Reviewers Recommend Sharing My Wife 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack Director: Mike Quasar Starring: Shay Sights, Tommy Pistol, Isiah Maxwell, Codey Steele, Victoria Voxxx, Some Dude, Blake Blossom, Izi Blu. Read review
I may be preaching blasphemy (or preaching to the choir) here, but I would like the opportunity to see less pornography in today's adult films. Admittedly I am a fan of the golden age films but am not myself in my golden years. I do enjoy the gonzo style for what is and what it does, but I am afraid this style has no place in a feature film as it would (and most assuredly does) disrupt the narrative and pacing of the film. In any other genre of filmmaking, the director would promptly be dismissed by the studio brass upon seeing the first submission. So why the tolerance in the adult genre? What exactly are we making and selling here folks? I will come clean and admit that I have not watched any features made after 2004. Why? Well thanks to the 30 second interval screeenshots available at ADE, I don't have to. I can already get a sense of what is being shown: 2 to 5 minutes of dialogue in a room followed by 20 to 25 minutes of gonzo sex in said room. Rinse (or wash off) and repeat for 4 to 5 more scenes. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Today I took a look at the screenshots for the following random features: Official Halloween Parody, Scream XXX: A Porn Parody, The Watcher, and Sex Broker. All four pretty much seemed identical to each other as per the above formula. Only the names of the performers change with little to no amount of exterior shots, in other words no atmosphere and certainly no suspension of disbelief. I'm truly at a loss for how this stuff sells, let alone passes as "film". This dearth in film-like features has me on the prowl not for milfs but for legitimate features which push the explicit sex envelope with credible thespians not lesbians. This is where the "less pornography is more" approach comes into place. While watching a good adult feature it is not a necessity for me to jerk off. I watch these features just as I would any other movie like Stand By Me, Risky Business, Caddyshack or Die Hard With A Hard-On (sorry I couldn't pass that up). To illustrate a point, I found it infinitely more erotic to sit through 60 minutes of random, boring shit to finally see Chloe Sevigny perform oral sex for three minutes in a film than to watch Dana DeArmond fuck for 20 minutes straight. Why? Probably because we haven't seen Ms. Sevigny with an ass in her cock before (sic, think Boogie Nights). We're talking build up here folks. Hopefully I'll get the same erotic euphoria when I watch Lie With Me starring Lauren Lee Smith and Eric Balfour (of '24' fame). I'll even give The Girlfriend Experience starring Sasha Grey a chance to see if it ends up being a much better feature than 99.9% of the other adult features out there, probably done without any penetration to boot. Other adult but not pornographic titles I yearn to see are: Slippery Slope and Love Shack. Both are unrated adult features that deal with the subject of pornography but aren't necessarily lumped into being expressly pornographic, if that makes any sense. So if you've made it this far in my post, what are your thoughts on the effect of lessening the screen time of pornographic depictions as a way of producing a stronger adult feature in terms of overall impact and staying power (non-induced by Viagra no less) in the arena of modern XXX, NC-17, and unrated features? I know the bottom line is money talks and BS walks, but bear in mind that whatever is old will eventually become new again. Translation: the next hottest thing.
My review of THE WATCHER (2010, Wicked) expresses some of the same concerns that you mention in your post. I actually liked THE WATCHER quite a bit more than most of these other Wicked features as the disc's sex scenes---though generally over long---mostly flow with the tide of the open-marriage plot/theme. One sex scene should have been a bonus scene, which leads me to my biggest gripe that is that these filmmakers should worry about making a decent flick first then use the DVD format to take a sex scene or scenes (or an extended sex scene or scenes) from off the cutting room floor and into the extras. End of rant because even discs like THE WATCHER and a few others are few and far between in this era of cheapy gonzo productions at one end and crappy parodies at the other. tb Edited by - T0MBOne on 7/6/2011 10:36:33 AM
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Jul 6 2011 : 11:05AM
Probably couldn't have said it better than Midnight.Tried to define what it should be more accurately in a previous post where the discussion was about the ratio of sex activity vs dialogue-story line. Sex to Story Ratio Edited by - Robert on 7/6/2011 11:07:37 AM
I feel this way too. Feature porn should concentrate more on plot than sex, and the sex should be integral to the plot. One movie you should check out is "Black Worm". The sex scenes are short compared to most modern features, and the entire movie is only 98 minutes long. This is how a feature porno film should be made. Oh, and "The Girlfriend Experience" has no sex scenes whatsoever, and the only nudity is a brief moment at the beginning.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Jul 6 2011 : 9:50PM
I agree. "The New Neighbors" is 155 minutes. I edited it down to 96 minutes and didn't lose a thing. Most of the editing was the length of the sex scenes. It was an excellent porn movie (IMHO).I thought we were talking about porn movies.
