Reviewers Recommend My First Sex Teacher 88 - review by Captain Jack Starring: Kayla Paige, Skylar Snow, Rachael Cavalli, Armani Black [I] (2020s), Bunny Madison. Read review
I am big fan of the old school feature films as well as the new ones like Pirates etc. My question for everyone is this... What are some of the things you enjoy about features? What are some of the things that you hate? What do you wish to see that you don't feel is done enough in features these days? I am interested to know and I hope to hear from a good amount of you guys!
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 31 2009 : 12:02AM
For the old movies, on the positive side: their original story lines, set ups, locations where the movies took place (bars, restaurants, etc) which looked realistic. Generally good acting skills for female and male performer. Directors who knew their trade. For the new movies, on the negative side: silly plot lines, often outrageous costumes, and plastic looking girls, dark and soft-focus photography, people who have little dramatic acting skills, directors who thinks they are Ingmar Bergman, artsy/fartsy photography better suited to mainstream film-making, use of condoms which frequently is out of context, unrealstic locations and settings, the (over) hyped production and release that often accompanies their shooting and release. Vanilla content...
I like decent stories, not filler. I'm not taken with the 20 to 30 minute sex scenes that remove you from the movie. I could see a long one at the end, but I'd like shorter ones on the way to get there.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 31 2009 : 6:27AM
The usual suspects: not enough money, boring and overlong sex scenes, scripts that could have been written on a napkin. In the 70s sometimes the poor acting and shitty storylines were charming and campy, but they don't seem to be able to catch that quality much these days (also true in modern horror and exploitation). Certainly the best features of the 70s and early 80s blow the features of today out of the water in terms of filmmaking and story, I don't think those days are ever coming back unfortunately.
Most of my opinions are covered here - especially plastic people (include the dudes in that, y'all), over-long sex scenes, and low budget. I don't have a problem with condoms. But there are two things I really miss (or, rather, prefer about the older features, and wish they would bring back): 1. Movies shot on film 2. Untraditional sex scene editing- I say this all the time. I hate how sex scenes "start" and "end" in features - in older movies the film seemed to get away with having glimpses of sex, sexual scenarios, unfinished business, sex as a "one-liner," sex as plotline etc etc. Now the narrative seems to stop, the cheesy music starts, the scene takes place like it could be from *any* movie, performed as though there are no characters, and then when the money shot inevitably arrives, it's like the narrative is jump started again. I hate to talk shit, because honestly I really appreciate what Wicked do, and what Vivid sometimes/used to do (?), because features are in short supply, especially ones where the people involved seem to give a shit. It's just a shame that there seem to be certain risks that studios aren't willing to take (probably for good reason).
I'm gonna be echoing a lot of other responses here, but I'll add my two cents: What are some of the things you enjoy about features? I guess a better question, for me at least, is "what do I enjoy about the idea of features?" And to that I'll say that I like features because they're supposed to be REAL FILMS with hardcore sex, meaning that they have developed narratives which allow for contextually reasonable sex scenes to unfold naturally as part of the plot, not overwhelm the plot, but enhance it. That said, most "features" made over the past 25 years do not follow this logic and are instead strings of dull and overly long sex scenes held together by a thin narrative thread. What are some of the things that you hate? First and foremost, I can't stand when actors break character during sex scenes. There's nothing more boring than long, dull sex scenes between robotic porn-stars who have no sense of that fact that, even when they're having sex, they're still playing a character and should thus approach their sex scenes in a way that their character would, not the way a "porn star" would. My second biggest pet peeve is the length of sex scenes in modern features, which traditionally run over 15 minutes! Now how is one expected to concentrate on the film's plot when, after usually a mere 5 minutes of story development, we're treated to a 12-20 minute sex scene? The best length for a sex scenes is 5 minutes or under. Most films from the 70s/early 80s seemed to follow this pattern: 5 minutes of plot followed by 5 minutes of sex, and so on. Usually the plot to sex ratio was 60% plot, 40% sex. That meant that your average 90 minute feature included roughly an hour's worth of narrative and 30 minutes of sex. When we now have features where 75% of the runtime is sex is beyond me. Even a 3 hour movie will have 50-60 min. of plot and close to two hours of sex! My third issue is the fact that X rated movies are no longer shot on film.
