Are most porn directors secretly gay?

Author	Post
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 3:01AM Or is there another reason they spend 95% of all camera time zoomed in on a swinging pair of balls? It seems to be apparent that most "professional" porn directors understand less about shot framing and camera angles than a junior high communications class production of Orwell's "1984." I hope some of you out there understand how goddamn frustrating it is to hear your favorite actress caterwauling like a banshee with hemorrhoids six inches off camera while some moron sticks a camera into the nut sack of the male talent. Explain to me why you spent the money to cast a beautiful woman in the scene if you're not going to show us her face. Wouldn't finding a homely one be a little cheaper? Here's a few tricks for you to decipher: a. If you're closer than six inches to the male's asshole, we're not interested. We are not really interested in the men in a porn scene. They are a necessary evil, not the reason we bought the fucking DVD. If they WERE the reason we bought the DVD you would put them on the goddamn box cover. b. If all you can see is a swinging pair of nuts, take one step to either side and the scene will be improved 100%. c. If someone's hairy arm or ass is blocking the shot of the woman's face, find another fucking camera angle. d. Most cameras have a zoom function that allows you to widen the shot enough to get BOTH the driving cock AND the facial expression demonstrating what effect the cock is having on her into the shot. If your camera doesn't then BUY ANOTHER ONE. e. We don't give a SHIT what color the couch is or what's going on outside the window. You're not filming ART, you're shooting a porn scene. Kindly take the time to show us something we can't find in a furniture store, please. Thus endeth the rant. Question: will any of the dozens of directors reading this forum bother to alter their direction, or will I continue using bittorrent to download porn because buying it is no longer worth the risk of getting yet another 45-minute swinging scrotum scene for $39.99? -K- [Link]
kacihd Member 52 Posts 8/08	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 3:16AM I would say that is pretty silly to suggest, I think most directors just aren't afraid of anatomy. [Link]
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 3:47AM It has nothing to do with fear of anatomy. I was actually giving them the benefit of the doubt. Either they happen to be gay, which explains the fixation on camera angles that place wrinkled sacks front and center in the damn shot, or they are merely very, very bad at what they do. -K- [Link]
charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 4:42AM regardless of orientation, it's a boring shot. dick, strapon, or flute shaped dildo, it doesn't matter. in, out, in, out. [Link]
Cuddly Wombat Senior Member Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 5:29AM Not secretly ... [Link]

deputyduffy Member 396 Posts 8/08	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 6:49AM Yeah, I don't think this is a big secret. If you shoot scenes were 10 guys stand around jacking off to one woman...think about it. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 6:53AM deputyduffy wrote: If you shoot scenes were 10 guys stand around jacking off to one woman...think about it. Click to expand Can you go into further detail about why men jerking off to a woman is gay? I'm not saying there isn't some homoerotic content in porn but on a homoerotic scale of 1-10 (ten being most gay), this would barely make a 1.5 in my book. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/25/2010 7:01:28 AM [Link]
deputyduffy Member 396 Posts 8/08	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 7:44AM Don't feel bad...there are worst things then enjoying watching a bunch of grown men playing with their cocks. It's not my thing, but we are all different. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 8:09AM ^ I don't feel bad. I just wondered why you're so obsessed with the men in porn if you aren't gay or bi. I myself am unabashedly bi and even I barely notice the men most of the time. When the goal is to put as much semen as possible on or in the female, I don't see how you expect them to do it with one dude. The masturbation is not about homosexuality (Though it's entirely possible the director is gay or that someone might enjoy it on that level). It's about the male being in control and the female being submissive. Do you honestly not get that? Edited by - randomprecision on 1/25/2010 8:22:33 AM [Link]
bi_girl Member 157 Posts 11/09	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 10:55AM Haha, despite whatever orientation the directors might be, he still makes a good point: the camerawork is in need of a serious reconfiguration. One of the things that turned me off porn for a good while was that quintessential, mechanical, zoomed-in shot of the penetration - the so-called "scrotum swinging" shot. That is possibly the most overused and overestimated shot ever. Sure, close-up penetration is hot the first couple of times you see it, but it grows tiresome very quickly for obvious reasons. I suppose all we're asking for is a bit of experimentation with angles and less of that cold, sterile scrotum swinging. More full-body shots are welcome, as well as maybe some panning to the girl's face, etc. As for gangbangs/bukkake, I kind of wish they didn't have that circle of dudes standing around jerking it idly. Maybe if they were more attractive it could work, but usually it takes away from the scene. I think it would be hotter if they were all standing in a line. Next! [Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 4:52PM I agree with the OP's complaints about excessive ball shots. Yes we are watching hard cocks and yes we are watching said hard cocks cum on girls, but we do want to see the girls face. This seems to be a recurring theme in Vince Voyeur releases. I caught one recently and Tanner Mayes was blowing 2 guys. Great, that's what I thought, but for some reason we get excessive shots from beneath and all we see is the guy's doggy balls, the bottom of the guy's cock, and Tanner's chin. WTF is with that. How hard is it to aim a camera? [Link]
