New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Introducing Dallas Rea

"I’m very submissive so I love being bossed around and told what to do."
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 318 > Idea: Bachelor Pad, porno style
AuthorPost
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 6 2011 : 9:18PM
Bachelor Pad:Porno style
I haven't actually watched much of the show. But just the idea of it got the perv in me thinking about a porn spinoff.
The idea:
Set
Get a nice, large house as the set. Filming is over a weekend. Get the bedrooms set up in advance with lighting and cameras. Have say three or four HD cameras set up in each bedroom. One from above, one on the sides of the bed. Ideally they would be placed in a way to somewhat blend into the room. Far enough away from the bed to not be invasive. Could they be controlled by a remote? Idea is to have the room ready for filming in advance, rather than having to get a camera crew in place and into the room.  
Cast
Have four or five hot porn chicks cast. Male talent has to audition. Anyone-porn experience or not- wanting to audition has to send in head and body pics. The girls end up choosing male talent to invite to the set based on pics. Girls pick 20 or 25 dudes to come to a cocktail party get together. They can have a couple drinks,. talk and size each other up. Girls then quickly pick 8-10 guys they want to stay, cutting the rest.
Premise:
It's a little like a group version of "Can He Score" from bangbros. Key difference is the guys on this have to be deemed attractive by the girls. The bangbros site belittes dudes, who are often average Joe's at best. The competition or reward revolves around getting a paycheck for the porn scene. Guys who appear are only paid a minimal base rate unless they bone a girl, in which case they make the $500 or $1000 or whatever porn dudes get a scene. Basically, these pre-screened guys are trying to convice the girls to fuck. If they can't, they only get the minimal base rate of pay.  There are fun, sexy activities planned not unlike stuff you might see on the Bachelor Pad (or Can he score). The idea is to be able to watch any build-up, flirtation etc during activities and then have the sex be as spontaneous as possible. I know, there are limitations.But if a bedroom is prepared with cameras and mics, all you'd need is to have the cameras able to be turned on and possibly controlled (i.e. zoom) from a somewhat remote place. I think many of us wouldn't mind not having the extreme close-up shots where there is a camera person standing on top of the performers. Basically, each girl fucks a guy. If two girls want the same guy, maybe there is a little competition..or maybe there is a threesome.
Budget-wise, the only extra cost I can think of is the base rate of pay you'd be paying guys to be filmed that won't fuck a girl. But, their presence adds to the film as much as (actually more IMO) then what many studios shooting features pay the non-sex cast you often see in Features.
So, in short, you basically have a hot, relatively fresh new cast to work with shooting as spontaneous sex as possible in porn. Shane's World did some things not that different from my idea. I think the idea above could be even hotter than most of their stuff. And, this would be one of the very few parody concepts that would actually be inherantly sexy.
Thoughts?
*This is a "reality" concept, so I don't see why it would end up in the Features forum.
Edited by - skyway on Sep 9 2011
Peoples Temple
Member

People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity.
674 Posts
5/11
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 1:17PM
Pink Visual has a series "Orgy Sex Parties" that has some of the same format, a large house and it begins with a cocktail party.
The problem with the reality porn is getting guys who would not go limp during the scene. If they do, they ruin the film and we have all seen this at some time or another. It is the main reason the same guys are used in title after title.
There is a studio called Trix Video that comes the closest to amateur talent having Group Sex.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 3:19PM
Really have little to no interest in group sex. That wasn't the idea. Also, the girls would not be amateurs and some of the guys could also be "pros".
The biggest reasons guys go limp shooting porn IMO is the way its shot and directed. My idea is to NOT have a cameradude walking around the room sticking the camera under a guys ass etc.
mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 4:54PM
I think this idea could work. However, you would also have the almost obligatory Caverject injection scene (there is probably always one using boner drugs stronger than Viagra) before the sex in the bathroom to deal with if there were cameras in that room and this were live. I don't know about the rest of us, but I don't want to watch some mope shoot up his dick (or any other part of his anatomy for that matter)! Therefore I would either keep the cameras out of the bathroom or only show an edited version.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 5:25PM
Nah just cameras in the bedrooms and maybe the living room.
 
Peoples Temple
Member

People tell lies my friend. Some people like publicity. I don't like publicity.
674 Posts
5/11
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 5:28PM
I've never seen a good sex scene where the cameras were at a distance. When this is tried it almost always sucks. What you end up with are softcore sex scenes and it is little different from a Hollywood R-rated film. Having a camera stuck in your face or near your private parts with flashes going off and a director barking out instructions goes with the territory. Director Khan Tusion does it all the time but is one of a few that will not edit out the directions.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 7:52PM
^ Obviously our taste in porn is different. I don't even want to watch a scene where a director gives directions-whether it's audible in the scene or not. Thankfully, there is a good trend headed in the way I like with stuff like New Sensations' Romance, Sweet Sinner, Dreamzone Passion and Quasar's latest movie Foreplay. You probably don't like any of that lmao
[mod edit: quote removed. From the ADT forum etiquette: "Please don't quote people's entire posts - quote only relevant sections or address the person by name."]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 9/11/2011 12:54:21 AM
jfarley
Member

242 Posts
5/09
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 10:22PM
If you can't tell the difference between softcore performers pretending to have sex, and hardcore performers having real sex, even at a distance, then this is not for you.
And who said anything about a distance, zoom in enough for a full body shot. Just don't bug around the performers like an annoying fly sticking your camera in their face or up their ass.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 9 2011 : 11:09PM
^ Thank you!
[mod edit: quote removed. From the ADT forum etiquette: "Please don't quote people's entire posts - quote only relevant sections or address the person by name."]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 9/11/2011 12:53:43 AM
jfarley
Member

