whether it is floor angle, up the skirt style, or whatever term one may call it there is way too much of it going on right now or at least in the movies i watch. the most common of these excesses i see are in the "tease" segments and in the dreaded cowgirl and reverse cowgirl positions. this is what makes much of today's porn unwatchable. in the ass shots does it ALWAYS have to be the upskirt closeup style? i like butts as much as anyone and butt shots would be a bigger turn on if the camera eye was at least doorknob level at medium range. all of us may or may not have a favorite body part to look at but when we look at a body part it is at most times as part of a woman's total body package. you don't get those kind of views when the camera is at the low angle closeup position. after all in our normal day to day world when we look at butts we are generally standing up or sitting down. and the cowgirl and the reverse cowgirl positions is it just me or does the camera AUTOMATICALLY goes to the up the skirt closeup position? i know there are some of you who love it when the camera is at that graphic positiom. i'm just not one of them. does anybody know how to shoot any different angles besides low angle? how about standing on one's feet and aiming the camera downward every so often? how about giving us different angle shots when shooting scenes? not those camera turned upside down or any other twisted angles that some directors like to do. when you keep the camera at that low angle inevitably the person watching the scene misses something that could have been captured at another angle. this would include other sex positions as well. the problem i see here is that there is an excess of low angle specialists. why i don't know. they are either taking their cue from mainstream hollywood where is a lot of low angle shooting or from other directors who are low angle specialist which adds to the problem. now don't get me wrong. i know that the person in the shot from a low angle looks more powerful, and i can view favorably the low angle on occasion as long as it is not from a closeup viewpoint. i also know there a number of people who love watching porn with this graphic style of shooting. i'm just not one of them. what i would like to see is more full body shots from at least doorknob level, especially the tease/stripping segments. there are a number of us that appreciate a woman's entire body not just her body parts. that would make porn more enjoyable for me to watch. take my hand and swear eternal loyalty---to zod! Edited by - general_zod on Jan 5 2010
GENERAL_ZOD - I share your sentiments and have felt that way for many years. I have been frustrated at camera angles and visual perspectives often and said so often in these pages. Here's my thoughts from three years ago on "Massive Asses": GRAHAM - "Massive Wet Asses" Short of a full review, (which isn't possible since I haven't watched the whole DVD yet), I'll just express my thoughts on the two scenes I have screened, as they were the ones I got the DVD for. First off, I was more excited about this DVD than any other DVD of this year. I was already prepared for this to be in my top three porn DVD purchases of this year, and the year's not half over yet. That has everything to do with this particular female cast, and how I hoped and thought they would be presented and displayed. This is a dream female cast for me. This year I'm basically on six or seven porn girls, and four of them are in this cast. When Brianna Love, whom I adore and have fallen all over this year, is my FOURTH favorite girl in a five girl porn cast, this is one for the ages for me. Plus I liked the male cast and always appreciate their work. So I was really salivating over this one. For starters, the production was great. Elegant Angel is and has been in the top tier of porn production houses and it always shows in their products. This DVD was no different. The girls were absolutely shimmering. They all looked good enough to eat. I liked their physical presentations and for the most part, I liked the outfits. (Although I didn't care for the shoes on Carmen, and I HATE those shoes on Georgia, but those are personal preferences.) The sex was good enough. The males turned in solid, professional performances. But I have seen, recently, more enthusiastic, aggressive, and exciting work from both Ferrera and Stefano. But I didn't dislike what I saw here, because of them. I WAS disappointed that there was no blowjob\fellatio at all in Carmen's scene. What really had me lose steam in watching this, was the videography. The sex positions were fine. (Although I don't like that sorta 45 degree angle that gets used all the time in doggy or from behind, just so we can see that yes a dick is going into a pussy. That's not natural, and that's not the way people fuck. Stefano did that while fucking Carmen as she was laying flat on the sofa. To me, that postion is much more powerful and erotic, if he just mounts her and or straddles her completely from behind while she is prone, where he can really thrust. Or does the pushup position thing, ala Justin Slayer.) Likewise, the editing, (what you could tell of of it, and that is a good thing), and the transitions were fine. No, the big issue for me was that in the Alexis and Carmen scenes, they seemed to be almost completely presented in closeup, and they were almost completely presented from body level or below the performers. It seemed that the director\cameraperson? never stood up or brought the camera up during the entire scenes, except during transitions, either to follow a position change, or to follow performers around the room. But once in position and the sex began, it was back to a foot away from the action for interminable periods. And the shot up from the floor for lengthy periods. I know there is a porn school of thought, practiced by many directors and companies that the male is just an apendage in porn, and all you should see or know of him is the dick, but I don't like my porn that way. For me, porn is about people fucking, and it is at it's most thrilling when, it displays perspective and movement, and that is highlighted when you are back away from the action so that the viewer can take in all the action. There were times when the director panned back from one feet to maybe two feet, so you did have a screen full of Alexis, or Carmen, but that is still not enough to give the true erotic effect of the couple fucking. And even then, it was right back in close. I also know that