 Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 04/05/24 14:59:03 GMT Translate page FROM Translate page TO | 
|
Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 04/05/24 14:59:03 GMT Translate page FROM Translate page TO |
|
|
Message # 15977.1.1.1.2.2.1 Subject: Date: Thu 12/05/05 22:18:06 GMT Name: MK Email: wamtec@compuserve.com |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
|
|
No...thats not want I meant. Of course the production companies sometimes shoot stills for promotional purposes....but none of those stills they shoot will be "money shots" in the gratuitous way that wetlook fans like to see the shots done.
The way it works on any tv or film set is...if any production stills are taken...those have to be submitted to the actors and "approved" by them for release. Of course...no actress is going to approve of a shot that she might consider to be gratuitous or unflattering to them. I think you can see what I am getting at. If the Sarah Jessica Parker clinging wet ass pic had been taken by one of their own production crew...that photo would never have been approved for release...it would have been canned on the spot.
Getting back to the original question the poster asked about behind the scenes photos for that DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES pool scene....even if they were done for promotional purposes (i.e. some pics for tv guide magazine) the pics would have only been shot in an artistic way for a mainstream magazine...and thats not want wetlook fans want to see...wetlook fans like gratuitous shots of the girl with clinging dress as she exits the pool...and no production company will produce a still like that for use in TV guide or other magazines...
Hence...the best pics tend to NOT be those production stills shot by a production crew...those will be sanitized to death....the better shots do tend to come from the paparazzi who will catch better moments.
But thats just my opinion.
Actually....one has to remember that whenever production companies DO take such stills for promotional purposes...they OFTEN commit a worse crime....i.e. they "make up" shots that do not actually exist in the movie. Case in point...several of the vintage stills on JJ's site are production still totally "invented" for the purposes of promoting said film....but no such scene as depicted in those pics actually exists in the film.
Who can forget this video box cover pic from the 1994 Marisa Tomei movie....ONLY YOU
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000633R4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
We have a production crew to blame for ripping us off with this pic...cos many wet fans rented this film after they saw the box cover...and then found out that no such scene like this appears in the film.
At least you know that what the paparrazi shoot is a fair representation of what actually happened. Production stills taken by the actual production company can be totally misleading.
MK |
In reply to Message (15977.1.1.1.2.2)  Silly question
By AnthonyX -
anthonyx@jowc.net
So "behind the scenes" material is all shot by paparrazi? Noone associated with or arranged by the production does it for, say, promotional purposes?
|
In reply to Message (15977.1.1.1.2)  Re: Re: Re: Yeah,showed her from the neck up for 1 second.
By MK -
wamtec@compuserve.com
To prove my point about Sex in the City...
Remember the scene where Sarah Jessica Parker falls into the lake
http://members.fortunecity.com/noops034/sarah_jessica_parker042.jpg
Did we get to see any decent "money shots" of that lake scene in that episode....no...they cut all those out or never shot them. And we got to see diddly squat on the actual show.
But here is the money shot you never got to see in that episode...
http://members.fortunecity.com/noops034/sarah_jessica_parker044.jpg
The only reason that shot was captured...is because it was not under the control of the SEX IN THE CITY production crew or editors. They shot that scene in Central Park....and some of the paparazzi were camped out at the park and and managed to take these shots.
The original poster asked for behind the scenes footage from DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES....thats not gonna happen...because none of that series is shot out in public places...it is all shot inside a closed lot at Universal Studios. The only reason the paparazzi could get those shots of SJP is because that series was often filmed in public places in NYC.
If Sex in the City were a show aimed at men...then we would have seen that money shot included on the show....but the fact they they deliberate avoid showing money shots indicates that this is not a show aimed at male audiences.
MK |
| In reply to Message (15977.1.1.1) Re: Re: Yeah,showed her from the neck up for 1 second.
By MK -
wamtec@compuserve.com
It proves my theory about that show...i.e. it's chick-flick show shot for women only...cos it fails to deliver the kinds of shots that men would want to see. The ultimate "death nail" in the coffin for that series....was last week at the annual reporters convention at the White House...when first lady Laura Bush gave a speech and said she watches that show and she loves Desperate Housewives....and imho any show that is favored by the First Lady....must surely be the kind of show that will never do anything for me....cos I am pretty sure that Laura Bush would not be a fan of "Ciao Darwin"...ha ha
Desperate Housewives is really a myth...portrayed by the media as being a sexy show for men....and thats baloney...
It's like when then used to accuse the Beauty Pageant shows on tv as being a "male fantasy" to see women strutting on stage wearing swimsuits.....get real...what male fantasizes about seeing women strutting on stage totally covered up by a swimsuit...if beauty pageants were truly a male fantasy...those girls would be strutting on stage NAKED.
This is why the series SEX IN THE CITY never delivered anything tangible for wetlook or male fans either...it was a show by women for women.
If Desperate Housewives were truly the male oriented sexy show like the media portray it to be...those girls would be bouncing up and down in miniskirts on trampolines...like THE MAN SHOW used to do...ha ha.
MK
|
In reply to Message (15977.1.1)  Re: Yeah,showed her from the neck up for 1 second. [nt]
By WETINRED -
wetinred@cableone.net
Website: http://www.wetinred.com (no text) |
| In reply to Message (15977.1) Re: Desperate housevives
By AnthonyX -
anthonyx@jowc.net
I think the better question may be if anyone can get their hands on outtakes or "behind the scenes" footage. What got aired was little to nothing, wetlook-wise. Doesn't even compare to when Felicity waded in wearing her black formal (premiere episode).
|
| In reply to Message (15977) Desperate housevives
By Wetclothes -
Have anyone a better pictures of that "poolplunge"?
http://abc.go.com/primetime/desperate/images/gallery/ep20/gallery.html?photo=20
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
|
Minx Movies - M12 - Dressed in Wet is now in the Download Store
Minx Movies - M15 - Wet Me Now is now in the Download Store
Minx Movies - M14 - Get Wet With Me is now in the Download Store
Minx Movies - M8 - Mask Of Wetness is now in the Download Store
[ This page took 0.039 seconds to generate ]
-> TO
Thu 12/05/05 18:55:59 GMT
Thu 12/05/05 07:11:07 GMT