smokedbacon Member 16 Posts 1/10	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 5:02PM Kolbath wrote: e. We don't give a SHIT what color the couch is or what's going on outside the window. You're not filming ART, you're shooting a porn scene. Kindly take the time to show us something we can't find in a furniture store, please. Click to expand Haha, I had a laugh at this. As an art director and designer myself, I actually find myself drawn to scenes with an interesting piece of furniture, especially if the woman is dressed to the nines in a complimentary outfit. :) For me, at least, a proper set adds a layer of atmosphere that I very much enjoy. To each our own, obviously... but I do agree that swinging ball shots do get tiresome. Such is the reason I subscribe to a HD site where I have full control and preview over the scenes that I'm going to download, and where the directors are actually quite talented individuals! [Link]
john_qyoo_public Deactivated User 265 Posts 7/05	Posted - Jan 25 2010 : 10:48PM My theory is that camera operators are underpaid/lazy fucks. This is the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why so many shots seem to be taken by cameramen sitting on their asses looking up at the action. I can almost picture them eating takeout or talking on the phone at the same time. [Link]
kacihd Member 52 Posts 8/08	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 12:04AM if you guys don't enjoy the closeup shots you probably should be watching softcore instead :P [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 12:21AM Girl/Girl scenes for all the men haters,problem solved...although the directors would still get the blame for something? To the op Kolbath,what porn have you been watching-what directors. [Link]

Seijuro Senior Member 1389 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 2:44PM stinkfist wrote: Girl/Girl scenes for all the men haters,problem solved...although the directors would still get the blame for something? To the op Kolbath,what porn have you been watching-what directors. Click to expand Or Japanese AV porn where everything except tits are blurred. :) [Link]
Largo Member 21 Posts 6/08	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 4:30PM With the set of balls Evan Stone and Tony Tedeshi are packin' they have no other option. [Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User 781 Posts 12/08	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 5:57PM It's why I only watch Jaysin. No creepy romantic g/g, and if there is a guy involved, it's at the end of the scene and I just hit the FF button. [Link]
just_me Member 133 Posts 4/09	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 6:01PM Is this like the assistant in Orgazmo "Dude, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but I think you got a hot ass!" Yea, I tired of watching men in porn and went girl-only years ago - best porn decision I ever made [Link]
Blu Lite 3 Member Yeah uh-huh sure... and I guess conspiracy is just a theory. 252 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 6:45PM Kolbath, if you're referring to those stupid-ass close ups that last more than a minute, I couldn't agree more. I dunno if it's the director or the camera-man but, damn, what's up with those guys? They don't realize how it is some real incredibly stupid boring shit to watch a long drawn-out close up of the guy's dick going in and out of the pussy and all the other stuff you described. There's a couple of threads on the board discussing "the decline of porn". Well maybe one of the things to mention is how there are many people behind the camera who are too damn lazy in the creative department (and, no, they don't have to resort to turning to sick kinkiness to fill the creative void either). [Link]
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 9:44PM Hi folks. I'm taking a break from writing some pretty major business proposals, so I can't respond to each person with an individual message. I'll try to get most of you in here. I don't think the idea of ten men standing around wanking away before unloading on a chick is gay, but it's not really my cup of tea. That wasn't really what I meant. (Although I like the idea bi_girl had about the line of men waiting to go. Good thinking, someone get that woman a camera!) As another poster queried, yes, I'm speaking specifically of the zoomed in ball shot that lasts for more than a minute-- in some cases it lasts for more than 50% of the penetration. In some cases it lasts for the entire goddamn scene. I can recall a couple of scenes I watched when I was a kid sneaking tapes out of my dad's dresser in which the woman's face was shown during oral and cleanup ONLY, and the rest of the time it was penetration only. When "Anal Destruction" had Malana they literally did not show her face during a single second of the 14:38 of