Video: Blueberry Gum Fantasy

34 posts / 0 new

Sat, 02/25/2012 - 16:04

pjoker

A while back, I requested a blueberry inflation tease video from TaylorMade Clips.

They finally released it, and OMFG is it wonderful.

The actress they picked is excellent. She really knows how to sexualize the blueberry fantasy. She talks over and over again about how the gum is going to blow her up, makes you promise to roll her down to the juicing room before she explodes... And this goes on for fifteen bloody minutes. And I think the ending is pretty sweet, too.

It's a shining example of how good acting & talking can trump the latest CGI when it comes to our fantasy.

http://taylormadeclips.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1092

Hope they don't mind me embedding their preview images.

Sat, 03/03/2012 - 10:02

Dexy

Besides Taylor herself, Holly is the best girl in her rotating stable of actresses, and when I saw that she was starring in this, I bought it without hesitation. Best $14 I ever spent.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 01:40

Blue_Eyes

15 minutes?

What am I going to do with the other 12?

Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men.

Sun, 06/17/2012 - 17:15

(Reply to #3) #4

Inflate123

PACE yourself, for heaven's sake! Or watch it slowly over five sessions.

Twitter | DeviantArt

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 14:19

pjoker

They made another one, just FYI. For me, it was as good as the first one. Pretty damn excellent.

Thought it would be good to spread the news since it's in this community's interest to support projects like this.

The ending of this one is great. She gets all anxious and scared.

Mika's Blueberry Clip

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 16:31

BlueberryBalloon19

I am by no means asking for free content, but i wish that there was a preview clip for these vids. I would like to have an idea for what I would be buying, though i will admit that the pics for the newest ones are very tempting.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 16:35

(Reply to #5) #7

klaeresource

There is a preview clip. Read the description. Right after the specification for screen size is a larger font, green link "Preview Clip."

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 18:55

(Reply to #6) #8

BlueberryBalloon19

thanks!

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 18:23

biff977

Wait...does Taylormade have two blueberry-style videos or three? The second set of photos look new compared to the second video (just to caveat, I'm looking at this forum on my phone so I might be misconstruing)

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 23:08

#10

pjoker

There are three blueberry videos now. The first one featured Holly, the next one was Kimberly, and this one is Mika.

Wed, 06/06/2012 - 23:18

(Reply to #9) #11

biff977

Got it...cool!!! Thanks for the heads up!

Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:50

#12

bostoncowboy

There's no actual inflation in them though correct?

Thu, 06/07/2012 - 15:06

(Reply to #11) #13

pjoker

Correct. It's a tease, plus she turns blue and gets all panicky at the end. She says something like, "I can feel it starting to fill me up." But you don't see her blow up.

Thu, 06/07/2012 - 17:45

#14

VManMagic (not verified)

No inflation in a blueberry video? Hmmmmm seems like their milking our community for every cent. I mean it's fair economics but idk. Lemme fine tone my videos that I haven't publicly released yet.

Sat, 06/09/2012 - 09:32

(Reply to #13) #15

pjoker

A lot of us enjoy talk. I've never seen a clip that everyone liked.

We eagerly await the release of your work.

Sun, 06/17/2012 - 17:19

(Reply to #13) #16

Inflate123

I would disagree with this "milking for every cent" thing. Different videos have different styles. If a detailed description video doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, because purchasing it is optional. Since you're not compelled to buy anything at all, I don't see where the milking comes in.

Taylor and crew (and Bambi, when she was active) put a lot of effort into what they did. Results vary because they are making different creative calls. If you have created but not released videos that are better for the money or less money, by all means, the community would of course like to see them.

Twitter | DeviantArt

Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:36

#17

Lateralus87 (not verified)

Custom-made blueberry inflation videos are quite a rarity in this community, as everyone here knows, but I just feel that Taylor has been taking the cheaper way around this by making something that essentially anyone with access to video editing programs could easily make themselves.

I really wish that Taylor would get with the program and start making some clips with actually inflation in them, because these "tease" videos really aren't my thing, but to each their own.

