.
Watermarks! Yes, they may be a fact of life. We hate them all, but some we can live with. They are fairly unobtrusive, and once we turn the movie on, we can forget that the crummy obstacle to our viewing pleasure is floating around.
Sometimes, the watermarker is nice enough to turn the watermark off, or have it appear intermittently throughout the movie. Many watermarks, of course, stick around, insisting on showing their ugly face throughout.
This thread will spotlight the worst offenders. The idea is to identify who the watermarks belong to.
-----
EDIT:
When we say "watermark," we mean anything that the tamperer has polluted the movie with to put his personal stamp on the movie... including logos, or anything that originally wasn't meant to be there. We can extend this argument away from JAV - even though we are only concerned about JAV - and point to as examples the annoying television station logos that has become de rigueur in (at least) American TV.
----
(Imagine! They take somebody else's property, and dare to put the mark of their deviltry on it, as if they are the owners of the movie. Certain cases, maybe understandable, as we have seen a discussion here recently from an uploader's perspective. Yet if they must do it, WHY do they do it in the worst eye-catching way?)
Once we determine the villain, then we are simply going to have to take our torches and pitchforks, and storm the cretin's house. We're just going to have to... string him up! (I'll bring the rope.)
I'll start things off. (And remember; if you've got your own examples of a watermark that makes your blood boil, make sure to include a picture! So we will know what you're talking about.)
This offender, I see in too many movies:
"MU"
Examples from MIDD 999:
The reason why "MU" is so disgusting is because it's in color. And it's in the family of red, which means when there are scenes of skin (which sometimes occurs with pornography), the watermark looks like it can be part of the flesh. (And most of us don't care for actors with leprosy, as liberal-minded as we may be.)
Even when the watermark doesn't superimpose (which, in this context, brings a new meaning to that word) against an actor's flesh, the different coloration and artsy design makes it look like there's... something... there, that certainly distracts from watching the movie. Examples from MIDD 802:
Even when in the clear, the watermark is just too eye-catching:
What gall and arrogance on the part of this watermarker, to have such total disrespect toward the interests of his "clients," the ones he hopes will download his pilfered movies.
Anyone have an idea of whom "MU" may be?
Please contribute with your own examples of Watermarks You Hate.
.
Watermarks! Yes, they may be a fact of life. We hate them all, but some we can live with. They are fairly unobtrusive, and once we turn the movie on, we can forget that the crummy obstacle to our viewing pleasure is floating around.
Sometimes, the watermarker is nice enough to turn the watermark off, or have it appear intermittently throughout the movie. Many watermarks, of course, stick around, insisting on showing their ugly face throughout.
This thread will spotlight the worst offenders. The idea is to identify who the watermarks belong to.
-----
EDIT:
When we say "watermark," we mean anything that the tamperer has polluted the movie with to put his personal stamp on the movie... including logos, or anything that originally wasn't meant to be there. We can extend this argument away from JAV - even though we are only concerned about JAV - and point to as examples the annoying television station logos that has become de rigueur in (at least) American TV.
----
(Imagine! They take somebody else's property, and dare to put the mark of their deviltry on it, as if they are the owners of the movie. Certain cases, maybe understandable, as we have seen a discussion here recently from an uploader's perspective. Yet if they must do it, WHY do they do it in the worst eye-catching way?)
Once we determine the villain, then we are simply going to have to take our torches and pitchforks, and storm the cretin's house. We're just going to have to... string him up! (I'll bring the rope.)
I'll start things off. (And remember; if you've got your own examples of a watermark that makes your blood boil, make sure to include a picture! So we will know what you're talking about.)
This offender, I see in too many movies:
"MU"
Examples from MIDD 999:
The reason why "MU" is so disgusting is because it's in color. And it's in the family of red, which means when there are scenes of skin (which sometimes occurs with pornography), the watermark looks like it can be part of the flesh. (And most of us don't care for actors with leprosy, as liberal-minded as we may be.)
Even when the watermark doesn't superimpose (which, in this context, brings a new meaning to that word) against an actor's flesh, the different coloration and artsy design makes it look like there's... something... there, that certainly distracts from watching the movie. Examples from MIDD 802:
Even when in the clear, the watermark is just too eye-catching:
What gall and arrogance on the part of this watermarker, to have such total disrespect toward the interests of his "clients," the ones he hopes will download his pilfered movies.
Anyone have an idea of whom "MU" may be?
Please contribute with your own examples of Watermarks You Hate.
.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
