"Shit in porn you don't understand" Well, shit itself in porn is definitely something I don't understand but I guess some are into that and "watersports," UGH. Everyone has their own tastes in porn(shit...yummmm?), but over the years, I can think of several issues that are almost universally despised by porn viewers yet are still a staple of almost every porn flick: Lots of shots of the dude's face during sex in a straight porn film. Who the hell wants to see that? BJ scenes that last FOREVER. This is the tried-and-true porn director's method to extend run-times of sex scenes by filling the screen with blowjobs that send the viewer into Zzzzzzzzz's after a while. Girls sucking on dildos/strap-ons like gold is about to flow out. That's just stupid. Yes, even for porn. Dudes having to jerk-off non-stop to keep it up. Hello editing? My own list of dislike: Gape scenes. Not a fan. Spitting Pissing Extreme close up of asses where I can see which actresses don't wipe effectively or the exact size and shape of their hemorrhoids. Ed Powers, Max Hardcore, Ron Jeremy et al.....why are these people on my screen? Girl eating some dude's ass ...and on and on :) Brad
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 7:09AM
I don't really think there are a lot a shots of guy's faces in porn anymore, that was a technique in the late 80s and 90s to cover edits and cutaway for the pop shot. Way more common and still in use is the very unappealing 'meat shot' that reduces everything to just penis and vagina, with a bit of man ass and jiggling balls thrown in to make it unpleasant viewing for everyone.
On the other hand, why would someone want cum in their mouth? Or someone else's saliva (Kissing)? I've tasted cum and I've tasted piss. Piss tastes better. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/29/2009 8:02:41 AM
I've known girls that act like cum is cocaine or something.... fine by me that girls like that are running loose around the planet. I've seen other girls that gag at merely the sight of it... (boy are they fun also!) All kinds of women, all kinds of tastes. But in a perfect world, you KNOW all women would need at least a cup of cum per day to survive.
Man I read the title of your post and before even opening it, I immediately thought of the following you already had on the list:The other stuff, like hardcore gagging, I *understand* why people might be interested in it. Stuff like shooting milk out of your ass I just don't get.
I may have posted about this myself or responded elsewhere in the thread but it's worth pointing it out as often as it takes because it is just so irritating -I agree with you and I HATE it! It is also a constant reminder that you're watching porn and that the performers are supremely aware of the camera. Has anyone ever actually complained because they couldn't see penetration AT ALL TIMES? I've never heard that complaint anywhere. What makes pornographers believe that they simply can't have one frame of fucking without visible genitalia and/or penetration?
^ They didn't seem to do it in older movies. What changed? Well, I guess a whole lot of stuff changed, and not for the better in most cases.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Dec 8 2009 : 10:58PM
Yes, people have complained about it, and probably still do. I don't remember specifically where I heard or read this, but I remember hearing somewhere about porn viewers complaining about the lack of penetration shots because being unable to see the penetration made viewers question if the performers were really fucking, or if they were just faking. I know it sounds silly. But apparently, people used to complain about this. I think this is what accounts for the current common practice of always showing penetration in the scene. That way, viewers never have to guess whether or not the performers are really fucking. Similarly, this is also seems to be why, with the exception of creampies, cumshots must always be visible in the scene. If the girl sucks the guy off without him having to pull out and stroke to finish, then how are we to know that he really ejaculated, or if they just faked the whole thing? To remove these doubts, porn made it so that we can see it all at all times. It's just another way that porn likes to treat its audience like idiots. The same for the constant open camera position which mostly look ridiculous. We've all heard the porn rallying cry of "We want to see the girls! We watch porn for the girls!" Again, as a result of this cry, the common practice arose of always shooting to make the girl completely visible, regardless of how ridiculous or uncomfortable of a position it leads to (e.g., the mish position that is not really missionary at all). So believe it or not, these changes likely occurred because people did, and still do, complain about these things. While they get what they want, it sucks for the rest of us.
^ Understood but they could make it pretty clear the fucking wasn't fake without showing the penetration at all times. I don't object to seeing penetration. I just object to everything else being secondary (Or completely irrelevant).
Open to the camera is the main reason fan complain about the boring sameness and robotic action from scene to scene and production to production. We complain because ultimately it is the same. There is no way an individual performer can showcase their sexuality when the object is to be as far from your partner as possible or uncomfortable position. I don't think fans were clamoring for open positions. They evolved from natural position when the cameras were huge and immobile it afforded the camera better access. there is no reason for that now, but it has become the only thing available so its all we buy. Edited by - ntfighter on 12/9/2009 1:24:07 AM
Ooo Oooo Mista Kotter, I got a good one: What's the deal with Ashley Blue shoving her whole hand in her mouth and self gagging? Personally I find it idiotic. She also does this to cleverly cum dodge..... how dumb does she think we are??? Down with self hand gagging!!! BOOO BOOOO HISSS HISSS
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 12 2009 : 8:04AM
Not to bring this up again (trust me), but she starts to do the hand in the mouth thing after Tusion choked her out on Meatholes, and it came across like it was something she does to comfort or psych herself up.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Dec 12 2009 : 4:24PM
I don't think he was asserting that Ashley did it for the first time ever in that scene; just that she did it in that scene. It does seem to be kind of a tic or ritual for her; kind of like when the Latin baseball players do the whole sign-of-the-cross/"Jesus let me hit a home run" ritual whenever they're up. Savoy, where did that picture come from?
