Anyone agree with me that endless close-up shots of cocks pounding pussies & assholes are simply boring? A few seconds you can live with, but some go on for up to a minute or more non-stop and to me they're just a waste of disk / tape space!!
Why do porn producers insist on doing this??!!
I enjoy seeing a good penetration or double penetration as much as the next guy, but I for one prefer to see MORE of the girl when she's getting fucked - not just her stretched orifices. I like to see her body, her tits, her face and her expressions, her legs, her shoes, her sexy undies (if she's wearing any). But as far as I'm concerned, once you've seen one close-up, you've seem 'em all!
Thoughts & comments anyone?
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Sep 1 2003 : 9:30AM
I totally agree!! I think they fixate on genitalia and orifices because they think men are fixated on it. Personally I like to see some aspect of the girl's face every moment the camera is running. DP, par example : seeing a woman go through changes when she's getting stuffed is integral to my enjoyment. I sympathize with directors and performers, though. It's probably a difficult shot for both of them to pull off. Like you say, a couple of seconds is fine, but it tends to divorce the orifice from the girl, always a bad thing.
Ah, yes. The oft-complained of gynecological shot. Some posters have expressed their interest in it, but not I. Personally, I think that they exist as much because the stud is a sweat-hog, or the actress is cleaning her nails, or some such nonsense, as because of any interest in extreme close-ups.
Searching for blonde and red bush 1985 Posts 10/02
Posted - Sep 1 2003 : 10:34AM
I'm one of the deranged folks who like the close-ups on holes. In fact, except in the cases of a handful of actresses, I'd prefer to mostly see that. Never do I wish to see the male face or anything else except for the dick going into holes. But, hey, that's just me. Porn fans are such a diverse lot.
I'm with you there, BigFerret!! It's the GIRLS that the camera should focus on at ALL TIMES. As far as I'm concerned, the men are just "there" - essential props without whom there would be no porn! But I DON'T want to see their faces ! In fact, some ugly fuckers even have me reaching for the zapper to fast forward if the camera focuses on them for too long, and I can't even watch scenes in which certain male performers appear (Jon Dough, Mike Horner and a couple of others whose names I don't know).
I don't usually add comments to a long list of comments but hope springs eternal here in Dallas. I hate all the time wasted on tunnels shots. I would like to see more camera time on the girls's face. I can't tell you how many hundreds of movie's that I have seen where I get a close up of her asshole before I get a closeup of her face. How about a nice establishing shot of the girls face. I may be old fashioned but I like my sex scenes on a bed instead of a tree limb. What make a scene really hot for me is when the girl gets into the sex. I realize that there are hot lights, cameraman sound, director and hangeroners around but if the girl is not bending over a kitchen table, in a reverse cowgirl or some other far out contrived situition, maybe she can relax a little bit more make us believe she is enjoying what she is doing. I know I have made a pest of myself on the music issue also but kill the music and save it for the wrap party. Just daydreaming in Dallas.
Why take an "all or nothing" stance on this ? Can we not like both ?
I also like the close up's , the lingering gape shot (hmm yes please more of this) BUT I also like shots of the face, the boobs, the legs, the whole body - oh and lets have more foot stuff please :-)
I like the whole package and want to see the whole spectrum
I like to see a wide variety of shots within the context of a good scene. I like genital close-ups and facial close-ups, full-body shots, and the gamut in between. I definitely want to see meat pounding her pussy; I want to feel as if I could almost lick her clit myself. But if there's no cut back to her ecstatic look, if I can't see her whole body writhing in rapture with her lover's, the scene is going to leave me unmoved.
However, I don't like a lot of quick cutting (i.e., music- video-style editing); that just gives me a headache. I like to have a chance to focus on things. I like sexual action and sexual dialogue (even passionate cries, groans, and whimpers) to flow. If my attention is being jerked around by the filmmaker, I can't jerk off to my satisfaction.
What you're talking about is editing; something you see almost no evidence of in porn. Yes, I know that there are some videos with a lot of cutting, but cutting isn't editing. Editing is the craft/art of moving from shot to shot in a way that the view hardly notices the camera angle has changed. Sometimes this means cutting quick and sometimes it means not cutting at all. In either case, you almos never see Editing in porn.
TonyC wrote:You won't get a disagreement from me here, Tony. There is far too little art/craft in most porn.