What do you wish to see that you don't feel is done enough in features these days? Good acting Realistic sex scenes/fucking in character High production values Good writing
What are some of the things you like about a feature ? I like a storyline that is involving preferably with actors/actresses that are to my liking.When a feature is done correctly and the sex scene follows the plot where there is actually a build up that to me is a complete turn on.Also I like when I'm finished watching the film that I say to myself now that was quality and well worth the money I spent. What are somethings that you hate about a feature ? Actors/actresses,that are wrong for part. When the sex scene gets in the way of plot and ends up taking entirely too long and becomes a gonzo instead of a feature as advertised.When I'm watching a film and say to myself when is this going to end. What do wish to see that you don't think is done enough in features today ? What I would like to see is companies such as VCX and Video-X-Pix,releasing features once again with some new ideas and some remakes I think would be great,hire some quality feature oriented directors such James Avalon and Eli Cross.I was pleased when Paul Thomas of Vivid did a remake of The Devil In Miss Jones,I thought he did an excellent job on that film.I would definitely like to see more reliable actors,actresses and directors,with features that concentrate on the storyline and not these tremendously long sex scenes where the plot is all but forgotten.
Those are all great answers guys... thank you for replying. I see that a few of you mentioned "Low Production Value and Low Budget" What are somethings from those 2 issues that bother you the most? Do you have any examples of things in that realm that bothered you?
^ For me, it's as simple as the look, sound, and feel of the movie. I just don't like the way digital video looks - actually, I don't like it too much when the budget is $300 million either. I just prefer the warm, textured look of film - even with a low budget, film can look cool. But low budget video is cold, usually too bright and washed out, and just doesn't feel like a movie - don't know how else to put it. The sound on some low budget movies just takes me out of the narrative - clunky sounds, echo, etc. Also, low budgets mean filming very quickly, and it shows a lot of the time. Finally, where have all the exterior shots gone?? When I watch movies like Talk Dirty to Me, which open with a fucking hang-gliding scene next to the beach (!) it's hard to compare to the more recent movies that take place in apartments. This is a budget issue, also, but surely it must be a legal issue too, right? What changed?
I think it is both a budget and a legal issue. I don't know about LA (my studio only shot there once) but in Florida we have to be very covert about what we are doing to keep from getting asked 2 many questions lol so Outdoor shots are always iffy unless it is just dialogue or something like that. I agree with you on the sound aspect, I have seen some (mostly in gonzo) where the echos are present as well as background noise... not cool. As far as Digital VIdeo goes, I can also see what you are saying but with everything being HD now and of course the cost differences between working with DV and Film I think that you get a better product from HD-DV IF you have a light crew who knows what is up. This is really good feedback, I am working on shooting our first feature film. It is an original comedy not a spoof and I want to get customer opinion on what you guys look for in a feature, this has all been very good feedback.
^ Oh good - an original script that's a comedy, not a spoof, is something I think a lot of people around here would appreciate. Also - the outdoor shots I was talking about were dialogue/character scenes. Is it shady to try and do dialogue scenes outside? Or simply have exterior shots before going inside a building? Perhaps it's a budget issue because you need permission? I'm genuinely interested - it might be that in the 70s/80s there was more of a guerrilla style going on, before things became more studio-orientated, so they would shoot in Times Square illegally. Or perhaps the law changed.
