Filming style

[loadzgoinholes]

Curious to know what others think. I know when I'm not able to fuck, and I'm horny, porn is the next best thing. But I'm getting VERY tired of the filming styles now in vouge. The constant swooping, circling, zooming, never staying still crap. FFS you're making PORN, not art! I mean, as soon as I see something going on that I like, the camera flits off in another direction. It really is stupid. 

And also: while I understand some like it, I really don't understand extreme close-up. I mean, you know what a close up of a dick being shoved into an ass looks like? Every other dick going up any other ass (that close up, I mean). I watch porn for the guys that are in it. If a video is 80% close-up, you really wouldn't know if the guys were switched out to someone you (or me) might not be attracted to.

But, I guess this is just me?

Edited July 19, 2022 by loadzgoinholes

[leatherpunk16]

I think they are trying to do something different. And it's clearly not working, but they persist in it. 

When I make my videos, I try to emphasize that one can see things. Not just the penetration part (which can be hard for tops with bigger bellies), but that the performers don't suddenly get switched with existing assets just to make a hotter film. Someone tried that with me once, but where they fucked up is they didn't observe the bedspread changed mid-scene. When I called them on that, they removed the clip for sake of consistency. I think I know what my butthole looks like, too. 

[loadzgoinholes]

Yes, exactly. NOT working. But again, trying something different is not needed. It isn't art, it is fucking porn. Set up two, maybe three cameras, and show EVERYTHING. The filming style of a constantly moving camera distracts from the actual fucking (which is what, by definition, people are there to see!). And porn isn't the wasteland it used to be where 1/2 of the people doing it were so jaded they didn't care. You have SO many people who just love to fuck and love to show it. That sort of energy doesn't need anything new or innovative. 

[ErosWired]

31 minutes ago, loadzgoinholes said:

FFS you're making PORN, not art!

But there’s an art to making good porn. The problem is that these guys are trying to be art-y. I imagine that in some of these cases someone is fresh out of film school and is trying out all his tricks without the wisdom or experience to know when and how to actually use them effectively.

It might also be that some of them are responding to complaints such as we read elsewhere on this forum that porn, and especially studio porn, is becoming too formulaic and boilerplate, so they may be trying to mix it up a bit - and discovering the basic impossibility of creating a piece of porn that somebody doesn’t like.

There may be times when this swooping, circling, zooming style is just the thing - like when you’re filming trapeze artists fucking during their act. That would be worth the price of admission..

Edited July 19, 2022 by ErosWired

[loadzgoinholes]

2 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

But there’s an art to making good porn. The problem is that these guys are trying to be art-y. I imagine that in some of these cases someone is fresh out of film school and is trying out all his tricks without the wisdom or experience to know when and how to actually use them effectively.

It might also be that some of them are responding to complaints such as we read elsewhere on this forum that porn, and especially studio porn, is becoming too formulaic and boilerplate, so they may be trying to mix it up a bit - and discovering the basic impossibility of creating a piece of porn that somebody doesn’t like.

I see what you're saying. But, as for today, when there are people out there doing their own thing because they love to fuck, you really don't need a "story" or anything. Studio porn is overproduced. It is easy to see, and for me really almost a turn off. So all the OnlyFans, 4MyFans etc are the ones messing up with the stupid filming style of someone there with a camera constantly swooping away from a bit of good action in the name of "doing something different". I said before, and I'll say again: it ain't art, it is porn. There are vanishingly few actual porn films I consider even coming close to "art", but there is plenty of art you can espouse as erotic or even pornographic, but it is still demonstrably art.

Just let fuckers fuck, and don't fuck with the filming style!

[NWUSHorny]

While there is some really bad Onlyfans type porn out there, there is also some really good, and a lot of mediocre filmed content that is really enjoyable to watch because the participants are clearly enjoying it. There is way to much porn filmed by both ametuers and studios where the participants clearly aren't that into each other, or one or more of the participants clearly has inhibitions that are impacting what is being filmed.

[viking8x6]

So much this:

2 hours ago, loadzgoinholes said:

as soon as I see something going on that I like, the camera flits off in another direction....

... you know what a close up of a dick being shoved into an ass looks like? Every other dick going up any other ass (that close up, I mean). I watch porn for the guys that are in it...

Yes, I want to see the hairy chest, the treasure trail, the expressions on the faces as something particularly pleasurable (or painful) is going on... Especially that last one.

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, loadzgoinholes said:

I said before, and I'll say again: it ain't art, it is porn.

It bears pointing out, however, that at least in the United States the hint that some kind of “artistic expression” is being attempted might be the only thing that stands between a piece of pornography and an obscenity statute. Not that that either justifies or explains all the swooping, but believe it or not, there are federal laws in the U.S. that prohibit the creation, with the intent to distribute or sell, any material determined to be obscene after applying the three-part test established in Miller v. California. Part one asks whether the material appeals to a prurient interest (this obviously qualifies). Part two asks if an average person would find that the material depicts hardcore sexual behavior in a patently offensive way (this can include normal behavior, and wide latitude is given to what constitutes offensive). The third part of this test is: pWould a reasonable person find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks artistic, literary, political, or scientific value?

Basically, with porn, it’s kind of hard to pass the either of the first two tests - what saves it is usually falling back on the freedom to express oneself. Just showing fucking for the sake of raw fucking won’t do. So to stay on the right side of the law…yes, studios do have to make some pretense at a story, or some gesture at artistic effort, or risk adverse legal action by some pearl-clutching anti-porn zealot who demands the obscenity statute be upheld.

[BootmanLA]

I'll point out a few things that might be relevant in some of these cases.

First is the average length of a porn scene vs. the average length of a typical sex act. In my experience, the latter is almost always shorter than the former (with some notable exceptions in cases of excellent stamina). Back in the heyday of gay porn studio productions, an average scene lasted between 10 and 15 minutes, in order to have 4 or 5 scenes fill between an hour and 90 minutes of videotape. The physical medium constraints are long gone but people still want to have lengthy scenes (in my experience), and that means cutting and splicing the action so that it looks like it's longer than it actually was.

That wouldn't require sharp cuts, but (second) you're also dealing with a generation that grew up with fast-shifting video games from early childhood; it's been remarked on that music video (are those still a thing?) editing also took a turn towards dramatic swoops, fast cuts, and the like. My guess is that's done a number on people's attention spans.

And third, old style porn had camera operators who understood what they were doing. Because porn films had a larger budget then (nobody spends a dime on something they're planning to put on OF/JFF), so they could block shots ahead of time, make sure that mirrors didn't reflect the camera, that lighting eliminated shadows from the equipment, and all that. Those operators understood how to use the camera without having to rely on gimmicks.

The majority of porn today is amateur, not professional, but some amateurs want to stand out from the crowd, and I think some of them have a strange idea of what makes them look "professional". The idea seems to be "attempt to do something dramatic" and it will have "artistic vision".

[ejaculaTe]

13 hours ago, ErosWired said:

That would be worth the price of admission..

At the circus and for whatever video service offered the movie. 

[phukhole]

Lots of good points on here, but remember the days of making money (on studio) porn is coming to an end.  Most guys have their own OF or JFF sites and cut out the middle man.  Unfortunately, they also cut out knowledge about edits and continuity and lighting.  This is, of course, a generalization, but a lot of amateur porn is bad.  As is a lot of studio porn. The sweet spot for me is managing to capture an “amateur” scene and all of the energy and fervor and raw desire while balancing things like getting a good angle and showing the action and lingering on the sweat dripping off of them so you can almost smell the sex…

[mattg]

I've always been a massive fan of Dick Wadd, the men ,the sex are all my cup of tea. However, the same cum shot from different angles over and over is pretty numbing.