Can't believe how some Editors/Director can have a perfect camera angle and then fuck it up. Example! Annie Cruz getting her asshole literally plowed missionary style in Elegant Angel Teenage Anal Addict while holding her asshole wide open and then the camera pulls back leaving me wanting more. Same goes for Brandon turning Kat asshole into a crater and then the camera pulls back. Stop!!!They were filmed exactly the way anal fan like me love to see it done. I've seen a few other like this and was upset too about them as well and this has got to end hopefully soon.
So you're the one that digs all those extreme close-ups! I've been griping about there being waaaay too much of what you like, and not enough of what I like (wide and mid shots) in porn. Thanks for complaining about this movie. Sounds like it's shot to my preference. I think I'll put it in my rental queue.
Its either extreme close up or the too-distant medium shot. Good shooters know how to fit the body parts into the frame and give those knees a workout crouching low to shoot thru the pyramid of limbs and pistoning pow-bang. Mike John is the living master of this. Swine, also excellent. Jake Malone ... Bryan Xin ... Darkko ... Jules ... Joey ... everybody has their own method but the key is keeping the faces in the frame as well as the action .. It's just a shame that so often it winds up being one or the other and the faces lose out to the genital docking which is ALWAYS boring without context ... but some shooters know the trick.
They have something for everybody. Those who want an extreme close-up got their shot. Others want to see the whole body. So they were smart enough to have both in there.
Extreme close-ups are good for a few seconds, but I like seeing faces and full body shots more.
But when it comes to directors, nothing is worse than watching the perfect angle and the dumbass manning the camera goes and switches angles, or moves the camera, missing the pop shot in the process.
- -B -I -G -m -i -k -e, here and there, over and out! - -
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Apr 18 2006 : 8:37PM
Bad editing and shooting are the banes of porn. Just when the scene gets interesting or the gal starts to do something new, and before you know it, the editor has to cut away because it is times up for the scene. Some studios and directors are notorious for doing this. It is just sloppy camerawork/editing.
[Link]
flesheater Deactivated User
36 Posts 12/05
Posted - Apr 18 2006 : 10:51PM
Any scene that features more than 10 seconds total of extreme gyno shots is a bad scene in my book. The last time I found a hole close-up interesting was the first time I watched porn at the age of 14.
I disagree. I like close up gyno shots mixed in with wider range shots in solo girl masturbation, all girl, and tease segments. Pussy so close you can practically taste it - yum! I like the silky textures, glistening moist pink folds, etc. . .
I agree with you when it comes penis-vagina penetration. Too much close up coverage is not good.
Different strokes for different folks.
One thing that's been bothering me recently in porn is when the videographer turns the camera diagonally or sideways to fit all of the female on the screen. Turning my head to adjust my vision doesn't seem to help.
It has been my observation that when a male performer grabs a girls hair it is to get her head up for the camera to see her face. Likewise when the girl is told "look at me".
To me. it's all about contrast and dynamics. I want to see full body shots so I can see a girls beautiful legs and feet as she's getting fucked, but then the contrast as the cameraman zooms in on the fucking or sucking can be just beautiful.
I DO wish they'd LINGER more in either mode. I often find myself yelling at the screen when they zoom in but then immediately zoom out. Or when the girl's feet are just out-of-frame during the fucking. I'm begging the cameraman to "Pull back! Pull back!", and usually it's to no avail.
The best camera guys seem to instinctively know to linger more, but even they tend to move on a little too quickly for my tastes.
Porn is all about seeing hot sex close up and stuff you usually don't see on a weekly basis. So a big cock penetrating a dripping gaping butthole of some beautiful chick close up qualify. Darkko was and is still very good at shooting scenes showing the penetration and the expression of the girls face at the same time. He's a master of filming that missionary position.
Where does it say that porn is about the close-up stuff? That is what you want to see, which is fine. But don't try and tell others that close-ups is what they should be wanting to see.
Who want to see a guy getting a BJ from a mile away? Who want to see some girl getting her pussy fucked and not see the pussy being penetrated? Porn is about sex and when it's filmed right you'll find that it matched your fantasies.
One day, we'll have really well made porn that uses two cameras at the same time - one that's set mostly for extreme close-ups, and another that takes in the entire scene. You could pick and chose which camera's angle to watch. It's already do-able with today's technology. I'm surprised nobody has done it yet (or maybe they have, and I just haven't seen it?)
I hate the way he films. Him and about 4 other directors who shoot exactly the same way as him, have this strange obsession to shoot from the ground up. Its like watching 2 lower bodies collide...FUCKING HATE IT!!
What you described does match my fantasies. I like seeing the entire picture, including the setting. Turns me on. See, my fantasy is to have sex with an entire human being, not just one part, so that's what I want to see in my porn.
Dumb or not, I don't understand why directors or editors don't listen to fans enough, like here on ADT. They get all defensive when someone brings up some constructive criticism, people like Jules Jordan, Robbie D or Brandon Iron. After all it's us fans who keep these people in business so at least they should listen to us. But then again that doesn't work with directors who think they are doing everything perfect......