the sex. Not for one second. I'm actually a writer both by trade and vocation, and I have a series of articles about sexual psychology and various other topics. One I'm getting ready to release on the web consists of the ten most asinine ways directors fuck up porn. Number one is zooming in on the ball shot for extended lengths of time. As an example, in the essay I actually have a frame grab from that Malana scene next to identically-framed shots from four other movies. It is impossible to tell even which one is her, much less if she was enjoying it or not. She could have been doing her nails (and probably was.) There are reasons to show penetration and reasons to show what effect the penetration is having on the recipient. I don't like softcore porn largely because it's not showing ANYTHING. Some penetration is definitely okay. One time to definitely NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be zooming in on some woodsman's coinpurse is during an initial anal penetration shot. Is there anything sexier on earth than the mingled pain, pleasure, surprise, and even fear in a woman's eyes as she feels a cock slide into her ass-- particularly if it's her very first time? For some reason directors show us this on such a rare frequency that it virtually eliminates much of the excitement of the scene as far as I'm concerned. I get my hopes up more than Vikings fans when the camera cuts from the dick at the most nefarious of body cavities to her face as she anticipates the first thrust... and then they crash when the damnfool editor jumpcuts back to show the cock sliding in. Someone asked what porn I watch and who directs it. My tastes are singular and myriad. I am legion, and I am focused. Basically, I'm a fan of rough anal and oral. My collection includes everything from the "Gag Factor" and "Young Throats" series up to the Brasileirinhas series out of Brazil. Oh, and anything, absolutely anything, with Gen Padova in it. This is one of the reasons I commented. Not only is this shitty direction not confined to one genre, but it's also apparently not confined to one COUNTRY. If all the directors in England were asshats, we could look to Vegas or Southern California. Unfortunately, this seems to be more widespread than Autumn Haze in "Pig Sluts 4". Personally, I do not find girl/girl even remotely arousing. I typically fast forward past those. I've never seen even one that I thought was worth the media it was recorded on, and finally stopped watching them entirely a year or three ago. I appreciate the suggestion, nevertheless, but it isn't my thing any more than masturbation scenes are. Thanks though. @smokedbacon: I almost blew a snot on my shirt when I read your reply. You made my day! My dad had major surgery this morning to remove liver cancer, and I appreciate the laugh you gave me. Thanks! I posted my original message in fury and frustration, and I sort of expected a few responses of "yer dumn LOL!" It turns out that my frustration is NOT unique to me. It would seem that the overwhelming response on this board is that the cameras are not dynamic enough, and by that I literally mean that they spend too much time focused on closeups of penetration without enough time spent showing the who and what of how that penetration is affecting the recipient. I read some time ago on this very board that Peter North (Hallowed be his name. We drown in cum. Thy girls be tight. On rumpled sheets and floor. Give us this day our erection, and we will give it to someone else. For thine is the fleshly baseball bat that beats our girls to submission. Amen!) read this very board and discovered that men don't like random jump cuts to the male performer's face in the middle of a scene, so he then instructed his directors and editors not to do that any more. My hope is that other porn directors will follow his example. So far the response has been 100% in favor of a more active camera role. Seems to me like the producers and directors might want to further examine that if this little focus group is any indicator of what the fans want. I don't think it's too much to ask that a cameraman take stock of his angle now and then and consider, "If I move slightly to the left, the viewers can see BOTH the penetration AND the woman's face" and then actually make that move. I don't think it's overwhelmingly difficult that directors set up their shots to show the woman's face during initial penetration (Particularly when it involves a FIRST ANAL. There is only once in a woman's life to record her facial expression the first time she takes a dick in her ass, but there is the REST of her life to record dicks sawing in and out of her butt!) I also think that cameramen and directors should consider using more angles and framing that allows BOTH acts to be shown on screen. If someone happens to really love closeups, they can shift their eyes 1/100000th to the left and watch that. Someone who likes to see the woman's face can shift their eyes 1/100000th to the RIGHT and see THAT. Give us both! Hell, what's wrong with picture in picture? A miniDV camera costs about $350 and most editing software can do PiP with two mouseclicks. Just don't be stupid like Woodman when he tried it and cover the woman's face with the in-picture of the penetration. That sort of defeats the purpose. Do my suggestions sound like they make some sense? I'm willing to accept input from those further in the industry. Is there a legitimate REASON for some of these bad angles and horrible framing jobs, something I don't know because I'm not on set during the filming to see what the hell is going on? Or is it just that you need a cameraman like John Edwards had? http://gawker.com/5456215/ Okay, back to work. I appreciate the opinions of everyone who weighed in. Thanks! -K- [Link]
fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 10:19PM john_qyoo_public wrote: why so many shots seem to be taken by cameramen sitting on their asses looking up at the action. I can almost picture them eating takeout or talking on the phone at the same time. Click to expand This, I must say, would be one of my least favorite spots for eating takeout. [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 10:53PM I think the porn directors are getting a rough time on the thread,i enjoy the work of Mason,Jonni Darkko and countless other directors on the Evil Angel site who have made porn that i will continue to buy because i know it will be a quality production i will be getting,to say that these guys/gals do not know how to do there job is crazy and all because a "big bad man's hairy ball sack was shown in close up"...North Korean president Kim Jong Il might already have his finger on the button,how dare we see a mans ass and balls in close up.I am thinking of writing to my local MP yours outraged,stinkfist. [Link]
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 10:59PM I think you're missing the point, stinkfist. My point is not that "balls were shown." My point is that balls were ALL that was shown. In a forty minute porn scene, thirty minutes of swinging nuts is not the sort of porn I'm interested in watching, thanks. I can only observe the evidence with mine own eyes. Porn directors ARE getting a rough time on this thread... because frankly I think I can do a better job at what they do than they are currently doing. As a porn consumer I believe I have the right to an opinion. I'm not sure what Kim Jong Il's finger has to do with anything, and I did not advocate writing to a government representative over something so frivolous. If you disagree, fine. Do so and enjoy the dissonance. But if you have a better forum for contacting porn watchers and porn makers, or a suggestion on how I can present these concerns to the people who actually make the film's OTHER than to post here, I'm certainly willing to listen to it. Right now your suggestions seem to be deranged, but I think that has more to do with you feeling some kind of reason or pressure to defend the directors. That's find if you find the majority are making porn you like, but I am not convinced that this is the case. -K- [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 11:07PM ^I did ask what porn you were watching,which Directors..you could avoid buying there movies.In titles i have and from a mix of Directors i do not see a lot of what you are going on about.The Kim Jong and the MP reference was tongue in cheek,in other words push the button end the world,oh my god i have seen a man's balls im writing to my MP.If you read your original post,the tone is aggressive in parts and i think that is why none of the Directors have replied yet. Edited by - stinkfist on 1/26/2010 11:16:37 PM [Link]

Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 26 2010 : 11:15PM Obviously others do see it, since you are the lone voice of dissent. Or perhaps it simply doesn't irritate you as much as it irritates the rest of us, particularly since I explained that I have seen the same angles and errors repeated across multiple genres, countries, and regions. Regardless, I intend to vote with my wallet. It's really not worth paying for porn on the off chance that MAYBE 20% of the scene will be shot in a manner that doesn't frustrate and annoy. On the other hand, it is WELL worth my time to find alternate means by which to download the hard work and effort of such directors for free. I'd like to support my favorite directors with my cash, but so far I don't really have one that consistently DOESN'T screw it up for me. I will look for the directors you mention. Hopefully they are in genres I like as well. -K- [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 3:35AM Rosco Fuji wrote: I agree with the OP's complaints about excessive ball shots. Click to expand I don't think anyone enjoys 30 minutes of a screen full of flopping nutsack. I simply disagree with the idea that the director (or whom ever) absolutely must be gay. It's possible but I honestly think it's more likely that it's just porn director burnout. A lot of them are simply on autopilot. If you make porn for a living and you're bored/lazy/unmotivated/whatever, the simplest thing to do is to do a quick introduction and shoot half an hour of penetration. Thus, the "under the balls shot" is probably the easiest way to constantly show genitals and penetration on autopilot. [Link]