^I only mentioned that movie because The OP did. He might be expecting the movie to have sex scenes (albeit R-rated ones) simply because Sasha Grey is in it. That's not the case.
Just another bare bum in the shiower 1739 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jul 7 2011 : 6:31AM
The Chloe Sevigny scene was hot because it was realistic sex. Something we could all relate to. Leave the Viagra at home guys and give us a good, passionate, five minute scene where they keep in character and follow the plot.
I've always thought that features should have shorter, punchier and more creative sex scenes. Nothing worse for a film with a story than to see two people banging away in the same position for five minutes. Yawn.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Jul 7 2011 : 4:55PM
I read somewhere that the average length of a real "sex scene" is seven (7) minutes. I can relate to that and I think directors should consider that when filming a sex scene for a Feature. If for some reason key to the plot-story line the scene should be longer, then do a fade (passing of time) at some point in the scene and then fade back in to finish the scene thereby making the scene longer than the actual time. Directing and editing the scene to make it seem much longer than actual screen time would be much better than making the scene go on and on with position changes and stupid camera angles. Just a thought.
^Agreed. However long a sex act might actually last, there is no need to show it all as if we're operating in real time. Edit it, for heaven's sake. A sex scene that runs on and on and on gets so fucking boring and completely guts the narrative (we are talking features here, after all).
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 8 2011 : 3:58AM
I think all of us here agree on that, but we're all on the Feature forum, the gonzo fans far outnumber us, so I guess the question is there a sustainable market for these kind of features?
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Jul 8 2011 : 12:14PM
Unfortunately therein lies the rub. For the feature story line to be an integral part of the entire movie, the movie has to be pretty much about sex. Infidelity leading the list probably followed by incest of some sort. then there is the life of a hooker, pron star, etc. but soon one runs out of credible plots. I know, that's the job of the screen writer to produce interesting story lines but it is much cheaper to just take a bunch of Gonzo scenes and connect them with a few lines of dialogue. And much cheaper is usually what drives the producers. I doubt they could produce hundreds of titles in a year, let alone thousands so there would be no question as to which approach makes money. Producers/directors are going down the same path as that of 'reality TV' No story line, no script, per-choreographed scenes, same old, same old with different faces. Cheap to produce, easy to sell, thousands that will watch anything. More profit. I'm not holding my breath. instead I look for pre 1990 Features, many of which are OOP, but some are being re-released. If only they would re-master them. Of course that takes money and skill and they probably sell a well re-mastered or not.
That hasn't stopped Hollywood. Boy meets girl is the eternal story, you're just changing the circumstances surrounding the event and fiddling with their personalities.
Another problem with excessively long sex scenes is that some disappeared clothing has a tendency to reappear. It should not disappear in the first place and should never reappear installed or partially installed later.
What we're selling here is sex-on-film. I've said it before, but I still think feature films make a huge mistake trying to think or assume otherwise. You can have all the dialog or narrative you want, but people generally aren't looking or buying if the sex and sexuality isn't hot or at least different and interesting. I still have no problem with the idea of shorter sex scenes in adult features. By all rights, that's probably how it should be now and usually was 20+ years ago. It's a delicate balance though. 5-7 minutes of a truly hot chick probably isn't gonna cut it with a huge percentage of porn fans. Unless the film is truly sexual in nature, 5-7 probably defeats the purpose of most people watching. And I'm not sure most films made in the past decade are interesting and diverse enough to hold most peoples' attention like that. In short, I see a lot of repetitive storylines in feature films, just slightly re-told. They usually aren't that complex either. The main complaint I see and get the feature films I so love, is that they are (generally) incredibly boring. To really do feature films like they were born to be made, that is gonna have to change. Again, I have no real problems with the concept. I still prefer the 10-12 minute sex scene model though. The amazing success to all the recent parodies suggest people are longing for something unique in feature films.
