I can completely understand the wanting of a script or story. I like that as well!

I like a good comedy script with timing that supports the humor. That means taking enough time to establish who the characters in the script are and hint at the messy comedy potential. We should know why there will be pies (it's a bake sale, fancy catered gala, there's a clown involved, etc) and why our main character is there but doesn't expect to get messy. A lot of producers like to take extra time panning over the model in sexy poses in the intro, but I always feel that it's messing with the story timing to do so without a story-related reason.

When the mess begins, I like to see the hits come fast enough to still believably be a surprise to the main character. I love see the surprised expressions before impact, but not sustained so long that they're clearly waiting for it. I hate it when producers pull a time jump to show us the same impact again from a different angle; That absolutely derails the story in my opinion.

The reaction is my favorite part, but a mistake I see from a lot of producers is giving the actress one line to use in reaction, and letting her repeat that line as the reaction shot goes on too long.

If a producer avoided these mistakes, then the scenes would probably be shorter, but I think they'd be a lot funnier.

btw, just rewatched Wam-o-matic, and the reactions of your cast were excellent.

Been thinking some more about this. If you pace a scene quite slowly, then a purchaser who wants to speed it up can always create their own edit. For example, a while back I bought this JustSlimed scene from the Moomins: https://umd.net/download_info/casual-justslimed-rachel-vs-poppy

It's basically two very attractive women, wearing superb high waisted jeans - Rachel's in particular are absolutely stunning - who are both going to have lumpy slime poured all over them. And what I want to watch are those slimings, and in particular the mess going onto their jeans, as gradually both girls are reduced to messy ruin.

Now from the previews you can see it's been properly filmed, no stupid zooming in that misses the money shots, and that Rachel, who's rapidly becoming my favourite Moomin model, largely keeps her hands out of her lap so we can see her jeans properly. Side issue: Models in WAM scenes should always keep their hands out of their laps, for two reasons, 1 hands in laps block the view of the lap getting messy, and 2 the hands will also to some extent protect the clothing under them from the mess. Both of which are no-nos when the objective is to see someone get messed up with a sexual objective. However what you can't tell from the previews is the pacing. The scene is actually quite slow with long gaps between the slimings, because it's done as a quiz format, so a question is asked and then unless the girls know the answer immediately there's quite a pause before defeat is admitted and the next bucket of slime poured on. There's also a degree of banter between the girls and the crew. All of which is fine and entertaining, but slows things down a lot.

So at some pount I'm going to load it into my video editor and cut out all the between sections, leaving me with just a series of quickfire gunge pours to enjoy. I usually watch WAM with the sound off anyway so the disjointed audio won't be an issue. I'm guessing this will probably reduce the 22 minute scene to about 5 minutes plus the hosedown, but that 5 minutes will be all-action. I guess to an extent that changes the "value for money" calculation, but at the same time I don't mind as the scene as originally shot is natural - it's not as if it's been padded out so as to be sold for a higher price.

But not everyone knows how to edit a video...

Maybe producers should offer both versions to purchasers?

True, though given video editing software comes free on smartphones these days it's not a difficult thing to pick up - then again I've been messing about with video and audio for decades, I guess what comes naturally to me may be less so for others. However I was only able to do that because I bought the download, streaming subscribers wouldn't have the option, so there could well be an argument for making tighter cut versons available, though at the same time that's going to massively increase editing workload. Which I guess means that pacing, rather than overall length, is going to grow in importance.

In our own scenes we tend not to use quizes, our games are mostly either scissors-paper-stone, or card games, where the turns are fast and it's immediately obvious who's getting it next, so the pace is kept quite rapid. Back in 2018 I did actually buy a bunch of mini casino games in Vegas with the idea of using them for deciding gungings, but so far we've only actually used the cards. In general though, I prefer any slowness in a WAM video to be caused by action, rather than innaction. The length of time it takes to empty a carton of custard inside someone's yoga pants and then watching the flow moving inside and the stains comming through, or how long it physically takes to slice off as part of someone's dress with scissors, rather than a pause with no action happening.

Given the frequency with which I've had to chuck a video from a producer back into Premiere post purchase to rectify some shocking colour correction or audio clean up (indeed the one and only time I've ripped a video off a streaming service was to fix a multi-camera scene from an established studio in which one camera was way over exposed and another under exposed due to leaving both camera on auto colour balance with ridiculous in shot lighting that made jump cutting between their angles disorientating and frustrating) there has been the odd occasion where I would have been thankful if the raw footage had been included as its a lot easier to colour balance fixed camera angles separately than once cut together. However...


Having also produced both WAM clips and non-adult entertainment videos I can appreciate the reasons why that's never gonna happen. For one instead of selling just one video compressed to a level that balances the needs of quality with bandwidth/file size considerations you would also be including pretty massive files from each camera angle just to satisfy a small proportion of your viewership wanting to re-edit it themselves.

Secondly sometimes things might have been fixed in post production that you don't want others to see. Maybe someone accidentally used a model's real name rather than stage name or the roaming camera accidentally at some point gets some backstage crew in shot that doesn't want to be in video or captures something that reveals too much location information or any number of things you might want to edit out. Now not only would you have to ensure it isn't in the final video but go back through all the raw footage to take it out AND then hope those that wanted the raw footage don't complain it isn't completely raw footage anymore as you edited part of it.

Thirdly trying to keep track of intellectual property theft especially using the likes of Content ID matching becomes a complete nightmare if you make it too easy for people to be able to make 101 different versions of you clip.

In the end you can't please everyone, the default answer to pretty much all of these what do you prefer to see in WAM content is everyone has their own preferences which often contradict with a whole bunch of other people's such that in the end you're best off just producing whatever you want to produce in the way you want as given how labour intensive organising shoots, shooting them, cleaning up, editing and marketing the videos are if you're not loving what you're doing (and unless you're managing to make tonnes of money out of this oversaturated market to compensate for it) then you're likely to burn out whereas if you love what you're doing then even if your sales only part subsidise what you're doing then you're still on a winner. There is usually other producers producing content in a way that will better cater to those who aren't a fan of how you're producing things...

Though with all that being said if as a producer your models look like they have an unnatural green hue to their skin tone (and you're not going for that deliberately for some fantasy/sci-fi reason) or one of your camera angles looks overexposed and the other underexposed then nobody is thanking you for horrible colour balancing. Put it back in your video editor and watch a YouTube tutorial on improving colour balancing.