+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: 'Tamestation' (/showthread.php?tid=12351)
RE: 'Tamestation' - Deb x - 08-10-2009 23:09
Babestation have been slowly and surely integrating their daygirls onto nights.
And, 'unconnectedly' nightgirls have been steadily leaving (I'm not using the word 'exodus' here...yet
)If this current trend continues, there will be more and more daygirls...trying to cover their bits up and be 'coy' (for a month or so at least
), on nights.And suddenly it's seeming tamer???
RE: 'Tamestation' - double3 - 08-10-2009 23:14
good analysis
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 08-10-2009 23:55
(08-10-2009 23:09 )Deb x Wrote: Babestation have been slowly and surely integrating their daygirls onto nights.
And, 'unconnectedly' nightgirls have been steadily leaving (I'm not using the word 'exodus' here...yet
If this current trend continues, there will be more and more daygirls...trying to cover their bits up and be 'coy' (for a month or so at least
And suddenly it's seeming tamer???
That might well contribute to the overall sense that the show is tamer across both Sky and Freeview but it doesn't explain why things which are allowed on Sky are banned on FV. Even the supposedly 'coy' former day girls go much further on Sky than FV. Lori with antics such as hauling her panties down Caty-style or undoing their side-ties Camilla-style and Paige tongue-tussling with Caty. Neither of them do anything like that on FV.
Neither does it explain why the new freedom that appeared with the '90' channels was so suddenly withdrawn.
RE: 'Tamestation' - oxygenIT - 08-10-2009 23:57
(08-10-2009 23:09 )Deb x Wrote: Babestation have been slowly and surely integrating their daygirls onto nights.
And, 'unconnectedly' nightgirls have been steadily leaving (I'm not using the word 'exodus' here...yet
If this current trend continues, there will be more and more daygirls...trying to cover their bits up and be 'coy' (for a month or so at least
And suddenly it's seeming tamer???
It's not just the day girls though.
The one I show in the first post is Dani and Geri and looked more than happy to show a bit more before the producer sounded the alarm and got the cameraman to pan away.
A few days ago it was Dionne & Reede at aroudn 4am. About 5 minutes in they had a minor lip to lip, Dionne started showing a bit of tongue and whoosh the camera panned away. After that the furthest during the next quarter of an hour was a stroke of the outer thigh and they didn't get in close again I assume after a warning following the near-kiss.
Another example a few days ago, look at the camera zoom away when Caty starts to show her tongue and looks Yvette might be going in for a snog, bear in mind this was at 1:30 in the morning. It seems pretty obvious to me the cameraman was told to pan away from the action...
![[Image: MAYDAY2f34.gif]](http://content.imagesocket.com/images/MAYDAY2f34.gif)
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 09-10-2009 00:19
(08-10-2009 23:57 )oxygenIT Wrote: It's not just the day girls though.
Exactly.
Edit: Hmmm, I mentioned the Dionne/Reede incident at the time it happened and was going to provide a link to my post, but it seems to have disappeared.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Pure80 - 09-10-2009 00:19
If we could work out which girls are the ones who's naughtier antics are not getting shown as the carmra pans away, the answer may become clearer. As in, girls like Dani, Tiffany, Amanda etc would prob be happy for the cameras to stay.
But, however, other girls might not want to do the girl on girl kissing thing for anything over a few seconds. So they probaby speak to the producer and say they are willing to have a quick snog, on condition that the camera pans away and thay can break the kiss after a few seconds.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Robot Devil - 09-10-2009 00:36
for all the possible theories it could just be that the bosses at BS and so on are just so afraid of the possibility of ofcom fines. i'm sure the idea is better safe than sorry
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 09-10-2009 00:50
(09-10-2009 00:19 )Pure80 Wrote: If we could work out which girls are the ones who's naughtier antics are not getting shown as the carmra pans away, the answer may become clearer. As in, girls like Dani, Tiffany, Amanda etc would prob be happy for the cameras to stay.
But, however, other girls might not want to do the girl on girl kissing thing for anything over a few seconds. So they probaby speak to the producer and say they are willing to have a quick snog, on condition that the camera pans away and thay can break the kiss after a few seconds.
Er, no - you're totally missing the point! The girls WANT to do it and they WANT the camera to stay. It's the cameraman/producer who panics and pans away. The camera lingers on the action when it happens on Sky but pans away when it's on Freeview.(09-10-2009 00:36 )Freebird Wrote: for all the possible theories it could just be that the bosses at BS and so on are just so afraid of the possibility of ofcom fines. i'm sure the idea is better safe than sorry
Nothing done in Cellcast shows during Sky-only time violates the Broadcasting Code or comes anywhere close to doing so. The same thing therefore couldn't give rise to a fine on Freeview.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Josh - 09-10-2009 01:24
Babestation went tame long before the arrival of the daygirls. Solo stints are still good (Mainly pre freeview) but Great 2-4-1 action is very rare to come by on any cellcast channel. Caty & Reede are the exception when paired together on sky or freeview, Hot action whatever the time. Maybe it's just the direction the channel wants to follow. Cheeky not Dirty. Most the channels have a quiet period, when the action slows down. Bangbabes right now, Elite before them, but it occurs in short cycles and picks up again. Cellcast channels have been tame since the end of the old Partygirls. With sky viewers, at least we have the option to watch something else to get our fix of girls kissing & pussy flashing within the babe channels.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 09-10-2009 02:23
(09-10-2009 01:24 )Josh Wrote: Cellcast channels have been tame since the end of the old Partygirls.
Surely not? They must have got hotter before they got tamer.
The old PG was my introduction to the Babe channels. Before that all I'd seen was PP and I could never figure out what it was all about. I remember flicking the channel on to show my girlfriend and commenting 'Wtf is all this? £1.50/min just to chat with a girl?' It was Jet under her original name Natalie if I remember right and a nipslip was about all you could hope for. Then PG happened. I Googled some of the names, ended up on this site and the penny fully dropped. I distinctly recall that the Sky contingent were very upset that they couldn't see what we Freeviewers could. Just the reverse of the present situation.
Then PL came along, very much tamer than PG, followed by BS1 which was just as tame if not sometimes tamer than PL. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the clips posted here at that time cos I thought they were all pay channels. It was some time before I found out they weren't and that they were free-to-air for anyone with a suitable satbox and that the content could be sampled via TVAlways. That's when I realised that FV was being seriously short-changed in comparison with the much stronger Sky content. If Sky customers had been used to even stronger content in PG days why would they have been upset at not getting PG?