Page 1 of 2

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:36 am
by Darkow Hotmale
A few months back, I posted the links to Faye's insanely daring flashing antics in North London, the last one being a full frontal dash across a very busy street. I also remember getting off on a clip of Marie-Louise "jogging' in a country field, all 36++++ of her bouncing all over the place.

Faye's (now sadly shrunken) haunches and M-L's chaotic tits. No insertion, vaginal fluids, or corrosive semen, and yet incredible turn-on's (turns-on?).

Anyone think of a non-fucking, non-sucking, non-anal etc scene that got them going? To narrow it down a bit, we can ignore CP, BDSM, Enemas, BJ's, oh, shit, just about everything else!!

There was a watersports, Mother and Daughter vid I bought in Paris centuries ago (they both peed all over the floor in some North London (again!!) shopping centre, got turfed out by Security, and then continued in the Car Park , followed by a rather public bout of contrived incontinence in Hampstead somewhere.) That's an example of what I mean, minus the fluids.

Wrack your brains, folks.

(Oh, Deuce, never did say a proper thanks for all your help. DON'T MENTION THE VIRUS!!!)

Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:12 pm
by one eyed jack
You are so right Darkow. I think there is a hell of a lot you can still get away with on 18 certificate even. I don't give a hoot what people think about soft on here but there is so much more potential than hard. I've got a few irons in the fire.

I think the problem with porn is essentially one thing: Its not very sexy. Its a mindset you have to get people into. its not about how hard you nail a girl to the sofa or how many acrobatic positions you can see her being fucked in. its about how she moves, her expressions, her enjoyment.

Bearing this in mind it looks like the future for porn is going to be more contrived than realistic given the climate and the new talent coming into the industry turning up as blank canvasses. it looks like we may have to direct than manipulate more.

I hear ya man!


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:19 pm
by randyandy
Not exactly what your after but I always found the build up to Ben Dover scenes good.

The best for me was with Hayley Russell on a boat just before scenes with Marino, an American called Micheal and Ben.

Hayley bending over the boat rails in very tight white shorts viewed from the pier was fantastic.

The film also had Claire Bamford in it looking wonderful and watching the London Marathon before Marino and another bloke did the business with her.


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:43 pm
by one eyed jack
A good example Andy. Tease and build up. Something thats somehow missing these days in ones haste to beat the clock when some performers double book and are running against the clock to get somewhere else.

Producers should stop the shoot and tell em to get lost.


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:46 pm
by rgb
As the venerable PhilMcC told me (several times!) the greater the contrast between expectation and outcome, the better the porn. For example, a chavy couple going to bed and shagging is what you'd expect them to do and it's not very erotic although it's hardcore.

Whereas just a glimpse of the French actress Sophie Marceau's tit accidentally falling out of her dress at the Cannes Film Festival, I find highly erotic. But, that might just be me...



rgb


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:28 pm
by Darkow Hotmale
Even though OEJ hasn't settled my most recent invoices, there's two scenes that I think fit this little thread topic I just started, and both his works.

The one with Sarah that started in an MPV parked in some forgettable town and the ride all the way back to someone's flat. All the time you knew that there was going to some frantic fucking at the end, but the build up, the flashes of her delectable arse in the car and the sheer nervousness as she wondered if someone was going to catch them at it....Magic!

The long walk in the woods with Wendy, taking of her rather respectable dress and her plaintive pleas to Terry and Slurpy to return them when she realised that she was well and truly in their mercy, naked in the middle of such a natural setting.

Both good examples of heavy eroticism without the penetration and gynaecology. Not that fucking's not good (Wendy on the railway station bridge and Sarah upstairs in the apartment, all good). But the slow, non-formula build up. Nice!!!

It's the absence of these sorts of non-contrived settings that makes UK porn ten million times better than yank Vivid-type shit. When our cousins across the pond want to get natural, they pee in the girl's mouth and face-fuck them till they barf.

So what's better?

Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:52 pm
by one eyed jack
Hmm. Some would prefer the latter too Darkow...but I know what you mean. personally I don't mind extreme sexual activities as long as they are done in context. Ie a seriously horny couple that do something random and out of the blue like this is within context. its not the same when you turn up on the day knowing that Max Hardcore is going to put you in pig tails, dress you in white socks and tell you to call him Daddy while fucking the arse off you and pissing in your mouth. Yeah, its not sexy but porn isn't always meant to be and I'll be the first to defend someones right to make this kind of film providing it was consensual with someone at a legal age to know better and not just doing it for the money.

A lot of people cite my early efforts as my best work in contrast to my more express check out versions but the way I see it as a producer, you have to evolve all the time to keep up with the changes and demands the industry imposes on us.

A lot of the old style videos i wouldnt be able to get past r18 and a lot of clients I shoot for wouldnt have any of it as much as they loved it because its also about business why we have to kow tow to limitations imposed on us.


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:40 pm
by dedra
Too right one eyed. Alot of hardcore is boring today. Im fed up with the inside of Travel inns with a naked couple going at it for half an hour with a facial at the end. No story, no underwear this is the result of hand held vid cameras and too many wanabees

Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:57 pm
by one eyed jack
LOL! True. I've been guilty of that too Dedra. Travel Inns are a cheap option to shooting in the back of a car on a street which I prefer but again, the bbfc wouldnt allow it....Mind you I always start off with a preamble with all parties concerned dressed so i won't take the blame for it all.


Re: DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARDCORE

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:53 pm
by Ned
There used to be a TVX series called Single Sex which did my head in. In a good way. One particular episode had Sarah Carney dressed in a white blouse, dark skirt and polka dot knickers and all she did was speak softly to camera, play with herself and strip. One of the horniest things I've seen up to then, and since.

A woman speaking quietly, talking dirty from time to time and showing off her body is something I find a huge turn on.

And I taped over the fucking thing by mistake.