I wanted to take a minute to say this while someone is paying attention. The problem I have with a lot of porn that's been shot in the last ten years or so is the ultra wide angle lens. Whatever you want to call it. Fisheye, peephole effect, whatever. I think it seriously detracts from the way a woman's body looks. The proportions just aren't right. Well, it's hard to get the proportions exactly right no matter what. However, the wide angle thing that seems to be a trend or something that just won't go away makes it really bad. Anyway, I kind of cringed when I read that you don't use the zoom because the zoom might actually help flatten the image a bit if you just have a camera with a fixed lens that causes extreme wide angle distortion. Some people are bothered by continual zooming (or any at all) but zooming can be done artfully or the actual zooming process can be edited out. At any rate, I have often wished they would just move back and zoom in to get a natural looking image of whatever they're trying to shoot. I have found that this works well when I make home movies. As long as I have room to move back, I will do that and do a moderate zoom on whatever I want to shoot. There's some distortion at the other end of the zoom too but it isn't as irritating for whatever reason. As long as you have good depth of field for whatever you're trying to shoot, it would be far preferable.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Jan 30 2010 : 2:53AM
Instead of a snide comment, I'll ask again, a balanced view from whom? And read the post, it's not only my point, it's just about everyone on the thread commmenting on the same thing, too many ball shots.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 30 2010 : 5:11AM
No one has done this in the mid-90s at the latest. It was done so they could cut to the money shot but I would ask you to give me one example in the last 5 years where someone did this outside of feature porn.
@ Jeff Mullen: Why is it you like to move the camera closer instead of zooming? Wouldn't it be less distracting for talent if the camera was further away?
pretty silly suggestion but there is evidence for it.... i mean, they seem to have an obsession of filming a dude jerking himself off at the end of the scene... i don't care what hot bird is kneeling beneath him - it's not cool and more gay than erotic
:) I can usually tolerate a bit of extended camera time with male pucker and balls, as long as it's not blocking the shot and doesn't become excessive. However, nothing makes me FF/skip/delete faster than an unshaven and hairy male butt-hole. If you're going to spend time in the light as a male star, please get a Brazilian like everyone else! I've gone years without seeing a hairy male in my hardcore porn... at least that was until yesterday. I was watching a random DP flick, and one of the guys had the most insane ass-fur all up and down. Almost gagged! Immediately, I thought of this thread. ;)
We've already got that. Politics. It's on TV every day. Don't even have to pay for it.
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Jan 31 2010 : 3:56AM
Why is this topic even relevant? A number of posters on this site have vehemently argued that a man can occassionally take one up the pooper and still not be gay. Given such a malleable definition of heterosexuality, a director could engage in any number of activities and not necessarily be gay.
I would say I mostly agree with you here. Like the side view, where the guy's ass is in the shot doesn't bother me, because I can clearly see the woman's face and a great deal of her body. And the ball/nutsack shot doesn't really bother me, provided the camera is able to show and catch the woman's face and facial expressions and some of her body, while its being shot that way. For me, I just need to be able to see the woman's face through most of the scenes, as well as a good deal of her body. All too often though, the camera misses it, or the guys body totally obstructs her entire frame or face.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 31 2010 : 11:52PM
I think the problem is that the directors are inept, not gay. BTW Chuck Vincent, the classic-era director, was gay and directed several hot sex scenes with Leslie Bovee and Samantha Fox.
This jogs my memory regarding "multiple camera angles", which was one of the selling points during the roll out of DVD technology. That seems like a sensible approach to the matter. 2 cameras shooting simultaneously, one close, one medium. Viewer can switch at any time. Here's an amusing discussion from way back in 2002, they're lamenting the non-implementation of multiple camera angles (in Hollywood DVD's), and some posters are saying that porn is always on the cutting edge of the technology stuff, and they're presuming that porn has embraced multiple camera angles. Funny stuff.
They were used a lot in porn DVD. I have no idea of the current situation. At least early Vivid DVDs regularly had multiple angles. One porn studio whose name I can't recall now used the second angle to display a mirror image of the scene, which strikes me as a singularly pointless way to use the technology. I guess they didn't have any second camera footage but felt obligated to use the cool new feature for something. Unfortunately I never found the feature very interesting, at least the way it was used. Following facial expressions during sex could be an interesting use.
