I'm fairly new here and am certain this has been discussed before - delete if necessary. But I still feel the need to vent, even if only for a short moment!
Directors - can you PLEASE NOT cut to the guys' faces during or right after the pop shot?
I mean, here I am polishing my knob, waiting for a nice cumshot on her face, and suddenly the camera cuts to the actor's face and is kept there while we see him grimace in agony as he cums! Boner... gone... and I'm disgusted with the scene. Or the guy coms on the chick's face, and the next thing we see is 10 seconds of Peter North's sweaty face saying "how good that was".
Come on! I'm not gay, I don't care for the male talent, and I certainly don't want to see their face. My buddies feel the same way, it's just WRONG. Keep the camera on the chicks instead of ruining the entire scene.
Dude, you want to force them to come out and admit that to themselves? You know that guys even have trouble admitting it when they love a woman. Still, you might be facilitating the growth of their relationship. Kudos to you, Cupid!
No we don't talk about "polishing the knob", but we do talk about women, football, beer and porn. Every one of us HATES scenes like that and on god's green earth, I can't think of any reason why someone would purposely ruin an entire scene by showing us the sweaty, grimacing male talent instead of the cute girl taking the shot.
99.99 percent of men look hilarious during orgasm, and in the minutes leading up to it. I hate face close-ups during male climax in porn, with the notable exceptions of Julian and Jean Val Jean, who actually look better while cumming. Freaks of nature, those two men, bless their hearts.
As long as companies don't give a fuck if the person shooting/editing the videos has a shred of talent then you will continue seeing stupid shit like showing guys faces while they cum, poorly lit sets, ugly locations, bad audio, etc, etc.
Just do your part by buying only from companies who have a good product.
Some of the complete garbage these "big companies" churn out is truly pathetic. I mean, who buys this shit and actually thinks it is good?
Couple things...believe it or not, some directors actually ask for the coverage of the guys face (simulating the pop) since many think they need it in the editing room. But I agree, both as an avid wanker and a pornographer of sorts, that this practice is too old school and needs squashed completely.
Also realize that some of these directors are actually gay (and wanna' see it for themselves - not that there's anything wrong with that, in gay porn), and that some of the straight directors feel the need to placate a potential very largish gay audience, which in fact does exist, even for hetero product.
Then there are the editorial decisions made unbeknowst of the director and many of these cutters are schlocky to the ninth degree and will use whatever the shooter puts before them.
Then to add insult-to-injury, as 'expo-vids' denoted, there is a real tide of bad porn work-ethics (put it in a nice box and they will cum...). But I have seen this lame standard of professionalism wane dramaticlly in the last 10+ years that I've been associated with the adult industry.
Bottom line, this is a great site to voice your opinions and have the porn-making populace listen in. But remember, you just can't fucking make everybody happy.
So in other words, even as a gay guy watching str8 porn(!), you'd rather watch some dude making fake orgasmic faces than watch the actual fucking?!....You got more problems than I care to address.
As for the author of the thread, you should be thankful you're watching porn in 2005 not 1995. The NASA scientists who produced porn in their off time didn't figure out that the guy's ugly face is actually a turn off until only 5-6 years ago! Rent any porn made prior to the late 90's and you'll know what I'm talking about:
The basic editing formula for the scenes was something like this: 3 seconds of sex, cut to 5 seconds of the guy's face, cut to 5 seconds of the guy's back, then a slow shot of the camera moving from the dude's goofy mug down to his chest, then 1 minute of extreme close-up of the genitals.... Then repeat! At best 30% of the scene was devoted to the actual sex. The rest was endless shots of the guy's face or gyno shots of penetration. On top of it, they almost went out of their way to not show a full body shot of the girl during the scene. I've lost count of how many 'classic' films I bought or rented featuring my favorite girls, only to want to throw the fucking thing out the window halfway through watching it!
If you were a gay guy with a fetish for watching men make goofy faces you would have been addicted to str8 porn in the 80's and 90's.
here's the thing, these guys take as long as 2 hours 2 pop so your wide you see it you cant cut to the girls face because no cum is about to enter the scene you cant cut tight on the penis cause it wont match either you have one option of a tight shot that wont be in the final pop shot that's the dumb dudes head
you have to get from point a to point b without jarring people and studios have rejected the cat in the window idea
I grew up on the 90s crap, and I agree that on the whole, porn tends to be slightly less incompetent now, at least in terms of camerawork and editing. The ugly man-face cutaway seems less common now than it was a few years ago. Although it still unfortunately lingers.
Another stupid porn shot that needs to die, and is maybe even worse than man-face, is Scrotum-Cam. It's epidemic now. Why do porn directors feel the need to shove their camera right up into the dude's ass? I don't want to see a screen full of ugly hairy man-ass and dangling testicles, with just a tiny abstract little sliver of female flesh at the bottom of the screen. There's no good reason the male anus ever needs to appear in mainstream heterosexual porn. And I certainly don't want to see a giant closeup of it.
Scrotum-Cam is in like 99.99% of porn made nowadays. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. When I see it, I wish I could reach into my TV screen and strangle the director, the cameraman, or whoever's responsible. In fact, aside from the Scrotum-Cam closeup, entirely too much of contemporary porn is shot from behind the man's ass. Why is this? Who likes this? Are most porn directors gay? Side angles and front angles are much more pleasing. Rear angles are only good if the woman's on top.