this was an "ass" themed, asscentric production. Trust me, I am the most asscentric man on this planet. The up from the floor shot, when the girl is in cowgirl is going to be the staple of this movie. I get that. That's why we're here for these particular big booty girls. But stay down there forever, and it gets really old. Cowgirl from above and back away from the performers, and full body cowgirl from the side of the performers is just as beautiful, just as erotic, and just as necessary to fully enjoy and appreciate these girls' beauty and unique assets. And doggy from above and from the front, or at least angled looking back from the front is very exciting when you have a big booty girl like these. There was far too little of all of these aspects in these two scenes for me, and it really frustrated me to what might have been. Both of the sex settings afforded real freedom of movement for the cameraperson, there wasn't a couch up against the wall, or a bed that you couldn't get around, so they had 360 degree access to the action, yet we saw everything from basically the same spots in relation to the performers. There could have easily been some full body side views and full body front views, in all the positions, that would have enhanced the eroticism of the scenes for me. I assumed that this Sam No is the person who was doing all the off camera talking to the girls during the scenes and in the BTS, and was the director and videographer. If that is her, I have the same issue with her style as I do with another female director in the same genre, Diana DeVoe over at Equisite Pleasures. She shoots nice porn with girls I like, but I think she stays too close to the action for too long as well. I recently screened a Carmen Kinsley scene that Van Styles shot for Hustler, and enjoyed that one a little bit more than I did this one, only for these reasons. He does a good job in presenting all aspects of the performance. Juan Cuba is another one who's shooting in this regard, I like. Other than those issues, (and Carmen not taking a facial, smile.), I was fine with this. Gonna watch Georgia, Brianna and Sunny today. BSD
GEBERAL_ZOD - And the conclusion of the review: Friends - Well, after screening the other three scenes in this production, (Brianna Love, Georgia Peach, Sunny Lane), my initial observations and thoughts still stands. The sex footage in this movie seemed to be shot and presented almost exclusively from closeup and or below the performers perspective, and as such missed out on numerous opportunities for enhanced eroticism and visual appeal. In my opinion. BSD
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 1:59PM
General Zod et all, I'm afraid this close-up, poor camera angles issue has been beat to death to no avail. The horse is dead, long gone to the glue factory and the directors/film editors have triumphed. Hence the lack of response to this thread and the disappearance from these threads about this topic of all those (like FatAlbert) who soldiered on those many months with nothing to show for their efforts except possibly an increase of close-up/poor angles footage. The only logical explanation I can express is that those who protest are such a small minority that it has not had a measurable effect on sales (profits) and therefore is ignored. My only suggestion, which might be implemented, is to create a new category of DVD (one more to the hundreds already listed). Call it No Close Ups. With clever editing, the DVD could be created from the original film stock. Just have the camera run a few extra seconds when its in the 'normal view' position to make up for the close-up parts that will be cut. When I filter these Close-Up shots out (or FF past them) I use a simple rule. If some portion of the females face (head) is not in the frame, cut it. A No-Close-Up category might even increase sales for very little increase in cost, hence more profits. There could be three editions of the same video "Hard Core" "No Close-Up Core" and "Soft Core"
I agree on the "too close-up" complaint for cowgirl. Ultimately, the best videography has DYNAMICS - i.e., some close-ups some long shots, and plenty of moving around (but not too fast, or you miss the best stuff). The low angle annoyances ruin oral scenes, too. A few seconds underneath to "prove" the girl has tits is fine, and if the girl has spectacular tits, a few seconds longer, but for the most part the camera should be even with the action or just above it. On a side note, to me, the most important thing during oral scenes is the girl looking into the camera (i.e., at ME). If the director never tells the girls to look into the camera either before or during the scene, then it's hit-or-miss, depending on the girl's natural proclivities. Many an oral scene has been ruined due to complete lack of eye contact from the girl. (This is only my opinion. I realize some folks HATE eye-contact... Different strokes) Another common fuck-up is when filming blowjobs from above and the camera is too high - most of what you see is the girl's forehead - really sexy LMAO. Scott Hancock is a major offender in this department. He's ruined more potentially great oral scenes this way than I can possibly count. Every once in a while, though, he gets the angle right, with fabulous results, but it seems to be totally random. It's obvious the guy either never looks at what he's shooting, or he does but is too stupid to notice the shitty angle, or even worse, he just doesn't give a shit. Yes, this well-beaten horse is long since dead, but you guys got me thinking about it again.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 6:20PM
After 20+ years of regular porn viewing, and 6+ years of ranting about camera angles and endless closeups here , I can only conclude that 1) we who even notice this (spectacularly glaring, to me) problem are a tiny minority among porn consumers 2) that it is only human nature for a director/cameraman/editor to constantly strive for that "new" or "unusual" shot or angle. So what we end up with is film school-inspired, elongated, distorted views of the action which sacrifice a good clean, squared-up look at the whole girl in action to a wrongheaded sense of "artistry." The artistry, IMO, is in framing the action in such a way as to give us the clearest, most visually sensible view. I have seen entire gonzo flicks (mainly from Hustler, but the number of perpetrators is legion) where the camera remained at 15-to-45° out-of-level rotation the entire length of the film. Yeeooow!