Wed, 06/13/2012 - 09:20

(Reply to #15) #18

Murphy

You mean like all the videos that TMC puts out that have inflation in them?

Or are you just referring to blueberry?

Wed, 06/13/2012 - 12:13

(Reply to #16) #19

BlankSlate (not verified)

TaylorMade has some excellent inflation videos. So it is odd that the three blueberry videos have no inflation at all. Since the blueberry victim is supposed to swell to a complete sphere, maybe Taylor figured she wouldn't go there if she couldn't go all the way. Then blueberry fans would be complaining about the incomplete inflation. </sarc>

Wed, 06/13/2012 - 13:59

#20

metiok

I am a big supporter of the teases, but that's really of what BlankSlate said. Most suit inflation doesn't do anything for me, I bought some of them and most that people recommend, but they don't do as much for me as the teases do. Maybe I'm just backward but my logic is...

"I'd much rather have a sensual teasing than see an inflated prop."

Now, some of Taylor's props have been very good, but... I don't know. Maybe it's because when I think inflation, I want to see what I imagine inflation would look like. So, suits and props don't look that sexy to me. Besides, they can probably film a lot more teases than suit inflations, so more content I'm willing to buy. (Even if it's just me. ;p)

Wed, 06/13/2012 - 15:10

(Reply to #18) #21

REQ1982

ya, sum just good for the audio is all I like of them, better to just think how you like the inflation to be.

or Id like just audio or more teases and sum better descriptions sum are a bit of on what thay are it seems like Kimberly Marvel: A Blueberry Gum Fantasy

is not like what it like (or to me its not) You know what this gum will do to me if I chew it? It`ll turn me into a big, juicy blueberry. My skin will turn blue, then I`ll slowly start to inflate. You`ll have to roll me to the juicing room & squeeze me before I explode. it same on all 3 A Blueberry Gum Fantasy 1 and 3 do seem as the descriptions say. and agen mite just be how I see it

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 00:45

#22

pjoker

Not that I wouldn't love to see blueberry videos with some inflation in them, but I would like to make a couple observations:

I wouldn't say that anyone with a video camera could make these. You need to find a good actress (expensive), a place to shoot, etc. If anyone could make these, there would be a lot of them already.
Tim Burton had a whole special effects and CGI crew at his disposal and the blueberry effect still came out rather underwhelming. It looks more realistic in my imagination, and I get off more on the fact that she's contemplating inflation and talking about it. For some of us, that's really hot.

Of course, I'm not in a position to tell others that they should like these videos. If they don't do it for you, they don't do it for you. I actually feel rather lucky that mere words spoken by a woman can have such an effect on me.

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 02:11

(Reply to #20) #23

klaeresource

"Tim Burton had a whole special effects and CGI crew at his disposal and the blueberry effect still came out rather underwhelming."

It is an oft-repeated argument—while citing one poor example of CGI—that digital visual effects are not as good as the older, analog techniques. Digital tools are far more capable than any earlier techniques, which is no disrespect for the fine work done by the old masters. As with any art, so much depends on the skill and judgment of the artist. Yet the artist can still be trumped by the director, something I know from personal experience.

It is my opinion that Burton flubbed many things with the Inventing Room scene. The setting was much too dark for a character who was about to turn a darker color. Violet was already wearing blue clothing, yet he had the animators create this "leaking juice" effect. The "satchel fanny" effect looked like Violet took a dump in her pants. The glazed eyes, puffed cheeks and cartoony transformation looked like the Silly Putty, Tex Avery-inspired effects from Jim Carrey's THE MASK.

Similarly, Johnny Depp is a very fine actor, yet what Burton did with the Wonka character was terrible. Ergo, Johnny Depp must be a lousy actor, right?

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 09:13

(Reply to #21) #24

caffiene

This is off-topic, but I'm gonna have to throw up a big fat "disagree" flag. To put it succinctly: it's 2012; and I have yet to see any digital effects which can match the analogue effects from Star Wars in 1977. To say that digital effects are superior is a matter of opinion at best. Digital effects tools can create things it would be impossible to produce realistically in real life; sure; but I have yet to see a digitial effect that could fool me into thinking it was real.

