Meine liebe Herrin, I have no problem with you. On the contrary, if you read what you wrote, starting from the title of this topic, it would look quite like the opposite, viz. that you have a problem with this forum. You made a quite strong statement (which might very well be soundly founded, though) and I would like to know on what is based. Can you name some of the movies you saw to support your outing? I am just being curious, that's all. Maybe you don't know it, but you belong to a rare species, because I've never heard of other female porn performers who watch porn, apart from doing it. So I'm rather eager to know about your tastes in the field, about what you expect from a porn movie and so on.
mfg
why did here so lot of bad quality............
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
Lover wrote:
> Daniela teerak,
>
> my best guess is that there is a lot of 70's stuff here cause
> that's when it all got started (at leat for a bigger audiance).
> Not sure if it could be called "bad quality" just because of
> the low standard tech stuff like camaras etc. and/or unsaved
> people
.
First of all, most of the 1970's and early 1980's movies were shot on film. That means they have a better image quality than the ones shot on video before digital video was invented. Middle to late 1980's movies had bad image quality, not the 1970's stuff.
Secondly, there were no tatoos or piercings on the girls, their tits were real and most importantly, they had wonderfull pubic hair. Agreed, in the 1990's women still had pubic hair, but now it's awfull with all those shave pussies. A man who likes a shave pussy IMHO should be put in jail because a hairless pubic era looks like the pubic era of a child. A man who likes that IMHO is a pedophile.
> Daniela teerak,
>
> my best guess is that there is a lot of 70's stuff here cause
> that's when it all got started (at leat for a bigger audiance).
> Not sure if it could be called "bad quality" just because of
> the low standard tech stuff like camaras etc. and/or unsaved
> people
.First of all, most of the 1970's and early 1980's movies were shot on film. That means they have a better image quality than the ones shot on video before digital video was invented. Middle to late 1980's movies had bad image quality, not the 1970's stuff.
Secondly, there were no tatoos or piercings on the girls, their tits were real and most importantly, they had wonderfull pubic hair. Agreed, in the 1990's women still had pubic hair, but now it's awfull with all those shave pussies. A man who likes a shave pussy IMHO should be put in jail because a hairless pubic era looks like the pubic era of a child. A man who likes that IMHO is a pedophile.
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
Well said. Furthermore you can watch 70s/80s stuff as a real film from beginning to end since the people involved actually had some talent. The direction, acting, cinematography, music is like a billion times better than anything made now and comparable to other (low budget) films made back then. Today they just make jerk off porn which you can only watch for 10 min since it's so boring and badly lit/shot. In the 90s, the best I can think of is Salieri who at least tries to make some kind of film, but he does not even come close to a Gerard Kikoine, Michel Jean or Radley Metzger. Anything interesting now basically relies on the fact if the girl is pretty or not. Because the rest of the film sucks so hard it's the only thing you can look for. And I personally hate clean shaven, sillicon enhanced, tattooed or pierced girls which seem to be the norm now.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
DanielaNanou wrote:
> i don't mean myself but if i looked at the listing in the forum
> theres 90% films of 70s and early 80s i don't understand why
> there are not more informations about the 90s and new films .
One simple reason is that in the 70s the films still had cinema releases, albeit often confined to specialist sex cinemas. As a consequence, more information about the films is available through their promotional material, their film reviews in magazines, or (in France & Italy) the fact that they received censorship numbers - which certainly helps to date them.
With modern films - any Tom, Dick and Harry can (and does) make them and distribute them. They often have a very brief shelf life on sometimes very elusive shelves. Information about these films is hard to come by.
As far as the EGAFD is concerned it is very much a question of people caring enough about a film to make an effort and tell EGAFD about its existence and any further information they could acquire about it. The reason you see so many 70s films here is a reflection of the fact that they have a bigger fan base, or at least that its fan base is more likely to use a forum such as this.
> i don't mean myself but if i looked at the listing in the forum
> theres 90% films of 70s and early 80s i don't understand why
> there are not more informations about the 90s and new films .
One simple reason is that in the 70s the films still had cinema releases, albeit often confined to specialist sex cinemas. As a consequence, more information about the films is available through their promotional material, their film reviews in magazines, or (in France & Italy) the fact that they received censorship numbers - which certainly helps to date them.
With modern films - any Tom, Dick and Harry can (and does) make them and distribute them. They often have a very brief shelf life on sometimes very elusive shelves. Information about these films is hard to come by.
