| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
Brutal POV
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Comment
Thanks for the warning! I was actually looking into subscribing to this site (recently acquired an Oculus Go) — now it's moving lower on the list. Auto signups should be illegal.
|
02-08-19 11:41pm
|
Reply
2
|
Life Selector
(0)
|
Reply of
Wraith0711's Comment
Not sure why no one answered this, but simply put: Nope, they aren't VR, just POV. I think you technically can download the videos, but you wouldn't want to because you'd lose the interactive functionality. The website is token based, so you own videos for life once you buy them. No need to download, just hop on the site and rewatch. It would make sense for them to switch to VR, though I imagine they'd need a specific Oculus or Vive app to make that happen, and I have no idea what the official stance on porn is for those companies. Since Facebook owns Oculus, I'm guessing it's not a positive stance.
|
02-08-19 11:37pm
|
Reply
3
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I love it — it's become a tradition and it's great when they really invest some thought into coming up with a new idea. Every once in a while, Brazzers really knocks it outta the park with a holiday post.
|
11-21-16 01:50pm
|
Reply
4
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
I agree with exotics4me, Kink would be ideal for this as their price is significant. That said, I see tons of sales for most of the networks throughout the year. Plus, if it is a really good network, signing up for a year or more is by far the cheapest option.
Also, it should be noted that Brazzers and Reality Kings are the same company.
|
11-15-16 08:14pm
|
Reply
5
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Reply
lol, I sort of forgot we could suggest them.
|
11-14-16 09:28pm
|
Reply
6
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
I've made a number of impulse purchases that I've later regretted, but usually it was like $30 and I wasn't too mad at myself. I don't recall any being under the influence of alcohol, but I suppose one or two could have been.
|
11-13-16 10:27am
|
Reply
7
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
Yes, for all three.
(These polls are getting kinda weird, but I like that they are fresh questions at least.)
|
11-11-16 01:18pm
|
Reply
8
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
Let's hope they listen to the die-hard fans and do just that!
|
11-06-16 01:35pm
|
Reply
9
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I agree that Skyfall was truly atrocious. The only positive was killing off Judi Dench's M because she had been really mailing it in for the past few movies. The movie was just very long and wasted so much talent (I mostly mean Albert Finney — Javier Bardem is mostly overrated in my opinion.)
It also never ended, 143 minutes was about 53 minutes too long.
Spectre is 148 minutes, because apparently Sam Mendes felt 143 was really cramping his style. I've yet to see it either.
Daniel Craig keeps hedging his bets on if he'll do another one or not. I'd rather he don't but I wouldn't be shocked if he turns around and signs up for Bond 25. He's currently listed as the Odds-On Favorite by the strange folks betting on the casting for Bond 25. We shall see.
Regarding Brosnan: Apparently he was all set to do a fifth Bond film, was told they'd be starting pre-production soon and all that, and then got a call from the producers saying they were going in a different direction. Word is was that they got scared by the Bourne Identity (Budget of $60m) with it's June 2002 release to a $27m opening and a $121m final gross after 5 months. The odd thing is that November 2002's Die Another Day (Budget $142m) had a $47m opening and grossed $161m in only 4 months. Sure Bourne's profit margin was much higher, but Bond was pulling in a ton of money none-the-less.
They are such different films and when they retooled Bond to be younger, leaner, and meaner — they didn't save any money. Casino Royale (2006) cost $150m and grossed $167m, and it's opening was smaller than Die Another Day at $40m.
The simply need to go back to what made the Connery, Lazenby, and Brosnan films fun and get rid of the idea of James Bond being a brash, barely-harnessed, thug. Bond is the secret agent with a sparkle in his eye and a one-liner always ready-at-hand.
|
11-04-16 08:18pm
|
Reply
10
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
Agreed! The prices once you start buying multi-month packages from any of the MindGeek networks are so cheap. You quickly start entering Netflix pricing territory.
|
11-04-16 07:49pm
|
Reply
11
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Review
FYI: To stream their movies at full 1080p, click the little settings button (an icon of three interlocking gears) to the right of the "Download" button. It has four bitrates: TrueLife HD 1080p, HD 720p, SD High 480p, SD Low 360p.
Not sure if that earns them the 1 point to enter the 90s, but I figured I'd point out that streaming isn't necessarily a con. On the flip side, the whole not being able to view a photo at full res without downloading the entire set drives me insane. The entire meta-network (Brazzers, et. al.) does the same thing. So irritating.
|
11-03-16 09:42pm
|
Reply
12
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I 100% agree with your second paragraph. Daniel Craig's Bond reboot never sat well with me. It was like they tried to turn Bond into a humourless Jason Bourne — we didn't need that. Bond can have badass action and a sense of humour, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I must say that Connery is an awesome Bond, but I'm one of those crazy Lazenby fans. He's my favorite. I just wish George wasn't an asshat and had instead agreed to do another movie. Instead he worried about being type-cast.
I personally feel like Idris Elba would be a fantastic choice. He has the elegance, he is comfortable with humour and he has that size and tough-guy power that would make him for a formidable Bond. As for the age, Roger Moore was 46 when he started as Bond. Timothy Dalton was 43. Pierce Brosnan was 42. Only Connery (32), Lazenby (30), and Craig (38) were in their 30s. Dye Elba's hair black and you've got an easy 15 years out of him.
An unknown could be nice, but with the money behind the current Bond films, I don't see it happening.
|
11-03-16 07:09pm
|
Reply
13
|
N/A
|
Reply of
merc77's Reply
Ah, that makes sense. Elegance and Pornography Cover Design do not seem to go hand-in-hand.
|
09-21-16 10:41am
|
Reply
14
|
N/A
|
Reply of
merc77's Reply
If not to hide them then is it just as a form of Porn Russian Roulette?
|
09-20-16 09:51pm
|
Reply
15
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I'm usually fond of accents and find them cute, though if they are particularly thick it can become frustrating.
There are only a few accents I hate for women to have and they are all from speakers whose native language is English.
For American girls: A really, really strong New York accent, especially if high pitched (think Cyndi Lauper). A very strong Southern accent, both the former plantation owners type (if you call me Darlin', I'm walkin' the other way.) and the full-blown rural Alabama yokel types. Lastly, the classic Valley Girl accent with all of that vocal fry. Hate it.
For British girls: I have a love/hate relationship with girls who most Brits would describe as chavs. On one hand, I often find their garish, slutty makeup and dress style attractive, on the other hand, every time they speak I want to violently punch them in the throat.
For Australian girls: All of them. Seriously, I've never heard an Australian woman speak in her native accent and not been immediately turned off by her voice. It is strange because I love the accent on men, but on women it is just off. I think I find the accent sort of imbued with this mannish friendliness which works wonderfully for men, but ends up being very distracting on women. Back in the day, I always had to skip the interviews on Abbey Winters because the models' voices ruined the fantasy for me. Sorry Australia!
|
09-10-16 07:33pm
|
Reply
16
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
Eddie Izzard is still one of my all-time favorites. Daniel Tosh is fantastic in stand-up, but not a big fan of his shows. Richard Pryor was outstanding. Robin Williams also had some fantastic sets.
|
08-31-16 11:49am
|
Reply
17
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Bored models is pretty common and one of the top reasons I will pass over many scenes and sets. Generally those models don't stay in the industry very long.
Every once in a while you'll see models that appear genuinely upset, which can be a sign of a real problem, unless that is the site's brand (Facial Abuse, Ghetto Gaggers, et. al.) — in which case in becomes a kind of a grey area.
In the sites where abuse is their brand, I've seen plenty of behind-the-scenes footage of them slowing down or straight up stopping the production when the model requested it. They make sure the models are aware of the particular level of abuse ahead of time, but they also seem to be fine with recognizing that not everyone is going to make it through the whole scene.
On the other hand, I have seen one upsetting video from Max Hardcore where the model explicitly and repeatedly said she wanted to stop and he just kept going. I would classify that one as rape, especially since it was shot with the aid of a tripod, so nobody else was there. I don't think such events are common within the industry anymore, but it was clear evidence that it does still happen.
|
08-23-16 09:35am
|
Reply
18
|
N/A
|
Reply of
yote78's Poll
"Innies" are boring, "outies" have character and personality!
|
08-19-16 07:28pm
|
Reply
19
|
N/A
|
Reply of
skippy's Poll
I remember the first mildy porn like photo I ever downloaded, if that counts. Elle Macpherson in a wet t-shirt. It was hosted on a local bulletin board that I had to call direct with the computer, no going through an ISP to reach that server. Here is the photo: http://i.imgur.com/6q6NNZR.jpg
|
08-15-16 10:43am
|
Reply
20
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
There've been a few sites that made renewal so cheap, or offered such ridiculously cheap long term subscriptions that I've had several go over the 1 year mark. ProBillers (Brazzers, et. al.) is now offering 5, 10, and 25 year subscriptions that they call "legacy rates".
|
08-07-16 09:50am
|
Reply
21
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Fluffers are a weirdly persistent myth for the majority of the porn industry. In normal shoots the dudes just jerk off to keep themselves hard when lights need to be moved around or whatever. Sometimes the actress will lend a hand or mouth. A lot of guys use chemical aids like viagra.
There is the exception of bukkake / massive gangbang shoots which will indeed hire porn stars for the sole purpose of giving blowjobs to the guys next in line, as sometimes visible in the Czech Gangbang videos. In Gangbang 17 the "fluffers" and the host are grabbed by some of the men and brought into the action, while I doubt that it wasn't staged, they do a good job of making it believable.
|
08-02-16 06:46pm
|
Reply
22
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
Few times a month, probably.
Usually I get to TBP via a Porn Users link, which bypasses the front page to take me directly to a site's review page.
However, sometimes I just want to browse a category, so I go to TBP's home page and then take a glance at the What's Hot.
Maybe the Porn Users header could have a small "What's Hot" ticker or something?
|
03-10-16 11:59pm
|
Reply
23
|
Stripper Facials
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
I think you just saved me $10. Thank you.
|
02-26-16 09:45pm
|
Reply
24
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Yup. Several times. Somebody's gotta give new sites a chance, and sometimes it takes professional reviewers years to get to sites in the smaller niches.
|
11-10-12 01:42am
|
Reply
25
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Claypaws's Reply
Well said!
Though I personally have no moral qualms about recreational drug use. I have little interest in it myself - partially due to the potential physical dangers they present and partially due to the cultural / legal dangers the present - but I don't have any objections to people using them in a moderate fashion (moderate all things to moderation). Excessive use of just about anything will get one into trouble.
I think perhaps only excessive use of rationalism won't get someone into trouble. It might get you labeled as a Sociopath, but you probably wouldn't be locked up, as you wouldn't get caught doing anything illegal if your excessive rationalistic approach is done accurately (this is not to say you wouldn't do anything illegal).
|
11-08-12 09:46pm
|