Johnothan Pedak Senior Member Catastrophe 1594 Posts 6/07	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 4:06AM Kolbath wrote: Explain to me why you spent the money to cast a beautiful woman in the scene if you're not going to show us her face. Wouldn't finding a homely one be a little cheaper? Click to expand Best point. [Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 1:26PM RandomPrecision wrote: Rosco Fuji wrote: I agree with the OP's complaints about excessive ball shots. Click to expand I don't think anyone enjoys 30 minutes of a screen full of flopping nutsack. I simply disagree with the idea that the director (or whom ever) absolutely must be gay. It's possible but I honestly think it's more likely that it's just porn director burnout. A lot of them are simply on autopilot. If you make porn for a living and you're bored/lazy/unmotivated/whatever, the simplest thing to do is to do a quick introduction and shoot half an hour of penetration. Thus, the "under the balls shot" is probably the easiest way to constantly show genitals and penetration on autopilot. Click to expand But wouldn't it be just as easy to pull back a few feet and get the entire girl in the shot. Read my original comment about the recent Voyeur flick and Tanner Mayes blowing two guys. It's just as easy to hold the camera straight on her face as the cocks go in her mouth, hell they could use a tripod if the camera man is lazy. But instead, we get the under shot of excessive balls and cock and Tanner's chin only. It's really not that difficult to aim a camera to get what you want in the shot, so one could easily assume that the director/cameraman was definitely fixating on the guy's junk. Edited by - rosco fuji on 1/27/2010 1:27:43 PM [Link]
monkey power Member Tim? 868 Posts 1/03	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 3:45PM Thank you for keeping this issue alive, like the olympic torch that it is. I once championed this cause back before the 2004 Games. Throughout the ages, brave men and women like ourselves have tried to tell pornographers that they're idiots in terms of what they choose to emphasize, and I'm sure that efforts like this thread will continue on into future centuries, as the same nutsack views continue to visually assault our perverted great great grandchildren. Like the title character vampire on the show Angel once said about the evils he was faced with, "Maybe they don't exist to be beaten. Maybe they exist to be fought." For it is only by joining the eternal fight for better pornography that we find meaning. [Link]
ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 3:52PM stinkfist wrote: If you read your original post,the tone is aggressive in parts and i think that is why none of the Directors have replied yet. Click to expand I agree with OP and have been interested in this topic and it has been a porn peeve of mine for a long time. And it has been brought up many times in many threads, aggressive, non aggressive, joking, serious, in whatever tone you want. But the directors never weigh in. It has nothing to do with aggressive tone. Very mysterious IMO. [Link]
Tobias Deactivated User 475 Posts 1/09	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 3:59PM It does make you wonder about the director when he gives you a close up of the male actor's face during the money shot. [Link]
bi_girl Member 157 Posts 11/09	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 5:14PM Tobias wrote: It does make you wonder about the director when he gives you a close up of the male actor's face during the money shot. Click to expand This is a tough one. As a female, I love watching a guy's facial expression as he cums, but the problem is most of the time the guy is significantly less attractive than the female, making me wish the director just kept filming the actress. But if and when the guy is attractive, I do like seeing a shot of his face during the money shot. I think the idea of PIP is really hot!!! The only time I ever saw that was in a hentai film, and it was great. Oh, and if anyone wants to give me a camera, I'd be more than happy to shoot some porn with good angles!!! Female POV anyone? ;) [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 7:08PM ninja1 wrote: stinkfist wrote: If you read your original post,the tone is aggressive in parts and i think that is why none of the Directors have replied yet. Click to expand I agree with OP and have been interested in this topic and it has been a porn peeve of mine for a long time. And it has been brought up many times in many threads, aggressive, non aggressive, joking, serious, in whatever tone you want. But the directors never weigh in. It has nothing to do with aggressive tone. Very mysterious IMO. Click to expand Fair point ninja,but if you go through some of the OP's posts then it's quite clear to me why the Directors have not replied...... Kolbath posts.. Thus endeth the rant. Question: will any of the dozens of directors reading this forum bother to alter their direction, or will I continue using bittorrent to download porn because buying it is no longer worth the risk of getting yet another 45-minute swinging scrotum scene for $39.99? Regardless, I intend to vote with my wallet. It's really not worth paying for porn on the off chance that MAYBE 20% of the scene will be shot in a manner that doesn't frustrate and annoy. On the other hand, it is WELL worth my time to find alternate means by which to download the hard work and effort of such directors for free. [Link]
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 9:51PM Please do not quote me out of context, stink. -K- [Link]

stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 10:04PM Kolbath wrote: Please do not quote me out of context, stink. -K- Click to expand What the fact you are berating the Directors about the porn you do not even buy,maybe that is why you have not had replies from any of the Directors. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 11:22PM I don't know about PIP, but I have watched some porn from the 80s (or was it 90s) with split screens that tried to bring to life the idea of watching faces and penetration at the same. Hated it. Obviously it was not very popular or it would have become standard practice. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jan 27 2010 : 11:24PM As for the OP - just sounds like he's watching crap porn and needs find another director/line/company. [Link]
ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jan 28 2010 : 1:15AM stinkfist wrote: What the fact you are berating the Directors about the porn you do not even buy,maybe that is why you have not had replies from any of the Directors. Click to expand This is a bonus reason for the insiders to weigh in. To call Kolbath a lawbreaking immoral ungrateful good-for-nothing pirate thief dirty rat scoundrel bum, or more colorful terms of affection. They're not shy about doing it here and here. It's not the download comment that's keeping them away. [Link]
fatalbert Member Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03	Posted - Jan 28 2010 : 10:48AM Kolbath wrote: ... I have seen the same angles and errors repeated across multiple genres, countries, and regions. Click to expand And eras. You state your points well, Kolbath. I agree completely, and have so (endlessly) ranted on this board. But, after 20+ years of searching for porn with an emphasis on full-body (her face and the "action," at least) camera shots, and with angles that don't require standing on your head to make visual sense of, I'm about ready to give it up for a lost cause. Think of the utter crap out of Hollywood that commands the biggest box office receipts, then apply the same lowest-common-denominator principle to porn. "Nuff said. [Link]
Jeff Mullen Member Hall of Famer -Time to get out 219 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jan 28 2010 : 11:07PM Here's a reply from a director: Will Ryder starring in Not Gay XXX. lol [Link]
Kolbath Member 31 Posts 8/07	Posted - Jan 28 2010 : 11:29PM stinkfist wrote: What the fact you are berating the Directors about the porn you do not even buy,maybe that is why you have not had replies from any of the Directors. Click to expand No, as other posters have pointed out already, this subject has been brought up repeatedly with no weigh-in from the pros. I doubt they are even reading. My only hope when I posted was to agitate one of their underlings enough to get something reported up the chain to the boss, as happened a couple years ago with Peter North and the "jump to man cumming" shot. I have no illusions that this will actually work, but what the hell? As I asked before, IF YOU HAVE A BETTER SUGGESTION FOR CONTACTING PORN PRODUCERS THEN POSTING HERE, LET'S HEAR IT, PLEASE. I specifically make my posts as long as I do because I want to a) make sure I have the facts properly organized and my points properly supported, and b) put my comments, complaints, criticisms, bitches, moans and/or gripes into context. For you to grab two sentences out of three dozen paragraphs and try to paint me as the bad guy is a straw man argument. Stick to the point, please. In fact, when I find a porno I actually think is well done, I attempt to find a copy of it retail in order to support the directors. I also purchase the occasional subscription to web sites with qualities I like... but ONLY after previewing their scenes first through filesharing or other methods. An example of this is "Cheek Freaks 8" by Jazz Duro. However, the rest of that series committed the same moronic blunders of angle and composition, so I do not keep or purchase them. In my adult blog I also recommend "Cheek Freeks 8" to my readers, as well as the countless websites whose content I have perused online and enjoyed. I try, if I like, I buy. If I don't, I delete. Bitch as much as you like about how I get my hands on it, I've probably made Jazz Duro and FacialAbuse about $5,000 over the last two years. All of which is beside the point. The near universal response has been in agreement with me: porn directors are bad at what they do because they do not take the time to frame and light their scenes properly. Shot composition and lighting are the two most basic aspects of ANY filmmaking or photography. You put the light behind the CAMERA (not the SUBJECT, Rocco Siffredi) and you put the focal point on the "grid." I was taught to imagine a tic-tac-toe board on the viewfinder and to put the focal point on any one of the intersections of two lines. [mod edit: image removed due to violation of the image policy. Read it before posting any more images.] Draw a tic-tac-toe board over that picture right there and tell me what's at the upper left intersection. Looks like a pair of dingle danglies to me. Those dingle-danglies wobbled back and forth in that spot for 4:33 of the scene this frame is grabbed from. The ENTIRE scene is 18:54. Mind if I do a little math? Balls were front and center for 24% of the damn scene. And that's just in THIS angle. They also did another three minutes or so of that "under his balls" facefucking angle where all you can see is her chin and his huevos. That brings us to around 39% of a fuck scene where the primary focal point is the man's nads. We're not even looking at PENETRATION here, we are looking at BALLS! In fact, we can't see the penetration because his balls are in the WAY! Hence my question, "What're you, gay?" I won't even add in the further 3+ minutes that the camera was zoomed in on the female's hair for no apparent reason. You can do the math on that one. I'm obviously not the only one who feels this way, so trying to paint me as the bad guy because I prefer to preview before I purchase is nothing more than sleight of hand. At no point has any part of this discussion been about me unless you were trying to drag it off point. Most of the response on this board indicates to me that porn consumers HATE the way most of these shots are framed