Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Tue 23/04/24 12:34:48 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 29236.3.1

Subject: Yes, it would definitely be wetlook...

Date: Mon 21/05/07 13:08:50 GMT

Name: ssiei

Email: ssiei@mail.com

Website:

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)

... I believe it can definitely be wetlook, even when you have a scene that doesen't comply to the 4 rules above stated by MK.

It is true that the "-look" part of the word "wetlook" would apparently suggest that all that counts is what you can actually see with your eyes (so this explains the rationale behind conceiving rules regarding the phisical appearance of the clothes). But remember that the only human organ sensible to stimulus and sensation is the brain, not the eyes!

Therefore, what "turns on" and captize the our attention is not only the visible "look", but also (and I daresay primarly) the attitude of the object of this attention, if it eventually fills the gaps and transforms into imagination.

Only one example will suffice to make my point clear: the first "wetlook" I experienced (if I can say so) - and probably the one causing me to consider wetlook in the first place - was the reading of the book "Pippi" by Astrid Lindgren, which you all may well know. Being a book, it is more than obvious that no real "wetlook" was anywhere to be seen... And nonetheless I consider it to have been my first aquaintance with wetlook.

Of course this changed when they aired the tv serie containing wet scenes in almost every show. But still, one of the best "wetlook" moments I remember of Pippi, is when she walks to town with Tommy and Annika after having played "the submarine" in a small canal along the road (fully clothed, as usual). After that, she says something like: "who ever said that all children must necessairly be always dry? (...) What I love the most is the gushing sound that my shoes make when they are full of water. Can you hear it?" The sound is then said to continue during their whole town tour.

Pippi's words and her shoes' sound would not involve seeing anything wet in a film, let alone in a book - and still are the very essence of wetlook.

SSIEI

In reply to Message (29236.3)

Re: Possible aspect of wetlook that is often ignored or not addressed

By MK - Mon 21/05/07 03:23:29 GMT

Website:

Anthony and DD are correct. The key thing is...that appendage we have called "look"...and in order see wet "look"...one of more of the following attributes HAVE to be visible on camera...i.e. a fabric must be seen doing one or more of these things

a) changing shape and clinging to the body

b) changing color

c) going shiny

d) becoming see thru

If you cannot see any of those things....it is NOT wetlook.....

And those attritibutes will not last for more then 3-4 minutes after a girl has gotten wet. Anything more than 5 minutes after getting wet...and no camera in the world can see "damp clothing"...it just looks no different to dry clothing.

This is one of thoe old Hollywood tricks that every tv or film director knows...i.e. when shooting a wet scene....you MUST keep "wetting the actresses down" to preserve continuity. There is an entire page devoted to behind the scenes pics of "wetting the actresses down" on wetfans excellent Vintage Wetlook site.

As one example....if you rent the 40th anniversay DVD edition of "The Sound of Music"...you can see an interesting documentary about the making of that film, and they found lost behind the scenes 8mm film footage of director Robert Wise...having to constantly keep pouring extra buckets of water over Julie Andrews....cos whenever she emerged from the lake...she only looked wet for about 3 minutes...so after every take, the director himself would take delight in pouring another bucket of water over Julie.

The same thing was true for the famous Maureen OHara wetlook scene in the 1957 John Wayne film "The Wings of Eagles"...where she runs into the lake in her sunday dress. Director John Ford apparently took sadistic delight in constantly pouring extra buckets of water over Maureen after every take (much to her annoyance).

I hate to burst the myth...but all of Hollywood cheats when it comes to rain as well...cos normal rain cannot be seen on camera either. My friend Billy works as film crew guy on many films shot in Miami...and whenever the script calls for rain, they have to spend 8-10 hours rigging up these giant rain machines all over the streets too.

Everything is an illusion...i.e. even on "Happy Days".,...nobody eats ice cream in an ice cream parlor....cos you cannot have ice ceam under hot studio lights...so they have to use mashed potato instead.

Showing wetlook on camera is really difficult to retain for more than 5 minutes.

In reply to Message (29236)

Possible aspect of wetlook that is often ignored or not addressed

By Maurice - Mon 21/05/07 01:39:48 GMT

Website:

Hey everyone. Firstly i hope im not critizising any of the wetlook producers, in my opinion their doing a fantastic job but there is one aspect of wetlook that i rarely ever see. That is the drying off stage after the woman has become wet. I find this to be an extreme turn on, just as much as she is in the water. When a woman's cltohes are wet and she is walking around, doing whatever she does, not caring that her clothes are soaked. that just drives me wild and i do wish to see more of this. Does anyone else is share this view?

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)