242 Posts
5/09
Posted - Sep 10 2011 : 9:32PM
@skyway: You would probably like Shane's World titles. From what I've seen they have a good reality vibe.
The performers suffer only mildly from "contracted porno" (as coined by Nica Noelle), and the director does a good job at filming reality sex (bunch of performers on holiday scenario).
Recommend "Shane's World 42: Paradise Island (2011)" with Brooklyn Lee, Tori Black, Vanessa Cage, Johnny Castle, and Michael Vegas.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 11 2011 : 12:23AM
^ Thanks. I've seen them all. They had some good ideas, for sure. I was looking to better what they did.
[mod edit: quote removed. From the ADT forum etiquette: "Please don't quote people's entire posts - quote only relevant sections or address the person by name."]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 9/11/2011 12:53:06 AM
pat362
Senior Member

10083 Posts
3/10
Posted - Sep 11 2011 : 1:19PM
Movies that are done for the softcore market are easy to identify because the people who do them never intended it to appear hardcore. Vivid edits many of it's hardcore movies for the softcore market by removing or altering all the penetration and BJ shots. The only sure way to know that the softcore versions was taken from a hardcore movie is to have seen both movies.
I don't think the camera idea is a bad one but the reason porn is shot with a moveable camera is that the director is able to shoot the movie from different angles and this way we get to see different sides of the action. Having fixed cameras in a room will always show the viewer the same angles regardless of zooms. You could always install multiple cameras with zooms but then again that doesn't guarantee that you'll see all the action.
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 11 2011 : 2:33PM
I could care less if there is an edited version of a movie that goes to a softcore market.
I do want multiple cameras. I do not mind missing some shots if it means I'm watching more authentic sex.
pat362
Senior Member

10083 Posts
3/10
Posted - Sep 11 2011 : 10:13PM
All hardcore porn is authentic. That's what differentiates it from softcore porn. The biggest difference between a scene shot by a professionnal/semi-pro VS an amateur is usually the camera style or lack thereof. I've seen some videos like the Shane World ones but that is still BS reality porn. These are paid performers that knew exactly what they were going to do since their salaries was based on the sexual act they were to perform. The setting is the only thing different but there was still a person behind the camera and the action was edited down to allow for more content on the dvd.
If you mean that you want to see 2 amateurs have "authentic" sex on camera than you will be stuck with internet only content. Amateur stuff can be good but I've found that the bulk of it isn't worth downloading because it's too often shot using either a cam camera, a tripod or an handheld for POV style. That last one can be interesting because of the angles but it also kills the mood since the person holding the camera isn't really thinking about the sex part as much as gettting the action on camera. Another problem with amateur is that you aren't really an amateur if you've taped yourself having sex over a couple dozen times.
Aplus
Senior Member

1431 Posts
5/05
Posted - Sep 11 2011 : 11:48PM
I've only seen that show once.
Don't think it would really work with porn in a realistic way....not that shows like that are truly realistic. In show like that, women and men are often forced to pair-up wih people they'd rather not. Only so many Brad Pitt or Manuel Ferrara guys to go around.
 
skyway
Member

192 Posts
7/06
Posted - Sep 12 2011 : 1:41PM
So, for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to quote the post I'm responding to. So, pat 362, let me try to respond to your last post (without being able to see it as I respond )
I guess when you've seen a lot of porn made a certain way and kind of are mentally programmed to think about it within the constructs that exist today, it's hard to even understand a different way of thinking. So, I guess that's why you're not able to follow my intial idea. But, let me try to clarify. Please take what I say at face value, rather than trying to translate it into typical "porno" thought. Here goes:
I do not want to watch amateur porn. As you said, you end up stuck with shitty cameras, shitty audio, shitty lighting and often mediocre looking people. And P.O.V. is never sexy EVER.
I want high-quality cameras, with sound captured well. And I want to see the hot porn chicks we have now. For the guys, they can be porn guys or not. All depends on who the girls choose. And any "new" guys being picked could end up with offers to do more porn in the future.
Aplus: You wrote "In show like that, women and men are often forced to pair-up wih people they'd rather not." Ya know, that sounds EXACTLY like what we have in porn now. I'd like to see less of the forced pairings and more of the pairings chosen by the girls. And I'd like to see a larger pool of talent for women to choose from. Say what you want about Manuel Ferrara or Erik Everhard or any of the "regulars", but it gets old real fast seeing the same dudes over and over again.
mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09
Posted - Sep 13 2011 : 12:44PM
Skyway, I will explain the rules for quoting as I understand them (I am not a moderator but have been posting here long enough to know the rules fairly well). If the post you are referring to is directly above yours, just use the ^ symbol to refer to the post. If the post is not directly above yours, edit the quoted section to only reference what you are directly referring to. Constantly quoting long posts makes the forum hard to read and takes up expensive bandwidth/server space (not a slam at you personally but more for general reference).
I would also recommend reading the Etiquette section for other tips on how to post without garnering the wrath of Steph and Drew. Most are just common sense, but still worth a read on occasion. Also, be glad this forum is moderated well, I could refer you over to another forum owned by one of the larger gonzo companies that is so poorly moderated that the supposed main moderator over there has to deal with almost constant insults regarding his herpes status and accusations of violating US immigration law if anyone really needs to see why moderation is necessary here. I am much happier participating over here than I would be at the other forum.



Jump To: