Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Acting in videos?


Recommended Posts

What are your thoughts on models in wetting/desperation videos who overact, either subtly or obviously? And then there's the videos where the model talks directly to the viewer about maybe how desperate or horny she is. I've also seen videos where people talk about how desperate they are when they clearly aren't and are instead just going off a script. I personally don't like these kinds of videos and prefer more genuine reactions. I'm also not a fan of videos where I'm being talked to; it's just not something that I can get into.

Link to comment

Though it is offcourse very difficult to make a certain script for a movie that's to everyone's taste..

While I do agree on some of the points you people made, I for one am happy with a n y thing that's been put out there .

For me personally, I allways tend to make up a certain story in my head for every picture or video .

Even just the regular porn id, if it's got a wetting in it, I'll think of a certain situation or the actresses clothing I part.like or which is reminding me of someone. 

 

But maybe I'm just weird like that, and have even weirder taste..allso very plausible !🤪

Link to comment

Gotta love the girls who act all desperate, then put out about 3 ounces. Not sure if that is better or worse than the faked wettings with a water hose in the panties that Skymouse used to do.

The biggest source of frustration for me is that vids have to pass the plausibility test. Is it possible that the situation I'm watching could occur in real life? If not then my attraction falls quite a bit. 

Link to comment

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but from the couple videos I've shot of myself, I typically spend a good amount of time planning out where exactly I'll be wetting, with appropriate angles to get the wetting in view well enough, then just make myself a station for where I can run straight towards when I'm ready. 

 

I sort of act a little, make some groans and moans, but that is honestly mainly because it would feel weird to me to have an essentially silent and desperate person. I really am bursting, but I don't really make those noises when I'm off camera and about to wet myself. I refrain from talking though, I don't like explaining myself out. But I get it, I'm sure it invokes a more intimate feeling of actually being with the person, as they're talking to you about their situation. I personally don't really like too much acting in videos I watch though.

Link to comment

Personally, I like am fine with a bad plot and some acting, as long as there is a plot. I like it when B2B videos have elaborate plotlines that are unlikely, but they at least lead to dialog that doesn't break immersion completely. Examples are stuff like, 'going to a neighbors house and they won't let you use their toilet' or 'stuck at a place and finding out their toilet is broken'. It allows them the chance to use that cheesy talking to the camera 'but I really have to go' type stuff without it being as dumb. Still, some of them overact even in those cases. My favorite model on their site was Lily, mostly because she is good at not just bursting completely, and realistic panicking when she starts to leak, which is all it takes to be believable for me. None of this 'oh no I'm starting to pee myself, I better stretch my panties up and give myself a wedgie' business.

There are clearly a lot of actions they are doing to please a certain audience, and I won't blame the content makers for that, I just don't participate in it. Completely wetting yourself when you have the privacy and space to pull your pants/panties down and weren't in a rush. The self-administered wedgies I mentioned before. Sudden masturbation upon wetting themselves. Some stuff just pulls me out a little. Usually not enough to ruin a whole video. Plus I still like silly scenarios, like that series of 'weird roommates' videos where the girls are introducing a new girl and just strip down and pee on the floor for no reason to freak her out. 

I guess, as the Oglaf comic goes, "I need a convoluted narrative to get me off."

 

Link to comment

Bad acting does make the video significantly worse for me. I’m not sure if anyone will disagree with that. 

Most studios do a good job with the acting though. WHP is probably the worst for acting and in my opinion, has gone downhill over the last few years. IN2P is another that I think has started to follow the trend of bad acting. 

B2B I think does a good job with the acting and I really like the scenario driven stuff they do. 

LoveWetting takes the cake though easily. The girls they have hold a ton of pee and it always seems like they are genuinely desperate. 

Link to comment

These threads are always interesting to me, because they touch on my profession, both as someone who owns a mainstream production company and someone who makes wetting videos.

So here is the thing:

1- It is all about authenticity

Typically, the reason "bad acting" or a contrived plot bothers a viewer is that the video feels fake.  When it just doesn't feel authentic, and you lack an in-depth educational background in narrative filmmaking,  it often becomes easy to scapegoat the plot or the acting as far as what it is that feels off.  After all, what else is there to a video?

2- Moving pictures are all lies

Maybe the intent is not to lie, but any time you record an image, a moving image especially, choices are being made- What to show in the frame? What to exclude? The angle to film it from?  The exposure, focus, and motion rendering are all choices being made, if not by the camera operator, then by the camera's software.  It is a small sampling of reality, at best.  As soon as something enters our realm of awareness that something isn't quite right, the reality of the whole video falls apart and we become super aware of the lie.

3- Suspension of disbelief

In order for us to become enraptured in any kind of story, we must suspend our disbelief of the unreal elements.  This is true for books, a story your friend tells you, or videos and motion film.  That suspension of disbelief is incredibly fragile, however, and once it is broken there is no getting it back.

The easiest way for a storyteller or filmmaker to maintain the suspension of disbelief is to engage in world-building- To first construct the world.  That world can be a different reality from our own, with its own set of rules.  As far as wetting videos go, this world-building could be relatively simple- It could be a world where girls always where incredibly tight pants and their zippers always get stuck, or a world where the bathroom is in use and the characters have to wait.   The thing is that the storyteller must first build this world before they can ask the audience to accept it.  Even then, the rules of the world must be consistent, otherwise, it will cease to feel authentic.

The most difficult case for achieving suspension of disbelief is for a real-world scenario.  If the storyteller doesn't engage in any specific world-building we automatically assume things are taking place in our world.  In this case, anything that is in any way inconsistent with what we would expect in the real world breaks the suspension of disbelief.  True "caught-on-tape" videos manage to still feel authentic because they are real and there is nothing the cues us in on the lie.  However, anything short of this must be done exceptionally well in order to maintain the illusion.  Far too often fetish films don't engage in any kind of world-building first, thus leaving us, the audience, hyper-aware of lie we are being told.

4- How to deal with the audience's suspension of disbelief

Storytellers and filmmakers have several ways, even when it comes to fetish videos, that they can deal with the audiences inherent disbelief.  One way is to engage in world-building, as previously discussed, but this can be time-consuming and requires specific skills to do effectively.

A filmmaker can also embrace the audience's disbelief- This is what happens when the model talks directly to the camera.  The filmmaker is saying, "Hey, I know that you, the audience, knows there is a camera here filming this. So we're not going to pretend anything different and acknowledge the camera."  Now it doesn't feel inauthentic because the lie is being acknowledged from the beginning, but it also means that you aren't going to be able to get lost in that fantasy.

There are other little things the filmmaker can do that can help as well.  Over one hundred years of movies have trained us on the specific visual style of film, so that once our brain is exposed to the motion cadence of double-flashed 24 frames-per-second film we automatically begin to accept the fantasy narrative we are being fed.  There are other tricks, taking advantage of neuroscience, to direct what the viewer is thinking about or reacting to which can help disguise the lie by preventing the viewer from even thinking about it.  Again, these techniques require time and a high level of skill to pull off effectively.

 

Link to comment

Rather than obviously fake desperation, I prefer amateur pee-show videos where the actress does her best to be cute and somewhat active while peeing.  Ditto liking unplanned videos in which the "star" becomes uncomfortably full and after a time resorts to peeing behind a bush or car rather than continuing discomfort.

Camera Guy Point 2:  All lies--literally.  I've a background in television.  Even news clips showing a reporter standing a block from open gunfire.  The shooting is from a safe shelter (stock footage) or staged.  The master-control operator chroma-keys the reporter's image into the battle scene.  Broadcast managers don't like risking good reporters (or even bad ones).

In demonstrations closer to home, the camera operator frames college-age or anarchists.  This gives the impression the entire demonstration arises from young or social outliers--and possibly larger than it is.

Suspension of disbelief:  Even after I explained the above to a stage-savvy friend, he continued buying into deceptive news content.  Strangely, he never wanted to distinguish between "I seen it with me own eyes" and "I seen the video version with me own eyes."

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Stanley79 said:

Camera Guy Point 2:  All lies--literally.  I've a background in television.  Even news clips showing a reporter standing a block from open gunfire.  The shooting is from a safe shelter (stock footage) or staged.  The master-control operator chroma-keys the reporter's image into the battle scene.  Broadcast managers don't like risking good reporters (or even bad ones). 

1

What I meant when I said it is all lies is that it is impossible to attempt to capture something on video without creating a specific depiction of reality.  Video only gives you a limited window with very limited tools to capture the truth of a situation.  The most skilled video journalists are the ones who are able to determine what is relevant, what is not, and make conscious decisions to create the most accurate portrayal possible.

I spent 10 years working in broadcast television news as a photog (camera guy).  I worked for multiple local stations and freelance assignments for every major U.S. broadcast network except NBC.  Never, not once, was there even a discussion of faking a live shot in front of a green screen.  I can't even begin to recall all of the live shots I did, every single one was actually on location.  If we said we were a block away from an active shooting, that's where we were.  If we said we were live, we really were live.  I don't know what a "broadcast manager" is, but news producers and news directors were always pushing us to get as close as possible.  Yes, they would say be safe, but can't you get somewhere a bit closer, where we can see something a bit better.

Also, often at these active situations, the PIO of the department in charge would set up an impromptu media staging area on scene where the media would be briefed with the latest info.  More often then not we would do our live shots from these media staging areas on location so we would be there when the latest info was handed out.

Now, it is true, if we were covering some kind of demonstration and a group at that demonstration was being more active than others, then yes, the group that is more visually interesting is probably going to get a bit more air time.  Imagine you a producer selecting video for the tease for the story on the demonstration, do you select the video of an old guy sitting in a lawn chair looking half asleep, or the college-age kids shouting and waving signs?

Link to comment

So I worked in three local stations where people handing orders to producers and directors were called "broadcast program managers."

Wow!  A truly different culture from where I worked.  If I understand, you've run camera in Middle East battles with live ammunition zipping by, or something like that.

With our insurance, the business manager wouldn't even allow our weather reporters out in the snow.   The weather reporters were chroma-keyed into feeds from from some of the better highway cameras.  All the other stations did the same.  Not really a deception unless viewers think weather reporters can beam from suburb to suburb in a microsecond.

But true.  Even with best intentions, video doesn't provide the whole story.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, DeltaFoxtrot said:

Not sure if that is better or worse than the faked wettings with a water hose in the panties that Skymouse used to do.

I am happy that I never saw a video of them, because that would have really made me angry. The same caliber is diapermess.com with their fake messes, were the model just moves enough to change the shape of the diaper, so you can't really tell, that all the grunting was only acting. I really hate deception. Why say it's a messing if nothing really happens and then charge money for it?

Link to comment

Yeah, overacting is pretty annoying and really breaks immersion. In terms of the videos in which they talk directly to the viewer, it can work sometimes. It works better for self-filmed amateur videos then it does for other types of videos, and, like everything else, it works a whole lot better if it's genuine.

Link to comment
On 8/10/2019 at 5:00 AM, Delta-Force said:

I am happy that I never saw a video of them, because that would have really made me angry. The same caliber is diapermess.com with their fake messes, were the model just moves enough to change the shape of the diaper, so you can't really tell, that all the grunting was only acting. I really hate deception. Why say it's a messing if nothing really happens and then charge money for it?

Fake messing vids are a dime-a-dozen. I only go for the ones that show the mess at the end, at least then you know it's real. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...