Edited by - monkey power on 12/6/2003 5:12:52 PM

[Link]

Quaze

[Link]

Its just "well lets stick it here, and then stop and do a gape, then stick it back in for a couple strokes, then take it out and walk over to her mouth for a quick suck" It's bullshit in my opinion. Its now a circus act not a sex act.

To Quase: You seem to agree with us, but is it something that you can just change by shooting it better, or is this what is more popular now, and you risk sales by ending the circus style rotate-a-scene sex that we see?

[Link]

It's a fine line in porn nowadays. The market is over-saturated and the sub-genres are completely out of control (RLD has a new series called "One on One". Apparently one male and one female having sex together is now a fetish!!!)
It' s a constant battle of trying to keep up with the Jones's and personally I feel it''s gotten to the point where it's just silly. Human sexuality shouldn't be scripted. The reality is however that acts such as ATM, Internal cumshots and double anal do move product. The problem as I see it is this: if these "circus acts" happen naturally within the context of the chemistry of the people involved in the scene, so be it. When it appears as though the participants are performing to a script and a stopwatch, for me it's no longer erotic. It's merely going down the check list of "things that sell".
I try to avoid the whole "circus act" routine because I feel it' s contrived much of the time and it does nothing for me personally. That's not to say that I'm not as guilty as the next guy of worrying about our anal to vaginal to ATM ratio. Like I said, it's a balancing act.
Every once in a while I manage to get two people together in a scene who really are into each other and I don't try to interfere in any way under these circumstances. A perfect example is a scene I shot with Ariana Jollee and a British guy named Steve Hooper for the next volume of Ass Cleavage. The two of them were so obviously into each other that for me to interrupt and say "Let's have some ATM now" would have completely killed the chemistry and thus the scene as well. This is probably one of Arianna's more subdued scenes because I merely instructed her to enjoy herself. I didn't want the circus acts that she is known for. It's a damn hot scene IMHO but I know there will be many out there who will slam the movie because I didn't include enough items on the "checklist of things that sell". You can't please everyone all the time.
All I can do as a cameraman is try to shoot what works for me. As a consumer, you can buy it or not buy it. When enough people stop buying "coitus interuptus" product, the industry will stop making it. It's that simple. So many in this biz pretend to be doing this for reasons that are noble and timeless. In reality, we're all here for same reason - money, and we'll give you whatever you want. You just have to ask for it.

All of this is just my opinion. I don't mean to come across as a porno preacher in any way, shape or form :)

Quaze

Edited by - Mike Quasar on 12/7/2003 4:21:36 AM

[Link]

As the cost of cameras, editing, and duplication has fallen, the number of studios and titles has exploded. The commonly sited figure is 10,000 titles a year. In a market like that, creating and then maintaining both reputation and visibility is harder than ever. When Quasar is out shooting the next ZT whack-fest, not only is he putting ZT's money at risk, he's putting his company's hard-won brand equity on the line.

The stakes are high. Fuck around and shoot "art" without a thought to the bottom line and you've not only thrown away your production budget, you've also thrown away all the sales that were supposed to bring money back into the company (the rent comes due whether or not your product is moving.) But worse than all that, you chip away at your own reputation. Just look at the posts you see here every day "So-and-so company just isn't what it used to be. So-and-so director has lost his edge."

It's out of this enviornment that we've seen the rise of the extreme and the outrageous, but now a studio, director, or performer can hardly even differenciate themselves that way. DAP? Sure can do, we've got a line. Extreme violence and humiliation? Not a problem, we shoot gagging on Tuesdays and slapping and Fridays (gives the girls the weekend to heal up.)

Where does it stop? I think Quasar is half right when he puts the ball back in the consumer's court. As long as there's demand for "circus-sex videos" the industry will be happy to provide them. One video bought cancels out a lot of angry posts to ADT. But here's the other half: the audience can't vote with their dollars for something that doesn't exist. If the choice is between bad porn and no porn, what do you think most people are going to choose?