Well... he said she "started doing it [after the meatholes] scene". And I'm saying he's incorrect as she did it 3 years earlier in the aforementioned movie.
I really do need someone to explain the whole "Freaks of Cock" thing to me. Obviously there are people who get off watching a giant plastic dick spew flour and water all over a girl's face. I just don't understand why. I know that there are all types of people who are into all sorts of things, but this one I just don't get.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Dec 12 2009 : 11:10PM
No. He said that she "starts" doing it. It's an idiomatic use of the present tense to describe a past event. If he had written "a dude comes into the room and Ashley starts blowing him," would you think that he was asserting that this was Ashley's first blowjob ever, or just that he was describing the scene?
Real life sex is not particularly attractive to watch, atleast not for any long span of time. I can't recall a single real life sex tape I've seen that had any replay value for me (for god's sake I wouldn't want to watch myself fucking someone on camera), but there are a number of porn scenes with the most unnatural aerobatics that I've watched multiple times. Realistic sex is fine for a few minute scene in an art film, but I want my porn to be porn.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 13 2009 : 3:47AM
Harri's right, I meant she started doing it after she was choked out, I was referring to the scene, not the first time she ever did it, which would be a pointless thing to bring up anyway. Context.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 13 2009 : 3:50AM
I disagree, there are several naturalistic sex scenes in early porn from the 70s that are effective and hot, and I like how Stefano will actually do a 'full body hump' as part of his fucking routine. Of course everyone has different tastes but I think things have swung too far to the artificial side in porn in general.
I suppose I can see kind of getting off on it in some kind of weird way. The way we know Hollywood movies are fake but we get into them anyway. Some of my favorite movies have had the worst dialog, acting and effects. And frankly, that's why I love them. I think if you understand that it's fake but there's something about it that does something for you, it's no different than fake boobs. There's just no explaining some things. I don't understand cartoon porn but evidently, a lot of people are at least entertained by it. It stands to reason they get off on it too. I'm in no way saying I hope this is the beginning of a trend of ultra fake stuff. That would be a nightmare for me. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/13/2009 5:54:45 PM
I think that in the course of having sex, most people's minds take snapshots of tiny little moments that they feel are perfect. For instance, your're kissing your girl and you pull back a bit and you see her in a way that you would only see her from that exact angle and place in space and time. It may be only the tiniest glimpse of something about her. You see her and yourself in a unique way. Your mood and your feelings will also color some of your perception so that parts of her body or her face may literally glow even though the lighting is rather poor. Often, you will see things while you're having sex from a perspective that is very difficult to duplicate with a camera. And often, perspectives that camera people just don't think to use. For example, you may be crawling up between her legs and you may see down along the top of her leg all the way up to her face at such close range that her body actually appears to be on the scale of a landscape. I see these angles and perspectives very rarely in porn. And when I do, everything is usually blurry because they didn't do it right. Often, in the course of a specific act (say eating pussy), you are aware of everything around you but only peripherally. Her body and her sex are immediate and larger than life. It's extremely difficult to replicate that with a camera. It's even worse because it's extremely hard to light a subject like that in a way that even comes close to equaling what you would see in real life. When pornographers try to reproduce something like this, the "in the moment" quality of it is often lost somewhere. Sex on video often just doesn't look the way it does in real life when it's seen at it's best. It can look pretty good but it often looks, somehow, very wrong and distant and it feels cold and detached. So. Everything you do in real sex may not look good but you know what it should look like and sex on camera often looks wrong. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/13/2009 6:50:19 PM
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09
Posted - Dec 13 2009 : 6:41PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lighting, Lighting, Lighting. Why directors get away with filming sex scenes of male and light skinned girl resulting in washing/whiteout skin in 2009 (soon to be 2010) is ridiculous! I could take a picture of a snow bank on a sunny day and get better results showing lines and curves than many porn makers do.
A blog. A Portland artist named Corey Smith painted it. There's another art piece featuring Blue and her fist in her mouth that I've seen but can't find again.