No dialogue and exteriors should be ok, esp if its just a shot of the building and 1 guy with a camera. I think laws regarding film permits changed, like now you are violating copyright if you even say times square without express permission from the NYC film board, let alone shoot there
The only thing that bothers me about microscopic budgets is the time factor that GoreGoreGirl mentioned. This seriously puts a crimp in overall quality. Although sometimes the most clever things are created out of desperation because there is no money to do things the traditional way. I can remember complimenting Stormy on her great use of detail in her movies. Little things that really added to her features (a drooping flower, a pant leg creased a certain way). She seemed surprised and happy that I had noticed and said she did those things because it was an effective and cheap way to enhance her movies. Would she spend her time doing that if she had X amount of dollars to blow? I don't know - probably not to the same degree. Shooting porn in Florida is illegal. Shooting porn in California is legal. Maybe they come up against morality problems with being able to shoot in certain locations and then you should get permits and that means paying more money and perhaps there is still an unspoken porn taboo in LA, but Vivid shoots outdoors quite a bit and PT has shot in Frank Lloyd Wright's AMAZING Sowden House. I 'bout climaxed just from the architecture! It's always easier to shoot indoors because you can control the environment. I can only imagine the potential clusterfuck of shooting in more than one outdoor location with only 2 production days. That's another reason features need more money to buy more time. My turn! :) What are some of the things you enjoy about features? Story! Characters! Relationships! Intrigue! Drama! Intensity! I look at porn as overall entertainment, albeit entertainment that also makes me happy in the skirt. :) A well-done feature is an overall fuller experience. When I'm involved with story and character interaction, the fucking makes an impact. I'm not a "sex is just sex" kind of person. Probably why I feel largely out-of-step with porn producers. Just like with any other form of entertainment, I like watching talented, intelligent people do their thing. I like being exposed to new ideas and even different takes on something I've already seen. Brad Armstrong straight up admits to doing this. He takes ideas from 2 or 3 mainstream movies and builds an adult feature from it. What are some of the things that you hate? I'm glad someone talked about the claustrophobic feeling of always shooting indoors. Some outdoor scenes in public (not out in the desert) make the features feel like they are bold and grown-up and real. Not like they're made by some little pervy cockroaches scurrying around in industrial warehouses and makeshift studios in an alternate porn dimension shooting quick dirty movies to beat off to. It gives a sense of legitimacy to the movie. And like john lyons and others mentioned, please make a movie and not just a storyline stringing together sex scenes. When Chi Chi Larue was directing at Vivid, he was really bad about this and they would sell them as features. I'm scared it's the direction that Vivid "features" are heading what with the new pecking order over there. Even though it's not really about the movies themselves, I have to +1 the over-marketing. It must be working though because they keep doing it. It has made me very wary. Some of Wicked's best features are their sleepers - movies that barely got a press release. Some of their worst are the big Fall or Summer releases that they hype the shit out of. What do you wish to see that you don't feel is done enough in features these days? Non-formulaic sex scenes - Anytime any scene deviates from oral/3 positions/pop, I'm happy, but when was the last time you saw a sexual interaction without a pop? An unfinished, interrupted -- anything? This happens in real life all the time and rarely happens in features. Another thing that bugs me is that people rarely touch each other without fucking in the next 3 minutes. What happen to characters flirting, the tease, building up anticipation? Better actors. Even the best actors in porn are average at best. People who care enough to want to be an exceptional pornographic actor and the end of the "it's just porn" attitude so people who do care won't be laughed off set. More money to buy more shooting days. So much is sacrificed because the clock is ticking on these productions. Odds are against you to create the next feature classic if you only have two days to shoot it. Give creatives a little more breathing room. I could keep writing and writing, but I gotta go!