Oh man, I should not have opened this thread. I'm trying not to get started. I've only burst blood vessels on this topic about 7000 times in the past three years in here. I feel the anger and hot bile rising in my gut.
I gotta go.
BSD
P.S. - I wish I had a nickel for every time I've stopped cumming in mid-spurt, and screamed NOOOOOO! in anguish as some porn videographer\editor moved from the perfect erotic shot, to yet another extreme closeup that I don't want to see. It's to the point now where I just screen the whole flick, find the perfect view\angle moment that I want, freeze the image, and then do what I gotta do.
I feel your pain BSD, I mean how do you think I felt when I bought Pussy Foot'n 12 because Flower Tucci was in the cast and hoping to see some good foot-shot of her, after all, it is a lesbian foot-fetish movie but then when I watch her scene they only show the feet of the other girl who does the lesbian scene with Flower. No foot-shots of Flower at all. After I saw this tragedy I vowed never to buy another movie from Zaye Entertainment again! This has nothing do with dumb but it has something to do with deceiving the paying fans.
Close ups are distracting if done extensively. But what is it with so many companies and formerly great directors such a Voyeur or Everhard that they start to zoom into antics again? Admittedly, femal antics are not half as revolting as male ones but it still makes the movie extremely lame. Jailbait 1&2 are scary examples how one can destroy much of a great crew and good approach with making it more tame. It's a pity.
As a new producer, I think the feedback provided by fans on forums is *very* helpful. I try to keep all this stuff in mind when I am working on a project. That said, it also drives home the point that it is impossible to please everyone. Not everyone has the same preferences and expectations when it comes watching porn. We are all wired a little differently. This may cause some directors to simply throw up their hands and simply pursue their own artistic vision.
I also suspect some directors shoot solely for themselves without regard to commercial considerations. There may be nothing wrong with this pure art approach. It may even lead to more creative results in some instances.
I can relate to Cumwhipper's comments about trying to strike a balance between contrast and dynamics. I suspect that's the key along with good judgment as to when to move around and when to focus on the shot. This also assumes one recognizes when they stumble upon an especially hot shot. Otherwise, they won't know when to hold it longer. Some people are going to have a better knack for this than others. Part of this is having a good eye for photography as well as knowing what fans want and general shooting and directing experience.
I also agree with his thoughts about the desirability of using two cameras. Then you should be able to get the best of both worlds and also hopefully minimize botched footage. I intend to do this whenever possible for my own shoots. Also, multiple angles as well as PIP effects are possible when two cameras are used. I see these things used to good effect in JAV.
However, as a practical authoring issue, the use of multiple angles for long periods of time is really going to start eating into available disc space. There's only so much footage that can fit on a DVD, and with long running times already, the medium is already being pushed to the max.
To get around this, one idea I am toying with is to release a "remix" dvd that will incorporate a different cut of the same scenes. The remix would incorporate more footage from camera two.
Although a lot of directors and editors may not feel comfortable posting about it, I am sure many do read these type of threads and think about what you guys are saying.
Probably because it's impossible to make everybody happy at the same time. It's been said many times and it is true. I'm sure they do listen and keep some things in mind but did you ever think about what it would be like to try and make perfect porn?
Perfect porn will never be made. Somebody is always going to be upset and that somebody is probably going to be part of some sort of minority. If the way you like seeing porn isn't popular at the moment, you're probably not going to be happy with 90% of the porn currently made. Even if your brand of porn were the most popular, you still probably wouldn't be 100% satisfied. Porn can ALWAYS be better.
I would LOVE to be able to give my suggestions and have a couple of my favorite directors make porn exactly the way I'd like to see it! But if that happened, there'd still be a bunch of people out there somewhere who would absolutely hate every second of it because it was tailor made for someone else instead of them.
Bitching about gonzo/all-sex photography feels kind of weird - the imperfections are what makes it real, that there's a guy with a camera desperately trying to capture everything that looks good to him. I doubt any camera person is 100% happy with the photography either.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Apr 23 2006 : 2:08PM
Look, all I ask is that about half the footage includes her face and the action simultaneously.
The director then has my (gracious) approval to spend the remainding footage exploring the apparent joys of lessons in proctology, gynecology, quick-cut artsy fartsy editing, floor-level photography, and whatever other weirdnesses dictated by his (presumable) muse.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Apr 23 2006 : 2:29PM
I think the only way for a cameraman/director to proceed is to do what he thinks is hot. If all technical things are in order, then he/she will thrive and survive if enough people agree with the style and buy it. The others will fall by the wayside, hopefully. If as a viewer/consumer you approach a video with the thought that it can only be presented in one way to please you, you're handicapping yourself.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Apr 24 2006 : 1:28PM
Picman, when I ask for a higher percentage of footage with both her face and the action in the frame, I don't see it as wanting it only "presented in one way."
Along with dozens and dozens of other posters on this forum, I'm lamenting that far too many directors disregard this simple principle as a parameter of porn filmmaking.