More on-topic: I don't think anyone in the community; including Taylormadeclips; has the budget to produce top-quality analogue effects. A blueberry scene the way we really want it is just plain out of reach right now; and I for one would rather wait until it's fully realizable than see them pump out half-assed attempts. If you're not interested in a "tease" clip, the answer is simple: don't buy it. Although, on the other hand, purchasing more clips equals more revenue equals better props, etc.

If you want to prove me wrong Klae, be my guest. I realized a long time ago I was never going to have the time/interest to master digital effects enough to help Taylor and Bud out; but you've always had a pretty skilled hand. I don't want to be the jackass "calling you out" on the internet, but I guess it's kind of unavoidable; I'd love to see PixelPrevert collaborate with Taylor. Everybody wins if you "pwn" me by making some awesome digital effects inflation happen with some of Taylor's videos. My shitty attempts are on youtube; they aired on G4. Whatever happened with yours?

...I meant that sarcastically.

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 10:24

(Reply to #21) #25

pjoker

Hi, Klae.

I wasn't trying to knock CGI, I was just making the point that fans who don't know how much effort it takes to produce a "realistic" inflation will always be unsatisfied.

Computer effects went through an awkward phase but they're getting pretty damn good. I don't know if you've seen Iron Sky yet, but they did a pretty fantastic job even on a limited budget.

The main reasons some people like conventional effects: (1) it's what we grew up with, and (2) conventional effects look fake in a way that's more aesthetically pleasing to some. I do find it interesting how folks have an emotional reaction against CGI rather than judging it on its results alone—as if CGI is an assault against our nostalgia for models and blue screens.

And yes, Tim Burton is a hack.

The point I was trying to make is this: for the effort it requires, a tease video that leaves inflation to the imagination is worthwhile. It's fine if some fans don't like it, but these videos do the trick for many of us so it's not a wasted effort.

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 14:07

(Reply to #23) #26

klaeresource

Thanks, Private Joker. I didn't mean to suggest that you were knocking all CGI, although I have run into many people who make such blanket arguments. And I wouldn't call Tim Burton a hack; I like many of his movies. I just didn't care for the choices he made in CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY.

For what it's worth, Caffiene, I can guarantee you've seen uncounted digital effects pass you on the screen undetected. Rent the movie RED and take a look at the supplements, for one current example.

I've bought a handful of TaylorMade videos, including the first "blueberry tease" suggested by Private Joker. I was in talks with Taylor and Bud for about a year or two prior to that first tease video. They seemed interested in doing a blueberry video, then communication would wane... until the next time. I have no illusions about this. I know inflation is a niche market, and blueberry inflation a fraction of that. However, the props don't have to be expensive. VManMagic wants to indulge in one expensive prop for his project, and I won't dissuade him, but there are always alternatives.

Although digital effects can do an entire scene, I prefer a combined approach. For example, Burton experimented with an inflatable costume for Violet, but did not like it. I wish he had started with the inflatable costume, then completed the scene with digital, or even used digital to bridge the gaps between practical effects.

As for my own work, perhaps you saw "Immediately Means Now" before I had to pull it when YouTube's copyright detector started getting twitchy? That wasn't my best work because I was doing it just for me; posting it on YouTube was an afterthought.

Even then, I make no claim to being a great video artist.* However, top quality digital tools don't have to be expensive. Both GIMP and Blender are free and have been used by professionals. Search YouTube and elsewhere for animations done with Blender. One of the things that separates old analog effects from the newer, digital "style" is camera movement. Back in the old days, the camera had to be "locked off." Today one can get a match-moving feature in Blender that would have been a joy to the artists working on the first STAR WARS.

I'm hoping VManMagic will give me a project I can sink my teeth into.

* I have had the pleasure of hearing a professional cinematographer ask my producer, "How the heck did you get that shot?" while watching some dailies. The "impossible shot" was one of my digital effects, yet he thought it was shot "practically."

Thu, 06/14/2012 - 16:55

(Reply to #24) #27

caffiene

Sorry about earlier, I was very very drunk. I have seen your work, I've been a fan of yours for years. I was more wondering whatever became of the collaboration between you and Taylor, because I think it would've been awesome and better than I could've done. I have Adobe Premier and After Effects; as well as the whole "creative suite" of tools; it's just not something I choose to pursue.

As for the off-topic side of things: there probably have been a number of minor things that slip by without me even realizing; but computer generated effects always have a kind of... texture to them that just makes them glaringly stand out to me.

I don't know, I'll go back to being quiet now.

...I meant that sarcastically.

Fri, 06/15/2012 - 03:46

(Reply to #26) #28

klaeresource

computer generated effects always have a kind of... texture to them that just makes them glaringly stand out to me.

Again, the good and the bad. Some analog effects "don't look right," either. How does one create "realistic" fantasy effects—something no one has seen before? One of the ILM effects people (Edlund?) commented that the space battles in the first STAR WARS trilogy were easier to create than the Hoth battle in EMPIRE because no one has actually seen a space battle, while many people have seen snow. If the snow didn't "look right," a child could spot it, even if he couldn't say why it looked wrong.

There is a concept in psychology, robotics and 3D animation known as the Uncanny Valley. It is an increasing sense of revulsion as simulated humans approach realistic, yet still fall short of "perfect"—the zombie effect. Thus it is easier to avoid the Valley by creating stylized figures. Compare THE INCREDIBLES (very stylized humans) with THE POLAR EXPRESS (which creeped out a lot of people). The point is there may be many reasons why an artist would use stylized designs over "realistic" designs. The fight sequences in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON looked like people flying around on wires, while the work in THE MATRIX appeared far more "credible" to me, even though both were utterly fantastic.

All of film and video is "stylized." For example, basic three-point lighting is highly unnatural, yet it is standard issue for all photography. The world through a camera lens or microphone is only a tiny slice of the "gestalt" we experience in a real environment. So some things must be emphasized, while other things are minimized. There was a time when movie spaceships were smooth and seamless, like the C-57D in FORBIDDEN PLANET. STAR TREK's Enterprise added tiny windows as a cue to the ship's great size. Then 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY came along and introduced models with lots of plating, pipes and other detail, which really emphasized scale.

Computer models followed the same evolution, but for a different reason: smooth and perfect at first, followed by increasing detail, better lighting and more "realistic" movement. The tools are highly refined today. Pixar's CARS was a feast of beautiful textures, despite the talking cars and other stylistic touches. Meanwhile, the live action SPEED RACER was very glossy and comic book-like. Imagine how disjointed it would have looked if the people and environments hadn't been "amped up" to match the rest of the CGI.

So realistic vs stylized may be a complex consideration, especially when dealing with something completely fantastic. (Real people do not stretch and inflate like balloons.) Also, "inflation" means something different to every person—look at the breadth of the spectrum covered by this site. The 2005 Violet scene looked more like weight gain to me than inflation or some kind of fantastic metamorphosis. One video will not appeal to everyone, as noted above.

But it can be fun to try.

Sun, 06/17/2012 - 08:32

(Reply to #27) #29

caffiene

I'm familiar with the concept of the Uncanny Valley. In a way I guess it would be the perfect way to describe the disconnect I feel with digital effects; they haven't crossed it for me. Whether it be an amplified explosion in Red or a bullet time effect or a fabricated creature; they always pop out to me as "oh, that was made on a computer". How badly that affects me depends on the suspension of disbelief created by the movie/whatever itself. Either way, it always feels noticable to me. As stated: I'm sure there's plenty of minor effects that have slipped by my notice; but in my opinion a real effect will always trump the digital effects to date, simply by the virtue of being real. As long as it's not obviously fake, something fantastic created through analogue effects will always prevail to me simply because I can look at it and say: "that's real, it was really there"; as opposed to digital effects, which I can say "that was made on a computer."

I guess "texture" wasn't the right word to use to describe the aspect of digital effects that always identifies them to me. I've been searching for decades to find the right word, I haven't yet.

Yes, plenty of analogue effects look downright miserable. You yourself in this thread said that using a bad example of one thing to describe all of them was a bad argument.

To try and put a cap on this argument; which I suspect we could continue perpetuallly; I completely agree with you that the best effects are accomplished with an analogue base topped off by digital flourish. I greatly look forward to seeing what you do with Vmanmagic. You're clearly a professional in your field, and I was always really hoping to see what that could result in with a professional starting point on the analogue end. In that respect, it sounds like Vman is approaching this very professionaly, and I'm eagerly awaiting the result. As someone not producing content on the same level, I am simply a fan awaiting the best. Knock it out the box guys.

...I meant that sarcastically.

Sun, 06/17/2012 - 12:11

(Reply to #29) #30

klaeresource

I guess "texture" wasn't the right word to use to describe the aspect of digital effects that always identifies them to me. I've been searching for decades to find the right word, I haven't yet.

I like "organic." I didn't coin the term—I just filed the serial numbers off and used it, but it describes the visual effects in THE RIGHT STUFF, for example. I've seen lots of major digital effects that passed muster. The animation in the TV series FIREFLY may not be the finest example of "organic," but Zoic's trademark "handheld camera" look with zooms, focus pulls and other handling artifacts made even the space shots feel more "real."

I've found that recordings of real things can look "fake" or "plastic" if all the artifacts we've grown accustomed to are rubbed out: noise reduction, tweaking of the light, color, gamma curves, etc. For example, Kubrick's use of Steadicam in THE SHINING (1980) eliminated the bumps and vibrations of handheld. Steadicam is the "camera dolly that can go anywhere." So Kubrick's use of wide-angle lenses and cameras that did go everywhere created a point-of-view that was somehow creepy, omnipotent. (Not all Steadicam looks like that, just Kubrick's use of it in that movie.)

It's ironic that engineers and technicians bust their butts to eliminate the common artifacts of a medium, such as the grain, scratches and staccato effects of film, or the raster lines, snow and frame rolls of early television, only to have those things turn into "special effects" in a medium that no longer suffers such artifacts. For example, one can buy "film look" plugins for digital video editing systems. I'm not saying these things can make a bad special effect look real, but they may subconsciously suggest "this is something that was really photographed in front of a camera."

One gimmick I've long considered for Violet's blueberry scene is a series of angles framed to look like recordings from security cameras at the factory. I wasn't thinking of anything as overt as making the shots all black-and-white with over-emphasized raster lines and scan artifacts. Although four cameras split-screened into one frame with a time stamp in one corner might be interesting...

Sun, 06/24/2012 - 17:37

#31

Dexy

Personally, I loved the so-called "Blueberry Teases" just as I have loved many, many of the weight gain teases Taylor has offered over the years. When you have this fetish as badly as I do, just hearing the words works for me, just like Private Joker pointed out. Sure, I'd love to hear more "trigger" words and phrases in these videos, but until I actually write to Talyor with suggestions, I feel like I have no buisness complaining, so I continue to by them and show my support. Remember guys, 10 years ago there was nothing like this available, and 20 years ago it would have been almost unthinkable, so I for one am still counting my blessings everytime content like this arrives.

Fri, 06/15/2012 - 20:55

#32

ritties

"Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!" There ya go, more Tigger words. :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. While I like the inflation too, a good tease is sometimes good to help exercise the ole' imagination and yes, I would also love to hear more trigger words too. Just a thought, what are some of your trigger words and phrases? What about everyone else?? Just curious!

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 21:20

#33

Disgeek

Taylor's been hinting at the fact that she really wants to buy the ball suit. Don't know if she's put an order in yet, but hopefully a blueberry inflation vid is in the near future!

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 21:20

#34

Disgeek

Taylor's been hinting at the fact that she really wants to buy the ball suit. Don't know if she's put an order in yet, but hopefully a blueberry inflation vid is in the near future!

Video: Blueberry Gum Fantasy

Navigation

User login