and angled, so a director with some common sense might listen to them and be able to sell a whole lot of porn to a whole lot of people. Hell, someone lend ME $25,000 and I'll start my own production company and take that money. (bi_girl, would you work for me?) I asked you nicely not to quote me out of context. You decided to call me out. This isn't a good idea. I have obviously put some time into researching my points or I would not have spoken. At the risk of sounding like I don't have a life, I timed a few scenes to determine what the average length of time they show balls as the focal point was. It's about 44%. That's nearly HALF of the average HETERO porn scene in which male anatomy is the primary focus for films aimed at a male-dominated, non-homosexual consumer base. Does that sound like it makes any sense to you? Kindly focus on the discussion, please. We are ONLY talking about the potential reasons that may explain why shot composition is so poor across all genres of pornography. There may BE legitimate reasons why directors use the angles they do. Perhaps there are some actresses with contracts that state that their faces are not to be shown during certain acts, or for only a certain period of time. However, the actresses are willing to sit there and take a cumshot across their eyebrows. I doubt their contracts say to keep those eyebrows off camera until then so daddy doesn't see his little girl getting fucked in the ass. @savoy: I watch multiple genres from multiple countries involving multiple "cultures" of porn and literally dozens of directors that all make the same mistakes. These are not mistakes of content, they are mistakes of shot composition, lighting, and dynamism. I have already stated this at least twice. So have others in this discussion who apparently agree this isn't an effective angle for adult video production. -K- Edited by - killbillvol69 on 1/28/2010 11:39:25 PM [Link]
Jeff Mullen Member Hall of Famer -Time to get out 219 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 1:57AM Actually I will add just a bit from a director's point of view. The first thing I learned when I started shooting my own camera was to never and I do mean never shoot a guy's asshole. Now that sounds pretty simple but I have seen tons of porn where the camera not only has the swinging nuts but the dude's ass crack in the shot too and it does bother me. So I am in full agreement with those out there that don't dig it. The porn we tend to shoot at X-Play although hardcore never gets talked about in the reviews as anything other than ' this was much better than feature type' sex. Yet I think some of our sex is really shot well and very hardcore. I have always enjoyed a pretty girl's face as a part of most of my sex shooting frames. I love the look on a woman's face when she is getting banged and I love to pull back and give the master shot so that you can see her pussy and her face in the same shot while she is having sex. I also like to get a view (but only once or twice) of the sex action taking place within the room from a true master-distance before getting closer again I guess just to give the viewer a full picture of what the heck is going on. Of course most of us that have shot over 100 of the 5 scene vignettes type of movies (They are all going away soon folks)have learned to cut the guy's head off in most of the shots except the intro. I remember when I first started I would shoot the entire couple while she was blowing him on the sofa for example and include the guy's head looking down and enjoying the action. Somebody back in the day took me aside and said Hey bro, cut his fucking head off please next time so I did. In our sitcums we need to establish that the guy is a full character of the movie just like a TV show but during the sex I still often times will cut his head off. The beautiful thing about porn is that its like rock 'n roll in that there is somebody for all different tastes and styles. I am sure there are a lot of people that love swinging German Shepard type balls on their screen but thousands of others that don't want to see that. I will tell you that until you have shot a number of movies and until the camera becomes a part of your body (I know that sounds silly but it is so true) you will not get what you are actually trying to capture. Your angles will be jacked, your movement will be jerky at times, the camera heights won't be right and you will not take the viewer where he wants to go when he wants to go there. AND you will catch somebody's ass and balls in the shot. I used to panic when I found myself with a frame that I didn't like or the talent would move to the 'wrong' position for how I was lit or how I was holding camera position. I would make very quick adjustments and try to get it perfect and keep what I wanted in frame which only made it worse by being jumpy or jerky. The greatest thing I learned about shooting sex is don't panic. Once I figured that simple rule out my technique got better and better and our sex movies became more enjoyable to watch. However I can tell you it is MUCH harder than you think if you have never done it. Do you ever wonder for example why most BTS is jittery, and almost moving slightly? During sex shooting notice how rock solid most cameramen are. I'm not talking about technique like flipping the camera to new positions or any of that. I am just talking about holding the damn thing perfectly steady. You really build up some amazing arm and leg muscles lol. I can also tell you that as a director I do not like crouching down by