And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09
Posted - Jan 5 2010 : 9:41PM
Yes, I agree with the sentiments already expressed regarding this angle. It is totally excessive in its use. I wonder sometimes, if directors/cameramen ever remember what it's like to watch porn from a viewer's perspective; the decisions that are often taken, seem to be those of people who have no idea what looks good, or visually erotic to the viewer. I take it that they were heavy porn fans before entering the business, have they lost all objectivity in making something that they themselves would find appealing? I fail to see how most people can find constant, excessive close-ups of genitals and nothing more, good in porn filmmaking.
Don't get me wrong, i LOVE close-ups, but anything used excessively can be too much. Darkko's style of filming blowjobs is close to perfection in most scenes, but occasionally he just stays too close to the action and it detracts.
I agree, but just relatively speaking, a variant of this problem use to be a lot worse in 90s porn imo. In the sense of just extreme focus on the genitalia during penetration instead of full body shots.
I'm curious to see more responses to this topic, because I think you guys are in the minority on this one... When it comes to gonzo, low angle is king for good reason. The very best selling gonzo makes heavy use of this technique because of how it profoundly exaggerates the perceived size of the girls asses. It showcases more detail in the penetration and genitals, and less on the faces. Level shooting yields a more natural, amateur looking style. It works for amateur porn, and perhaps leaves more to the imagination regarding the hardcore elements. To each their own, but I wonder about the true consensus of this artistic choice once the viewer really understands the difference.
And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09
Posted - Jan 6 2010 : 5:32PM
^It is possible that we're in the minority, or it's just something gonzo producers believe to be true in their own work. Look at the work from the best studios and directors: yes, in something like 'Big Wet Asses' from Elegant Angel, arses are what is fetishised, but the action is mostly non close-up with mid-shots depicting a great deal of the performers' bodies and facial expressions. Similar can be said of Jules Jordan, whose 'Ass Worship' works because you see so much in the reactions of the girls; 3+ hours of close-up wouldn't work and be boring. Christoph Clarke is a wonderful director that rarely defaults to C/U. His scenes work through clarity, action and performer intensity. Jake Malone's work is all about performer interaction and emotion, and a dark, edgy eroticism. Everything in his stuff shows craft and understanding in the medium to produce the consistently excellent results he does. I could go on, but that's already 4 successful directors/lines that do not rely on this excessive low angle/genital gazing technique to produce the results they do. All of them are rightly considered to be amongst the best in the gonzo porn genre. It's a reputation earned for a reason.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Jan 7 2010 : 2:35PM
Matt, I appreciate an insider's analysis, and can't say you're wrong about what most consumers want. But to say "To each their own" would be fine if there were a significant amount of non-skewed, non-fisheye lens-effect, higher angled, squared up views of the whole girl in modern porn. When I see a new cutie come along and want to check her titles out, though, I go to a VOD site to check out screenshots of her scenes, and am met by a depressing cascade of floorshots, extreme closeups, camera oriented in every direction but level, and I usually just give up because I can't get a no-nonsense view of what she would really look like getting fucked silly. Yeah, I get great looks at the bottom of her chin, or her tits or ass (with no face to go along with it), but I'd like to think that I'm not alone in wanting to see a woman getting fucked, not just her exaggerated body parts. To each his own, indeed. I'll check out Dubious_Leftovers recommendations (I've seen some of their work), but I don't see a lot of choice out there, really. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
ok, it seems that i may be a johnny come lately to this topic. however, there are some dormat and/or dead horse subjects that are worth bringing up again and this is one of them. i am glad that i'm not the only one who cares greatly about this topic. sadly i must agree that i am part of the minority on this one. but you never know. maybe, just maybe there is a director who is reading this thread who may take this topic into consideration. it may pause him or her to think how he or she is shooting the scenes. maybe, just maybe there is that 1% chance that the low angle specialist may start shooting differently. but given how little attention directors and producers pay to the fans, even that 1% may be a pipe dream. take my hand and swear eternal loyalty---to zod!
, I can only conclude that