Aaron Johnson

It's weird that he looks average in one frame, and HUGE in another. I think his cock has been edited :/
9da8fd9b-75ee-433b-8205-280fe354c452-png.9847541
 
I was actually thinking the same thing, I definitely think he fluffed here and in the opening sequence there was some cgi enhancement going on.
I mean fluffed for sure. I knew it but it's really beautiful dick. But this pic looks uncut I'm confused now lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: hugehungcanadian
I was actually thinking the same thing, I definitely think he fluffed here and in the opening sequence there was some cgi enhancement going on.
Lmao as if this low budget film has the film and or urge to cgi a fucking dick out of all things. If anything no nudity would’ve happened.

honestly the dumb fuckery with this is ridiculous.

shoot showers are notoriously cold. He prob wasn’t as big because he was shooting for ages in the water. The other prob was a warm comfortable room temp set. Free for him to hang low.

fuck!
 
Lmao as if this low budget film has the film and or urge to cgi a fucking dick out of all things. If anything no nudity would’ve happened.

honestly the dumb fuckery with this is ridiculous.

shoot showers are notoriously cold. He prob wasn’t as big because he was shooting for ages in the water. The other prob was a warm comfortable room temp set. Free for him to hang low.

fuck!
BkJUtO7.gif


1) The scene, like all film scenes, are edited with multiple takes. One's cock may be fluffed slightly more in one take and recede in another, then grow yet again for the 14th, etc..

2) I concur about there being no CGI, particularly in an indie flick with a low-budget. (Bigger budgets have still led to blatantly obvious rubber dongs.)

3) Overanalyzing a single still without much meticulosity, and reaching absurd conclusions. Giovanni's head obscures the tip in a few frames. One must also factor in the steam in the shower, which renders a couple of still shots blurry.
 
BkJUtO7.gif


1) The scene, like all film scenes, are edited with multiple takes. One's cock may be fluffed slightly more in one take and recede in another, then grow yet again for the 14th, etc..

2) I concur about there being no CGI, particularly in an indie flick with a low-budget. (Bigger budgets have still led to blatantly obvious rubber dongs.)

3) Overanalyzing a single still without much meticulosity, and reaching absurd conclusions. Giovanni's head obscures the tip in a few frames. One must also factor in the steam in the shower, which renders a couple of still shots blurry.

1. No. That was one shoot. In one sec. his cock looks normal(like above), and one second later look like this>asd.jpg

ENORMOUS!

2. And no again. This kind of editing can easily be done with help of Premiere Pro and masking. It doesn't need a big budget.
 
Gay etiquette 101
One's reaction to this minor celeb's dick should be a slightly raised brow(one side only), a slight nod of tacit approval, but then a whiff of indifference and just a slight hint of I have seen better attitude.
Your approval is noted and your dignity remains intact.
The other way to to behave like a lot of people in this thread. Giving off the impression you are a nellie bottom that never saw a penis come within a bulls roar of it.

tumblr_86e891016dfdfaef1c0f771caf29a4a5_9e271eb3_540.gif
 
Did you just say... Premiere Pro? lol This is an independent film, but not a student's film. Anything done with Premiere Pro can be detected even on a small computer screen.

If it were CGI-ed (I'm sure it didn't, because that never happens with these kinds of super low-budget movies. No producer would allow that.), they wouldn't make the cock bounce like that because it's extra expensive. It just doesn't make any sense.