Sometimes, when I'm watching a video, I find myself practically screaming in frustration at the filmmaker to change camera angles (or not). It's like, "Move the camera, dammit! (or "Hold still, forgoshsakes!) You're not letting me see what I want to see, you @#$%@*&+@!? !"
Editing is incredibly tedious work, even when the producer has provided all the neccesary coverage. (OTH: Too much coverage is almost as bad as not enough.)
Feature films usually shoot at a ratio between 5:1 and 20:1 and edit at a pace of about 1-2 minutes of screen time per day. Docs are worse. They start at 20:1 and go up. A minute of screen time per day sitting at the AVID is not uncommon. That's what it takes to edit films that feel like films. Porn producers simply can't afford to waste money on that level of craft, and time and time again the market has shown they don't have to.
Good points, TonyC. OTOH, I have seen good gonzo where I agreed with the majority of the shots used. So, to my mind it is as much the work that goes into the shoot as the work in the editing bay that contributes to the feel of the scene. The quick-cut MTV technique simply informs me that the cameraman and director were clueless to start with.
Also, while I have no doubt producers are making a living following the herd, I can't help but ask what reward might there be for the adventurer who does climb that mountain? As I recall, you've stated in interest in that adventure before.
About ten years ago I moved from shooting stills (often on a 4x5 camera) to producing videos. My attitude towards video production has been (to paraphrase a Marine slogan) "Shoot 'em all and let the editor sort it out."
Unfortunately that editor is usually me, and wading through hours of raw footage looking for a film isn't always the best way to make a movie. (We once shot 40 hours of tape to make a 10 minute short doc.)
But I've recently made the movie from producing/directing on video to producing/directing on film. Since film costs about 10 hex more than video, I've rediscovered the joys of actually having some idea what we're going to do before we start doing it. Shooting on film may actually turn out to be cheaper than shooting on tape because there's so much less time spent in post. It looks a hell of a lot better too!
Interest? More like a compulsion. You'd think I'd just get over it and just get a subscription to one of these DVD rental by mail places. But noooo. I've got to make my own smut. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Do the names Akira Kurosawa and Alfred Hitchcock mean anything to you? Just kidding, but my point is that great film starts with a clear vision of what you want to shoot. Sounds like you're getting there.
Legend has it that Hitchcock was so upset at producer David Selznic's recutting of one of his films that after that he never shot ANYextra coverage. With no extra coverage, there was only one way to cut his film, the way he shot it.
OTOH: The bapatism/big rub-out montage at the end of The Godfather was never in the script. It was "found" in the edit bay.
In either case, one scene from even a bad Hitchcock or Copola film has more talent and craft than an entire year's output from the SF Valley.
In alluding to the methods of the great Alfred Hitchcock, are you thinking about his custom (or so it's told) of story-boarding his films shot by shot before the cameras ever rolled?
When I was about 12 my uncle gave me a book that had the original pre-production story boards for psycho side by side with the corrisponding camera shot. I assumed the book had been cheated to make the story boards seem to align with the movie perfectly. When video finally came in I was able to see the actual movie and it is exactly shot for shot what was on the story boards.
I make documentaries, so storyboards aren't a part of how I work. But years ago I used to be a food photographer (there's your sex connection) We'd work all day to make one or two shot. After hours of set up we'd expose 6 sheets of film of one shot: 2 on, 2 over, 2 under.
Now that I'm finally back on film (motion rather than stills) I feel that same old 4x5 vibe coming back. With video you hardly ever turn the camera off, with film, you hardly ever turn it on, but when you do, you make sure you're getting something worth keeping.
Let me get back to the basic complaint that started on this post before the artsie folks jumped in. Yes, we like to see the pounding, the anal closeups even the gaps but we would like the majority of the camera time on the womans face and other parts beside her clit. I for one would like to see 10% down there and 90% up here. Wayne
I'm not sure I agree with your percentages, but I'm sure I agree with your premise. A cock pumping in and out of a tight asshole, pussy blossuming with every stroke is one of the truly beautiful things in this world, yet somehow people manage to make this boring. Films are supposed to IDEALIZE their subject matter, not make it BORING. There ought to a law!
Me too, I want a mixture of close ups (about 10-20%), full body shots and focus on girls face (20%), girls legs and feet (10%). Camerman should treat fucked girl more like piece of concept art, i.e. all is important (setting, make-up, sexy clothing, facial expression, close up of orifices, boobs, legs, shoes/feet etc... While not that fond of gapes I surely want to see a close-up of her pussy. I am an old classical pussy lover and sure want to check up wheter given girl has one of those hunted down darker pussy lips (just another fetish of mine, I guess) But I never ever want to see guys face!
