Thoughts about improving couples porn

Author	Post
lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Mar 7 2003 : 4:08PM Here are some previous threads to start us thinking. What makes a scene hot? Women's orgasms If you directed porn... Better looking guys Why guys mastubate to finish a scene Penis size Why not Ninn? Biggest porn turn-offs Discussion of facials Blowjobs on dildoes Spectrum of likes and dislikes ----------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - lindi on Mar 7 2003 [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Mar 7 2003 : 4:49PM More foreplay and less 'I'm the cable guy' and then everyone is naked. I think there should be more tease before the actual sex scene and actually build up to the scene. [Link]
Emahevul Adult Film Central 119 Posts 3/00	Posted - Mar 13 2003 : 11:10PM One other thing that I would like to see is less extra bodies and more concentration on two performers that have a certain chemistry between them. Give the scene time to build, let them explore each others bodies, at least to the greatest extent possible within the confines of the story. Emahevul Webmaster AdultFilmCentral.com [Link]
Pornmaster Mike Senior Member 32DDD 1462 Posts 8/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 4:20AM better music i watched Vixxen from Adam & Eve today - i can appreciate that they are going for the couples market more but the music was just so out of place - made what could potentially be some hot sex scenes seem lifeless... - Pornmaster Mike www.adultdv-depot.com Edited by - pornmaster mike on 3/14/2003 4:22:15 AM [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 5:13AM I think couples porn could be improved by using the styles of sex scenes in (some) mainstream films and R-rated porn, which can generate a lot of eroticism and sensuality without showing much. I believe eroticism and sensuality are more thought than seen. Films can achieve this through building the relationship between the characters (though not necessarily to Oscar-winning level ) and the reason why they become intimate, and through good camerawork and attention to the scene's setup, particularly lighting and location. Exemplars include Lake Consequence , The Last Seduction , Secret Games 3 , etc (or even Basic Instinct ). In a number of the couples films I've seen the sex seems to aspire to "regular porn", which I think is another problem. The ideas of passion and intimacy are rarely conveyed by standard porn choreography in these movies. (I'm guessing that scenes between real-life couples would work much better in this context, but I haven't seen many of these.) Just a few thoughts to get things rolling. However, I've never watched porn as a couple, so what I want to see may be incongruous with what these movies should be trying to achieve. [Link]

Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 10:51AM rieekan333 wrote: The ideas of passion and intimacy are rarely conveyed by standard porn choreography in these movies. (I'm guessing that scenes between real-life couples would work much better in this context, but I haven't seen many of these.) Click to expand Would you care to explain what "standard porn choreography" looks like and where it is to be found? [Link]
YogaGrrl self-removed user 757 Posts 12/01	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 11:36AM I'm not arguing that there is a standard porn choreography. However, my (admittedly limited) experience as a reviewer leads me to believe there is a general pattern to the scenes in movies from studios that might be considered "couples friendly" (Adam & Eve, Wicked, etc.). It starts with blowjob/oral (first one, then the other—69 is rarely done). A magically appearing condom (if there is to be one), followed by up to three vaginal positions (usually missionary, doggie and one of the cowgirls). Maybe one or two anal positions, if the actress is willing. A magically disappearing condom and an external pop. The action lasts about 12 minutes, give or take a few. Edited by - YogaGrrl on 3/14/2003 11:37:20 AM [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 12:27PM YogaGrrl wrote: I'm not arguing that there is a standard porn choreography. However, my (admittedly limited) experience as a reviewer leads me to believe there is a general pattern to the scenes in movies from studios that might be considered "couples friendly" (Adam & Eve, Wicked, etc.). It starts with blowjob/oral (first one, then the other—69 is rarely done). A magically appearing condom (if there is to be one), followed by up to three vaginal positions (usually missionary, doggie and one of the cowgirls). Maybe one or two anal positions, if the actress is willing. A magically disappearing condom and an external pop. The action lasts about 12 minutes, give or take a few. Click to expand I see. That is a different concept of choreography than I had in mind. I consider this the formal set up of a scene, comparable to the way analytical editing schemes built up distinctive scenes in classical Hollywood cinema, by setting up establihing shots and re-establishing shots in between closer shots, that are often strung together in a shot-reverse shot pattern. By referring to certain acts, the kind of formal set up you seem to be describing, is built into the construction of what I have called elsewhere "fetishistic blissful rupture". I use the concept of choreography in another sense. I don't use it in the context of the formal system of a movie, but in the context of the stylistic system. It is the way the sex is presented to us by means of the choreography between camera placement and movement, actor placement and movement and editing patterns. As such, the choreography is the essential part