I'm wondering if some avid porn viewers might help me with a quandry. I see some really great work accomplished out there (I work as a cameraman/editor, though I shoot mainly features) in the gonzo market and am finding that as HOT as it is, the sex is not doing it for me any more. It's as if, to me at least (and I have ALWAYS been a big porn fan), a plateau has been reached where everybody is shooting this great intense stuff (tease/masturbation intro, high energy sex, multiple performers, cum swampping, anal cream pies) but it all is, finally, starting look look the same.
The recent return by many older companies (and the start-up of ones like RLD Films) to make feature-style product seems like a business-wide attempt at keeping our attention. And yet as a porn-addict, my finger is poised and ready on the FF button when any feature director futilely attempts to spin a yarn (except, of course, if I shot it or they are from the Evil Angle camp, whose directors always deserve keeping an eye on...).
Is gonzo porn dead? Will feature porn rise above the glut of gonzo? Will John Leslie ever make another Dog Watcher? Time will tell, but I would sure love your opinions since I'm interested in making really great product and need to hear some objective opinions.
Over at HardcoreGossip, I wrote a rant about this topic on Nov. 1, 2004. You can read it here. I also started the recent thread "The Trend Toward Feature-Gonzos", which featured some discussion similar to what you are talking about.
I've been crying that the porn industry has become horribly homogenized for some time now. However, the homogenization of an entire industry is a common phenomenon right now, particularly in America. Going back just to the 60s, this process had begun in the mainstream film industry, with businessmen like Charlie Bluhdorn of Gulf + Western buying Paramount at a bargain basement price. The other studios had similar fates. Now, corporate America has grown to where a company like Viacom owns a ridiculous amount of the stations on TV or Clear Channel on the radio. Porn has pretty much escaped from this, but there are small examples of it, such as LFP owning Hustler and VCA or blanket groups such as BangBros or NaughtyAmerica owning and operating numerous websites.
I don't think it is as complicated as all that, though. Really, as others argued in the thread I linked to this current state of porn seems like a mere indication that we have encountered the end of the current cycle. How did the cycle begin? Well, that is what I talked about in my rant, but it really boils down to everyone copying off of RLD, who made no secret of the fact that they themselves were flat out ripping off Anabolic/Diabolic's formula and just giving it a facelift. So, it's because RLD seems to be leading the movement back toward diversification of catalog (a mix of features and gonzo) that I think the other companies will follow, perhaps opening themselves up to perhaps a new revenue stream, PPV, by producing features. As I stated in the other thread, there are indications that this emulation has all ready begun.
Personally, I just watched two Sara Stone scenes from the BangBros site bigtitsroundasses, and I was floored. I wish more porn released on DVD could be like that. Then again, what if it was and was hugely successful. If everyone then started copying that style, which in itself is just a more faithful descendent of Buttman's camera style, would I then become bored of it and look for something else?
For example, this past month as I have been exploring more "classic porn" in my free time I came upon a review of Buttman's Big Tit Adventure 3 , a film I quite enjoyed myself (PJ Sparx! Rachel Love!). However, the review read like, well, one of my typical gloomy reviews, bemoaning how "this was just more of the same". It went on to sarcastically critique what was to the reviewer Stagliano's obvious predictability, using lines like, "And he and Sergio just happen to meet some girl, and of course they go back to a hotel room. What a surprise...a boring surprise." I'm watching it and thinking more porn should be like this, and this guy was watching it back in 1995 and clearly wishing that less porn was like it. Was he just cynical and no fan of Stagliano? Or was he a product of his time, just as disillusioned with Stagliano and his imitators as I am with RLD and their's?
Sounds like the kid in the candy store: Too much candy. Too little time. Thing about candy it makes you fat.
Read between the lines on that metaphor and you will find your answer.
Theres so much porn being produced and yes there are a whole heap of producers that are doing variations on the same theme of gonzo but lets face it man! How much pussy as a human being do you need?
Forget watching it. I was living the mack daddy fantasy of shagging a lot of these girls in the UK day in day out and you know what? I lost track of the girls names I had sex with for videos and I realised it was time to take a break.
Sounds like a classic case of being burned out on the porno good thing to me. Take a break man. Soon you'll be craving that cute girl on the video box again when the urge is there and the fairly mundane porn thing will become the best thing you saw in a long time.
Basically, there are only so-many ways to shoot people having sex. And there are only so-many ways too make porn more hard-edged.
As I see it, porn cannot get much harder and rougher as it already is without breaking laws.
What it basically comes down to is the girls. Many porn fans don't want their porn to change very much, but they want new girls, new performers they can fantasize about.
As long as the porn industry manages to have a never-ending supply of fresh performers, the 'sameness' of the gonzo formula will not really matter.
Getting? Have been. Who knew Rosebud was leading the way? The funny thing is, I think lighting, sound, and focus have gotten better on average compared to the '80s. Still, a problem with gonzo is you can only be shocked so many times before you get used to it. Okay, Cum Fart Cocktails , now what? Another thing is the proliferation of energy without passion or chemistry. Great when you are in college trying to get laid, but ultimately alienating in porn.
Joe Gallant has been doing his feature/gonzo mix for years now. Just check out "Contract Girl" and you'll see what I mean. I don't think we're going to go back to features as we knew them, but a new sort of feature. Of course everything is recycled these days. But, think B-movies... think Russ Meyers but where they actually fuck. I would also imagine the featurette to flourish.... but focused on action/visuals more than words. At least something more creative. And, I think with the plethora of smut flicks out there these days, you better have that chemistry thing going on, or forget it. I agree it can't get much "harder" without putting the producer at a certain risk within our current government, but, it could get much "harder" if one is focused on the mental fuck. "Behind The Green Door" did this so well. That scene with the two women, where she's simply telling her to relax and just let it happen is incredibly hot, and I don't think they even fuck. I can't remember, because in my head they sure were. Imagine if they did?! I think gonzo made it so easy for anybody to shoot a dirty movie, and a lot of people just think they're going to get heat by simply getting a bunch of people to fuck and turning on the camera. There's so much mechanical fucking going on out there. God knows, I've done my faire share. But I think it's great we start wanting more. Hmmm.... how about a snuff film, where the girl doesn't die?! Think that would still be "illegal?"
I have to question whether the porn market is driven by the ADT consumer who's seen it all or the eighteen year olds and part-timers who are just happy with people fucking. Given what I see in the bricks and mortars stores, and what I hear from the clerks, I rather think it's the latter.
If there are changes in porn aren't they more the result of director burnout/boredom than consumer demand?
I never really know the answers to those questions. I'd like to think the "focus group" demo at ADT has some pull for the directors who visit here. But I suspect Hardware has it square. To judge by the predominance of lines at the old (defunct) brick and mortar shop on my block in Brooklyn, it was a whooooooole lot of Ed POwers and Randy West and Max --- oh man, I have seen 'em all! Just because that was the high percentage of selections.
DVDs days are numbered already. What's gonna' happen when the government makes it too troublesome for the distribution chains to operate, and VOD overcomes DVD, the way DVD ousted VHS? Then everything is going to become "content", and the cannibalism will reach unimaginable proportions. You think everything looks the same now ? "Boring" has yet to reach its worst state in our industry.
And who will actually purchase all this "content"? With the marketplace being so flooded, there will be enough of it given away in an attempt to win you over, that you could easily jerk off to almost anything for free. Shit I NEVER pay for porn on the internet, and I've seen everything from the best classic clips to two strangers shitting on each other...FREE!
Porn, my friends, is eating itself far faster than the government can put us out of business.
Being "just" a viewer/customer i can only hope tha VOD does not overcome DVDs. IS VOD really that big ? (in america anyway)
What worries me for years is ... IMHO... there´s too much good stuff being put out monthly/annually. I kinda gave up at the pace almost any company is putting out their stuff nowadays. I don´t even know how much DVDs are on my to_watch_list (i purchased them and put them on my stack)
Look at all the companies like PXP, DVSX, RLD, Evil Angel, Sineplex, ... and all the others out there. They all got great series running but (to be honest) a lot of it is redundand. Why is it every company thinks it hast to cover every fetish the competishion is alredy supplying ? Sometimes i´m wondering if there are movies out there with the same cast just different studio.
I admit I dont know too much but my observation, be it with gonzo or features, is that viewers (myself somewhat included) want too see how far the envelope can be pushed. The willingness of female talent to do things nowadays like "felching" is a boon for us sicko's. One just has to look at threads here on it along with what Brandon Iron is producing. How popular would Brandon's quantity of cum in AGSOI be combined Jake Malone's CFC? Along with the talent fees its name your own price, I'd say.