I didn't realize you were on the production end or I would have written about some other things. As has been mentioned, outside shots, plot related. Actors entering the building. Plotted portions with lines. Dress the movie up. Pay the extra money for a permit if you have to, but they make the movie look more like a movie and less like a porno. Be careful with lighting. Make sure it doesn't make your sets look cheap. Overlit sets look like they were hastily built and painted. Happens way too often in features. Extras, non-sex roles. Not everyone in the movie has to fuck. Characters can exist just for the plot. Don't create scenes that you don't have the cast to support. In other words, don't have a concert scene with a few people in folding chairs. It doesn't work. If you can't hire the extras and a venue for the shot, rewrite the scene to work. Also don't have scenes where you can't build or rent a decent set or location for. Don't forget to dress the set. If it doesn't look real, it pulls one out of the movie. Make the sex scenes fit the story. Two people don't have to fuck because their character was just introduced. Keep actors/actresses in character for the sex scenes. And don't make the scenes so long you forget or are taken out of the story. A shorter tightly edited 7 min sex scene is better in a feature and you can have the 30 minute version as an extra on the disc. And tease scenes seem to be all but forgotten. Toss in a three minute blow job only. Or a girl stripping that doesn't lead to sex. Tease is great. Don't follow the "formula" for the sex scenes. I hate features where I can predict what will happen next in the sex scene based on previous ones in the movie. Shake things up. Not everything has to be in every scene. Remember long shots. They edit in nicely. Be careful on sound. If you can hear the cast clomping on sets, it takes away from the movie. Don't shy from taboo subjects or events if they fit with the plot. It's not money that makes a great feature, it's how it's made. Look at your finished movie, without the sex scenes, is it watchable? Did you like it? If not, adding the sex scenes in isn't going to make it a good feature. A good feature should be interesting and fun to watch without the sex scenes in it. Once the sex scenes are added, make sure they don't go on so long as to detract from the feature. Like I mentioned earlier, you can always put longer scenes in as extras or offer a branching version of the movie, where the viewer can pick before they start watching for long sex scenes or shorter ones. I hope this may help out.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 2 2009 : 2:08AM
I don't mind if the film looks low-budget, as long as it looks like a low-budget FILM and not some SOV home movie. I think some of the high end DV stuff looks great, there are mainstream films like ONCE or DANCE PARTY USA that are shot on DV but look like real films. Some of the best shot porn I've seen these days are the gonzo films of Mason, William H and Kimberly Kane. That should be the standard.
Things I like: Different and/or fun scenarios. Some real life, some outlandish, some controversal. Sex in different places, not just a couch or bed. Not knocking the latter, but just saying. The ability of mix-it-up sexwise. Sex doesn't always have to follow a standard pattern. Real foreplay. You know, communication, touching, kissing, bj's, pussy eating, eye-to-eye contact. I mean can people at least act like they like each other nowadays. Fun spirit to it. Features today seem generally way too serious. I mean I don't mind serious sometimes, but damn where is the fun or lightness. Different or unique pairings. Or everybody funs everybody. Shorter sex scenes= more sex
Build-up! Things I hate: Fun taken out. Everything is mostly revenge, cheating, jealousy, manipulation, or fucking with no intent to enjoy it. Poor editing, poor camerawork. Older films did it better IMO. Films are either too arsy, shot from hip-level, in ultra close-ups, with no continuation. Poor casting choices. Use people who enjoy acting and who could enjoy what your doing. Too much diva crap. What happened to ensemble films? I liked it better when everybody pretty much fucked everybody. I get tired of watching the same 2-3 people fuck each other, all the time. Plot is an afterthought, or sex is an afterthought. Both should matter. No Cohesion. Scenes that don't connect to each other, characters that don't interact. No original thought or imagination. Must everything be or look alike?
This is all excellent feedback, I didn't want to start right off by saying that I was a producer for fear that you gusy would think I was spamming the board or something lame like that lol. But yes I am working on a feature film that I am going into looking at as the crowning achievement of my studio to date. We are fairly new (2 years in the biz) and not in LA so I am hoping that this will be the thing that gets us that much needed look at by the big boys if you will. My biggest pet peeves are when the story is an after thought as well. The Sex and STORY are just as important, it is interesting that you guys feel that some scenes are too long, I was starting to think that if it wasn't at least 20 mins a scene it wasn't going to fly. My script is a comedy that hovers on the romantic comedy realm, with a main story and then 2 sub plots that I feel are equally important and work well off of each other. While we are here... who are some actor's and actresses that you enjoy in features... a wish list if you will for a feature comedy cast, only constraint are contracts... Digital Playground won't let me shoot with Jesse Jane no matter how many times I beg LOL. Keep it coming guys, this has been really informative.
Wow, a dream cast...that's tough. A lot of my favourites don't work on screen anymore. Male performers I think are good in features: Voodoo and Eric Masterson. I think they're both underrated as actors. Women (taking contracts into consideration): Kimberly Kane, Carmen Hart (wonderful comedic actress), Tori Black (proved her acting chops in The Wicked, and we all know about her erotic skills), Bree Olsen (I thought she was great in Carolina Jones). These are just off the top of my head. I would like to see some non-white performers have a chance to be in features - it seems rare. Also, there may be some gonzo performers who are good actresses, which I would be up for - I'm just listing the performers I have liked as performers in an all around way.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 2 2009 : 11:57PM
dseed, we've discussed on the forum before the idea of having different edits of the film available on the DVD or blu-ray: one with shorter sex scenes and one with longer sex scenes or even just the sex scenes. I think they did this with the last Pirates movie and just noticed that another studio put out a 'party version' option for viewing the DVD that cuts back on the sex so a group of friends can watch the film for fun without uncomfortably long sex scenes.
Yeah we had toy'd around with the idea of an R-Rated cut to open up the marketability like Pirates did, but it seems like some say that the scenes in the actual XXX rated cuts run long sometimes, which I found interesting. I plan on shooting the scenes long for the website and special features but it has made me go back and look at the suggested run length for the actual film as far as the scenes intended for that XXX cut of the film. PArty mode is prob one of the best idea's I have heard of in a while.
What comes to issue is the long sex scenes take you out of the story. As even you stated, for a feature the sex AND the story are important. So you don't want to remove the viewer from the story for 20 minutes. When I feel like watching long sex scenes I'll watch an all sex movie.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Nov 3 2009 : 10:45AM
I filter (edit) almost all the sex scenes in features that I think are good enough to watch more than once (90% are features from the 70-80s). From reading other posts I gather that most viewers just FF past parts of the sex scenes. I've found that most of the time all I have to do is remove the frames that don't show the female's face and that alone will reduce the run time for the scene by 50%. Nearly half of those cuts are what I refer to as the "butts and balls" close-ups. I have never understood why directors/editors find that particular shot desirable but (no pun intended) it seems to be ubiquitous. The other cut that reduces the run time is the never-ending "pop-shot" when the male is feverishly stroking himself while the female patiently waits for the "pop." I edit out the the repetitious middle and fade the beginning into the ending. Those two simple edits usually do the trick, although for features made after 1990 that is less likely. Luckily (for me) most of those features aren't worth watching because the acting and or script is poor.
^ This raises an interesting issue: that of the male performer. One of the reasons I enjoy older features (aside from the obvious, listed in detail above) is that they weren't afraid to make the male performer an actual character in the sex scene. People like John Leslie, who really command the scene, were able to become a part of the sexual spectacle, even talking, but not detracting from the sexiness of the scene. Maybe this is just John's god-given talent, but I enjoy scenes where male pleasure is a factor (and I don't mean the money shot, which is entirely over-used). When people say recent couples porn is marketed to women through its attractive male leads, I always wonder what I'm missing - apparently, muscles, a tan, and no hair equal sexual attractiveness to women. In fact, I think presence and charisma are what make both men and women attractive in porn, combined with performance ability (sexual and narratively), and I would like more of a male presence, skillfully done of course, in sex scenes. I am also fully aware that this is not going to happen.
Can I just add that this is a excellent thread with tons of valuable input! Dseed if you are still looking at your casting then a comedy role is one that I have been seeking to complete my acting show reel. I have worked on various features in the past on video and film. I would love to read for any part you had on offer. My 2 cents is this, I agree with almost all the points made in the good and bad of features of the past but I am much more optimistic about the future. I feel that with the over-saturated gonzo market and the ongoing battle with the tube sites, the feature companies are forced to raise their game. I don't think that mainstream and adult has ever run at such close parallels with regards to production value and acting skills. My hope is that this causes them to break from the masses, it may even come to a point of surviving in the market. Adult feature films will ask for more and more from their talent and their crews and post production teams, pushing the bar higher and higher in coming years. We can only hope.
