New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Introducing Natasha Carter

"Dirty talk is a really big thing for me."
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 609 > Chemistry vs. Lube & Editing: What matters most?
AuthorPost
Fred G. Sanford
Member


@FredGSanfordXXX
120 Posts
11/02
Posted - Sep 26 2005 : 7:33PM
How important is chemistry in porn flicks? Does talent have to like each other to make a hot fuck scene? Or, does bad blood always lead to bad scenes?

In other words, is good porn mo'e about lube and editing or chemistry?

picman
Senior Member

Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass.
2884 Posts
1/03
Posted - Sep 26 2005 : 9:54PM
Chemistry trumps lube and editing most times. Even bad blood can lead to a hot grudge fuck. That's chemistry too. With very few exceptions, if a director is too hands on, the scene progresses in fits and starts, losing its mojo. When performers hit the slipstream together, it's best to just follow the action and let it unfold.
Fred G. Sanford
Member

@FredGSanfordXXX
120 Posts
11/02
Posted - Sep 27 2005 : 4:44PM
Thanks picman, fo' yo' response. I was hopin' for a lot mo'e feedback? Should I have framed the question in a diff'rent context? Or, is it my breath?
juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05
Posted - Sep 27 2005 : 4:59PM
I think most people don't want to think and talk about "special effects equipment" like lube.
Hardware All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

Your other left
14595 Posts
3/02
Posted - Sep 27 2005 : 5:23PM
I'd say camerawork and editing matter the most. You can have all the chemistry in the world but if the cameraman shoots nothing but the back of the girl's head or the guy's face, I can guarantee that the couple's passion won't save the flick.

Likewise, if the editor chops up the footage to where I spend more time cursing the editing than being involved in the action the couple's passion won't save the flick.

Having said that, chemistry should give the cameraman and editor better material to work with.

 
Fred G. Sanford
Member

@FredGSanfordXXX
120 Posts
11/02
Posted - Sep 28 2005 : 7:36PM
Interesting. Who do you think are the best at camerawork and editing? And, what performers seem to have the best chemistry together?
Hardware All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

Your other left
14595 Posts
3/02
Posted - Sep 28 2005 : 8:59PM
I'm not sure it's much help to consider who has the best chemistry together. I prefer to focus on which guys appear to work best with the ladies. To me, that would be Steve Holmes, Michael Stefano, Jules Jordan and, although I'm not all that fond of their style at times, Manuel Ferrara and Rocco.

Evil Angel and Platinum X have been most consistent in putting out product I like recently, though I can't tell you who shot camera or edited what, except for Jonni Darko, maybe. I'd also give kudos to Marc Dorcel, Fusion X (FusXion?) and Elegant Angel. Oh, and though I haven't seen much from Visual Images, I was fairly impressed with almost all aspects of Bamboo's scene in Luv Dat Asian Azz 2. If all they're stuff is that good then they're worth checking out.

PL
Senior Member

God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer
1726 Posts
10/03
Posted - Sep 28 2005 : 10:14PM
I'm bigger on chemistry...

I think Manuel Ferrara and Katsumi have some tremendous chemistry, but then again Manuel seems to have good chemistry with about every girl he works with - Katsumi is the only one I can think of that is off the charts every time they fuck. Why do you think he made a movie of her ?

KatjaKassin
Senior Member

1257 Posts
5/03
Posted - Sep 29 2005 : 1:57AM
If I really don't like a guy it becomes a hot scene because I just want to fuck him to death. lol

So I don't have to be in love with the person is what I'm saying.

Edited by - katjakassin on 9/29/2005 1:58:10 AM

SaraJayFan
Member

Underneath Sara Jay
200 Posts
4/04
Posted - Sep 29 2005 : 8:59AM
I'd rather watch a scene that is directed by the fuck, rather than a scene fucked up by the director. When the stud and chick WANT each other you can feel the heat in the scene. I love it when I read a review in which the director could barely keep up with the action.

You know, this might spawn a new genre of porn: hate fuck.

YogaDame All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

bien dans ma peau
198 Posts
7/05
Posted - Sep 29 2005 : 11:10AM
I weight the sex and the audiovisual quality about equally in my reviews. And if anyone wants an example of a movie where pisspoor technique trumped decent chemistry, here's the most recent review that I wrote. The DVD features my favorite performer working with at least a couple of co-stars whom he really likes, including his real-life partner. I wanted to give this movie a 3.5-4 star rating, but the lackluster audiovisual quality brought it down to 2 stars.

There's even a funny part where a crew member added lube (not due to poor chemistry, but simply because anal sex is not self-lubing). The editor left it in. I actually thought that was kinda sexy, but I'm twisted that way.

In my opinion, the best camerawork and editing is almost always found in the classics. There was more at stake in the 1970s, and many of the directors/crew had at least some training and experience in mainstream filmmaking. Alas, the spirit of porno chic is long dead, never to rise again.

For contemporary sex movies, I think my favorite is Tony Comstock. He consistently shoots with two cameras and knows how to interweave a story with the appropriate visuals. He puts a lot of effort into showcasing the performers and their sexuality in the best possible light. I should note, however, that your enjoyment of his movies might be somewhat dependent on how you feel about quick cuts, since he does use quite a few of those.

anti-pop
Member

36 Posts
12/04
Posted - Sep 29 2005 : 11:57AM
For me what matters, more than the editing (and maybe even more than "chemistry") is the camera work... if done right, fewer edits will be needed, and the less edits the better.

I wish more scenes were published "as is"... just unedited footage.




Jump To: