December 1st, 2007, 08:06 PM | #21 | |
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: S.D.M.F.
Posts: 7,787
Thanks: 31,236
Thanked 137,268 Times in 7,626 Posts
|
Quote:
Addition to #6: wrong angle. In many models' cases, I call this, "Horribly mis-managed talent"....Please, move around to the front where the model is, PLEASE? I swear they have these gorgeous models in front of them, and what do they shoot for us......what a waste of a good model's assets...I am sure any one of us here could do better, but we are not tied into the p0rn mafia. I cannot believe what these young shooters and directors are thinking. Probably that we are all just $$paying marks, they wanna get paid not laid. - Female Ejaculation. Are these production guys fooling anyone? These women are urinating. Takes any joy out of watching female solo scenes. Mix that with aforementioned shaved, tattood, and pierced vaginas, it is pretty much over for the art of solo female photography. I know most here do not like solo, but if done correctly, it is extremely sensual, even mentally, not just visiually. - Also agree with the saliva issue, but more on the long, drawn out loogie scenes, where someone, somewhere, fetishizes over the spit contest, and how long it takes to go from a model's mouth to the target location. If they are not naturally wet, it is painfully and obviously fake. Maybe this is a comedic aspect, to keep models amused. -Insane clownesque smiling. This one can't be all that bad, but is often times out of place. In a heated scene, a glaring smile, where otherwise would be the also inadequate screams. You'd think they would really "fake" it, by acting aroused or closing their eyes. It's also evident in the old silwa magazines. Always appeared strange to me, the overly-intense smiling directly at the camera, during *any* type of sexual engagement. Smiling is nice, but um....eh, just a thought. p0rn is starting to be like WWE wrestling, 100% completely fake. It must all be about making money these days, and the latest fetish. Long live retro and classic women. |
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Trip For This Useful Post: |
December 1st, 2007, 09:17 PM | #22 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10
Thanks: 7
Thanked 78 Times in 8 Posts
|
I hate wimpy cumshots and fake moaning
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to xcruciusx2 For This Useful Post: |
December 1st, 2007, 09:29 PM | #23 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 46
Thanks: 10,286
Thanked 3,032 Times in 46 Posts
|
Mine:
1- obsession with closeup shots of penetration. I don't see why these are so ubiquitous, especially in older porn flicks. Men are more turned on by the curves of a woman's body, and seeing them in action, than 55minutes worth of nothing but genitalia on the screen. 2- dribblers. Nothing is more of a let-down than when there's a smoking hot scene, well filmed, with good angles, lighting, sound, and style, with a top-notch actress who is giving an A+ performance, and some omnipresent male "talent" like TT Boy or Tony Tedeschi ruins it with a weak/dribbler cumshot. |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to zarinafan For This Useful Post: |
January 14th, 2008, 05:17 PM | #24 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 29
Thanks: 390
Thanked 71 Times in 21 Posts
|
I would have to say that lack of full body shots on hot stars. For example, the director may have Angel, Lana Burner, Christy, or Anna Ventura and all we see is a close-up of there face or gentials, and the man's ass. I found that older Euro films do a better job.
I found that some scenes, keeping the shoes on adds to the scene. I also like partial clothing, again, depending on the scene. I rather don't like when the scene is supposedly in a risky venue (closet, stairwell, kitchen, etc.) and both performers completely disrobe prior to having sex. However, the biggest peeve is a film containing a star (like Christy) and we get one lame scene (sometimes it is just a lez). That is a waste of talent. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to pornagrafer For This Useful Post: |
January 15th, 2008, 02:57 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East Coast of US
Posts: 435
Thanks: 5,820
Thanked 2,755 Times in 383 Posts
|
Poor lighting! Remember "Bad Girls"? There was a scene that could have been twice as good if only the idiots had lit it better. I've noticed this a lot, even during the so called Golden Era. Either it looked like an episode of X Files it was so murky, or it was blasted with light, and any sense of realism was ruined.
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to doyle For This Useful Post: |
January 15th, 2008, 11:27 AM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 36
Thanks: 835
Thanked 369 Times in 33 Posts
|
As I may have mentioned in the past, what seems to be missing from modern films is the erotic aspect. What is erotic to one person though is sometimes a turn off to someone else, but I get the strong feeling that films are made to a formula which excludes the intended viewer - and that applies to mainstream as well as pornography. Take for example the original 1936 version of King Kong - limited by the technology of the day, but reeking with atmosphere and the sheer erotic charge of the Beauty and The Beast. The latest versions are, imho, overlong and overly effects dependant.
Getting back to erotica though, my turn offs are: Long plastic claw type nails on the women. The gross spitting of lubrication in deep throating - in fact, any spitting at all. Silicone and tattoos. Those stupid, americanised bondage shoes with heels about 10 inches tall and soles so thick that the wearer looks as if she is in surgical boots. The total lack of any of the normal foreplay that men and women usually indulge in when getting together. The man says hello and she immediately gets on with fellatio. This is why I never watch modern porn: I happen to like erotica, and it need not be too explicit. In fact a simple glimpse of a woman's nakedness for a very short time can be very exciting, whereas twenty minutes of pounding is just like watching a butcher at work in his shop! But there again, I am old fashioned enough to love material from the 1930s to the early 1960s. Erotica was lost as far as I am concerned when porn became an industry. Margib (a very grumpy old man!) |
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to margib For This Useful Post: |
January 15th, 2008, 04:13 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 201
Thanks: 7,726
Thanked 2,753 Times in 166 Posts
|
Quote:
Seeing all this clonky shoe-wear in the flicks often makes me think, that 'Pleaser' and other producers of this kind of shoes have some kind of exclusive contract with the porn-industry !!! This shoes make otherwise pretty girls look like cows on the meadow, shuffling their hoofs !! But I don't have any special affection to farm-yard-stuff ect. !!! But with this shoes it seems to be like it was with Coca-cola and Hoola-Hoop: If it's american, it will soon be copied in Europe...!!! Baaahhh !
__________________
Wanted !!! Magazines 'Lady Domina' 1 & 2 or everything else about BABETTE AUMONT aka 'MISTERY-GIRL'!!! |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palomino For This Useful Post: |
January 15th, 2008, 10:24 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11
Thanks: 4
Thanked 41 Times in 10 Posts
|
I can't stand stoopid wannabe SoCal girls mewling emptily like female David Sanborns.
Last edited by vvn; January 15th, 2008 at 10:26 PM.. Reason: Because I wanted to. Twice. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vvn For This Useful Post: |
January 16th, 2008, 12:30 AM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20
Thanks: 93
Thanked 175 Times in 18 Posts
|
Porn kissing, you know, like you see in CeeCee loops. The actors are talking and then all of a sudden their sticking their toungues out at eachother. I realize they had to play to the camera, but it seems like they could've thrown eachother an actual kiss every now and then. I remember when I saw my first porn clip....I was totally dumbfounded by this open air toungue-licking thing....I tried it on my girl (thinking this is what your supposed to do) and she just about kicked me out of the bed!
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kinghenry For This Useful Post: |
January 16th, 2008, 02:13 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17
Thanks: 812
Thanked 81 Times in 14 Posts
|
It's got to be the cutting from close ups of penetration to the girls face and then back again so you have no idea whether it's her taking it up the ass for real or not. How difficult is it to pan around from the action to the girls face at least once to confirm it's for real. Worst offender is a movie I mail ordered from the US "Vicca's out of Control" basically because I knew it had a Vicca dp. It looked as though it was directed and edited by Ray Charles and was totally ruined. This is one of the reasons why gonzo rules!
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Joey101 For This Useful Post: |
|
|