Wetlook World Forum
Current time: Thu 16/08/18 15:26:24 GMT
Message # 732220.127.116.11.1
Subject: Re:Skirts/Pants paradox
Date: Sat 05/05/18 01:03:02 GMT
Name: found one already
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|In reply to Message (73218.104.22.168) Re:Skirts/Pants paradox
By MK - email@example.com Fri 04/05/18 23:41:42 GMT
That an amusing observation - "wetlook ESP" that I have also noticed as well, though I don't think this proves that the actresses on Charlies Angels belonged to Dion Warwick's psychic friends network and could predict that a wet or messy scene was coming in the future, so it was time to "dumb down" the clothing to casual attire. I think it was more to do with the producers having read the script and shooting schedule and told the wardrobe department to change the girls clothes to casual because an wetlook scene was upcoming.
Charlies Angels was a disappointing series for "quality clothing wetlook"....and I remember reading a TV Times interview with creator Aaron Spelling in 1975 talking about his plans to make a new series, that was a re-make of the original 1969-1975 Japanese all girl detective series called "Playgirls" that had 276 episodes and about 20% of those episodes had decent wetlook scenes. I used to watch re-runs of this show when I was stationed in Hong Kong. When Aaron Spelling announced he had bought the rights to this Japanese show and planned to do an American version called "Charlie's Angels" I had high hopes, because the Japanese version had so many wetlook scenes and Spelling wrote in the UK TV times that he loved to see girls in wet clothes and planned to use this concept in his new series. Sad to say when Spelling made the series it never lived up to the Japanese version nor the hype Spelling was saying about showing lots of wet clothing scenes. I think Spelling made a huge mistake in casting Kate Jackson for that show....I mean....the show was supposed to show off the female form of the 3 female leads.....so why on earth would you hire an actress who refused to be seen wearing a swimsuit and insisted on hiding her legs via wearing pants all the time...she was totally out of place with the other castmembers who all showed off their bodies.
Thankfully there was no "wetlook ESP" when Esther and Richard Shapiro created "Dynasty"....and wetlook was not dumbed down on that show.
|In reply to Message (73296.4.1) Re:Skirts/Pants paradox
By EdR - firstname.lastname@example.org Fri 04/05/18 21:56:45 GMT
I'd like to interject a few things here. MK is naturally correct, generally speaking. I began producing my own material because there was a niche in wetlook that I felt wasn't represented and I decided to do that
As to the 3 kinds of wetlook. Modelled wetlook is what we do. I actually find issues with 1) Candid and 2) TV and movie wetlook. As to candid, the girls may actually choose their own clothes and for some this may be the appeal. But In my opinion, most girls don't know how to dress themselves. Today everyone dresses casually, and while that's absolutely ok, it's also often the case that casual can be a bit sloppy. Casual is a pair of jeans and some sort of shirt and typically flip flops. I personally liked the fashions of yesterday when women would dress up to go shopping or jump on an airplane. They took pride in their appearance in public. For me, there is a greater appeal to see a well dressed woman get wet, but most candid scenes are just too casual for my tastes.
TV and Movie wetlook is what I had access to when I was growing up as a kid. And it was always either hit or miss. Some scenes may have been pretty good, but most of the time, I was disappointed. Typically when a good wetlook scene occurred, the show went to commercial. And when you returned, the scene was over. The most frustrating kinds of disappointments were shows which always featured really well dressed actresses for the entire show. Except when a wetlook scene was part of the script. Its as if the actresses had "wetlook ESP" and they woke up and said to themselves. "I better not wear that sexy one piece dress with the plunging neckline and those high heels because I predict that today I'll be trapped in a water tank fighting for my life, or caught in the rain. So let me put on this pair of jeans and cheap sneakers and go casual"! Need an example? the original Charlie's Angels!!! Three gorgeous women but nearly every wetlook scene, they always seemed to somehow know to dress down. Sure they can kick ass in that hot 70s disco dress and run after criminals in high heels, but if they got near water, they were ready for it in casual clothes and shoes.
