on it. This way you can't blame an ex
> boyfriend for releasing it at a time when you are trying to get a
> specific role.
Well, the whole idea in such cases is to blame ex boyfriend :-). But I agree that careful keeping of such tapes won't prevent you from blaming ex boyfriend anyway if necessary :-)).
Are you 100% sure it's ALWAYS a bad thing for celebrities? Publicity is always publicity :-), and "Pam Anderson" obviously became even more of a household word because of it.
Wait, I didn't compare VideosZ and VideoBox - maybe VideoBox is even more "same old", I didn't try it yet.
And what I've meant when I've wrote that VideosZ is "same old" is more about the overall sad state of adult DVD industry, where 90% of the scenes look exactly the same: fade in - one guy (maybe 2) and one girl (maybe 2) are coming into the motel room - crossfade - she sucks him - crossfade - they're fucking - crossfade - position change - crossfade - he's masturbating to cum on her face - fade out. IMHO, best www sites (and especially networks) currently provide MUCH better variety then average DVD stuff which is all over VideosZ (yes, you can find something good on VideosZ too, but it takes time and effort, and unfortunately there isn't enough of it there).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ surprisingly funny
+ surprisingly entertaining
+ no outright "glitches"
+ interactive Flash clips
+ nostalgic games like arcanoid and pacman (don't confuse with Pokemon).
Cons:
--- non-exclusive content
-- pre-checked cross-sales
-- interactivity of clips is limited
-- erotics is not always properly integrated into games
Bottom Line:
Recently I've joined RussianTeensClub, but was severely disappointed (see my review). The more reason I had to try the other sites included into the same membership. One of them was FlashForAdults.
Originally (especially given disappointment about RussianTeensClub) I've expected FlashForAdults to be a completely useless garbage, but it was substantially better then that.
I've spent some time trying to understand why I feel not so bad about this site, and I think I've found the reason. While the content is not exclusive (a HUGE minus as such), and there isn't that much content that you can find on some free adult flash sites, content quality is quite consistent (at least better than on free sites).
On free flash sites (at least those which I've had a misfortune to run into) amount of content is usually huge, but unfortunately 90% is complete b/s, and it takes a while to find something decent. FlashForAdults IMHO provides more balanced feeling, with most of stuff which one can look at without disgust. Content consists of clips, interactive clips and games. Most of the clips could be more interactive, most of the games could have better integrated erotics element, but overall it was surprisingly entertaining.
Bottom line: while such a non-exclusive site IMHO can't stand on it's own, I was pleasantly surprised with the selection and quality of the implementation of the games and clips, and would rate it as a "75" (which is not bad for non-exclusive site), but needed to deduct 5 points for pre-checked cross-sales, making it 70.
Wow, a REASONABLE webmaster, a rare find these days :-).
IMHO (though there can be disagreement from other members or even PU administration, I'm not sure) there is nothing wrong with posting link to PU on your site. On the other hand, for a PU review to be taken seriously, it's not enough to say something like "Kedra is the most beautiful girl on the planet", it's necessary to elaborate; the problem IMHO wasn't THAT your members wrote reviews, the problem was HOW they wrote their reviews: it looks that they've just tried to do you a favor, putting high ratings without enough explanation, which in fact lead to the exactly opposite effect, causing suspicions of dishonesty etc. And I have no idea if it's at all possible to avoid such effect when publishing a link to PU for site members :-(.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ several video formats (WMV/Flash/iPod).
+ some videos are HD (up to 1280x720 @4MBit/s)
+ access to the network (though if it's all of the same quality, I'm not sure it's a real '+').
Cons:
--- most likely, at least some videos are not Russian even if advertised as such
-- pre-checked cross-sales
-- not sure if there is at least some genuinely Russian videos
-- according to TBP, only "some" content is exclusive, and it's unclear what part of it is indeed exclusive.
-- at least some girls are of quality which make you think "do I really want to see them in HD?"
- cameraguy work and lighting is VERY
inconsistent (probably due to non-exclusivity)
- site navigation is a mess.
Bottom Line:
RussianTeensClub site was a rather big disappointment to me for a simple reason: it didn't deliver what it promised. When I see site names "Russian Teens Club", I expect to see Russian Teens, not Czech teens, Hungarian teens or Holland teens, but RUSSIAN teens. And when on the very first page of their "Hi-Def Russians" I see the name "Petra Pearl", which is apparently a Hungarian model (see for example here: http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/petrapearl.html ), it raises HUGE question about credibility of the whole thing. After this, I've started to look for some conversation within the movies (while I don't know Russian, I can tell a few other languages which are obviously NOT Russian), and surprisingly wasn't able to find ANY dialog or ANY words whatsoever. While normally such videos don't have much words, still occasional "fuck" or something frequently gets in, but in these videos I was NOT able to find ANY such line; were they chosen in this way deliberately (to make sure that customers won't be able to figure out if it's Russian or not) - I don't know.
