If for no other reason, then care because other directors/cameramen do, and your work is being judged by how it compares to what else it out there, not just on its own merits.

By definition a "hot" scene has to have 100% perfect technical production values?

No, but if the production flaws are distracting, if they could have been avoided by a little planning, then we're talking about laziness, which I see no reason to reward.

Or perhaps I should say, must a "hot" scene absolutely suspend the viewer's belief it is a porn scene?

Since there is no objective answer to this, I don't see the point in asking the question.

Would it interfere with your ability to enjoy the scene so much as to leave you totally limp?

Again, this question has no objective answer.

And what about when directors bark commands at the girls throughout the scene?

More demerits.

I don't consider it sloppy if it's a conscious choice by the director to leave it in.

Maybe you could elaborate on why a director would make such a choice. The only reasons I can come up with insult my intelligence.

[Link]

Of course, I've also cut every single movie I've shot. Maybe one day I'll get the hang of it.

[Link]

Also, I think it's unrealistic to assume that all flaws and technical problems are the result of "laziness" as you put it. Nor do I think it is possible to always shoot scenes as perfectly as you contemplate even with one camera, let alone two. Keep in mind, porn productions are not like Stanley Kubrick projects where performers will tolerate endless "do overs". Even reliable porn studs can't keep wood forever. Female talent has limited patience as well. It's much closer to filming a sports event.

I've seen (and reviewed) plenty of movies that didn't have any shots of lights, crew or the set. They were still lukewarm. Clearly that's not the key to making a "quality" porn product in terms of jerk off potential. On the other hand, I've never watched a hot gonzo scene where these things happened and thought to myself -- "Gee now I think this hot scene totally sucks, I just caught a glimpse of a softbox or a the second camera guy."

As for your examples of poor lighting and make-up and wardrobe -- all of those things are of higher importance IMHO. If a scene has poor lighting, it would probably detract from the scene the entire time and totally interfere with one's enjoyment of what they were watching. If you cant' see the action, you can't enjoy it. On a similar note, if a starlet's make-up is poor, I'm going to be reminded of that fact, the entire scene and be turned off. Not so with the ten second sequence that shows a light stand or cameraman in the background.

Don't let the lack of objective answers stop you from discussing something Hardware. Geeze ... few things in the world really are black and white. Most everything is a shade of gray. I was asking for *your* opinion.

-- Snowman

Edited by - snowman872 on 4/27/2006 8:54:26 PM

[Link]

If the choice is to include a hot sequence that has (what I consider to be) a minor flaw or leave it out all together, I'd rather use it.

I'm not sure we're talking apples to apples. I am talking about a lack of planning, which is no minor flaw, IMO. Leaving light stands around where they could get into a shot is a lack of planning. Having people wandering around on camera is a lack of planning, unless it's called for. Most flaws I see in porn are flaws that I expect a professional to avoid. Like it or not, I expect somebody who wants me to pay money for their product to have a product that meets my standards, not their's.

I've seen (and reviewed) plenty of movies that didn't have any shots of lights, crew or the set. They were still lukewarm. Clearly that's not the key to making a "quality" porn product in terms of jerk off potential.

You are stating the obvious. Good production values are akin to a solid foundation. It is essential to have them, but having them doesn't guarantee success. It guarantees that nothing will detract from what you want the audience to focus on. If you don't have anything going on worth your audience's attention, that's not the fault of the foundation. If you don't care if your audience is distracted, then who's fault is that?

As for your examples of poor lighting and make-up and wardrobe -- all of those things are of higher importance IMHO. If a scene has poor lighting, it would probably detract from the scene the entire time and totally interfere with one's enjoyment of what they were watching. If you cant' see the action, you can't enjoy it. On a similar note, if a starlet's make-up is poor, I'm going to be reminded of that fact, the entire scene and be turned off.

So, basically, we agree. As long as our standards are met, we're happy.

[Link]

"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."

It's not a question of a bunch of people milling around on the set aimlessly (at least in my case). It more a matter of shooting in tight spaces. Most scenes are not shot on the 50 yard line of a football field.

Imagine you are in a bedroom, with a big queen or king sized bed. You might have *some* choice as where to place multiple light kits, but not very much. You are going to want to move around the action. However, it's not feasible to keep repositioning them, even if you could.

Now, add a 2nd camera guy. He too is moving around the action at the same time, trying to stay aware of his surroundings and find good angles at the same time.

And don't forget, the talent is trying to do their thing too in the middle of this insanity. They are trying to appear natural and turned on while hot light banks shine on them and two cameras are a foot away from their ass and face.

In this situation, there will be times when each camera captures the light fixtures and or the other camera or camera person's body. Since everyone is moving around independently without the aid of mental telepathy, and most sex scenes are not chorographed like figuring skating, it's inevitable. No amount of planning or hard work is going to eliminate this type of "mistake". I believe this is what Zaye was speaking of.

Soooooo, one can either cut out any flawed footage, but this might sacrifice the fluidity of the scene in the quest for perfection. Or it might deny viewers otherwise hot footage due to minor flaws. Alternatively, one accepts the situation for what it is, keeps the footage in, and hopes that viewers are not more worried about every technical detail than the overall message.

It's a judgment call, and in my view, it is better to have and use the footage of a second camera, even if some of it has minor flaws and does not meet the expectations of some viewers. I feel the added value of more angles outweighs the cons.

-- Snowman

[Link]

Edited by - the zaye man on 4/28/2006 10:52:20 PM

[Link]

Very sophisicated, but fairly easy to use editing tools are in the grasp of most computer literate people today. Even using a paper edit, or looking over the pro's shoulder would not be the same as the director working with the raw footage himself. A director editing the content himself will result in the most true vision of the disc. It will have the added benefit of revealing flaws and lead to improved shooting techniques in the future.

-- Snowman

Perfect example: After reading excellent reviews of Wild Goose Chase (with my sweetie Angela Summers) I got the rental in. Well, other than BJs -- naturally -- there wasn't 5% of sex footage in this movie showing her face and the action simultaneously.

Head closeup...ass closeup...head closeup...from-the-waist-down closeup...from-the-waist-up closeup...3 seconds of full-body...30 seconds of his face...

AAAARGH! I spent more time rolling my eyes at the ceiling than watching the movie.

These guys just don't get it.

[Link]

I have access to around 17 porn channels on satellite.

When I flick the channels,I probably wait two minutes on average to see the girls face.

Recent porn directors have lost focus. I fully realize that my comment and situation isn't something films should be edited by, but geezus people, it's about the girl, not just the pussy and ass.

Two cameras, three cameras, I don't care.

Five minutes of some cock going into an orifice is bad porn. So is four and three and two minutes.

And yeah, it's just my taste, but there's got to be at least a little intelligence thrown into it.

My take.

[Link]

The best shot for me is when you can see the penetration from really close, the body, and the face close enough to see every facial expression of the girl all at the SAME TIME...

[Link]