The Canyons

Don't just read, reply! Start your own threads, don't be shy, likeminded people may appreciate your thoughts! Talk about anything VNA related or not!
Post Reply
User avatar
stickyvicky
Commander in briefs
Posts: 26618
Joined: March 25th, 2005, 8:41 am
Location: Southwest Florida
Contact:

August 5th, 2013, 9:50 pm

Anyone seen this or plan on seeing it?
http://www.xbiz.com/news/167052
:yeahbaby: Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Image
Sext with me & VNA Girls on Loyal Fans!
Julia - Samantha - Maxine - Cleo - Jelena - Sara - Maggie - Deauxma - ShandaFay -Siri - Rachel Storms

www.Twitter.com/vickyvette
www.Instagram.com/vickyvette
www.LoyalFans.com/vickyvette
www.Onlyfans.com/vickyvette
User avatar
wshandcock
1st. Lieutenant
Posts: 1370
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 11:09 pm
Location: New York City

August 5th, 2013, 10:00 pm

I read about and have seem the trailers and I don't get all the hype . Is it because of Lindsay Lohan or because of James Dean crossing over to main stream . I am not a big fan of Linsday lohan at all she is like a reverse Milf, she is in her 20's looks like she is in her late 40's Plus the trailer wasn't that great
at best its a nothing to do Netflix rental but that just my opinion
User avatar
Davey_Boy
Private
Posts: 17
Joined: June 8th, 2013, 10:15 pm

August 5th, 2013, 10:28 pm

It's pretty much a softcore porn.. she's all kinds of naked in it...
User avatar
yman173
Private
Posts: 47
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Location: Illinois Cornfields, USA

August 6th, 2013, 9:08 am

I kinda like Lindsay, so Ill probably watch it. Its not "appointment viewing" for me by any means, but Ill check it out.
She's a crazy bitch but for some reason I kinda like my women that way. lol
User avatar
h0rnytoad1
Lieutenant General (3-Star)
Posts: 12235
Joined: September 17th, 2007, 11:45 pm

August 6th, 2013, 5:05 pm

canyons eh? oh, i thought it was about some big cleavage or a stretched out pussy

ImageImage
User avatar
carl goldfinger
Captain
Posts: 1801
Joined: July 4th, 2010, 7:32 am

August 6th, 2013, 6:29 pm

Well, I'm going to watch it when they show it in german cinemas.
I find, it is an interesting story with a tragic ending. (I love Shakespeare, hehe)
& I want to know how far Schrader is going with his erotic scenes.
Of course, it is made for the mainstream, so we'll never get to see any close-up pussy or penis.
There have been so many pseudo porn films in mainstream and there was always a hype around them.
Why? Because the people with their morality finger up made the best promotion for them...lol.
But, why the hype around such a low budget film? Replace James Deen & Lindsay Lohan with nobodies & the film would disapear in the oblivion before it is on screen.
The clue is that a "disgusting gangbang perv & rapist" like James Deen is on the screen with a fallen goodess of the mainstream industry, Lindsay Lohan!
This is a violence against the most important law in mainstream: Never ever mix mainstream with porn!
Not in the story & never use porn people (with a few exceptions, if the film is about sex or porn)
In a mainstream film you can talk about it, you can fake it, but you can never show it!
Porn has to be in the twilight!
That's why former porn actors have to go to Canossa first before they get a job in the mainstream industry.
Like this:
http://www.thegloss.com/2013/08/02/sex- ... n-industry

And another point of view, which I don't agree but it's showing some interesting points:
(Sorry, I've lost the link, but still have the text)

This isn't a slam on porn itself, or a call for the type of schoolmarmish pseudo-censorship being shoved down the throats of the English—who, thanks to Prime Minister David Cameron, soon will have to notify their ISPs if they want to see things being shoved down others' throats. No matter one's opinion of X-rated movies—be they narrative-driven, hardcore, gonzo—actual pornography generally delivers exactly what it advertises: namely, graphic sexual acts filmed for the self-gratification of its audience. It is, fundamentally, a functional art form, providing sights and sounds intended to help viewers—typically men—get off.

One may find that simplistic, morally objectionable, juvenile or idiotic. But it's rarely insincere. And even when it exhibits loftier artistic ambitions—like Vivid Video's 2005 big-budget epic Pirates—porn knows that, in the end, what matters most is up-close-and-personal depictions of people getting to it. Nobody expects porn to move or inspire beyond that, just as nobody expects a dildo to help comb one's hair; its purpose is singular in nature.

Mainstream movies, on the other hand, operate in a different pop-culture space. Even for projects that actively aim for passionate, tawdry or daring eroticism—including those that engage in the gratuitous nudity found in R- and unrated affairs, or HBO's Game of Thrones—dramatic demands take precedence over any claims to vérité realism. Being sexy is always far more crucial than showing sex that's "real."

Of course, that hasn't stopped many films from attempting to integrate porny elements into their proceedings. Melvin Van Peebles famously caught an STD while screwing onscreen for 1971's Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. Divine performed fellatio in John Waters's 1972 cult classic Pink Flamingos (on the guy playing her son in the movie, no less). Bob Guccione shot loads of explicit footage for Caligula, most of which eventually made it into the director's cut. William Friedkin did likewise for Cruising (though most of it never saw the light of day, and has now been lost). And they're not the only ones—highly respected directors like Catherine Breillat (Romance, Anatomy of Hell), Michael Winterbottom (9 Songs) and Leos Carax (Pola X), as well as turn-of-the-century arthouse provocations like Baise-moi, Ken Park and The Brown Bunny, all attracted notoriety by compelling leads to actually get it on for the cameras.

