Directors as Talent

Author	Post
StillHope Deactivated User "You didn't say Car Ram Rod" 149 Posts 2/06	Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 2:32PM Did a search and did not see a thread with this topic, so... How do you girls and guys feel about directors who double as talent? (in the same movie). I mean, for me it always makes me a little uncomfortable. I just think it takes away from the whole movie aspect. I just believe the director should maintain that "birds eye view" to make sure everything is going okay, not be ordering his talent to suck his dick harder. It just always creeps me out just a little. Anyone else feel the same or am I alone on this one? I apologize, I am just having trouble articulating exactly what I am thinking. [Link]
Rick James Jr Deactivated User 72 Posts 7/09	Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 3:38PM it can even be worse than talent as directors. [Link]
Carnoscenti Member 23 Posts 7/09	Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 6:35PM Better yet is when the writer and director is also the onscreen talent...like Brad Armstrong in Wicked Pictures' 'Eye of the Beholder'. It's one thing to write a scene where a character gets alternating blowjobs from Kaylani Lei and Charmane Star, but to then cast yourself as the lucky recipient AND decide how many takes are needed to get it right? There's only one word for that...genius! [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 1:09AM ... Edited by - savoy on 7/8/2009 1:13:38 AM [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 1:10AM I can only speak about features. The aforementioned Brad Armstrong has casted himself so often, I don`t even notice anymore. He plays a jerk really really well. It does annoy me when they try to pull some Orson Welles auteur shit - write, direct, star. They lose objectivity and the movie is just about them jerking themselves off figuratively and literally. Yeah, don`t mind us. Ya know, the audience. Randy Spears is guilty of this big time. And then David Stanley has even popped up in a sex scene or two. Didn`t perform. Just molested girls. It came off as gross and desperate. Glad it`s not something he has done often. For some reason, this is not nearly as annoying when females do it. Stormy as been the star of several of her own features and Kimberly Kane appears in everything she has directed. Perhaps because these women are servicing the story first and foremost, instead of themselves and both are very talented. [Link]

StillHope Deactivated User "You didn't say Car Ram Rod" 149 Posts 2/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 2:29AM Savoy wrote: I can only speak about features. It does annoy me when they try to pull some Orson Welles auteur shit - write, direct, star. They lose objectivity and the movie is just about them jerking themselves off figuratively and literally. Yeah, don`t mind us. Ya know, the audience. Click to expand You put into words what I was thinking. Doesn't that somewhat creep out the female talent, I mean for me it just has sleaze written all over it ( I know, I know, porn and sleaze). But yeah, you said it best. Loosing objectivity and the movie is more about fulfilling their own personal fantasy and getting themselves off. [Link]
KimberlyKanexOx Member kanearmy.com 286 Posts 10/08	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 4:38AM StillHope wrote: Did a search and did not see a thread with this topic, so... How do you girls and guys feel about directors who double as talent? (in the same movie). I mean, for me it always makes me a little uncomfortable. I just think it takes away from the whole movie aspect. I just believe the director should maintain that "birds eye view" to make sure everything is going okay, not be ordering his talent to suck his dick harder. It just always creeps me out just a little. Anyone else feel the same or am I alone on this one? I apologize, I am just having trouble articulating exactly what I am thinking. Click to expand It's not really that complicated StillHope, When your shooting porn you have your crew, your 'bed' and your talent. Everything else comes down to good fucking. So it the 'If you want something done right do it yourself' concept. That's all. And the great thing about being a director/talent is if a model flakes you have a hot slut on set already to go! :) xOxKk www.kanearmy.com [Link]
Carnoscenti Member 23 Posts 7/09	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 4:53AM Savoy wrote: For some reason, this is not nearly as annoying when females do it. Stormy as been the star of several of her own features and Kimberly Kane appears in everything she has directed. Perhaps because these women are servicing the story first and foremost, instead of themselves and both are very talented. Click to expand That's kind of a double standard though, isn't it? I don't see any diffence between a guy writing/directing/performing in his dream scene to a girl doing it as well. Surely the girls are just as guilty of 'servicing themselves' as the guys in this instance? The reason it gets my goat (like the aforementioned scene in EotB) is that it's Brad Armstrong on the receiving end and not me!!! [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 5:03AM StillHope wrote: How do you girls and guys feel about directors who double as talent? Click to expand I think it is simply a matter of money. If the director is also the producer, he doesn't have to pay for male talent. If the director is hired, he can get a second pay check as male talent. [Link]
StillHope Deactivated User "You didn't say Car Ram Rod" 149 Posts 2/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 2:15PM First and foremost thank you all for taking time out of your day to answer my question, much appreciated. I see both sides of the coin, from a fiscal perspective to the pragmatic nature of having the director be "backup talent". I must say though, despite your reasonable answers, I agree with Savoy, once a director becomes talent in the same movie, it loses a little something, even if I cannot put my finger on it. Again, mucho thanks to all of you for giving up a moment of your time to answer my question. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 3:00PM Sometimes directors do perform out of need, but come on - if they are the lead and have 30 pages of dialogue and 3 scenes plus directing duties? They are loving themselves. As for female directors...Not trying to set a double standard just sharing my opinion - it annoys me less. Of course, I haven`t seen "Operation Desert Stormy". And I want to see Daniels and Kane fuck. I am `bout quarter past ready for Armstrong to retire from performing. Oddly enough, I enjoyed Patrick Collins popping up to fingerbang Cytherea, but I have this thing for filthy old perverted men so it worked for me. [Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 3:08PM Carnoscenti wrote: Better yet is when the writer and director is also the onscreen talent...like Brad Armstrong in Wicked Pictures' 'Eye of the Beholder'. It's one thing to write a scene where a character gets alternating blowjobs from Kaylani Lei and Charmane Star, but to then cast yourself as the lucky recipient AND decide how many takes are needed to get it right? There's only one word for that...genius! Click to expand ^+1 I love it. [Link]
Roads To Moscow Dianic Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 3:20PM ^ Brad co-wrote Falling From Grace (in the spirit of total disclosure, with me), directed it, performed the lead, had scenes, art directed it, and chose the wardrobe. Would the movie have been different if those duties had been split up among many other people? Of course. Would it automatically have been better (especially given the budget we were forced to contend with and factoring in the fact that we were also shooting on film)? I'm not so sure. My point is simply that due to the budget constraints we work with there are often reasons beyond "loving oneself" for wearing multiple hats in this industry. Cue Savoy rant in four...three...two...one... [Link]
Eli Cross Member What's the fun of getting old if you can't be dirty? 141 Posts 4/06	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 4:20PM Savoy wrote: Didn`t perform. Just molested girls. It came off as gross and desperate. Glad it`s not something he has done often. Click to expand Reading between the lines, I sense my own ghost being summoned... [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 5:03PM It's different in features for me since so few performers can act half-decently I can see why a director would put themselves into the film. In gonzo, on the other hand, I don't care for it. JJ's scenes are particularly weaker when he performs in them, imo, mainly because whoever shoots for him during those scenes isn't as good a cameraman as he is. The only exception for gonzo is obviously POV, but that's not really my favourite style of shooting to begin with. [Link]

JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 5:40PM If a director doubles as talent, and does both jobs well, it's a moot issue; the viewer really wouldn't have any way to know (short of watching the credits.) It's when the director does a poor job that it becomes clear, and that doesn't necessarily mean because he's doubling as talent; a bad director is a bad director, regardless of if the camera is aimed at him or not. Just my 2 cents. John [Link]
mrbluelouboyle All-Star Member mrbluelouboyle and Alexis Tae 1335 Posts 12/03	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 9:47PM BlackSix wrote: It's different in features for me since so few performers can act half-decently I can see why a director would put themselves into the film. In gonzo, on the other hand, I don't care for it. JJ's scenes are particularly weaker when he performs in them, imo, mainly because whoever shoots for him during those scenes isn't as good a cameraman as he is. The only exception for gonzo is obviously POV, but that's not really my favourite style of shooting to begin with. Click to expand I disagree. I think Jules Jordan is one of the only ones who can do it well, besides the obvious POV scenes, that many directors choose to do. Elliot is a great pick up man, when Jules steps into the scene. Many years ago Seymore Butts used to do this well also. Obviously I'm only talking about gonzo directors here. [Link]
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 11:09PM Doesn't bother me that much for the most part. Thanks to earlier guys like the mentioned Brad Armstrong and John Stagliano, it's something I've come to half expect. In the case of a feature director like Armstrong, I suppose there can be a tendency to take on too much, but I feel most balance their screentime well. In the case of some of the female directors like Chloe Nichole or Kim Chambers, I actually like seeing them onscreen sexing as often as possible even if they're directing. Sometimes the women they hire just aren't as good as them, or simply don't turn me on as much. I haven't seen anything directed by our Kimberly Kane yet, but I suspect that'll be an issue for me too when I finally see one. The extra control can sometimes allow for more or better fucking that they don't always get from other directors. When it comes to gonzo or other POV films, it's something I actually tend to prefer actually. If I get a Lex Steele, JJ, Justin Slayer, Mike John, Joey Silvera, or Belladonna film, I actually expect and want to see them fucking onscreen as much as possible. Again, I think the extra control can provide some great stuff others simply can't sometimes. And I think they generally do it well. I will say that some directors are better at it then others though. Edited by - aplus on 7/8/2009 11:11:57 PM [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Jul 15 2009 : 1:15PM Yep. Feature porn dude writing, directing and starring is so loving on himself. At the center of it is, "No one can do this better than me." Money is just a convenient excuse. Although, this makes sense for porn women to do. They are the main draw. Hell, some companies even bullshit us into thinking certain ladies do it all when they don`t. THAT is appealing to fans. It`s a selling point. "Glimpse into the depraved sexual fantasies of Bonnie Bimbo." Directors in non-sex supporting roles is cool. Not creepy. Can understand how that would save some dinero without being obnoxious. And somehow other male feature directors manage to pull off projects without starring in them. Are they budgeting geniuses? Jonathan Morgan knew when to quit. [Link]