a man's nuts and ass anymore than you do. Sometimes I have to be near them but I certainly don't want my friends to know about it (lol) but I will never show you man-ass up close or swinging balls if I can avoid them. I personally love women and actually fall in love with just about every girl I shoot (not literally but you have to really appreciate them to enjoy this business). I rarely if ever use the zoom function and prefer to move my camera in and out of the action physically but if some guy's arm or shoulder blocks the shot we simply- and to use my favorite word in editing- elegantly move the camera elsewhere. Then we take the male talent outside and flog him for blocking my camera. I have made it my priority in my career in porn to get better and better with each production and so far I think we have done that. I don't expect all of you and for sure Kolbath; to enjoy our movies like Not the Cosbys XXX and Not the Bradys XXX because I know that is not what he is looking for in his porn. I can totally appreciate that but for those that love our movies, do know that we continue to make them as great as we possible can because we fucking care. X-Play had a great year and I hope I added something interesting to this thread. If you want, check out our movies at www.sitcums.com and click onto the video trailer section - Thanks for making this an interesting topic. Jeff Mullen AKA Will Ryder- 2010 AVN Director of the Year- Damn that sounds good! [Link]
Tobias Deactivated User 475 Posts 1/09	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 5:03AM What's the name of that big flaming queer director who was prominently featured in Pornucopia a few years back? [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 1:21PM Kolbath wrote: stinkfist wrote: What the fact you are berating the Directors about the porn you do not even buy,maybe that is why you have not had replies from any of the Directors. Click to expand For you to grab two sentences out of three dozen paragraphs and try to paint me as the bad guy is a straw man argument. Stick to the point, please. I asked you nicely not to quote me out of context. You decided to call me out. This isn't a good idea. -K- Click to expand I am not trying to paint you as the bad guy Kolbath,i just find it strange that on two occasions you make the same reference to "continue using bittorrent to download porn because buying it is no longer worth the risk of getting yet another 45-minute swinging scrotum scene for $39.99?" "On the other hand, it is WELL worth my time to find alternate means by which to download the hard work and effort of such directors for free." and then have a go at me for calling you out. when it was YOU that posted that information.Kolbath why taunt the Directors like that. [Link]
stinkfist Senior Member Subterfuge...... 7401 Posts 4/07	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 1:37PM To get your thread back on track it was good to see Jeff Mullen's views on things,Kolbath i already gave my views that i did not seem to come across much of what you reported when watching porn but plenty others in the thread share your thoughts.The only poor Directing i have seen and hated and would never buy from again would be anything from Leisure Time and those awful 4 hour compilations that offered poor lighting and poor sex scenes.Now i choose Elegant Angel titles directed by Mason and if the shots that you go an about occur in her movies then i think it's minimal,but maybe she is filming this with a woman's pov in mind too regarding some of the shots. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 3:02PM I enjoy POV porn primarily because the focus is on the woman, not the dude. My wife, on the other hand, greatly differs in that opinion and I can understand why. She things a meaty set of balls swinging in rhythm to the stroking shaft is sexy as hell. Me? I don't wanna see them. So when you think about it, although there aren't many directors who I really like, the ones who show a lot of the guy may just be trying to give a balanced view to their scenes. It doesn't mean they are gay. [Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 9:27PM LubeNLuv wrote: I enjoy POV porn primarily because the focus is on the woman, not the dude. My wife, on the other hand, greatly differs in that opinion and I can understand why. She things a meaty set of balls swinging in rhythm to the stroking shaft is sexy as hell. Me? I don't wanna see them. So when you think about it, although there aren't many directors who I really like, the ones who show a lot of the guy may just be trying to give a balanced view to their scenes. It doesn't mean they are gay. Click to expand A balanced view for who? Porn is produced almost exclusively for men. The women I've watched porn with also want to see the girls, not the guy's scrot. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jan 29 2010 : 9:42PM ^^ When the porn says on the cover "Porn for Rosco Fuji" then you have a point. Until then, you are just one person, one opinion. [Link]
ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Jan 30 2010 : 12:12AM @Jeff Mullen: THANKS for your insightful words of wisdom and experience. [Link]
Cuddly Wombat Senior Member Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04	Posted - Jan 30 2010 : 12:22AM Great post by Jeff Mullen. Of late I have been specifically concentrating on movies directed by Will Ryder, B. Skow and most of the Elegant Angel directors, because they do seem to be the best at keeping the girls as the centre of attention throughout a movie. [Link]