of what I call "pure porn spectacle", to be more precise "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle". I realize that there are many different ways to create "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle". Look at the thread started by MLyons on Andrew Blake for a very idiosyncratic way of creating "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle", that seems quite distinct from the aesthetic paradigm of "ordinary" porn. I suspect that different kinds of porn can be distinguished purely on the basis of the aesthetic question of "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle" and I am also sure that distinctive "formulaic" patterns are very helpful descriptive tools for reviewers and analysts of different kinds of porn. So, when I read that someone refers to a concept as "standard porn choreography", I am very interested if 1) such a thing exists and where and 2) how different porn viewers describe it and give (different) meaning to it. [Link]
YogaGrrl self-removed user 757 Posts 12/01	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 1:39PM Ahhh! I see, as well. I admit that when I read the term "choreography," I immediately interpreted it from the somewhat peculiar bias of my background in dance. I agree that I was thinking only of the positioning of the bodies and the most basic flow of the movement, not of the editing patterns and deeper subtleties of the relationship between the performers and the camera. In a dance performance for an audience, of course, it would be important to be aware of their positioning (in a somewhat analogous fashion to being aware of the positioning of the camera in porn). Most of the dancing I do, though, is only for myself and is "choreographed" (actually improvised) by me at the spur of the moment. I am certainly aware of the flow of the movement and am sometimes thinking several counts ahead (especially if I'm familiar with the music), but I'm mostly just giving external expression to my internal feeling. I am able to happily lose myself in the passion and spontaneity of the movement when I dance this way. The few times I've danced on stage to someone else's choreography, the feeling has been utterly different. Very satisfying in a way, but also a bit confined and restricted. It is not without its rewards, but it feels more like a job (which requires that I satisfy some external requirements) and less like sheer play. If a director asks the performers to do a certain specific types of actions to fit the "couples porn cookie-cutter pattern," I can see how their experiences might resemble mine, at least to a degree. I apologize if this is not entirely clear. I'm thinking out loud, and this is the first time I've explored these thoughts. Hopefully rieekan333 will elaborate more on what he meant by the term "choreography," since it does seem open to interpretation. [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 6:43PM Would you care to explain what "standard porn choreography" looks like and where it is to be found? Click to expand For you Walter, anything (well almost anything). YogaGrrl's posts have nicely addressed my formative line of thinking, so I want to thank her for that. By "standard porn choreography" I was referring to certain filmic and physical conventions of porn. For some reason, I was thinking of more how things were done rather than what things were done, but both are quite valid. YogaGrrl's scene breakdown is accurate to my mind and, removing the condom elements, tends to accurately generalise many "hardcore" scene styles (e.g. the 'bolics, RLD, etc) too in my opinion. In a number of the couples films I've seen the sex seems to aspire to "regular porn", which I think is another problem. The ideas of passion and intimacy are rarely conveyed by standard porn choreography in these movies. Click to expand What I was expressing in this statement was that it seems like many of the couples films I've seen do not differ greatly from other porn once the sex begins. That is to say the sex shares little relation to the storyline (often none at all) and nor does it seek to enhance or augment the relationship between its participants ("passion" and "intimacy"). Hell, it tends to be disposable as those characters usually play no important role once their one sex scene is over. * There is the possibility of passion and intimacy arising from the performance of sex outside relation to the storyline, but this is a pretty rare event and may be of little use if the audience is interested in development of the storyline through the performance of sex (and not "cum what may"). Thus it seems like these couple films are showing storyline and interspersing it with "regular porn" sex scenes. Now perhaps the reason why I conceived of SPC more as the way things were done rather than what things were done, is because that is easier to generalise, but in light of YogaGrrl's post, both are valid. Not to be taken to an extremely narrow specification, no generalisation is meant to, but nonetheless certain conventions of production/cinematography and physical activity can be identified. Here I am thinking more of the latter than the former. These conventions that indicate "regular porn" scenes do not, in my estimation, contribute usefully to the notion of a couples film. They differ little from other porn and it seems incongruous then to think of couples films, when - if they employ these conventions - are no different to other ostensibly "non-couples" porn (in terms of sex). That makes them regular porn + storyline. Before continuing, I will return to my disclaimer about my judgments being of no particular 'authority' in terms of lindi's thread title: thoughts about improving couples porn (and I barely qualify for thoughts too ). If you are still awake and interested by this stage, read on. I had not invested significant amounts of thought to the idea, but when I thought of SPC I was thinking with particular reference to the speed and pace of sex. Now I don't know about others, but when I think of intimacy I rarely think of a well-worn porn stud banging away, quickly and mechanically, for his pay cheque. I love to see slow sex (the entire scene doesn't have to be slow, but there should be some in there) and even if it does not seem particularly passionate, it works to indicate intimacy to me much more than the aforementioned piston-pumping. The slowest part of a couples scene, or most SPC scenes for that matter, tends to be the initial insertion. But as soon as he's in the male talent tends to put things in overdrive and leave it there until the popshot, when he puts his wrist into double overdrive. The female talent generally tends to put the moaning (or trash talk) in overdrive as soon as the insertion begins as well, which doesn't work for me either. That's one of the problems of SPC that I was thinking about. Personally I would like to see some slow sex in every type of porn I buy, but I think it is of particular relevance to couples film (again, an ironic concept, as I am not speaking as a couples audience). There are other problems too. Referring back to YogaGrrl, I find the laundry checklist of porn positions uninspiring for various reasons. Again I think the checklist is problematic for all porn, but of particular relevance to couples film. To me, intimacy cannot be standardised or scientifically managed, yet the scenes in a lot of films I've seen do not deviate from this flight plan. It is possible for the investment and performance of those actions to be uniquely and powerfully intimate for each scene, but that possibility isn't really worth mentioning. If you fly the same route five times (depart A, overfly B, C, D, land E) how greatly will each flight differ from the others? Each flight is different, but memorably so? There are a couple (pun?) of other problematic conventions I would identify, seen in "regular porn" and which don't serve my conception of couples film. For instance, the music, whether twangy guitar, corny sax or thumping beats; the close-ups on penis in, penis out, penis in, penis out, which by reducing performers to reciprocating parts eliminates intimacy; the use of derogatory terms (if present); and so on. Anyhow, I think I've waffled on for long enough. To get back to your original questions Walter (if you're still with me ), what is SPC? SPC comprises production/cinematographic and performative conventions, which can be generalised across many types of porn. They won't always withstand close inspection, but I think they are quite applicable to different genres of porn, and are problematic for just that reason. If sex scenes in a couples film employs SPC also seen in non-couples porn, then what special value does the audience derive from the couples film (other than the acting)? I better stop there. Again to disclaim and/or qualify, my ideas are not (cannot be) representative of a couples audience's desires or opinions. They are also purely subjective, not in considering what constitutes SPC (although these generalisations are also arguably subjective), but in terms of assessing SPC in the context of the couples film. Oops, I better stop here [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 14 2003 : 8:23PM What I'm understanding here is that 'couples porn' should mimic real-life sex between couples. Now, we know that real-life sex is different from one couple to the next, but variations are generally minor. The elements which we seem to agree upon are plot, intimacy, realism, pace and mood. There's a cinematic element which I'm not competent to quantify, but it holds the notion that anonymous genitalia shots are undesirable (hopefully Walter's not wincing at this point). Plot is necessary because we want the sex to happen for a reason and within a larger context. Intimacy encompasses more foreplay, kissing, caresses and the like. Realism holds a lot of the ideas that intimacy does, but it also suggests that unlikely duos should be avoided - no old fat guys with nubile women. Also, we'd expect few facials and anals. In fact, we need the couple to be comfortable with whatever act/position they are performing so they can project their involvement. Pace is nicely covered by Emahevul and rieekan, I don't think further comment is necessary. Mood is directed towards those production elements that contribute to the desired effect. I'm a little confused about whether certain sex acts are off limits. Obviously one can write a plot that calls for more extreme sex acts, think Fashionistas, but in the thread asking if that film was couples porn DB was emphatic that it wasn't. SO, perhaps we need to state that while more extreme elements aren't off limits, they cannot be the focus of the plot. [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Mar 15 2003 : 11:26PM it holds the notion that anonymous genitalia shots are undesirable Click to expand Depending on what you mean, exactly, I don't agree at all. If you mean "anonymous" in the sense that we don't know to whom they belong, then yes, I'd agree. But if you're saying that we shouldn't be having any close-ups, even extreme close-ups, in couples porn then I don't agree. So long as that's not all it is, or even mostly what it is, if the scene is set up sufficiently to show the characters as they're involved with each other, I don't see anything wrong with some well-edited close-ups that don't distract from the interplay. (Obviously, they should not last that long.) also suggests that unlikely duos should be avoided - no old fat guys with nubile women. Click to expand I don't agree with that either. If it's plausible that that coupling should occur, then it shouldn't be ruled out. In fact, "unlikely" couplings seem to happen in real life a lot more often than you generally see them happening on screen. (People in real life are not, on average, as good looking as they are in most movies - nor are couples always going to look the same as their partner.) Also, we'd expect few facials and anals. Click to expand Although, again, if a plausible context is created in which those would occur, there's no reason to rule them out. In fact, we need the couple to be comfortable with whatever act/position they are performing so they can project their involvement. Click to expand I'll certainly agree with that. (Unless a particular part of the plot is intended to create an uncomfortable / unnatural interaction.) SO, perhaps we need to state that while more extreme elements aren't off limits, they cannot be the focus of the plot. Click to expand There are several cases I can think of where this would not be the case. What if the movie is an "amateur" / documentary style X-rated film that follows a fetish couple around to various lifestyle encounters? The fetishism would be the main focus of the film, but still presented in a (fetishist) couples friendly fashion. The reason that Fashionistas is not a couples porn isn't just because of the sex depicted, or because that's the main focus. It's because it's presented in a more "unrealistic" fashion than a regular couples movie would be. (There's no reason that a couples-friendly movie need appeal to ALL couples, and such a sub-genre couples movie could still bear that label.) [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 6:47PM Yeah, what Rieekan said. Especially the part about the sloooower movements. SLURP YG nailed it as well, and often it's about as exciting as her description. I'm just curious what porn Walter has been watching that DOESN'T adhere to this formula? Edited by - dumblonde on 3/16/2003 6:49:06 PM [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 7:17PM dumblonde wrote: I'm just curious what porn Walter has been watching that DOESN'T adhere to this formula? Click to expand What formula? It didn't realize I had one. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 7:28PM Not you Walter. "standard porn choreography", "formula", "porn-like sex" whatever you want to call it, it's all pretty much the same thing. I thought from your inquiry to Rieekan about where it is to be found, perhaps you had an inside track on something better. [Link]

Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 8:23PM dumblonde wrote: "standard porn choreography", "formula", "porn-like sex" whatever you want to call it, it's all pretty much the same thing. Click to expand Then you misunderstood me. I think I explained that my usage of the term "choreography" has nothing to do with "formula" or "porn-like-sex". It is not even connected to any specific act or formulaic presentation of acts. I thought from your inquiry to Rieekan about where it is to be found, perhaps you had an inside track on something better. Click to expand Alas, that is not the case. Sorry. I was only wondering what rieekan meant exactly and I am still confused about that. He seems to stress structural qualities that cover if not all, then almost all kinds of porn. My own historical and analytical research towards Hollywood cinema has thought me that that is not a fruitful way to explain the aesthetic and pragmatic salient qualities of a dominant aesthetic paradigm, may it be Hollywood cinema or "standard porn". When rieekan aks the question "each flight is different, but memorably so?", I answer, yes, it is. Just consider this: what is the average duration of a sex scene in different kinds of porn? The answer to this simple question alone will attest how important the differences between various kinds of "pure porn spectacle" really are. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 8:45PM "He seems to stress structural qualities that cover if not all, then almost all kinds of porn " Exactly. That's what I'm saying, it's all alike. It's not very realistic or particularly arousing when they just follow the same dang formula all the time. [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 8:51PM Yeah, what Rieekan said. Especially the part about the sloooower movements. SLURP YG nailed it as well, and often it's about as exciting as her description. I'm just curious what porn Walter has been watching that DOESN'T adhere to this formula? Click to expand Slurp indeed Again, these generalisations are based on my viewing experience, which has almost entirely been focused on American porn from a small range of studios. I have seen a number of movies that buck this trend. There is American porn that escapes this 'format', though generally more in terms of the what than the how. The direction of that escape is generally less than couples-oriented I would suggest, however There are also non-American films that buck the trend more substantially in terms of content, format, execution, etc. I can't speak authoritatively about them but I have seen European and Japanese films that aren't anywhere near 'standard'. Again, it is difficult for me to suggest what stylistic differences couples porn should employ. In my mind, I'm not really even thinking about improvements for couples audiences, rather I'm thinking about what I would prefer to see in perhaps 'intimate porn', which I'm just assuming is relevant enough to what couples want to post here. [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 