It all depends on the mindset of the filmmaker and the viewer. Many of the filmmakers making X rated movies pre-1986 considered themselves serious filmmakers rather than pornographers. Therefore sex scenes were typically shorter, played in character, and more relevant to the rest of the film. In the modern climate, very few directors view themselves as anything other than pornographers and consequently, when they attempt to make features, they can't manage to create coherent integrations of narrative and sex so they simply frame 15 minute loops with loose narrative set ups instead of having the sex scenes evolve out of the plot.As GGG brought up in the above linked thread about sex to story ratio, long sex scenes aren't the problem. It's boring sex scenes that destroy a good feature. GGG mentioned Damiano's ODYSSEY as a good example of a sex heavy feature that's compelling from beginning to end, even during the sex scenes. The reason it works is because of a few elements: 1) It's a cohesive film in which the sex is crucial to the development of the characters therefore the sex scenes are intellectually stimulating. 2) The cinematography, lighting and editing are all exquisite. All of the sex scenes are photographed, lit and edited with the same attention to artistry as the rest of the film, causing them to be visually stunning even when the content becomes a tad dull. And it's that second thing that I'd like to highlight. In contemporary hardcore features, sex scenes are too often photographed in a generic gonzo fashion; maybe with a color gel here and there. Sex scenes have been rendered functional and nothing more. I've seen a number of otherwise excellent contemporary features in which the sex scenes display none of the artistry present in the narrative portions of the movie. Therefore they stick out like a sore thumb and begin to feel out of place and perhaps even irrelevant. In order for a good movie of any type to be a successful film of video, it must feel like one cohesive work, not different movies spliced into each other. And that's what modern XXX features often feel like: half assed skinemax movies spliced into generic gonzo porn. I was recently watching Richard Kanter's DESIRES WITHIN YOUNG GIRLS (the uncut 103 min version) and I couldn't help but think to myself how similar (but better) it is to so many modern Wicked and Vivid productions. The plot is nothing special and exists mostly to move the film along from one sex scenes to the next, and most of the sex scenes run 7, 8, 9, even 10 min; way longer than 90% of sex scenes in other comparably budgeted films of the same era. Out of its 103 min running time, roughly 45 min is sex. But there's something about DESIRES that makes different than the Vivid and Wicked productions it resembles at surface level: it's a real movie in which even seemingly superfluous sex scenes are fitted with excellent production values, humor, and attention to things like continuity and are well scored with music that doesn't sound like it was composed by a high school student using pro-tools. They're edited tightly and, even when they feel too long, are still so well constructed that they never become boring. That's the key to a good XXX movie.Now there's some irony. The parodies are nothing more than sex filled remakes. Hardly a unique concept. Edited by - john lyons on 7/14/2011 3:46:49 PM
We have a winner! It took awhile, but someone finally unearthed the gist of what I was alluding to in my original post. More explicit scenes have been popping up (!) in arthouse and foreign films in recent times, which is where I have been turning my attention in order to catch a feature film featuring (gasp!) erections, wet shots, and female orgasms, even if they're under five minutes in length. I find these films more endearing (read: hotter) since the suspension of disbelief is more powerful due to the filmmaking talents of those in front and behind the camera, not to mention the fact that we haven't seen what any of the principal actors' rectums look like courtesy of a c-light. Even though we had seen the performers in Desires Within Young Girls in adult films prior, a certain something happens during the viewing process that causes the viewer to temporarily forget that Spelvin went to Hell and had two cocks in her and a snake as well. Hmm, I dunno, maybe it's the acting and/or the way the movie crew wants you to perceive things. It's probably all of the things john lyons mentioned above. I was only a tot during Hollywood's "porno chic" era ('72 to maybe '77), so perhaps I'm a little hell bent on witnessing a second coming if you will as an adult. I forgot the reasons why the first era ran out of momentum, but can probably put the blame on legal ramifications, Bible thumpers and some loud feminists from the New Yawk area. Today with Bible thumpers having legal ramifications of their own and some ardent feminists from the San Fernando Valley cranking out their own smut, perhaps a "porno Renaissance" will be coming soon to a theater near you rather than This Ain't Another Epic XXX Superhero Official Parody streaming out of the commode into your laptop.