In virtually every instance, that stunt proves to be, at best, a distracting gimmick. Onscreen sensuality is the byproduct of many things—chemistry between performers, expert direction, a story that properly contextualizes and builds to its carnal climaxes—and explicitness isn't one of them. To call attention to the "reality" of a film's coupling is to divert attention away from, and take viewers out of, the fiction at hand. Nicolas Roeg's Venetian thriller Don't Look Now is a classic for many reasons, but ultimately none of them have to do with the did-they-or-didn't-they questions about Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie's infamous sex scene. That controversy is irrelevant (the scene is intense, regardless of logistics), and has done little more than sidetrack conversations away from the masterful dread and terror Roeg stirred up—qualities absent from Roeg's later efforts, like that hand-in-pants cable movie Full Body Massage.

Just like horror, onscreen sex is almost always more evocative when suggested rather than bluntly shown. There's far more sexual pop in the chaste It Happened One Night or the boundary-pushing Last Tango in Paris and 9 ½ Weeks than in any of the purported real-sex art films, even in those cases when such graphicness makes sense within the context of a given project (say, John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus). Authenticity be damned, all Rocco Siffredi's Anatomy of Hell bumping and grinding can't compete with Sharon Stone uncrossing her legs in Basic Instinct, just as Chloë Sevigny's The Brown Bunny fellatio isn't in the same league as any single moment of Rebecca Romijn in Brian De Palma's Femme Fatale.

That goes double for films about porn, which—like those that cast working porn stars in non-porn roles—strive to generate sexual excitement from their proximity to the adult-entertainment world. While Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno recognizes the silliness of its conceit, efforts like the John Holmes crime saga Wonderland and the Charlie Sheen/Emilio Estevez industry drama Rated X immerse themselves in sleaze but remain woefully short on legitimate erotic electricity. Caught between being serious and being shocking, they wind up delivering only faux titillation. In this respect, they're most akin to softcore cable endeavors, especially '90s Skinemax classics (starring the likes of Shannon Tweed), which were obsessed with stylish noir posturing. Their straight-faced storytelling is undermined by their brazen sensationalism, which in turn is made goofy by the surrounding material's façade of gravity.

There's one glaring exception—Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights, whose thematic scope and earnest interest in character sets it apart from its porn-themed brethren. Furthermore, there are a few porn stars who have successfully transitioned to mainstream projects, such as Traci Lords and The Girlfriend Experience's Sasha Grey, but those rare actresses eschewed nudity-heavy roles that would pigeonhole them as lascivious one-trick ponies. As re-established by both The Canyons and Lovelace, brushing up against porn personalities and scenarios is mainly just a flaccid means of trying to energize stories that otherwise can't fully sustain audience interest.

If this sounds like a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument, that's because it is: Dramatic films with real sex are marred by look-at-me gimmicks, and those that feign porn outrageousness (through their casting, or their stories' subject matter and milieus) come across as neutered poseurs. The long, hard truth: Porn is best left in porn.


A little bit long... but not bad at all.
& the last sentence is not my opinion.
Why not combining a good story with realistic (good) sex scenes?
Is a good story reseved for mainstream only & silliness for porn? That sounds stupid to me.
I still think it is a real market gap and a chance for the film industy (mainstream & porn) to estabish a new market.
What the mainstream shows are repetitive stories; end of the world, comedy, crime & love stories; as well as porn repetitve shows all kind of sex.
Why not mixing them & create a new kind of film art?
Hm... a long way to go...
Canyons may be one step forward of many to go for.

Carl :heartflames:

PS: I forgot a very important point: In the moment the audience of porn are 90% men. The new film art should aim on women, then... :D
Intelligent ppl are only intelligent because they invent things to make their life easier, lazy bastards...like me...
User avatar
WSJ689
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 1073
Joined: December 10th, 2008, 11:05 am
Location: norcal

August 7th, 2013, 3:12 pm

i will probably watch it when it comes to hbo or netflix as i would like to see how Lindsay does
i bet her reality series on own will be followed by many
User avatar
rokkerr
Army Chief of Staff "Number One"
Posts: 13113
Joined: March 11th, 2006, 8:45 am
Location: London, Los Angeles and now Tampa!
Contact:

September 8th, 2013, 4:28 pm

I guess the movie bombed in theaters.... as did LoveLace...
http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/09/05/po ... fice-bombs
wearing my cockring 24 hours a day
User avatar
h0rnytoad1
Lieutenant General (3-Star)
Posts: 12235
Joined: September 17th, 2007, 11:45 pm

September 10th, 2013, 4:49 pm

i saw bits of it here and there, i seen one of the guys in some real porn

and lindsay does look hot, its all the makeup i know, but i like it.

And yes she does show Tits'N'Ass, idk if she goes "all the way" but at least a lil bj wouldn't hurt, oh and in the movie too :drummer: lol

ImageImage

Image
Post Reply