As for the dvd issue, the Blu-Ray format will be the next big thing IMO. Its been available in Japan for the last couple of years but, amazingly, Sony and Toshiba are virtually at war with it and thus holding it up for the rest of us. Disc's can hold 50 gig of superior quality, with Sony saying new ones could hold up to 200 gigs. They're well on the way.
I don't think there is much more than can be done concerning gonzo shenanigans as double anal, creampies, massive swallowing etc. That, or i don't have any imagination.
Maybe more hard gangbangs with our favourite girls ( and a lot of them haven't done a proper one yet ) but those are costly to make. Also a nice trick that is not utilised as much as it should is triple penetration (DV+anal,DAP+vag), i know it's hard to pull but it's a feat, it would be nice to see it more often =)
As far as people getting bored with gonzo, i think it is a problem with those who voraciously consume porn buying/renting scores of titles every year. It was great for them (and me) to see Taylor Rain in her first few scenes but after identical scene #37, they are bound to get indifferent. However,the average consumer, the one that buys/rents a dozen titles per year shouldn't be bored (yet), there is still interesting stuff for him/her to discover.
Someone mentioned that newer girls are constanly needed to keep the interest going on for the avid viewers, this is true but unfortunately this can happen only so fast.
One thing that has to be said also and it is often neglected is that the male talent needs a renewal too. Porn needs new Roccos, LeCastels, Erik Everhards, Lexington Steeles and the likes. The 3 out of 4 i mentioned ( Rocco, JYLC, Lex), i believe they are past their prime and their current stuff is weaker than their great older stuff that set some standards. Erik Everhard is doing great, still at the gonzo vanguard playing,directing and delivering what people want to see, however there should be more like him. The guys should not be underestimated in the porn process, imagine if Rocco never existed.
Hardware wrote: I have to question whether the porn market is driven by the ADT consumer who's seen it all or the eighteen year olds and part-timers who are just happy with people fucking. Given what I see in the bricks and mortars stores, and what I hear from the clerks, I rather think it's the latter.
If there are changes in porn aren't they more the result of director burnout/boredom than consumer demand? _________________________________________________
Having seen the sales numbers and been privy to much on this side, my take is a strong name of a company or a snappy box cover can survive on the part-timers. But the real money is made by the companies or the directors that appeal to the true conesieur. I used to date this guy who bought 20 new videos per month... dated a couple of those actually. They're the equivalent to those who go back to see the mainstream movies 2+ times (in the theatres.) That's how the big money is made these days. Those are the consumers, in my opinion. One of those guys is still a friend of mine and doesn't seem bored by gonzos yet. After all, he just needs a hot girl, a director he knows is going to give him what he wants, and 2 minutes. Then, he carries on with the rest of his day. I would imagine the boredom is hitting those who live this stuff every day first. But, again, comparing it to mainstream, would imagine that the consumer roles with the changes given to them. Of course, everyone likes something new and fresh in the end. I think there's lots of ways to deliver this. But, I just can't imagine ever going back to old-school porn feature sex. Even for the couples market or women. I mean... it certainly didn't corner the female market the first time around. And anyway... what's the big fuss about... it's like fashion. It wasn't that long ago that all men were wearing ball-hugging jeans. New styles come out, it's consumed by the masses, and then... before you know it's all changed again. Of course it's getting too the same. And of course, it will change.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jul 25 2005 : 2:01PM
In case of the film industry, could you explain the relation between homogenization of an entire industry and the forming of conglomerats since the end of the studio era?
I could live happily with one new Joey Silvera release every month. He's so good at getting what I want out of performers that it takes me about 20 viewings to exhaust a DVD's "erotic viewing" potential. In that I mean that I can get off watching a scene of his usually before the sex even begins in earnest; most gonzos, it's a one or two-time thing, and I don't even watch all the scenes. Jonni Darrko also does great stuff in the manner of his visuals -- I find his DVDs to be highly rewatchable and fresh, probably because of the care he takes with the camera. Jules packs his 2-DVD sets with so much footage that I can go back months later and find new stuff I overlooked. His stuff tends to be more "event porn" than Joey's, but also like Darrko and Joey, he finds new things in performers you thought you'd seen enough of, and gets amazing performances out of newbies who, in other hands, are regarded as little more than "couch bait." I enjoy those scenes, too: Sometimes, you only want a cheeseburger, not a grilled tuna steak. But I think the answer lies in quality and value-added, not fast and dirty. Everyone thinks I'm some kind of drooling gonzo hound, which I am! But if the entire porn world consisted only of features shot with the intellect and cleverness of '70s porn I'd be delighted, really. I just don't see much of that out there.
When all you've got is a girl who would have been a second stringer in high school and a handicam, the easiest cheapest way to set yourself apart to gape her ass. Trouble is the number of cats who go wild for a proctological exploration of a girl with B looks is finiate; gaping her wider isn't going to help you move that many more DVDs.
Quality is the new magic bullet, and unlike the circus-sex gambit we're watching run it's course, not everyone is going to be able to play the quality game. Trends to watch for:
Better looking women. ($2500/day and up)
Real HD or film acqusition.
Better Make-up (no that doesn't mean more make-up.)
More appropriate location and art direction.
Yes, it will take more money and craft than most cats will be able to muster. But once people get a load of hot sex, well shot, but still free from the weigh of underfinanced feature pretenses, they won't settle for anything less. The modern gonzo film will have a production budget of $50K and know it's going to ship 10,000 units on the first day of release.
Wow. There have been a lot of really interesting responses to my post. All of them have had some relevancy. Even the folk that said I should take a break from watching porn for awhile...which might be possible, if I didn't also shoot and edit the stuff for a living.
In a way, I guess I wrote this thread in hopes of finding a secret formula for creating new product. This site is definitely a great place to get both the fan and the filmmaker's opinion on the changing market. While as a producer I want to find the right niche for profit, I also want to create porn that turns me on.
Gonzo is definitely getting pretty same-same, with a few exceptions. Those that make the exceptions are accomplishing what the classic erotica and features have done from the beginning. They manage to create a world to escape into and a uniquely sexually charged experience. To do that is not as simple as finding the biggest stud or hottest chic or hire the slickest cameraman, cutter or lighting crew.
Long gone are the days that pornographers can just make crap and sell it. There's just too much of it out there. Quality is mostly a given. Niche's are pretty much tried and worn. TSCfan317 who brought up the old review of Stagliano, was precious. Even back then one of the great's of all time was hailed as predictable. Ah, critics...what do they know.
i dont think the gonzo crowd or followers will ever convert to watching any porn with some kind of plot, i think the whole crowd really rebels about that kind of film because, they just wanna watch something more straight to point, rather than having a filler, dont get me wrong some features with strong sex are good, fashionistas to name one, but people in this crowd just want non-stop action more direct and to the point, but hey thats my own subjective analysis.
[Link]
Phlogiston Deactivated User
Whore-loving Thought Criminal 92 Posts 6/05
Posted - Jul 26 2005 : 3:17AM
I thought porn only had dialogue and storylines to dodge obscenity laws in the Bible-belt. (Dialogue and storylines have "artistic value" and are therefore not "obscene material".)
Gee wiz, another "porn is too boring thread" . . .
While it is true that many early producers claimed that features were initially an escape hatch from obscenity prosecution, the theaters that continued to show programs of unconnected loops quickly went out of business once the feature trend caught on. Loops were fine for the peepshow booths and to take home and play on the bedroom wall, but in a public theater people expected more for their money. The classic era of feature porn (1970-85) was porn made in a particular historical moment for a particular audience (which in the "porno chic" early 1970's was as close to "mainstream" as we've ever seen in the US--until the Supreme Court ended the party), and that audience expected to see something tantamount to a real movie with hardcore sex. This is a simplification of what most hardcore films of the era really amounted to, but the generalization still holds.
I think that when the theater business died, the porn feature died with it, because the venue it was specifically made for vanished, along with all its other unique characteristics, including film medium, type, length and organization of sex scenes, presentation and marketing of performers, etc. Video was a return to the peepshow loop, except more conveniently packaged in the form of a videocassette (and now DVD). If anything has saved feature porn, it is cable TV, the very profitable medium that most of it is made for these days. Without cable, I doubt many producers would bother shooting features at all. Which is why I find most of these discussions about features vs. gonzo redundant. It doesn't mean that features are not still possible to create in this marketplace, but to do so will mean that the product cannot be expected to conform to some previously established model. To make features today (and the word "feature" is pretty vague itself; if I were to market a porn now with any sort of interconnected theme or story, the last thing I would call it is a "feature," which has become a dirty word for boredom around large segments of buyers these days), you really will need to do something that conforms to the medium and taste of the contemporary buyer.