Technical details about the site aren't bad: WMV in two resolutions (one is 1280x720 @4MBit/s), iPod format, FLash (in decent quality) to view it online. But overall quality of the videos varies from one to another one greatly - it looks that they were shot by completely different teams, and vary from "Very Good" to "Very Poor". The same is true for the girls, and at least SOME of them are of the quality which makes you think "Do I REALLY want to see all that pussies-shaven-a-week-ago and pimples in HD?", though SOME girls are beautiful.
Bottom line: in my book, advertising one thing and selling another one qualifies as SWINDLING, so I can't give the site anywhere high rating. Add to this pre-checked cross-sales (which deducts another 5 points from rating), and you've got the idea why it was rated as low as 60. Moreover, I don't really see anybody who this site can be REALLY attractive for (not for those looking for genuine Russian stuff for sure).
While I agree that we don't need "yet another hardcore site", I'm still sure that I'd like to see a lot more of QUALITY hardcore sites. And really QUALITY site IMHO is not about resolution and even not about cameraguy work and lighting. QUALITY site is the "jerkable off" (or should it be "jerkoffable"?) one, and surprisingly 99% of hardcore sites are NOT jerkable off these days; most of the sites present the very same thing, without any fantasy; creativity is VERY RARE, and IMHO creativity is the MUST to make site a QUAILTY one.
So my feeling is that while we indeed have TONS and TONS of hardcore site, very few really qualify as QUALITY ones, and therefore we need more of them.
> Until M&B, I had never joined a site with a pre-checked trial or
> anything like it. I'm aware that stuff like that is out there, but
> I've never joined a site like that.
Wow, you've got REALLY lucky. I would say that from my (pretty extensive) experience at least 1/3rd of sites these days are trying to swindle users using PRE-CHECKED trials (especially typical for the sites which credit card transactions are handled by Epoch).
> It's merely a ploy to hook you. It's a classic bait and switch, which results in them being *that* much more likely to get you to sign on for the full subscription.
For me it would work as an exact opposite (unlike classic "bait and switch", these guys don't have good excuse of "being out of stock" for advertised item, which weakens their position greatly). On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm a typical user in this regard.
> We're not outside of the adult industry.
Well, if the court would ever consider such a case of deceptive practices in adult industry, it will VERY LIKELY consider common terminology and practices not only within this industry, but on much broader scale. And it is the court which ultimately decides what is fraud and what's not, isn't it?
> The bottom line for me is, I've done a lot of trials and the ones
> that are limited tell me so, so I expect that. You can say it's
> redundant, but we clearly have different expectations for trials. I > consider a trial to be limited to length of subscription only.
Well, I understand your point, but on the other hand I see LOTS of MUCH MORE deceptive practices (like PRE-CHECKED "trials" with outrageous renewal rates when subscribing) in this industry, so compared to those "pre-checked" guys unannounced trial limitations don't look that bad to me.
> However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site.
Nice to know, thanks. With this information, maybe I'll eventually try them :-).
> when I compare to the other sites that used 640 X 480 or 720 X 480 in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 kbps which I thought was the debate to begin with.
I won't argue that 4MBit/s is better than 1MBit/s :-). What I'm trying to argue is that even 4MBit/s doesn't guarantee quality in any way (and is still worse than best of DVDs made 10+ years ago), and is often far from being "crystal clear". Also from my perspective things like lighting and cameraguy work are much more important than sheer bitrate (within certain limits of course).
As for comparing HD to blue-ray - you're right about the lack of the bandwidth for downloaded clips compared to blue-ray, but given this lack of bandwidth maybe it's not a good idea for websites to release 1980x1080 video clips, and it's better for them to stay with less ambitious DVD-resolution? What I personally REALLY hate is when somebody makes (and obviously markets) something like "true 1980x1080 HD video" which wass in fact shot with poor lighting on Sony Z1 (or equivalent) camera; then it doesn't matter how much bitrate they will throw into encoding, it will still look HORRIBLE no matter what.
> the company has a duty to tell you what to expect.