9:18PM Ok, here we go for the second try: Sorry. I was only wondering what rieekan meant exactly and I am still confused about that. He seems to stress structural qualities that cover if not all, then almost all kinds of porn. Click to expand Walter, I hope you are not confused about my explanation but rather that you disagree with me. I don't think I can explain myself very differently to my summary in the second last paragraph of my previous post. If you would like me to I can try again. However, your second sentence seems to understand what I was saying and I hope that's the case. That we can work with Here's how I would adapt that sentence: He stresses structural qualities and general conventions that cover many kinds of porn he believes are relevant to this discussion and his viewing experience. He has also, however, repeatedly disclaimed his authority (or lack thereof) to speak either as or for a 'couples audience'. Click to expand I think you grasp my meaning, although as with any communication there is going to be disparity, but you grasp my meaning and your confusion results from disagreement. If that is the case, I think that may have come about from misunderstanding about my intentions. The issue here, as is often the case I have experienced in many discussions, is the difference between personal views and world views. The conception and employment of ideas has been from a personal context (iterated), a generalised and generalising context (iterated), and from an inherently limited (iterated), inherently subjective (iterated) and discussion-specific context (probably unclear). I was not propounding the notion of SPC as a larger theory for contributing to the academic/scientific analysis of porn. And of course I agree with you that that idea is not fruitful for handling any sort of rigorous analysis. I never said it was, but then again, I don't think I said it wasn't either. (I can barely understand that last sentence myself!) So then to hopefully clear things up, the idea of SPC is not intended to be applied beyond the confines of this discussion - one could do so, but again they would probably find it fruitless as you rightly identify. Further, it is not even intended to be appropriated beyond my personal opinion, although others can do so if they wish and can draw their own conclusions or use the idea however they want. When rieekan aks the question "each flight is different, but memorably so?", I answer, yes, it is. Click to expand Hopefully, in light of my previous explanation, it becomes clear that all the answers to this question (yes, no, don't know, don't care, etc) are correct in a range of contexts. Ultimately, in the context from which that statement was launched and regarded, there is however only one correct answer (although I posed it rhetorically to begin with) and that is from my viewpoint, as the notion is a personal one. To continue with the analogy, I have flown more times that I care to count from Melbourne to Sydney and back again. Is each flight different, memorably so? No. I can barely remember my last flight (and only because we made strange noises on take-off). I can't even remember one cute airline steward after all these flights! Now exactly the same applies to the generalised set of porn I was considering, in originally contributing to this discussion. I have seen a lot of 'general/standard porn' and is each one different, memorably so? No. It may be for others, it definitely is for most world views, but it is not for me. Just consider this: what is the average duration of a sex scene in different kinds of porn? Click to expand As relevant to 'general/standard porn' (perhaps GSP?) in this discussion, 10-15 minutes. Within certain types of GSP there is a tendency to longer scenes, in the order of 20-25 minutes. And in other cases shorter scenes are preferred. Personally I think the length of a scene isn't generally something that needs 'improvement' per se. If it works to the scene's advantage, then it can be of any length. I have seen some great scenes that were very short (~5mins) and I would also love to see a scene with intense build-up, foreplay and afterplay, that breaks the 30 minute barrier. Edited by - rieekan333 on 3/16/2003 9:44:46 PM [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 9:29PM dumblonde wrote: "He seems to stress structural qualities that cover if not all, then almost all kinds of porn " Exactly. That's what I'm saying, it's all alike. It's not very realistic or particularly arousing when they just follow the same dang formula all the time. Click to expand Well, I am basically saying it is not all alike. If it is all alike, why the need for more than 1 title. Let me put it this way. Yes, it is all the "same", but it is also "different". And what's more, it are the differences that matter. It are the differences that makes us notice and care. It are the differences that make a Paul Thomas movie "different" from another Vivid film. It are the differences which determine for the biggest part if we like a movie or not. Edited: I am afraid that my thoughts are terribly off topic to this thread. I am in no way thinking about ways to improve couples porn. I was only interested in a concept used by rieekan and I am subsequently questioning the validity of that concept as a serious analytical tool for describing different kinds of porn. That is not the subject of this thread and doesn't even address or questions the efficiency of rieekan's reasoning about the on-topic discussion, geared towards improving couples porn. So, if nobody minds, I will step away from this thread before I derail it completely. btw, the fact that this topic is being discussed at all, corroborates