Users pay seems to be the main model of the future be that webcams / VOD
for generating revenue.
If these figures from 2008 can be believed the breakdown of revenue earned on 1 tube / VOD site was 60% for VOD studio film scenes 40% for amateur home made scenes
Example 1 of the amateurs
Anonym zu abcnews.go.com/Business/SmallBiz/story?id=4151592&page=1
Comparing eras is pure folly imho
Every era brings something the others didnt - good and bad
Who would have thought in the 70s by the 00s porn producers would be making clips that ridicule the people that pay their way
ie jerk off / humiliation
The digital internet age means many who would never have had the skills to make porn nor sell it are suddenly empowered to become producer,performer & distributor.
Were things really better in the past?
-
Deuce Bigolo
- Posts: 9910
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: I've lost my rose coloured glasses help
Well even Orson Welles had his bad days and made quite a lot of gunk. John Ford and many many others did not always perform well and they did not always shine.
I don't think the expectation of porn were or even are today to the extent that they must reflect what mainstream movies are.
The main raison d'etre of a porn film is to show people shagging. Whatever plot you want to wrap it around is essentially just fluff. The fact that heavily plot-driven porn in the USA is only a small portion of the total porn output (full-length movies or internet scenes) suggests that is what people pay for and want to see.
I can on occasion put up with somewhat inferior camerawork and editing or even shabby settings, but if the female performers (and yes the males count as well) are below average looking, even the best director on earth could not save the scene. Porn consumers follow actresses, they don't really follow movie directors. There are some porn distributors (Devil's Film for one, etc) who don't even show a director name on box cover or credits.
The majority of them (i.e. consumers) and we all could hardly tell who directed the movie if we did not see his name displayed on box cover of movie credits. Just look at the movie credits any any US porn movie released in the 1980's and 1990's, the funny, absurd and utterly ridiculous names that showed up on the movie credits (the movie crew: director, cameramen, make-up, etc). It really hardly mattered. I mean, did you realy have a clue who was Giovanni, R. Stilskin, Cool Daddy, Me Mo Nasty, or did you really rush to the video store and go raving mad to see their latest porn "opus"?
The main difference I see between mainstream and porn moviemaking is the variety of the product. Mainstream cinema seems to be continuosly coming up with new themes and ideas and ways of selling their product (call it "originality"), while porn is not realy there. Mainstream cinema seems to have a better pulse on what people like or dislike, what they want to see, and it responds accordingly. Sure on occasion they have directors who make vanity productions but for the most part they make movies that audiences are generally interested in seeing. They test screen movies, they make adjustments to certain scenes, and often even change the ending. That has been going on for close to a 100 years. I understand you can't do that for a $30,000-$40,000 porn movie, but it seems that porn movie directors, producers, distributors, have taken the position and attitude they know better than anyone else and they will make the product that they like. I have never seen a survey conducted by a even the largest video store even in its heyday when porn product was in the 35-40% range of video rentals, asking people what product they have rented, what they liked, etc. Yet when I go to the grocery store, they hand me a survey and ask me togo on line and ask my feedback on the appearance of the place, the quality and selection of the several sectionsof the sotre, etc. They know what sells and what is not selling. If I don't find a product I really like, I can go to the management (who are easily accessible) and tell them what is on my mind. They tend to listen. If I am not happy, I will take my business elsewhere and I will tell others about how bad they are. You have THAT in the porn industry? I recall a survey that Pink'o put up in their web site a couple of years back (about what they liked, the porn actresses, scenes, etc). I have no clue what they did with the results and I don't know whether they or others have run similar surveys.
For the past half dozen years or so, there has been a glut of porn parodies in US porn. What have they not tackled yet? I think they have covered just about everything that they could squeeze some coin out of.
I don't think the expectation of porn were or even are today to the extent that they must reflect what mainstream movies are.
The main raison d'etre of a porn film is to show people shagging. Whatever plot you want to wrap it around is essentially just fluff. The fact that heavily plot-driven porn in the USA is only a small portion of the total porn output (full-length movies or internet scenes) suggests that is what people pay for and want to see.
I can on occasion put up with somewhat inferior camerawork and editing or even shabby settings, but if the female performers (and yes the males count as well) are below average looking, even the best director on earth could not save the scene. Porn consumers follow actresses, they don't really follow movie directors. There are some porn distributors (Devil's Film for one, etc) who don't even show a director name on box cover or credits.
The majority of them (i.e. consumers) and we all could hardly tell who directed the movie if we did not see his name displayed on box cover of movie credits. Just look at the movie credits any any US porn movie released in the 1980's and 1990's, the funny, absurd and utterly ridiculous names that showed up on the movie credits (the movie crew: director, cameramen, make-up, etc). It really hardly mattered. I mean, did you realy have a clue who was Giovanni, R. Stilskin, Cool Daddy, Me Mo Nasty, or did you really rush to the video store and go raving mad to see their latest porn "opus"?
The main difference I see between mainstream and porn moviemaking is the variety of the product. Mainstream cinema seems to be continuosly coming up with new themes and ideas and ways of selling their product (call it "originality"), while porn is not realy there. Mainstream cinema seems to have a better pulse on what people like or dislike, what they want to see, and it responds accordingly. Sure on occasion they have directors who make vanity productions but for the most part they make movies that audiences are generally interested in seeing. They test screen movies, they make adjustments to certain scenes, and often even change the ending. That has been going on for close to a 100 years. I understand you can't do that for a $30,000-$40,000 porn movie, but it seems that porn movie directors, producers, distributors, have taken the position and attitude they know better than anyone else and they will make the product that they like. I have never seen a survey conducted by a even the largest video store even in its heyday when porn product was in the 35-40% range of video rentals, asking people what product they have rented, what they liked, etc. Yet when I go to the grocery store, they hand me a survey and ask me togo on line and ask my feedback on the appearance of the place, the quality and selection of the several sectionsof the sotre, etc. They know what sells and what is not selling. If I don't find a product I really like, I can go to the management (who are easily accessible) and tell them what is on my mind. They tend to listen. If I am not happy, I will take my business elsewhere and I will tell others about how bad they are. You have THAT in the porn industry? I recall a survey that Pink'o put up in their web site a couple of years back (about what they liked, the porn actresses, scenes, etc). I have no clue what they did with the results and I don't know whether they or others have run similar surveys.
For the past half dozen years or so, there has been a glut of porn parodies in US porn. What have they not tackled yet? I think they have covered just about everything that they could squeeze some coin out of.
-
Deuce Bigolo
- Posts: 9910
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Looks versus Performance
Each individual will have their own take on things that are important
Having gone through the phase when i first came online of
1.Seek out the best looking
2.Seek out the attractive ones who are at ease working in porn
3.Find directors whose style I appreciate
I ended up starting at number 3 eventually and working back
Blame gonzo
To be honest I never went near porn videos of the 70s-90s
given how much effort was required to access them and even then the choice was what the importer was trying to flog off from America.
British / American Magazines mainly softcore got all my money during that period
Looks alone are highly over rated unless all your collecting to peruse is pictures or scans.
Having gone through the phase when i first came online of
1.Seek out the best looking
2.Seek out the attractive ones who are at ease working in porn
3.Find directors whose style I appreciate
I ended up starting at number 3 eventually and working back
Blame gonzo
To be honest I never went near porn videos of the 70s-90s
given how much effort was required to access them and even then the choice was what the importer was trying to flog off from America.
British / American Magazines mainly softcore got all my money during that period
Looks alone are highly over rated unless all your collecting to peruse is pictures or scans.