I actually prefer modeled wetlook because yes, we can control what the models wear. Theres no need to be disappointed in sloppy, casual and ill fitting clothes that normal girls who can't dress themselves, wear. And we don't have "wetlook ESP" or commercial breaks that end the scene
For me, the more inappropriate an outfit is for getting wet, the better! Flip flops, never! Jeans? Yes, but only if it complements the entire look. High heels? Definitely! "Dry Clean only" It's going in my pool. Leather and Lace? You'll see it underwater.
BTW, in case you didn't know, most of our models participate in the outfit selections. In some situations they wear their own clothes and their own high heels for our shoots.
|In reply to Message (73296.4) Re:Skirts/Pants paradox
By MK - email@example.com Fri 04/05/18 17:42:23 GMT
Good topic for discussion. Bear in mind that there are 3 kinds of wetlook
1) Candid Wetlook or Public Wetlook: where the girls choose their own clothes based upon the latest fashion trends and their own personal tastes...I call this "real wetlook"
2) TV and Movie Wetlook: where the producer and director determine what the wardrobe department hands to the girls...so the choices made are based on scripts and getting ratings.
3) Modelled Wetlook: where all the clothing choices are entirely the vision of the wetlook producer, and is pandered wetlook -- not necessarily the girls choices
What your preferences are (as a male) over women's clothing may not be relevant. If women's clothing choices were based on what the majority of males prefer, then most women on this planet would still be like Eve before she bit the apple.
I cannot speak for others, but I can speak for myself and say that I feel a fetish interest for me is always something that is "rare" and is in the minority. If a subject is the majority...then it is "common" and uninteresting to me. In the 1960's and 70's wet t shirt scenes used to be interesting to me, but today they are so common and passe they no longer interest me.....so if something is in the minority that is a good thing for me.
But the real reason that most wetlook producers shoot jeans and pants as opposed to skirts and dresses is a simple one....all wetlook producers interject their own personal tastes into their media and the majority of wetlook producers are hobbyists who just want to pursue their hobby and have some fun, so they create media to please themselves, and they do not aim to pander to a general audience. The larger commercial producers are far more diversified in their content offerings, because they have large production expenses so they cater to a wider audience to cover their costs.
Russ Meyer was a cult movie director who only produced movies that always had women with gigantic breasts in every film.....because that was his style...you never saw a woman with small breasts in his films.. It really does not matter what the majority wants....if you make the decision to become a wetlook producer you will create your own style and adopt your own preferences.
Bear in mind that is how most wetlook producers got started in the first place, because they were not satisfied with what others were doing, so they decided to do stuff themselves. In my case, I thank Hugh Hefner of Playboy for inspiring me, because when he released his "Wet and Wild" video series, those were so lack lustre and off the mark for me, I decided that if nobody was doing what liked, then I would my hire own models and do stuff myself. I once remember doing a wetlook shoot in the 1990's where I had all the girls wearing "Dynasty dresses" (silky dresses with shoulder pads....that I acquired from an antique clothing store). The girls were laughing and complaining about having to wear these dresses....saying they were old fashioned and out of style....and I had to explain to them that their opinions did not matter...because were were not shooting this video for their benefit...but for fetish fans. Similarly I had numerous arguments with the models over underwear.....because most of them preferred to wear g string or thongs....and they hated me because we were always giving them larger style underwear to wear. The girls were always saying to me "oh no......do we have to wear Granny panties again". Not to mention all the debates I had with models when we asked them to wear pantyhose....which they hated.
|In reply to Message (73296) Skirts/Pants paradox
I like to see wet skirts and dresses since I was a child. I always download sets where a skirt or a dress appears. I prefer long skirts/dresses.
However, most of material you can find at wetlook webpages is about pants, leggings, trousers...
I don't know, I guess guys prefers pants than skirts, which is totally reasonable, respectable and I don't have anything to argue of. However, it is curious to see some pages where guys prefer girls wearing skirts than pants, for example this one:
where 74% of guys prefer to see girls in skirts. How is it possible, then, to have a so huge percentage of wetlook material with pants/trousers? Does this means that in wetlook is preferably to see this kind of clothing instead of skirts?
I know that there are producers that have a lot of material with skirts, but in my opinion the material offered with pants/leggings/trousers is might be over 85% of all the wetlook material, something that I don't understand.
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to discuss it.
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)
[ This page took 0.008 seconds to generate ]