And at all times, there should be more female flesh on-screen than male. It should be like a 60:40 ratio, at minimum.
Edited by - biff beef on 12/23/2005 3:16:15 AM
[Link]
flesheater Deactivated User
36 Posts 12/05
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 3:18AM
I would MUCH rather have an abrupt cut to the pop shot than have to look at the guy's face at ANY point during the scene. It is the equivalent of ice water being poured on your dick while you jerk off!
Porn isn't like regular movies. It's more like still pictures that move. Whatever picture's on screen should always be appealing. That's more important than smooth editing.
Although, ideally, you should be able to have a scene that flows naturally, with no jump cuts, and still manage not have an ugly closeup of man-face.
I like men's faces, I like to watch them when they climax. I like to see both things happen - cum landing (although the I'm pretty much over the bird feeder routine unless it happens quickly)and a screwed up pleasure filled face. I like hairy man ass too. The very dangly scrotum shots leave me cool though.
mwah kami
[Link]
flesheater Deactivated User
36 Posts 12/05
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 4:01AM
You do realize that most of the face shots in porn are fake, right? At least they used to be back when showing that crap was the standard. They would take separate shots of the guy pretending to cum by making faces that reminded one of tortured animals. Then they would painstakingly edit that into the scene. Any other business with this degree of incompetence would have died out eons ago.
I've seen Blake's House of Dreams(1990) recently, Rocco Siffredi is in it but I haven't seen his face, I still don't know who the guy is. There is even a slow motion cum shot in it. Maybe Blake plays in an other league..
If you already knew that then why the hell would you want to watch it?! It's one thing if the 'illusion' is the girl pretending to enjoy it when getting fucked, but how a woman or a gay man can enjoy watching idiotic expressions on a guy's face while being fully aware that no one's even touching him is simply beyond me.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 6:59AM
Who shows the cum face besides Peter North and features? Even an idiot in a one camera production would never pull away from the potential pop closeup to focus on a man's face. That was always "reenacted". For all intents and purposes that convention is dead. Maybe the guys wouldn't take so long to cum if they didn't think it was a good idea to start taking stills at the point of real climax before the viagra wears off. Just one of my pet peeves.
i dont think they do this anymore,i havent been on any set (except marie amdison) that shoots inserts for the sex, although i have no feature experience
im a sucker for smooth editing, it makes me as wet as a cum shot you have an excellent point though and Im still new, i will definatly make every effort possible to avoid the man face, im sorry Loraine, ill get it in wides :)
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Dec 23 2005 : 2:18PM
Flesheater, it could have been me writing that last paragraph, if not as well. I share your fondness for many stars of the classic era, but now will ONLY rent them because of the aggressively stupid editing of which you write.
It would be an entrepreneur's (and stroker's) dream to be able to sensibly re-edit the films in question. It seems to me, though, that considerable looping would have to be employed, which is a shame.
"The fact that a situation is desperate doesn't make it interesting." Barth
while we are in complaining mood, what about so many scenes being two guys and one girl....they are all over the girl (obviously hehe) and basicly all u see is male flesh..
Uggh. MFM is almost always shot stupidly and incompetently. It's almost always shot from behind, so all you see is a bunch of man crack n' sack. You might as well be watching gay porn. The directors are more concerned with showing us "see look, there really IS double penetration" than in giving us a sexy shot.
I'm not a big fan of MFM usually, but I saw one MFM scene that was really hot once. It wasn't shot from behind. It was shot from the side, wide. The camera barely moved (which is a good thing). And the woman was the active member of the scene. Her whole body was wiggling and writhing between the two men. And they both stayed shut up and let her do all the vocalizing. It was a really good scene. If more directors would shoot like that, rather than giving us the double-scrotum closeup, I'd be much more in favor of MFM.
DP scenes should be about a woman taking on two men, rather than two dudes sharing a woman.
That really is the heart of the matter. We don't need a constant reminder that actual penetration is taking place. You pay the hot chicks in the biz on the account of their physical beauty, not how their holes look with dicks in them. You paid her the top money, now let us enjoy watching her...all of her, not just one hole at a time!
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Dec 25 2005 : 1:51PM
Amen, Flesheater. The only camera shot I enjoy is when I can see her face AND the action too.
Look, I've got no beef with the occasional close-up or shot of the guy's face for ID purposes, or even a few seconds of hairy ass with ballsack, but with the accent of so much porn on close-ups, reaction shots, etc., I get to enjoy largely only blowjobs, i.e., the action + her face in the same shot.
And invariably, when a chick does something I like, such as wiggling her ass or fondling his balls (in doggie, e.g.), even if we WERE getting a fullbody shot previously, the cameraman IMMEDIATELY zooms in on it, thereby taking her face out of the shot and ruining it for me.
This is why I prefer girl - girl or solo girl. I had a theory it was a boner killer to prolong the experience. Sadly it didn't fit into my fantasy and was too effective.
Sexy Brunette Fucks Her Accountant - review by Danielmayu33216
Posted - Dec 22 2005 : 10:26PM