Yeah, but that kind of star-quality and screen presence has been mostly missing from adult features for a long time. It got replaced with young contract girls who mostly didn't have the ability, presence, or need to truly carry quality material. Unless a film has a strong female presence in the lead and good supporting characters, it generally isn't gonna be very good IMHO. Luckily the contract-star thing is mostly gone, making the timing perfect to hopefully get back to good and great feature filmmaking. I see nothing that makes me think its happening though. Midnight,
Will admit that I don't watch much foreign filmmaking. I've always suspected that is where the truly better films are being made and have been made the past few years, if not decade. I prefer American films though. Won't go into why, but in the end, I just do.
I agree and disagree. Modern video is many steps beyond cheap early 80's video. Now it's clear the better filmmakers struggled adapting early video and/or were disgusted with the newer format. I'm still not sure if video, whether HD or Blu-Ray, is good for adult features though.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 16 2011 : 1:20AM
As John says, the vast majority of xxx features after the mid-80s are of significantly less ambition, craft and interest as those of the mid-70s to early 80s. I think the rise of good quality HD video could help revive the feature in xxx, as it allows them to have a much more professional look on a low budget.
Some great comments on this topic. I'm rather new on the board, but just for context, let me say that I enjoy both features and gonzo scenes equally. The main problem with features, as many have pointed out here, is that the directors are throwing gonzo filmmaking scenes right in the middle of the feature storyline, which is no longer as well developed as previous efforts either. Now some of this is talent generated. I'm sorry, but to be honest, I really don't want to see many performers acting as they are just not that good at it, and it makes the feature just as bad. HOWEVER, there are tons of creative ways to capture a feature without prolonged scenes of dialogue, so it can be done. This would provide the energy/emotion to the scene while the sex portion itself could be hot still. Yes, many sex scenes are too long, so they could be shortened, and then I think a nice harmony in the filmmaking, which creates context to the scene, would exist. That is what's missing from most efforts these days. The main reason is pure laziness I think. Sorry, but the shortest path doesn't yield the best results/art. More creators should realize this.
You are absolutely preaching to the choir with me. In fact, I am much more aroused by watching regular films like 'Monsters Ball' and Original Sin' than pornos. I'm not even from the by-gone era everyone bangs on about. I am 18 years old and I would love it if directors would integrate a plotline in to the film. It's the whole reason why I abandoned redtube and opted for real 'feature' films. I then came to find that it was not what I expected. So many feature films lack any real plot and randomly jump into a 20-minute sex scene. In fact, if anyone could recommend a few feature films from the by-gone era, I would be eternally grateful. Edited by - theleader on 7/19/2011 9:31:48 PM
Here are a few pre-1985 XXX feature films that I hope you'll enjoy. Just FYI, many really good films are not currently in print and many others have been edited by the DVD companies that have re-released them, not to mention that most XXX features that were shot on film have only been released on DVD using awful old tape masteres rather than doing new HD transfers from prints or negatives. But, with that said, here are some suggestions: 3 A.M. (Gary Graver, 1975) A Touch of Genie (Joe Sarno, 1974) Alice in Wonderland (Bod Townsend, 1976) Bacchanale (Amero Brothers, 1970) Between Lovers (Ron Sullivan, 1983) Blonde Ambition (Amero Bros., 1980) - Available in a remastered edition. Café Flesh (Stephen Sayadian, 1982) - VCA DVD has been cut. Candy Goes to Hollywood (Bob Chinn, 1979) Co-Ed Fever (Gary Graver, 1980) The Dancers (Anthony Spinelli, 1981) Dracula Exotica (Shaun Costello, 1980) Expose Me Lovely (Armand Weston, 1976) The Image (Radley Metzger, 1973) In Love (Chuck Vincent, 1983) Love, Lust & Violence (Norbert Meisel, 1975) - Never released on DVD. SWV DVD-R is a bootleg - buy at your own risk. Memories Within Miss Aggie (Gerard Damiano, 1974) Naked Came the Stranger (Radley Metzger, 1975) - Current DVD from VCA is heavily edited. This film will be re-released by Video-X-Pix from a new uncut HD master. Nothing to Hide (Anthony Spinelli, 1981) Opening of Misty Beethoven (Radley Metzger, 1975) - Current DVD from VCA is pan and scanned - Video-X-Pix will be releasing an uncut version from an HD master. Raw Talent (Larry Revene, 1984) - Current DVD from VCA is heavily edited. Roommates (Chuck Vincent, 1981) Sex World (Anthony Spinelli, 1977) Sweet Savage (Anne Perry, 1978) - Current DVD from VCX/TVX is heavily edited. Take Off (Armand Weston, 1978) Taking of Christina (Armand Weston, 1975) - Current DVD from VCX is lightly edited - some gore is missing. Through the Looking Glass (Jonas Middleton, 1976) - VXP DVD is missing about 30 seconds (first 30 seconds of reel 3) due to print damage. Tiffany Minx (Roberta Findlay, 1981) - No official DVD release - the version from Alpha Blue is a very cheap bootleg. Wanda Whips Wall Street (Larry Revene, 1981) Wild Dallas Honey (Jeffery Fairbanks, 1982)
What you guys need is an appreciation of the time and work it takes to make a good movie. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, even for a "low budget". Years, if not, decades between the first conceptualization and a paying audience viewing it in a theater. The fact is, if you have the skill/desire to make even a passable feature film you're not going to waste your time making a porno whose distribution will be so limited that you will never make your money back. That's the issue with film as an art, it costs much more than any other art. You can draw a genius painting with 50 cents worth of material lying around your garage. You can't do that with a movie. And it's not that film artists are greedy..it's just that if you have to mortgage your house to do your art, you NEED to make your money back.
Well If we're talking mainstream feature films, I tend to agree with you. Not sure how much money generally goes into making a good, but not great porn feature, but I'm more than certain it can be done well if the right talent is behind and in front of the lenses. Artists have been known to suffer for their art, and porn is no different in that sense. In the past, porn was known to attract good filmmakers. Some who reportedly did porn and mainstream on the side. Not sure that still isn't going on to a lesser extent. Porn is a different animal, which gives it an advantage most other film genres don't have. It doesn't have to be exact or perfect, it just has to be what it really is.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 30 2011 : 5:01PM
I'd have to disagree with Bustdowngal, after-all the porn features of the past turned a healthy profit. If you were a young wanna-be filmmaker right out film school you could get a start working in porn features (this is particularly true the crew) and actually turn a profit, unlike a low budget indie film. Several of the directors and cinematographers who worked in porn went on to 'legit' work after, although they were usually careful to deny their earlier involvement in xxx (Wes Craven, Gary Graver, Stu Segall, numerous cinematographers). Once features stopped being shown in theatres the budgets dropped massively. I don't think it was because they couldn't turn a profit making features, it was because they realized that they didn't need to make good features, just cheaply shot video of people fucking sold as well as a well-made feature, and since the production costs were so low the profit was that much higher. Of course there were those even then (Reuben Sturman comes to mind) who could see where this race to the bottom would lead, and today's over-saturated, teetering porn industry is the result. Seems like some are realizing that quality, in gonzo or features, is the industry's only real hope now.
Blacksix is dead on as usual. Plenty of filmmakers making X rated movies in the 1970s were both serious about their art and worked on non-X rated movies as well. Video killed quality X rated movies and they've never really come back except for a couple here and there. You don't need hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to make a 'good' movie, you need that amount of money to make an overproduced contemporary Hollywood film. Many excellent movies have been (and continue to be) shot on budgets which are fractions of fractions of the multi million dollar productions Hollywood invests in. If we're arguing budgets, many 35mm X rated features produced before 1985 had budgets of $80,000 - $150,000 and with inflation, that's between a quarter and half a million dollars. I don't think that anyone's gonna argue that you can't afford to make a movie with that kind of money (a Michael Bay film, no, but we're supposedly talking about good movies here). Today, even the biggest budget attempts at XXX feature making (occasional more costly exceptions aside) rarely run over $50,000 or $60,000. That means that we're talking the equivalent of a $20-25,000 or so budget c. 1980 and that was the type of cost figure associated with low budget cheap films. In any case, an production, regardless of cost, can only be as good as the talents of the people involved.
I don't have much to add, john and blacksix said all that was on my mind (but more cogently). I do think it's important/useful to consider how viewing practices play into it though. Consider, how would the state of things be different if we felt comfortable openly watching adult films? In my opinion, the privacy and anonymity of video, internet, and then illegal downloading have a lot to do with the problems outlined above.
No, I don't think less sex is hotter. At all. Build-up, foreplay etc can be great. But not at the expense of the sex. Why would that be a bad idea for porn companies? There is already plenty o stuff like what you mention available outside the realm of hardcore pornography. Heck, you don;t even need to seek out softcore, skinemax stuff. You can get what you mention in movies on the big screen or on netflix. Porn differentiates itself in the regard that it gives us so much more sex.
And, I should add that-within the world of porn and people who seek out the sex in porn-I have no idea how making a scene shorter could make it better. None. Not in the day and age of DVD and online streaming. Any time you the viewer watch a scene, you can make it as short as you like. You can skip around in the scene whenever and however you like. I never watch a scene from start to finish without pausing or skipping around. BUT, I want to be the one in control of that. I want the director and editor to leave as much of what was shot IN the released movie. I've always said I'd prefer to get a movie with completely unedited, uncut scenes. (And not just the Manuel Ferrare scenes with the one crappy camera). Each time I watch the scene I can skip around however I want. I understand that back when porn was in its early days, you either watched in a theater or on a VCR. Then, I can see where you'd need to make things differently. Now, I don't get it. And I see people all the time saying "scene was good but too long". That baffles me. If it's too long, skip around or go to the next scene. I just prefer a more natural, uninterrupted, unedited scene.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Aug 9 2011 : 8:32PM
In my opinion, more modern softcore skinemax stuff fails both as something you can watch for the story and as pornography. It is neither interesting nor sexy. American films are increasingly chaste, in the 70s they'd throw in nudity and a sex scene into pretty much every film but these days you're lucky to see a glimpse of nudity even in a 'raunchy' comedy.
I've looked for stuff from the 70s that might appeal to me. I agree they did a good job with the build up to scenes. It just seems that most everything I've found ends up with a four minute scene featuring a hideous looking guy and mediocre picture and lighting. I am open to suggestions for stuff I might have missed. But if its got a Ron Jeremy type of dude in it forget it haha
^ If you're looking for good-looking/hot guys, there are a significant few who worked *a lot* -- look up John Leslie, Eric Edwards, Richard Pacheco, George Payne, Jack Wrangler, Harry Reems, and depending on taste Jamie Gillis. Edited to add: Ron was quite the looker during a fairly short space of time in the 70s/early 80s. Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 8/9/2011 9:44:52 PM
Thanks. Much of what I look for is how a girl responds to a guy. There are some guys who I tend to avoid but if I happen to see a particular girl responding well to a guy I'll watch her scenes with him. But obviously some guys are banging girls for no reason other than they are friends with the director, cheap or have a big dick. Or all of the above. Women don't care about the first two and the third reason only matters if other traits are in place first.
Me too, and vice versa (plus a whole host of other things, but the performers and their relationship to each other in the scene is critical, imo). The men I listed tend to create magic in their scenes.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Aug 10 2011 : 6:38AM
From the classic period Leslie Bovee/anyone, Samantha Fox/Jack Wrangler, Jamie Gillis/Serena and John Leslie/toomanytomention all had great chemistry in their scenes. The Richard Pacheco/Tigr scene from Nothing to Hide is a major classic as well in terms of tenderness and (can't think of anything else to call it) joy in a sex scene. Richard also had great scenes with Jessie St James and Georgina Spelvin but from your previous comments I'd suspect that Georgina wouldn't be your type skyway (she's the original MILF).
But, the brilliance is when a scene captures your attention and gets you going and you don't need to skip around with the pause/rewind/forward button. I agree that today, it is nice to have that control to go to the parts you enjoy the best. I think what many are saying is the pacing of a scene can capture your attention or lose it, within a few moments. True art in porn is where the scene is so good at setting up the context, that you find yourself not fast forwarding. These, unfortunately, have become the lost art.
Oh I completely agree. But, I still can't see where making the scene shorter would do any good here. A really hot scene with good pacing I want to go on forever.
Whereas after a while I just get bored out of my fucking mind. I don't want to have to ride the remote all the time to skip or fast forward; I just want to sit back and watch.
Sharing My Wife 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Jul 5 2011 : 10:04PM
