(06-09-2014 19:59 )M-L-L Wrote: [ -> ]if they did actually care about reputational value it wouldn't cost them too much more time and money to put a bit of effort into making the scene work with or without the hardcore stuff. Just shoot some extra non-hardcore stuff that's as good as it can be without getting you into trouble with the censors and slot those bits into the edit around the hardcore portions you're going to have to remove.
The TV version was actually longer than the web version. The TV version filled a 20 minute slot exactly, but looking on the website just now the version there says 17:05.
(06-09-2014 20:20 )William H Bonney Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2014 19:59 )M-L-L Wrote: [ -> ]if they did actually care about reputational value it wouldn't cost them too much more time and money to put a bit of effort into making the scene work with or without the hardcore stuff. Just shoot some extra non-hardcore stuff that's as good as it can be without getting you into trouble with the censors and slot those bits into the edit around the hardcore portions you're going to have to remove.
The TV version was actually longer than the web version. The TV version filled a 20 minute slot exactly, but looking on the website just now the version there says 17:05.
Ok - thanks. Apologies, I didn't see the TV version, I reckoned the web version was around 15 minutes, I wasn't meaning to imply the web version was a lot longer. From the comments I'd wrongly assumed the TV version was shorter than the web/abruptly cut off.
the last time I bought bsx 174 was 2 consecutive nights a couple of weekends ago.first night elicia solis doubling with kate santoro followed by a night of ruby summers.all cracking girls but to me 2 massively disappointing nights due to the over censorship by the producers resulting in material far too tame for an adult encrypted pay to view show.piss poor levels of excitement.me and others like me DO NOT harbour expectations of penetration.dildoing etc.all we ask is for good camera work and nice open pussy.minimum expectations to give us some value for money.why oh why they show any boy/girl stuff at all when there is no chance of showing anything remotely explicit is beyond me.good luck to those who are happy to fork out for this sort of stuff.for me personally I am voting with my wallet and keeping my money in my pocket unless the channel gets a little more adult in content and cuts out a large amount of the sexless,pointless repeated crap.
Some of the filmed stuff is actually getting better and a bit ruder,with finger and toy rubbing over the promised land,its sheer madness that a girl cant rub her own promised land,as you say they could show toy insertion from the side angle,thats another thing that is creeping into the filmed stuff.....anyway i shall be posting on the events of the night up until about 2am ish,gotta get my ugly sleep,and will post the rest when i watch the rest when i wake up.
Maybe the tv and web versions aren't of different lengths but they show the scenes from different angles. I have seen both versions of the Beth and Leigh Darby sexpacking adventure and there was pussy licking on the web version that I don't recall seeing on the tv version but I don't believe it was any longer. This would make sense as both formats have to stick to the same timetable.
Sierraman,i've been moaning about the crap boy/girl stuff since they started showing it.......i presume MC reads this forum and knows our views on the subject...we are the ones paying to watch this good in places/pointless in places shows....
(06-09-2014 20:57 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe the tv and web versions aren't of different lengths but they show the scenes from different angles. I have seen both versions of the Beth and Leigh Darby sexpacking adventure and there was pussy licking on the web version that I don't recall seeing on the tv version but I don't believe it was any longer. This would make sense as both formats have to stick to the same timetable.
well there was side of the pussy licking and a bit of pussy rubbing at the very end
(06-09-2014 20:49 )sierraman Wrote: [ -> ]the last time I bought bsx 174 was 2 consecutive nights a couple of weekends ago.first night elicia solis doubling with kate santoro followed by a night of ruby summers.all cracking girls but to me 2 massively disappointing nights due to the over censorship by the producers resulting in material far too tame for an adult encrypted pay to view show.piss poor levels of excitement.me and others like me DO NOT harbour expectations of penetration.dildoing etc.all we ask is for good camera work and nice open pussy.minimum expectations to give us some value for money.why oh why they show any boy/girl stuff at all when there is no chance of showing anything remotely explicit is beyond me.good luck to those who are happy to fork out for this sort of stuff.for me personally I am voting with my wallet and keeping my money in my pocket unless the channel gets a little more adult in content and cuts out a large amount of the sexless,pointless repeated crap.
Don't disagree with anything you've said there mate - sorry if any of my posts came across as implying otherwise.
Like DTR57 says above, I agree I think there are ways of filming / better camera views than they currently use without having to show penetration etc; but they just don't seem to want to bother.
Sierraman,i've been moaning about the crap boy/girl stuff since they started showing it.......i presume MC read s this forum and knows our views on the subject...we are the ones paying to watch this good in places/pointless in places shows....
(06-09-2014 20:57 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]This would make sense as both formats have to stick to the same timetable.
There is no timetable for the web versions as they are never broadcast.