Yeah, I remember the multiple angles feature. The thing about that was that did not actually let you choose which camera angle to stay on, and let you choose when to switch camera views. No, they would edit the default view (the view that would have gone on the VHS tape, if they were still making a VHS version of that movie) from both cameras, and the second angle on the DVD was simply the other camera angles that they weren't using at any one time in the first angle selection. So whether you chose DVD angle one or two, the camera angles would still change, when the editor chose for them to change, and not when you did. The way that they actually do use the multi-angle feature on Zero Tolerance and 3rd Degree interactive movies is how I imagined the multi-angle functionality being on all movies, when I first heard about that feature that DVDs could have. But alas, seeing the way that that feature actually was used most of the time, I learned soon enough that I might as well just stay on the (default) angle one.
Hahaha! this trend busting me up! I used to get into debates with one company that wanted me to shoot more Man-Ass! I just couldn't do it! They did hire some other camera men to shoot but always gave me the job back as the rest of the movie sucked! All Man-Ass I guess don't sell well! lol One problem with bad camera work is that most companies can't afford to hire the trained and skilled camera-person, Torrents Ripped that budget right out! it takes a lot of work to know your craft just like anything else to be great at it. As for Wide Angel Lens. Again it goes back to how good of a camera man you are. When set to wide Angel there is much less chance of things going out of focus and it looks more stable when hand holding. You do get some great shots with Wide Angel that you wont get zoomed but on the flip side girls faces get all distorted! I one of the few that I know that mix it up from Wide to Zoom, or Long Lens Shot. I even try to mix it up in my POVs with Zooms which is way harder to do! But if I get a good shot I think its well above worth the effort! But then again most will be Wide Angels in those movies as you really can't back up that far. Hope this explains a little! Check out some of my work through JSI Asses4theMasses and Organic Melons Pov 1 and 2! Out Now! Check them out and tell me what you think. Peace DRACO
Some are. And some do. Shooting porn is surprisingly boring. At least I found it surprising. I really thought it would be fun and exciting. Some of us want to shoot better, but directors want specific shots and way too often for my tastes what they want are CU's of genitals. And that usually means swinging balls. I'm with you Kolbath. I especially like you "e" point. I hate it when a director tell me to do an "artsy" shot of flowers or the couch or the view from the five million dollar mansion they rented for the day. "So I can have a cutaway." makes me think to myself (hey, I wanna keep working...) "You idiot. You don't need a cutaway. You've got a hot ass bouncing and great tits swinging. Why do you want to cut?" But a lot of producer/directors are shooting their own stuff now. So us underpaid, lazy fucks aren't shooting those scenes anymore. And we all know why there are fewer paid camera ops working. Edited by - CameraOp on 2/1/2010 1:56:09 PM
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 3:03PM
I don't know if there's a secret organization of gay directors who've infiltrated straight porn and who are trying to make us all switch teams. Maybe that mystery can be addressed in the next Dan Brown novel. On the other hand, it's fairly clear what porn distributors are up to. Go to most any rental sites and what do you find? - All the transsexual titles are lumped in with the straight titles. Can anyone explain how, if there are two penises and no vaginas in the scene, that should be categorized as straight porn?
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 3:05PM
I just saw a Digital Playground movie called "Whore It Up," date of production 6/11/09, where this was done in almost every scene. (It's not a feature; more of a high-end gonzo.) I couldn't believe it. Responsible clueless individuals: Robby D, director; "Kurt Tortcher," editor.
And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09
Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 3:25PM
^Also, criminally done in the Private movie 'The Devil Deep Inside' (2003) starring my #1 personal porn goddeess ever Michelle Wild. It was a great scene with Mick Blue, all was going great until the very end... Now, I strategically plan my load basically in tandem with the scene proceedings - i.e. ejaculate when my vicarious screen penis also does over 2-D beautiful woman image... Then, with all going well we have a drastic cut to Mick Blue and his climax face. I like Mick as a performer, but this IS NOT what I want to see at this most pivotal point in the video, and when I'm at the point of no return. I'm like "AAAGGHHH!!! FUCKING HELL!!! NOOOOO!!! GET OFF MY FUCKING SCREEN!!! CUT BACK TO MICHELLE!!! QUIIICCK!!!" then I cum, feeling angry. Kovi did this to me. The bastard.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 3:52PM
It's as if they're checking to see if stuff that we all hated in 8 mm, super-8, 16 mm, 35 mm, video tape, laser disc, and DVD will somehow be OK if it's on a Blu-Ray. Idiots. What next; go back to showing the same 17 seconds of footage looped over and over again?
if anyone still has the money for two cameras and multi-angle dvds, an option worth testing is one camera on the guy and one on the woman. the performers might even hold the cameras themselves for dual POV. there are minicams that can be worn as headgear.
