How about sunglasses and socks? Ha!

Maybe all the studios should license a Peter North "money shot" and cut it in?

How about ambient sounds? I once viewed a porn flick, obviously shot in a trailer, where you could hear the fish tank gurgling! Hubba-Hubba!

[Link]

I'd have to say, unless I was watching "Trailer Park Trash #59" I don't want to see some chick dressed in clothing from Factory 2-U, smoking a cigarette and drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon from a can while getting banged on the front porch of her mobile home or leaning on her rusty, orange 1978 Pinto.

-- Snowman

Edited by - snowman872 on 9/23/2003 2:14:48 PM

[Link]

The thing that gets me ( continuity wise ) is seeing a woman in beautiful clothing that mysteriously vanishes . The guy is sensually fondling her through her dress and my mind is already anticipating the sexy fun that will be had as each article is gradually pealed off . Then bam . We cut to them both totally nudie with her bouncing up and down on man pole .

Agree with the sunglasses thing though I'd extend that to every person everywhere . There is no excuse . (exception - Jack Nicholson )

[Link]

Edited by - cobalt60 on 9/23/2003 3:37:33 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Lee O on 9/23/2003 4:06:41 PM

[Link]

TC, who seems to have abandoned his thread, never fails to get his digs in on me; I couldn't resist.

1000 times around the sun, Tony? ;) That was damn fine advice for that kid; not that he was listening (or anyone else, for that matter). That's OK, let him wallow in self-doubt and misery, take the jab at the guy who's trying to help him out, I see how you are...

I would like to add:

* Pinching the girl's nose shut. WTF?? Don't you think you'll get better head if you let her breathe?

* Meat & potatoes closeups COMBINED with shots that go on and on and on and on....my mind starts to wander after 15 seconds of the same looped pumping at 32X zoom. Who was I watching? What are they doing? Would that technically be called a freckle, or a mole? What's on ESPN?

[Link]

First of all, I should have said bad continuity and/or editing. Continuity and editing are not the same thing. Good continuity makes it easier to edit well; good editing can cover up bad continuity. In porn I haven't seen an example of either since...hmmm...in a long time.

Second of all, let me bore you with what I think the foundation of good editing it. Every time the picture changes (a cut) their has been a shift of at least one of the following three things: perspective (alt. emphaisis), time, place.

In real life everything happens in one continuous stream. This also happens in Russian Ark. Real life is unrehearse, Russian Ark took 9 months to rehearse. Film editors make their living somewhere in in between. A good editor uses cuts to cause the audience to percieve changes in in perspective, time, and place in a way that is naturally and logical.

There is a whole list of rules about what not to do if you don't want to confuse or frustate your audience. Most of the time that editors break these rules it's because they don't know any better or because the director didn't give them enough coverage (shots of same time and place, but from different perspectives) for the rules of editing to be followed. For example, the jump-cut was invented by poor Italian filmmakers who couldn't afford to shoot very much film. Audience sophistication has allowed modern editing some degree of latitude with the rules. Sadly, most examples of this are appaulingly bad.

If you notice the editing, 99 times out of a 100 that's a bad thing.

The best advice I ever got when learning to edit was "Watch old movies, study how they get people in and out of rooms." My version of that is watch how they get the dick from her mouth to her twat.

Sometimes you get stuck and can't make a scene work. The old saying is "If you can't solve it, dissolve it." When I have to use a dissolve inappropriately I feel like failure and I drink myself into a stupor.

Get it now?

T.C.

[Link]

This is a good way of looking at a scene of Joe Blow heading off to the mall or something, but I would suggest that sex scenes demand something more. Oh, you’re right—don’t get me wrong—but you didn’t mention anything about the psychology of editing and how that can affect a scene. Sure, in a sex scene a reaction shot is a logical “change in perspective,” but if inserted properly it is much more than that because it increases the level of erotic tension. (Of course, this is only one small example.) I mention this only because, without the psychological dimension of editing, a sex scene will probably be nothing more than a couple of people screwing. (Ever notice how much viewers have to bring to the table when watching porn? It’s ridiculous. A lot of scenes only work because we MAKE them work.) I think the dearth of psychological editing is partly responsible for why porn is highly sexual and rarely erotic.

As for your “hate” list, I agree with most of it, although I do wish that more pussy eating was done for the camera in the sense that the director and stars tried to keep in mind that whether or not the stars get off is really secondary to whether or not the viewer does. I know there’s overlap there, but these days, with the whole “reality” thing, porn sometimes seems to be becoming selfishly narcissistic (as opposed to altruistically narcissistic, I guess, which is playing to the selfish desires of the viewers).

[Link]

BTW I promise to study those old movies and see how they get in and out of the room . Do I get extra credit Prof ?

[Link]

Love...exciting and new
Come aboard...we're expecting yooooou

[Link]