Well I certainly agree with not wanting to ride the remote all the time, which I find myself doing way too often. But I don't want to really watch scenes that end before I can really get into them, especially ones that are severely edited to try to get as much into them as possible. Short sex scenes in features tend to get butched in the editing room. Whereas extremely long scenes tend to be repetitive with constant position changes, quit angle changes for no apparent reason, and way too much filler that takes up 10-15 minutes before clothes are even removed. I guess I just want scenes that have some build-up, continuation, and a good ending to them, with enough visual stimulation to hold my attention. It can be done with short sex scenes, but again I have to see and enjoy what's on screen. Edited by - aplus on 8/16/2011 9:50:43 PM
A good sex scene can look great and be great without being repetitive or being edited short. It's mediocre scenes they are trying to make great by cutting them down. And it's mediocre scenes that are repetitive if they last long. Hot sex-rare as it may be in porn-is something you want to last 30 or more minutes. Admittedly, most scenes includng those over 30 minutes are not really great. Making them shorter wouldn't change the fact that they're still not great. Great sexual chemsitry captured well by cameras and directors is not time dependent. It's just that when it's there, you want the scene to go on for a nice long time. When it's not, you want it over with. So, first on the business list is allowing stars who may have great chemistry to work together and then creating an environment where that can thrive. Number two would be not editing or cutting such a scene down too much.
I agree and disagree. The standard used to be cutting down mediocre scenes, but vhs and then cable tv changed the game. Now time is sometimes cut simply to fill a timeslot or delete or obscruct hardcore action that television can't show...well I know it used to be. I just got through watching two different scenes, from different films. One lasted about 40 minutes, and it was hot all the way through. The other was great, but the hottest moments happens near the end and could have easily been satisfying to me within the 5-7 timeframe given here. So it just depends. I mean 40 minutes is too long for a feature film, but I tend to get irked thinking or knowing (BTS) hot footage is being edited out simply for time purposes. Edited by - aplus on 8/18/2011 8:12:35 AM
Agree. Although I don't get why scenes would be "too long for features". At the least, have an option in the extras to see an extended, less cut version of the scene.
Well I believe 90 minutes used to be the desired length for features on tv, and 2 hours was all you could get on a VHS tape to maintain quality. I think it was just easier to cut the hardcore since they couldn't legally show much of it anyway on television. I think the standard may have changed now since I'm seeing some pretty hardcore stuff on cable channels like Sundance.
Little Puck Interview
Posted - Aug 16 2011 : 9:46PM