It is not tunnel-vision fetishism, e.g., for a general desire to see the girl's face included in a high number of shots, nor should it significantly restrict what the "cameraman/director thinks is hot."
Hey Ramsey, reguarding your comment on Flower Tucci's feet not being in the shot well here is why; she arrives to the set with her feet looking real bad, and she even mentioned it as well and apologized for her feet. So that is why I refused to show people her bad feet at the time! otherwise I would have kept her feet in the scene being that her feet are inpart of the premise. But you need to know the facts before you shit on my company, and I guess you also dont realize what it takes to be a cameraman/director. It really isnt as easy as some might think, in fact its the complete opposite, if you lived in los angeles I would be more than happy to take you with me to a shoot and let you direct a scene and then give me your input on how easy it seems to be working with the girls!!!!!
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - Apr 26 2006 : 4:03PM
the reason is that the people with more than a few nightschool classes of how to shoot, light and edit are trying to "create something" and shoot features with smoke machines, weird cuts, vampires, blue lenses and shit like that that doesn't appeal to most people responding to the thread.
film-school rejects still trying to create a david lynch flick are ALWAYS going to piss off gonzo fans.
the gonzo directors tend to have performed, know what gonzo fans want to see. but that doesn't mean they know ANYTHING about how to light, shoot, etc. being a good perv doesn't mean you can use your camera.
i've only seen quazarman and dac have the confidence and knowledge to actually enage tonyc in talking about anything technical. someone asks anyone else if their "high def" movie's 1080p or something like that, you get the sense they're trying to remember what that means.
fcp 5 is brutally-easy, there's no excuse for seeming like someone put a monkey in a room to randomly hit keys and hoot at it for a day.
go to tisch, grab a bunch of kids and tell them "NO ARTSY CUTS/COLORS/COSTUMES", have them watch like some jules, woodman private stuff, and from what i gather you'd have to include some of the old stagliano stuff and thell them "MAKE SHIT LIKE THIS, BUT DO IT BETTER. REMEMBER NO STROBE LIGHTS, BLOOD, OR CUTS TO A CLOSEUP OF A WOLF BEARING ITS TEETH"
Reguarding talks about the 2 camera shoot which I agree on 100% is where you are going to get your best stuff, but let me tell you that it really isnt easy to pull off. You really need to be aware of all your surroundings because it is very easy to get a light stand or the other cameraman in your best shot and bingo! you cant use it. I use 2 cameras whenever I shoot 4 or more people because you miss alot of facial expressions without the other camera panning on the action you cannot see. I always use the 3 step program which is open up wide, then to a close-up and gradually pull out for your medium shot along with face cutaways which gives my editor everything he needs to put it together and another thing is to always shoot 2 angles on 1 position with a minimum 4 minutes per angle and again getting a horizontal shot with the girl completely in frame and then to a facial expression and back to a medium shot. Those of you who comment on other directors must need to know that depending on your light package you might not always get every angle you want because you cant shoot into your lights unless you will need to reposition your talent or your lights which breaks up momentum. So take my advise after 8 years of shooting it is not as easy as it appears to be especially if talent is not cooperating or just having a bad day period. On another note unless the director isnt QC'ing his movie after the editor does his thing, thats a big no-no which can cause the movie to look bad for the simple fact that the editor can get lazy and not use all of the footage you know you shot to make that scene rock, which is basically taking a short cut, so it is imperative that the director must do so to ensure every moment that was captured is used to its greatest potential(as long as its good and fits without any directorals etc:)
Who says you can't use it? I watch JAV discs where they show the light stands and other shooters all the time. I have been informally polling porn fans on this issue and so far all of them have said - keep the hot footage and don't worry it's not perfect. This is gonzo, not a cinematic masterpiece.
I totally agree we should be aware of our surroundings and try to minimize it, but if it happens, I will not automatically junk it.
I especially hate these close ups during the "airtight" scenes . If a girl is having three of her holes filled, show us.If you're only going to have closeups or primarily closeups, save some money and fire the third guy
I agree. I'd prefer not to see all kinds of light stands and other camera people but a few here and there isn't going to bother me in a gonzo flick. I have all kinds of tapes from the 90s where there are light stands in view through entire scenes. It can be a little distracting but you get used to it and if it's a really hot shot, I'd rather see it with the exposed light stand or other camera guy than not at all.
Seriously? By definition a "hot" scene has to have 100% perfect technical production values? Or perhaps I should say, must a "hot" scene absolutely suspend the viewer's belief it is a porn scene? Would it interfere with your ability to enjoy the scene so much as to leave you totally limp?
Personally, I think we all know when we watch gonzo, we are watching staged sex. The fact that we don't always see the lights or another cameraman doesn't make me forget that. And what about when directors bark commands at the girls throughout the scene? I encounter this quite often. That sort of ruins the "illusion" we are watching something "real" unfold. The only difference is, it's the audio track, not visual.
I don't consider it sloppy if it's a conscious choice by the director to leave it in. After all, especially with two cameras, you wind up with a ton of footage. It would be very easy to cut it out.
Posted - Apr 18 2006 : 12:43AM