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 12/7/2003 6:46:39 AM

[Link]

Fetishistic sex acts have been around forever, including A2M. To me this is more about the context of the acts than the acts themselves. I really don't mind A2M when it isn't simply done as, "Look ma, ass to mouth!" Let me give you an example: in CBP9, Tiffany Mynx pulls Peter North's cock out of Tera Heart's ass and sucks it. This works great for two reasons. First, because Peter so obviously loves it and Tiffany gets off on that; and second, because you expect the girls to have to share in a threesome. It doesn't matter to me whether or not Tommy contrived that scene, it works for me because it looks like it works for the performers. Contrast that with A2M today where the guys get it like they get a haircut, and the girls give it because its on the list of things-that-must-be-done.

Now we're at the point where I argue with TonyC that art does, in fact, matter. The difference between a good and a bad painting isn't the paint that was used, its how the artist applied the paint to the canvas. A bad painter can paint something that's bright and shiny and some people will still buy it. A good painter will paint something that people can relate to viscerally and everybody will buy that.

I appreciate your honesty Quaze, and I applaud your desire for uncontrived sex, however your comments suggest to me that you've forgotten which end of the line you're on. When I look at your movie I am not looking at reality. I am looking at a contrivance. True, I'd like that contrivance to convince me it is a reality while I'm watching it, but at the end of the day it's still a construction. So, having performers who are actually into each other probably helps, but its really up to the director and editor to construct a scene that makes me believe the couple are into each other. This doesn't precludes you from including the 'sex act de jeure,' it just means that I'd like that act to be performed within the context of two lovers getting each other off, rather than being an obvious interruption to the flow.

Having said that, if you really believe that you got what you wanted from Ariana and Steve without giving them any directions then I'm fine with that.

PS - monkey power, you crack me up.

[Link]

Perhaps one way to cut down on this, is for fans, when they come across a film that is not formulaic, to post here on ADT, so other fans and directors read about it, and know there is a market for it.

[Link]

That's because Stefano is one the best at what he does. It doesn't matter whether the girl is totally into the scene or not, HE is. The other important aspect of not making porn by the numbers is to have a guy like him in your movie.

"You mean pornographers calculate these ratios arithmatically? Don't tell me that porn has gotten this formulaic; next you'll reveal that the director/cameraman has an Excel spreadsheet with the required positions and their length of duration, when the position changes will occur, and how fast the scene will progress to anal sex. If it's this contrived , why not have a bunch of engineers and accountants plan the film shoot; you and the fans will be best assured that all quality metrics are followed to the letter"

I was exaggerating for the purpose of making a point. No, it hasn't gotten that bad.

Certainly a director has to motivate people sometimes to make it appear that their attraction to one another is genuine because we are selling a fantasy but when you shoot this stuff day in and day and you come across some real chemistry it's always a big plus.

Quaze

[Link]

Porn hasn't gotten formulaic, it's always been formulaic. During the interview portion with Marie and Jack they talk about just this thing:

------------
JACK: She was in three movies...(laughing) I guess I was in one or two of those...before either one of us had ever seen an adult film. And we only started watching them so we knew what we were supposed to be doing. Like if we were going to work for a particular company we would rent one of their movies to see, you know, how they shot.

MARIE: And sometimes it's funny, we'd watch and be like...(making puzzled/bored face)...wow this is (starting to laugh) really boring

JACK: (Starting over Marie) Yeah, with some companies it was really sad, you actually like count...like okay five minutes of this, now....

MARIE: (Starting over Jack) It was like the same positions every time.

JACK: (Starting over Marie)...now flip over this way...

MARIE:....Doggie, missionary, reverse.
------------

Hardware is right. It doesn't matter one wit if the actors are actually enjoying fucking each other. It may (or may not) be the simplest way to create the illusion that they are, and that illusion is key to my enjoyment.

-T.C.

<spelling, typing, thinking, html>

Edited by - TonyC on 12/7/2003 12:32:13 PM

[Link]

Mike Quasar,

You are right, Mr. Stefano is one hot guy. But I can tell when he is performing with someone who he is clicking with, versus with an actress who is just going through the motions. I can tell the same thing with Rocco Siffredi, too.

[Link]

T.C.

[Link]