Right. But as I've said, the question is that if the very word "trial" implies some restrictions or not. And (playing devil's advocate) IMHO it can be easily argued that it does imply at least some restrictions (number of limited trials even in adult industry is not that small, you can see it on TBP, and if we'll go outside the adult industry, trials will become obviously limited). And if it is implied, what is the need to tell it once again?
> wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
Come on, $2 or so they're getting is not really a financial gain (they're paying almost all of it or even more for the transaction itself). The very idea of trial is to get you to stay more, and that's one of the reasons I think that limited trials (except for DL limits during trials) are more much more "stupidity" than "fraud".
> There is a word for this: Fraud.
While in general I like to tell that some site is swindling it's customers ;-), I don't think I would name it "fraud" in this case (it's stupid on their part, but that's another story). And that's because at least for me, "trial" means something to try :-); kind of test drive without any guarantees that it will be the full thing. For example, when I'm taking a car for a test drive, I won't complain if salesguy will be in the car and I won't be allowed to drink my coffee and spill it all over the place :-).
Overall, it's all about expectations, but IMHO trials are generally not expected to be full; if somebody gives me full trial - good, if not - tough luck, but I don't have much to complain about.
So IMHO "Don't even bother with trial" is a useful warning, thanks, but naming it "fraud" is IMHO a bit too much.
> I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented.
Wait, but DVDs have nothing to do with HD :-), to compare apples to apples, you should compare HD to Blue-Ray.
> That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad
I've found it bad for at least one specific point in demo video (around 0:03 in the video I've referred to). Do you agree that specific half-second was far from being "crystal clear"? And them, from the fact that site owners even cannot find enough material to make REALLY good DEMO video, I obviously have doubts about the quality inside (if you would make demo for the home page of your site, you would make it THE BEST POSSIBLE way, wouldn't you?).
> if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
Easy. Take a look at almost any Private DVD, and at least some Diabolic DVDs (for example, their Panochitas series). While DVD is 10+-year old technology now, and is below freezing point on "how hot/cool it is" scale, it still beats "great advanced modern stuff" hands down, especially when it is used professionally. And no encoding can possibly fix problems with poor cameras used by almost all of the sites.
I've took a look at InFocusGirls' "High Definition Free Sample Movie" (from their home page). Well, SOME FRAGMENTS of it are indeed crystal clear, but to tell that ALL OF IT is crystal clear is IMHO an big exaggeration. Take a look at fragment of that sample clip at about 0:03; IMHO it's VERY far from being "crystal clear" (not to mention poor lighting, which BTW is IMHO completely unforgivable for a site like this). And as I expect them to combine "the best of the best" into promo HD video like this, I'm even afraid to think of how most of the clips inside look.
Crystal clear 1280 video? Frankly, yet to see one, even at 4MBit/s. And at 2G/hour I don't think it's worth it (I prefer to fit my collection on single HDD, it's so much simpler to manage it that way), so at this time I prefer to stick to non-HD versions which IMHO tend to be much clearer and crispier these days; in addition, bringing poorly lighted scene into HD will just highlight this poor lighting.
> So, I'm not saying your wrong or that videos at that rate can't be
> good, but for some of the prices I spend for sites and it being mid
> 2009, these videos are absolutely horrid for the most part on a lot
> of sites still.
Well, if we agree that it is not about sheer bitrates, but about OVERALL QUALITY, I'm with you :-). BTW, it once again brings us to importance of mentioning NOT only TBP-like "dry facts" in reviews, but also to mention subjective things like "encoding is horrible for this bitrate".
48" is way too large to fit into my laptop, so I don't think I'll have one, EVER :-). And also there are several other issues related to 4000px today, see my reply to turboshaft.
> I understand 4000 px is huge today...but in the future it could
> simply be standard, even if the displays really don't get any bigger.
> I am talking more from a collector's point of view, so I want my smut
> to age like a fine wine, except you get to drink it over and over
> again for as long as you have it!
2 comments:
1. In ideal world, you're right, in practice it just won't happen. While it would be nice to see things made back in 80s in HD, with current pace of technology older formats can easily become obsolete in a matter of 1-2 years. On the other hand, what's the big deal? There will be new sites with new material in 1-2 years :-).
2. Resolution itself is a rather poor metrics of the quality. I'd rather take crisp 2000px than blurry 4000px (and when camera matrix is working close to the edge, blurriness often shows up; it can be quite easily fixed at the expense of resolution, but as long as people are comparing numbers, not pictures, websites won't an incentive to do it :-( ).
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