I agree. Somebody somewhere got the notion that solo tease is so so boring, that they have to spice it up and make it hyperactive. I recently saw the Amber Swallows scene from Infattuation, the opening tease was actually 3 or 4 separate scenes, sliced-and-diced together into a 5-minute abomination consisting of a bunch of 3-second snippets (yes, I was counting) which completely ruined it. If you have a secret desire to edit music videos, stay the hell away from porn.
^yeah, it's the failure to hold a good shot for longer than a couple seconds that I find especially annoying. That's something that bugs me about the Big Wet Asses series. I haven't seen many of those scenes, but in the ones I have seen, there'll be a shot of the ass, then cut to shot of the face, then tits, then back to ass, all in a few seconds. I'd rather just see one, long, continuous shot of the ass.
It tastes kind of like a mixture of mildly salty water and cheap beer (More or less). Sometimes it just tastes like water with a bit of an odd flavor. Some people have nasty tasting piss. Like cum, it kind of depends on the person. I wouldn't sit around drinking it for the hell of it but as a sexual kink, it's fun and completely harmless as long as your partner is healthy. Unlike scat, it seems a whole lot nastier than it really is (Which is why it's a cool kink). It's mostly a psychological taboo. They usually don't swallow much of it in porn anyway. They mostly just spit it back out. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/16/2009 8:52:07 PM
This really depends. Sometimes it's really effective. It really all depends on how good the editor is. Edits shouldn't be totally random. The best edits are well thought out and purposeful. I think Elegant Angel is doing a nice job with this on many of their titles. It's better than the long, uninterrupted shot of boring stuff. Basically, they really need to know when to hold a shot for a while and when to cut. If I stare at the same thing for more than a couple of minutes without any camera movement or cuts, they're doing something very wrong. I'd venture to say the camera should almost never be completely motionless on the same angle for more than about 30 seconds (max). The cuts, pans and zooms and so forth don't have to be quick and jarring but they really are needed. Every now and then, I'll see a tease shot that is just so good, I wish they'd hold it for several minutes so I can get my rocks off but it's rare. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/16/2009 9:02:59 PM
The ones I'm complaining about are where shots aren't held for even 30 seconds; every 2 or 3 seconds, there's a cut to another shot, timed to the beat of some cheesy dance/techno music in the background. That editing style seems very prevalent these days. I guess it's also subjective, and depends upon what you find boring. I love the way John Stagliano shoots teases in his "Buttman" movies- long, uninterrupted ass shots. And Jay Sin's asshole-winking shots could last five minutes and I wouldn't care.
I kind of like that but I like (good) techno music and think it can help create a kind of intense atmosphere. Sometimes it goes really wrong. Again, I think it just depends on the skill of the people who did the work. And I sort of agree but not. The 2-3 second shots can be irritating if they're just rapid fire and nonstop. But sometimes a few of them in a row is just perfect as long as they don't go machine gun style on it. I like the way they can show you a lot of different angles and a combination of closeups and wide shots in a relatively short period of time. Admittedly, this isn't for everyone and it would probably get tedious if they did it with every movie but sometimes, I love to get a whole flick with just this kind of stuff. Also, another thing to consider is the longer they hold a shot, the more time your mind has to start to wander and find flaws and imperfections. There's always a little something in there that is a bit off. Tight editing can show you just enough to get your mouth watering without making reality a little too clear.Yes but again. Stagliano shoots very purposefully when he does that. He doesn't waste a lot of time showing you stuff you wouldn't miss if it was cut. I think he probably spent ages on editing a lot of his old stuff because it was just all so damn perfect. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/16/2009 9:24:48 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 17 2009 : 4:35AM
RP is right, look at the extended ass worship/tease scenes in Buttman's Stretch Class series and compare it to the extended ass worship/tease scenes on the Bang Bros. site. The Bang Bros. stuff, even when the girl is really hot, becomes quite boring because the editing isn't as good as Stagliano or Sam No and William H's stuff. The lack of music or even chatter also gives these sequences an odd vibe.
I couldn't disagree more!!! I love the extended teases in Assparade. The long shots of the girls walking around, trying on different outfits, shaking their asses, it's damn near perfect. The only thing I don't like is Preston Parker's voice. And I don't care too much for the other Bangbros sites.
Only took me an hour to read this whole fukin' thread. My first post, so I wasn't gonna half-ass it. 1.Gaping. Let it close, man. 2.Guy finishing himself after just screwing multiple girls. (Jill Kelly, Anne Malle and Keri Windsor would never allow this to happen, God bless them.) 3.sucking strapons. 4.any plot, music, set design or costumes. Seymour Butts' pool party back in like '89 was awesome. Just a bunch of horny, good looking people screwing all over the house, backyard and around the pool. There was even bbq for those who got hungry between partners. This seemed so genuine to me. 5.orgy scenes filmed with only 1 or 2 cameras. There should be a camera on each couple/3some, w/e, so nothing is missed.(Seymour also did this right)
Little Puck Interview
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 12:31AM