Using the word "lover" was, I suppose, incredibly old-fashioned. But if my next best choice was "impaler", then (with all due respect to Lex and Jules) I'm going to stick with it.
As he frequently does, Henri Pachard has some interesting interesting insights to share. Click the link to learn a bit more about the history of the close-up shot.
I don't care about close-ups of the men but I prefer instead seeing wider camera shots that reflect all the performers (their reactions, movements, etc). Keep the camera on the female performer during the entire scene but don't leave us female viewers out either. My eyes will be on the male performer during the wider shots while most of the men will be focusing on the female and it's nice to have the choice. I think the tricky part for camera operators and directors is capturing the right stuff at the right time. An example of a perfect scene for me is minimal close-ups of the intercourse, wider shots of both performers when the male is really getting into the sex or being more aggressive (spanking, etc) and close-ups of the female's body and face while she's cumming or being particularly animated. There are directors out there with the balls & talent to pull scenes like this off and it brings me lots of pleasure to see them making movies that are incredibly erotic and financially rewarding at the same time.
I don't agree that the male performer's face and energy should never be shown in the scene. That's ridiculous. There aren't 50,000+ members in the yahoo.com straight male porn stars forum because only heterosexual men are watching them in adult movies. I can understand that most guys do not want to see a close-up of another, sexier man fucking but if the camera is showing a wider shot of both performers in action, you're going to focus your eyes on what appeals to you most in the shot until the inevitable close-up shots of the female performer comes. That's why I enjoy this forum so much. I think the group's moderators alone reprsent the diversity of straight adult film viewers and I really appreciate directors and studios who make an effort to appeal to a variety of fantasies. It will be a sad day in the porn world when I have to watch a scene with Toni Ribas and not be allowed to see his body, face & sexy eyes included!
I totally agree with this sentiment! Many times I have got annoyed with a film where the camera isn't looking where I want to see, or it starts to then moves away, or just as something I want to see is about to start, the camera shot changes. Arggh! Gets me annoyed to the point of killing wood...
Roll on the future of 3D hologram films, where the entire scene is stored as a 3D model and the viewer can look wherever they like at any time. Who needs camera angles when you can decide for yourself
One thing, though. I was struck by this statement of yours:
I've never experienced envy of a male performer when watching porn, although undoubtedly most of them are sexier than me. I also don't feel envious of male actors when I'm watching mainstream movies. In fact, I prefer seeing good-looking guys in porn to ugly ones. Ugly is ugly. Who wants to see ugly, whether it's an ugly woman or an ugly man?
I wonder how many guys (relatively speaking) actually do have the feelings that you describe, or whether their desire to "disappear" the male performers from porn scenes has a different motivation.
As I said in another post, to me the male performers are just "there" - essential props without whom there'd be no porn. There are a two or three male porn performers whose presence just grates and has me reaching for the zapper to fast-forward, and those tattooed thug types don't exactly do much to enhance a movie in my opinion. But usually I just concentrate on the girls. The men don't interest me too much, although I do quite enjoy seeing black guys fucking white or Oriental women.
It's just the over-long close-ups that bore me to tears and which was the theme of my original post on the subject.
I think perhaps I should have chosen my words a little more carefully here though I find the subject Bob went on to mention fascinating. I was actually only saying that I can understand men who are not gay or bi would probably not want to see a full close-up on the male performer (whether he's attractive or not) but I can't understand their problem with wider close-ups that show both performers. I mean the main feature in every adult film I've ever watched is the female with lots of great shots of her in the scene (which is how it should be) but there's nothing wrong with giving us girls something nice to look at too especially during the more hardcore moments in the scene. I mean I'm reading these posts and I read someone complain about the "tedious close-ups" (which I agree with) but then I hear someone say they don't want to see wider shots in the scene either. I thought I was hard to please. I was watching a scene earlier today from Zero T. and, during the doggie footage, the cameraman pulled back for the long, wider shot that I'm so fond of. It captured the woman's face, her entire body & legs and also managed to show the male performer's face in the far upper corner of the shot. A perfect shot. And I'm thinking, "Is this what those guys are complaining about?" There isn't anything that the viewer could possibly want to see from the woman that isn't included in this shot or if the cameraman moved the lens less than half an inch down to deliberately hide the man's face. The point I'm trying to get across is that adult movies should be about giving EVERYONE that watches them pleasure and satisfaction. As long as the female performer is shown at all times during the scene no one should have problems with including a few shots of the guy along with her unless they have other issues as Bob mentioned. In that case, buy an erotic lesbian flick.
xoxoxo from a girl single-handedly trying to make Erik Everhard more than an "essential prop" ; - )
A noble aim indeed, oprlvr! But like they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time. The best you can ever hope to do is please most of the people most of the time!!