As far as the EGAFD is concerned it is very much a question of people caring enough about a film to make an effort and tell EGAFD about its existence and any further information they could acquire about it. The reason you see so many 70s films here is a reflection of the fact that they have a bigger fan base, or at least that its fan base is more likely to use a forum such as this.
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
I really think yours is a cheap shot to those who have different tastes than yours.
There are many different reason for liking shaved pussies than the one of being closeted pedophiles. First of all a clean pussy is more hygienic. When I watch a porn I imagine like I am the man screwing that girl and I don't want to imagine that I am getting crabs or some other sort of really annoying and unhealthy fur parasites. Second, fur tends to hide; with shaved pussy you can admire in all their glories all the particulars of a certain pussy: labias, clits, venus mound etc..., watching too furry pussy (like many in 70's movies) is a bit like watching TV with a fuzzy signal. Third, shaved pussy is more modern, nowadays there are also girls that are not sexual workers that shave either because of hygiene reasons or simply because it's trendy. The latter is also a good reason for me to like piercing and tattoos. Imagining that I am the man who is screwing one of those cute, trendy, pierced, tattoed and shaved young chicks makes me feel like I am up to date, that I can have a chance with those girls that are out on the streets nowadays and not some hippy hairy gal that just landed here through a time machine.
There are many different reason for liking shaved pussies than the one of being closeted pedophiles. First of all a clean pussy is more hygienic. When I watch a porn I imagine like I am the man screwing that girl and I don't want to imagine that I am getting crabs or some other sort of really annoying and unhealthy fur parasites. Second, fur tends to hide; with shaved pussy you can admire in all their glories all the particulars of a certain pussy: labias, clits, venus mound etc..., watching too furry pussy (like many in 70's movies) is a bit like watching TV with a fuzzy signal. Third, shaved pussy is more modern, nowadays there are also girls that are not sexual workers that shave either because of hygiene reasons or simply because it's trendy. The latter is also a good reason for me to like piercing and tattoos. Imagining that I am the man who is screwing one of those cute, trendy, pierced, tattoed and shaved young chicks makes me feel like I am up to date, that I can have a chance with those girls that are out on the streets nowadays and not some hippy hairy gal that just landed here through a time machine.
-
DanielaNanou
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
I see that im not alone
Thanks for this post
Thanks for this post
Pornoactress prevers Anal
winner of AVN award 2000 for best not american actress
winner of AVN award 2000 for best not american actress
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
soljARis wrote:
> First of all a clean
> pussy is more hygienic. When I watch a porn I imagine like I am
> the man screwing that girl and I don't want to imagine that I
> am getting crabs or some other sort of really annoying and
> unhealthy fur parasites.
What gave you that idea? It's about as stupid as thinking a man with a beard is dirty. Naturally I want woman to WASH her pussy. But please let her not SHAVE it.
> shaved pussy is more
> modern, nowadays there are also girls that are not sexual
> workers that shave either because of hygiene reasons or simply
> because it's trendy. The latter is also a good reason for me to
> like piercing and tattoos.
Modern, trendy, etc. are words used by an industry to make people like what they offer. I prefere to make my own choices when it comes to the things I like.
And indeed, the industry of the makers of products to remove pubic hair have been trying for years to make people believe pubic hair is dirty. Unfortunately nowdays they succeed.
> First of all a clean
> pussy is more hygienic. When I watch a porn I imagine like I am
> the man screwing that girl and I don't want to imagine that I
> am getting crabs or some other sort of really annoying and
> unhealthy fur parasites.
What gave you that idea? It's about as stupid as thinking a man with a beard is dirty. Naturally I want woman to WASH her pussy. But please let her not SHAVE it.
> shaved pussy is more
> modern, nowadays there are also girls that are not sexual
> workers that shave either because of hygiene reasons or simply
> because it's trendy. The latter is also a good reason for me to
> like piercing and tattoos.
Modern, trendy, etc. are words used by an industry to make people like what they offer. I prefere to make my own choices when it comes to the things I like.
And indeed, the industry of the makers of products to remove pubic hair have been trying for years to make people believe pubic hair is dirty. Unfortunately nowdays they succeed.
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
I think we're getting more and more beside the point - surely a discussion regarding 70s porn films concerns more, much more, than shaved or unshaved pussies? (as for opinions about hygiene and/or possible paedophilic tendencies, I'm sure there are many, many exceptions to these rather extreme extremes).
To the heart of the matter: Daniela Nanou refers to the 70s films as "bad quality" and recent productions as "the Best".
A possible reaction to this would be: Duh?!