my point that not all is equal and differences matter. Edited by - Walter Burns on 3/16/2003 9:37:54 PM [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 9:53PM Edited: I am afraid that my thoughts are terribly off topic to this thread. I am in no way thinking about ways to improve couples porn. Click to expand I think you are, but in a roundabout way By making us think about the way we think about things (couples porn in this instance), we are improving our improvements on couples porn. (crap maybe I'm going off-topic now) I was only interested in a concept used by rieekan and I am subsequently questioning the validity of that concept as a serious analytical tool for describing different kinds of porn. Click to expand Yep, this is covered in my edited post (prior to yours). So, if nobody minds, I will step away from this thread before I derail it completely. Click to expand Not even Drew can force you stay in when you want out If you'd like to email me about this or start a new thread, that's fine with me. But I think my post should explain things reasonably well. btw, the fact that this topic is being discussed at all, corroborates my point that not all is equal and differences matter. Click to expand I'm not sure I understand, but we won't get into that ... Just kidding, I see what you're saying but I think the ideas here were moving tangentially. I agree with you about differences mattering (although as a cultural studies student I am contract-bound to endorse all concepts of heterogeneity, multisemioticity, and varied and resistant appropriation/reading of all texts). [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 10:14PM rieekan333 wrote: I agree with you about differences mattering (although as a cultural studies student I am contract-bound to endorse all concepts of heterogeneity, multisemioticity, and varied and resistant appropriation/reading of all texts). Click to expand Ah, here is my real trouble with you. You are a cultural studies student. That explains almost everything. I am very suspicious of CS, especially when it deals with subjects covered within film studies. This is not so much a methodological war, as Bordwell and Carroll have tried to describe it, but the result of a different epistemological view point: you look for meaning (personal, sociological, cultural), I look for understanding. CS is right that meaning is more important in the political arena and therefor important to deconstruct. However, Historical Poetics, the paradigm I subscribe to, has started as a critique to the quest for meaning, by saying (I think with good reason) that understanding must come before "making meaning". The trouble with the last statement is that it is questionable that understanding is possible at all and/or possible without a basic form of meaning. That being said, I still don't think we disagree that much. We are just talking about different things. Uhhmm... dammit. I did it again. Sorry Lindi. [Link]
rieekan333 Member 388 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 16 2003 : 11:06PM This one's 100% on topic I promise Thoughts on improving couples/intimate porn: To me, the priority should be using the storyline and the relationships between characters to enhance the sex scenes. A lot of what is classed couples porn suffers from the lack of any worthwhile relation between the sex scenes and the story. In addition, the sex scenes themselves, if they feature intimacy, passion or whatever other aspects are relevant, can enhance the storyline and thus enhance that too. Credible storyline and acting are important but I have no suggestions on how to improve these. All I can suggest is that more time and thought be paid to the script. A script written in 1 hour may not even be worth using. The cast don't have to be good looking, but they should be looking good. Avoid cheesy sets and costumes. Stick with 'regular' clothes in general (depends on the movie's/story's aim and plot). My preferences for style: Soft music. No music can work too. Make varied use of lighting. I generally don't like to suggest this as many directors can't even control basic lighting, but the use of lighting can add a lot to a scene, especially in conveying intimacy. Try to avoid a standard format in each scene. The progression of each scene should be influenced by the situation, which should go beyond "let's have sex on a couch in the lounge." Rearrange the progression. Slower sex, please? Performers should look interested in each other. Those are a just a couple of things. Opinions? I'd also love to hear others' suggestions, especially couples'. [Link]
First Couple of Adult Member The Wild, Wild Midwest 145 Posts 5/01	Posted - Mar 20 2003 : 12:43AM As a couple and reviewers of porn, here is our opinion on making couples porn more exciting. The biggest challenges in most cases is to get a reluncant spouse to sit through a movie. These ideas should make that easier... 1) A plot, preferably with a romantic line. 2) A nice venue. Beaches, beautiful homes, nice outdoor areas. 3) Exceptional looking stars with just the right amount of tattos and piercing that make it a little "nasty" 4) Put more sex in the sessions as opposed to fucking 5) More full body shots where the viewers can see everything that is taking place. Close-ups can turn newbies off. 6) Keep it fair, put in a girl/girl, three way and anal. Starting out the film with more b/g and moving up to these other options provide a good ramp-up 7) Behind the scenes on each DVD. This is some of the most fun of watching a film. Viewers get to see how hard this business is and get a chance to meet the stars off camera. Just some ideas... Ms Christine & JC, the first couple of adult review. [Link]