Wiener unwrap

“We’ll fix it in post” is a standard excuse in the making of motion pictures, in case someone left a boom in the frame, or the dresser forgot the talent’s pocket square, or all manner of unwanted visuals — including, it appears, condoms:

Since the passage of Measure B [pdf] in 2012, which strictly imposes the use of condoms on all porn sets in Los Angeles, triple-x movie production has largely begun to move out of the San Fernando Valley. However, gay porn company Falcon Studios is now attempting to hearken back to the days before the measure was passed. In their latest release California Dreamin’ 1, the studio filmed all its scenes with condoms but managed to digitally remove the prophylactics in post-production.

But Falcon’s not in Los Angeles, but up in the Bay Area, where Measure B does not apply. What’s the deal?

[T]he film is meant to tap into fantasies of bareback sex in the 1970s and 80s, while also aligning with the safe sex ethos that is currently being enforced in LA. “With this movie I really wanted to capture the essence of that time, when life seemed more carefree and spontaneous,” said [director Tony] Dimarco. “In keeping with this concept, I felt that condoms need to be addressed.”

I feel a twinge of pity for the technicians who had to perform that particular task: I have to figure that there likely weren’t too many scenes in this film that didn’t involve wangage.







4 comments

  1. fillyjonk »

    22 January 2014 · 9:34 am

    I wonder what one would major in to wind up with that career. Graphic design? Computer tech?

    I can imagine it would make for some uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinners with older relatives who wanted to know what all the younger generation did for a living.

  2. Dr. Weevil »

    22 January 2014 · 9:41 am

    Heh: “graphic” design is putting it mildly in this case.

    A friend of a friend was at the bottom of his class in law school and the only job he could get afterwards was defending The Little Organ Extender Company (I think that was the name) on a charge of consumer fraud. They’d sold something like 20,000 obviously-fraudulent extender kits before someone sued. (A milk bottle, a rubber band, and a 3-page instruction booklet? Something like that.) Finally, someone was shameless enough to come into court and admit that he had a little organ and wanted to do something about it, in hopes of getting a pot of money. No, I don’t know how the case turned out – it’s been 35-40 years since I heard the story. I imagine the lawyer on the other side was also at or near the bottom of his law-school class.

  3. rmtodd »

    22 January 2014 · 7:26 pm

    Reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of the Canadian customs inspectors who were detailed to enforce the country’s laws in regard to pornography. Apparently Canadian law forbade the import of pornography featuring erect penises. So they apparently had some people on staff whose job it was to examine each picture in each magazine with a protractor to make sure that there were no organs at an erectness level that contravened official Ottawa standards.

  4. CGHill »

    22 January 2014 · 7:29 pm

    Then there was the legendary, and possibly apocryphal, Mull of Kintyre test in the UK.

RSS feed for comments on this post