I think that as a community, we're always going to be destined to differ over certain aspects of what we want to see and what we don't want to see.
oprlvr;i've never posted here before but was really impressed with your words. i think you speak for a lot of females who like porn. so glad to hear someone else agrees with me about the neglected audiences of women and others. since most straight vids focus primarily on the women, I find it frustrating since I want to see the men too in vids that aren't just couple friendly. thanks.lindsay oprlvr;tell me the name of that movie you said you saw earlier. i would like to see it too. lindsay
Nice to hear from you. Believe it or not there are lots of directors & editors out there with class that are not part of the more "couple-friendly" genre of which I'm not a fan of either and I've seen many good scenes that are spread out and do not focus only on close-ups. I can give some recommendations of my favorites but this isn't the place. Send me an e-mail with a return e-mail address and I'll be happy to give you some good suggestions that I think will appeal to your tastes! Take care ; - )
One of my fantasies as a female viewer would be to see no watches or weddings bands worn by men during the filming of any scene. I want my fantasies, too, and I don't especially like being reminded that someone is married. And why the need for a watch during a scene? Most of the women don't wear one, so why the men? I feel like at any minute, the guy is going to look down and see the time, and say, "Oh my god, I told my wife I would be home by ten."
If there is a good reason for the watches, someone in the industry please enlighten me.
I've never noticed watches or wedding rings on the male performers, but I guess that shows who I'm paying attention to. I don't think there can be a good reason for their presence -- the only identifiable reason being laziness on the part of the directors and male performers borne out of a disregard (casual or otherwise) of the female viewpoint.
Renee, Lori, and Lindsay -- It's nice to have your "voices" on the forum.
Renee wrote:I almost never watch Rocco-directed videos. I don't much like either his sexual choreography or his videography. And I can only listen to the word "Nasty!" so many times during a porn video. For me, Rocco is watchable only when John Stagliano is directing him (and then, Watch Out! ).
I'll have to go back and watch "FASHIONISTAS" to see whether Rocco is wearing a watch in all of his scenes. Good excuse to see "FASHIONISTAS" again.
Can't say I've ever noticed watches or rings or anything else on the male performers. But, then I really don't pay too much attention to them. Male viewers live vicariously through the male talent (at least I do) and they have an important part to play.
As for the original topic: "Tedious close-ups"
Yes, yes, yes. I agree that there isn't always enough balance in the scenes, in terms of what we see. Close-ups of the guys cock going in and out, in and out, in and out, in and out, etc. takes the viewer (i.e. me) out of the whole thing, cos you do end up stepping back from the fantasy and starting to wish the angle would change. Above all, there isn't always enough coverage of the girl's face, and that's important to the eroticism of the scene. You want to see how into the sex she is, and the more she is, the hotter/better the scene is.
And, one of the worst things is when the sex is hot and you cut to the girls face and she's apparently loving it and [bam!] less then half a minute later, you are away from her face. I hate that.
And, yes, shots from further back, taking in the whole female body, are also lacking, or underused. The female form is beautiful, and very, very arousing. Even in softcore material, just seeing the female body, even just topless is sexy. Look at the continued appeal of Page 3 in the Sun newspaper, or TV shows like The Red Shoe Diaries (which I have on tape). When I was old enough to start getting "top-shelf" magazines, in the early '90s I was getting relatively tame pictorals in Mayfair/Club etc. Tame, but very arousing.
Hardcore shouldn't be JUST hardcore. It should be a clever mix of softcore and hardcore.
There's a scene in Sodomania 30 I like, which has no penetration shots at all. And it's very hot. (Does anyone know the scene I mean?)
I certainly wouldn't want to see all porn done that way, cos I do like the gapes, and the harder 'nasty' stuff. Very much indeed.
But a cut from that, to the face, to the whole body, to hard, to face, to body again would be nice, if balanced. Two minutes of each, in a twelve minute sex scene is preferrable to four minutes crotch, 37 secs face, another three minutes croth, etc.
Posted - Sep 1 2003 : 8:28AM