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 9:26PM
Why not just have the male performers wear paper bags on their heads? That would seem to be the most cost effective solution to the problem.
I am deeply concerned about men in porn and I can't stop looking at them or thinking about them, but I'm not gay, they're the ones who're gay, I am totally straight, and I'm going to keep going on about gay men because I need to convince the world that I think about gay men all of the time.
Well I am one who complains about camerawork in films quite often. Thing is, I've always felt that most camerapeople are more than capable enough to shoot a hot scene or great extexior shots when allowed to or given free reign. I see many great shots among most any porn film I watch. I'm convinced the talent is there. If it wasn't, I'd never be able to jerk-off to anything, anywhere on film. I've always suspected it simply came down to most directors not holding the camera themselves, or simply not enjoying the female body and female frame the way I wished they would. And that has nothing to do with any of them supposedly being "gay" or anything, just more about them not having the right mindset or viewpoint of the person filming the action or especially the people watching the film. I always joke that directors should be given a remote and and some lube, and then be forced to watch their own films. That might be the only way they'd ever feel my pain sometimes. Edited by - aplus on 2/2/2010 4:33:06 PM
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 12:04PM
Exactly, Aplus. It is my long-held belief that directors almost always fail to keep the viewer's focus foremost in mind. It is only human nature to strive for "art," when all we (I, at least) want is an upright (vertical with level camera), full-body, undistorted-by-weird-angles view of a beautiful woman getting porked silly.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 1:26PM
I was just reading a review of a feature and thought it appropriate that I post it in this thread. Reviewed by slant69 12/14/09 Well, to each his own on the ratings average of 4 stars...I rent for the sex scenes and these stunk..take the first scene with Shawna Lenee..the scene was about 17 minutes long..I had to time the amount of time I actually saw Shawna's full body or at least a 3/4 shot and it came in at 2:32...all the rest is face to fucking closeups...zzzzz...every scene is like this...I will delete all the Robby D directed dvds from my queue.. I filter (edit) many of the features I view to eliminate the 'butts & balls' close-ups. My general rule is if the frame doesn't show at least part of the model's face then cut it. I've found that over 30% of even the better scenes end up in the delete bucket. The more recent the release, the more that ends up in the delete bucket, sometimes over 50%.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 6:48PM
I can see why the question is asked, Most of it is anti-female, which adds to the suspicion of their sexual orientation or they are asexual. To many dicks and hairy assholes are major league wood killers for me. Inordinate emphasis is placed on blow jobs, for example, while foreplay aimed at the female performer is often either skipped of gets relatively short screen time. Don't get me wrong, I like blow jobs as much as the next guy. I just don't get all that much turned on by watching one. I will concede that other guys might enjoy watching them, but when 50%, or more, of the scene is devoted to a blow job, I just got to kill the "FF" button on the remote. I watch a scene because I wish to see the female(s) pleasured. I want to see orgasms that at least appear real. The best scenes for that are those that contain a lot of pussy-licking, fingering and yes, dare I say it, kissing to go along with the fucking and yes, even a bj. I get tired, as do other viewers as well, of rather lengthy and stagnant shots from the rear when Missionary is on the menu. Enough with the hairy asses already. I especially go ballistic when the missionary is being shot from the side and as the female starts to spasm with the veins in her neck ready to pop and suddenly the camera shifts and a closeup a pair of hairy balls fills the screen. I'm not sure if this is gayness, but I do think it is an under appreciation of female sexuality or just boredom with the job. But most of the time it just ain't sexy.
Oh I have nothing against porn as an art-form or even artsy porn for that matter. Sometimes NOT directing is the best directing though. Sometimes you simply got to get out of the way to let performers do what they CAME to do, and also to let camerapeople do what they were born/taught to do. The scene is right there in front of them, instead of trying to control, all they simply have to do is capture it. And there are some great camerapeople in porn. I just watched a film earlier where the cameraguy missed nothing IMO.
Watch the recent Rocco Siffredi titles. Whoever is filming those fucking things has an obsession with extreme Man Face Close-ups throughout the entire scene. And this is happening at Evil Angel! A studio that revolutionized the industry back in the day by eliminating this exact kind of nonsense.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 10:48AM
Unless the said pooper is being violated against it's will, it's gay. The minute it's called Gay for Pay, it's still gay, as it's announced right in the beginning.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 10:53AM
To further the tread along a little more, what happens when a supposedly straight performer/director spends all their time producing Shemale/tranny features?