dseed, even if you're shooting on The Red, it's still gonna look like The Red, and not film. Film has a unique quality and warmth that no video format can match. That said, shooting film costs about 1 hex more than video so so it's not really an issue if you're making a lower budget movie. I think that the important thing, which people often ignore, is that it's not a matter of having a "clear picture," because any HD handicam will give you that, but rather a nice shallow depth of field. That's what makes something look like a real movie. You can, of course, achieve this with a good lens on your camera, and a talented DP behind it. I'll also stress this again: ACTORS SHOULD REMAIN IN CHARACTER DURING THE SEX! If you're making a goofy comedy, the sex should be goofy. If you're making a horror film, the sex should have some suspense. Also, as others have mentioned, good lighting is key. The company I work with sometimes has the idea that brght lighting = good lighting. It doesn't. Take the time to gel and filter. Don't just use 3-poit setups. Again, you're making a movie and how it looks is the most important thing. I'll also second (or third) the idea of making a cinematic cut of your movie (with short 5 minute or less sex scenes) and then a longer cut with punter scenes. The thing that sucks about so many features is that they run 2+ hours, but barely have 45 min of plot. This was more acceptable 30 years ago when the average length of a film was 75-85 minutes, so having 50-55 min. of plot was acceptable. But that said, if you're making a movie, try to get at least half the running time devoted to the story. That's all for now. Edited by - john lyons on 11/6/2009 10:04:01 AM
Thanks for the reply John, It is awesome to hear from another director. As it stands right now my script is 105 pgs with a basic STORY run time of about 90 mins or so and an additional 90 mins of sex scenes split into 7 scenes total. You bring up a good point about the depth of field and one that I will discuss with my DP. Due to the prohibitive cost of not only the film stock but editing the film as well (at least if I have an east coast company handle that) we have to shoot on DV. We are an independent studio but for this project we are looking for backing or distribution, any suggestions or tips?
I'd talk to Pure Play Media, they handle distribution for a large quantity of companies. You also might want to try Pulse distribution, Hollywood Woody on the forums is from there.
Thanks Flash, I will look for info on those companies, Hollywood Woody... if you are around I would love to discuss this and other projects with you. I had been a lurker on this site for a looong time, I am very happy that I posted here for this because I have received so much amazing feedback from the members here that will greatly help what is by far the most important and largest scale project for my studio to date. Keep it coming lol EDIT - I can't seem to locate a working e-mail address for Pure Play Media the one they have listed on their website says Message Undeliverable... does anyone have alt contact info. My Copy of AVN Direct only lists the number and Fax# but I don't think a cold call would be the right move lol.
I'm one who feels sex probably matters slightly more than story, probably because I believe a lot of feature directors don't really like shooting sex scenes. If I gotta chose I'm gonna chose sex. I'd prefer both. While I do think 20 minutes is a good length for a hot sex scene, some of my favorite scenes over the years run way shorter than that. Anywhere from 5 minutes to old 12 minute standard. Just depends how it plays and how it's shot. As long as it's visually appealing and hot moments are caught, I'd say run them as long as you feel necessary. I'm not generally a huge fan of features that run 3 hours like yours now is. I prefer around 2 hours or slightly over. Now I'm not saying 7 sex scenes are too many, because I'm all for sex. Just saying sometimes editing down scenes is good...if able. I can't always tell who's still active in the business as actors. I think experience is always good, although raw talent can surprise sometimes too. And don't be afraid to use performers who mostly perform in all-sex or gonzo films...provided they show a true interest in what you want to do. In other words, keep an open mind. As for actual performers I like. Well I think Monique Alexander just came off a Vivid contract. Others include Lisa Ann, Eva Angelina, Jenna Haze, Julia Ann, Roxy Jezel, Katja Kassin, Avy Scott, Kimberly Kane, Sunny Lane, Tory Lane, Brittany O' Connell, and Kacey Jordan. Not sure how much of a true interest most have, but other than Tory Lane, the others I've all seen in at least a few features. Jenna is great at comedy IMO, Julia & Lisa great in general. Eva cracks me up, so I'm thinking she'd be great in comedy, plus she's hot.