The best films of the 70s had story lines and scripts (some of them clever), acting (some of it good), cinematography (some of it great, and of course on film), a budget (sometimes high), editing, production values etc. Not all, but enough actresses and actors were beautiful and charming and sexy. Many of the films were genuinly erotic/sexy/hot (take your pick). Far from everything was great, but there were enough films around to make a mark; from Scandinavia, France, Germany, Spain etc. I'm not being nostalgic here, there was serious ambition around on many levels. Even Super8 loop-producers like Tabu, Lasse Braun and Color Climax put out high quality product.
One can have all sorts of opinions on looks and fashion (honestly, many look both normal and natural. No hippies. No time machine experience. Check for yourself.) and also on the composition of the sex scenes, BUT there's just NO WAY these 70s films could be called "bad quality". Especially when compared to the 90s and 00s when not all, but many films, are shot quickly and cheaply, with no story, no eroticism/spice/sensualism/teasing (take your pick), no variation, no attempt to explore the possibilities of sex and cinema together. Just the fucking (in very long scenes) seems to be important, nothing else. Whether you prefer it like that or not is another story. But for some, believe me, it's just not good enough. I try to look for exceptions, and though I sometimes find a good one, they are few and far between.
Another reaction - I hope this is more along the lines of Daniela Nanou's reasoning - makes more sense. Many of these 70s-early 80s films are available only in worn, scratched, underexposed copies (some might even be without sound, especially the loops). In other words: bad quality. But they didn't necessarily look that way when they were new...
To the heart of the matter: Daniela Nanou refers to the 70s films as "bad quality" and recent productions as "the Best".
A possible reaction to this would be: Duh?!
The best films of the 70s had story lines and scripts (some of them clever), acting (some of it good), cinematography (some of it great, and of course on film), a budget (sometimes high), editing, production values etc. Not all, but enough actresses and actors were beautiful and charming and sexy. Many of the films were genuinly erotic/sexy/hot (take your pick). Far from everything was great, but there were enough films around to make a mark; from Scandinavia, France, Germany, Spain etc. I'm not being nostalgic here, there was serious ambition around on many levels. Even Super8 loop-producers like Tabu, Lasse Braun and Color Climax put out high quality product.
One can have all sorts of opinions on looks and fashion (honestly, many look both normal and natural. No hippies. No time machine experience. Check for yourself.) and also on the composition of the sex scenes, BUT there's just NO WAY these 70s films could be called "bad quality". Especially when compared to the 90s and 00s when not all, but many films, are shot quickly and cheaply, with no story, no eroticism/spice/sensualism/teasing (take your pick), no variation, no attempt to explore the possibilities of sex and cinema together. Just the fucking (in very long scenes) seems to be important, nothing else. Whether you prefer it like that or not is another story. But for some, believe me, it's just not good enough. I try to look for exceptions, and though I sometimes find a good one, they are few and far between.
Another reaction - I hope this is more along the lines of Daniela Nanou's reasoning - makes more sense. Many of these 70s-early 80s films are available only in worn, scratched, underexposed copies (some might even be without sound, especially the loops). In other words: bad quality. But they didn't necessarily look that way when they were new...
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
>I see that im not alone
But you have still left my question ananswered: which bad old movies did you see? And which are the good ones, in your opinion?
But you have still left my question ananswered: which bad old movies did you see? And which are the good ones, in your opinion?
Re: why did here so lot of bad quality............
soljARis wrote:
> Second, fur tends to hide; with shaved
> pussy you can admire in all their glories all the particulars
> of a certain pussy: labias, clits, venus mound etc..., watching
> too furry pussy (like many in 70's movies) is a bit like
> watching TV with a fuzzy signal.
To me the fur is part of the pussy. It doesn't hide anything. A pussy without fur is like tits without nipples.
It doesn't hide anything. The same way as a girl's hair on her head doesn't hide her head. I don't need to see her skull. Her hair is part of her head. If I find a girl beautiful, her hairstyle is a huge part of her beauty. Same for her pussy. Without hair there is something missing.
> Second, fur tends to hide; with shaved
> pussy you can admire in all their glories all the particulars
> of a certain pussy: labias, clits, venus mound etc..., watching
> too furry pussy (like many in 70's movies) is a bit like
> watching TV with a fuzzy signal.
To me the fur is part of the pussy. It doesn't hide anything. A pussy without fur is like tits without nipples.
It doesn't hide anything. The same way as a girl's hair on her head doesn't hide her head. I don't need to see her skull. Her hair is part of her head. If I find a girl beautiful, her hairstyle is a huge part of her beauty. Same for her pussy. Without hair there is something missing.