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 12:21PM
^ He spends a lot of time counting his money, that's what.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 12:35PM
The usage of the word "gay", in the context of this thread, is not about male on male sex, as far as I'm concerned. It is about a fundamental hatred or distaste for female sexuality that pervades much of porn. Whether this is an example of a "gay" influence or not I'm not sure, but it surely does permeate much that has been produced over the last several years. There seems to be an inability, on the part of most directors/producers, to capture the eroticism of heterosexual sex. Fundamentally there is no passion. edit: correect typo. Edited by - Clam Digger on 2/4/2010 1:14:31 PM
I'm going to stay out of the 'gay' debate, but this is true beyond all doubt.
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 1:37PM
What, you can't appreciate the sensuousness of a title such as "Whore on the Floor."
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 1:56PM
^ I just think that featuring a woman as though she was a hole in a mattress, over and over again, isn't all that hot. It kind of makes me think of the movie "Ground Hog Day". EDIT:typo Edited by - Clam Digger on 2/5/2010 8:45:38 AM
The obsession with what many of you call man ass is the byproduct of shooting penetration, sense a man is thrusting and his gluteus, ass cheek muscles, are used to do the thrusting inevitably you are gonna see some man ass. What differentiates hardcore porn from soft core porn is the emphasis on penetration. If you all about eroticism between men and women and no ass shots get the playboy channel. But that being said, I do think we should have more pussy eating in straight boy girl porn. Also I think many of you are way too homophobic to enjoy porn. Fast forwarding a scene just becasue a man enters the picture? Scientific studies show men who usually are extremely homophobic are usually the biggest fairies. Lastly to work in the sex industry as a man you have to be less homophobic than your average male becasue of the nature of the business. Imagine a male star refusing anything remotley kind of gay in a sex scene. No DP, No rimming, No anal all you'd have is purtanical missionary sex, which is boring. Edited by - mrputitbackin on 6/23/2010 4:50:21 PM
It's been my belief from the front door, that if the movie-scene-shot-dvd-download-whatever ISN'T about THE GIRL - then what's the fucking point? Unless of course, you're making Gay Porn. - Mark Maddy G Productions
[Link]
AsianAnalPantyhoserGuy Deactivated User
Ass fucking/ foot fetish/ pantyhose= insanity! 465 Posts 3/10
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 6:38PM
This thread is SO, SO relevant to why most porn sucks so badly. Deep down, most of these directors have no intention on capturing the beauty of female anatomy stretched to it's limits. Women are basically seen as cattle. Used for a profit and secretly despised for their beauty, therefore we end up with degrading or poorly captured sex scenes. There are way too many flaws to mention with their methodology, but it all boils down to disgruntled homosexuals getting the final say in how it's captured and what gets released. Themes are becoming more dis-functional and homoerotic by the day.
Looking at the history of Hollywood I could only wish that more porn directors were secretly gay. No, what most porn directors are is openly incompetent.
I get what your saying. The male is gonna be seen to some or a great extent. Tough to shoot a scene as if he's not there, well unless it's P.O.V., which is usually too limiting for me. I think you may be over-simplifying some viewers rants though. For me, all I ask is to able to see the woman's face throughout most of it, and to see most of her body. The guy's face, ass, or body in the scene doesn't bother me, as long as I can see her.
Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade. 1441 Posts 5/10
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 9:19PM
I think he was being sarcastic... But if not to each his own And guys I think there are nicer ways to ask questions you dont have to be so passionate about a camera angle...this type of angle has been shot since the beginning of porn I guess some directors think its something they have to do me personally I would like to see more shots where you can see the penetration from the side so i can still see the female performer's ass and tits shaking but if you dont like the close up that much do what I do fast forward it its that simple Crimson Rain...What A Sight Edited by - THICK_LOVA54 on 6/23/2010 9:20:18 PM
[Link]
Gummy Bear Deactivated User
94 Posts 4/10
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 12:58AM
A guy calls up a certain well endowed stranger whom he knows only by reputation and arranges a time and place for sex. He instructs this other man what to wear and implores that he be rock hard and ready to ejaculate big loads. In preparation for the meeting, the guy goes to a sex shop and purchases multiple dildos and butt plugs and copious quantities of lube. On the way out of the sex shop, the guy stops at an ATM and gets some cash to pay the sexy stranger. His SUV loaded with camera equipment to record the event, his head spinning with thoughts about how great this is going to be, the guy heads off for the rendezvous. Naw...There's nothing gay about that.