Beyond that, what is dull about porn these days for me has little to do with the action, the performers, the budget, or finding the latest sexual novelty fetish. Real innovation in porn (or most anything else) comes when someone has the nerve to completely take apart the formal characteristics of the object at hand, and rebuild it from scratch. So let's re-invent the sex scene itself; change the sequence of things that happen in it; change the tediously scripted attitude of the talent who perform in it; change the way in which the thing is squeezed into the camera lens and stitched together into action from the editing room floor; confound the expectations of the audience at this most basic level, and you have begun to unlock the "next big thing." The rest is just (to borrow from another current thread) just shitting while you suck.
The art of surprise ? Putting the viewer back in the position of not knowing exactly what to expect next ? There's no reason it shouldn't work in a feature , or even a gonzo setting . All that needs to be done is create a myriad of set ups many of which will lead to dead ends or short and sweet single position sex scenes . That would help to bury the real action and create a sense of expectancy in the viewer . How hard can it be ? Instead of hiring an expensive looking mansion or some special effects work try coming up with some extra set ups which will lead nowhere . Then liberally sprinkle over your vid . Even one or two might be enough .
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jul 26 2005 : 5:31PM
Lazerus, as usual a very thorough analysis. I agree with most of it, except...I know what you mean, but IMHO the expression 'more for their money' is highly unfortunate. It connotates a normative position which is almost universally accepted -- as expressed in the editorials of French magazine "Hot Video" that only narrative porn can be described as 'le vrai cinéma pornographique" -- but which I find extremely irritating. And what's more, it can so easily be replaced by more neutral terms, which will probably have a greater descriptive/explanatory value as well. For instance, doesn't it make much more sense that people not really expected more for their money, but expected something similar to what they were accustomed to see in movie theaters.Aesthetic innovation doesn't have to be this revolutionary, though. And it seldom is. Not in popular art forms -- don't laugh -- anyway. The line between confounding the expectations of your audience and alienating them is precarious to say the least. Aesthetic innovation is much more often an evolutionary process than a revolutionary one. Take the last 'paradigm shift' in porn: the advent of 'gonzo' -- at least as troubled a term as 'features' these days. Take a look at the evolution of the icon of the 'genre', John Stagliano. Compare the first few Buttman videos with both the work he did just before that -- like The Legend of Reggie D. or even earlier stuff like The Vanessa Obsession -- and the work he did later in the genre -- like Buttman In Budapest and later yet like Buttman's Anal Show . You will find that 'Buttman' wasn't so much the result of a complete rebuilding of formal characteristics started from scratch, but a slowly developed and ever again renegotiated exploration of many small-scale innovations, which remained within well established genre norms.
This is the true crux of all forms of popular culture: standardization and differentiation, or familiarity and novelty. I don't like my expectations to be confounded too much and yet, I don't want to see the same tihing over and over again and I like at least some surprises. At this point I could go on explaining how I believe that aesthetic evolution in forms of popular culture can be analyzed the best by looking at how aesthetic norms can be placed in a hierarchic system -- where the most abstract norms at the top seldom if ever change -- but I will instead just point out what I, as a dirty porn hound, am looking for when I am watching porn. You all know the answer, right? I am not looking for a complete breakdown of form, just some moments of 'rupture' will do.
Oh, and + 1 Lee O. Part of what bores me about much of current 'gonzo' is that I know who will do what exactly even before I see the movie. There is no sexual tension anymore -- will she or won't she. Hell I know she will. That is why I am looking more and more to things like CFNM parties, where male strippers are doing their thing inf front of an audience of women. Who of them will suck them -- or fuck them, if one looks at the partyhardcore site. Often I am wishing it might be that one or that one, but please not that one and just as often I am surprised that this one did and that one didn't.
dragonsbum said: “the only concern i have is does the droid do anal?”
The best features I enjoyed were Private movies. Didn't follow the plot too much but you knew in every movie there'd be hot women with natural tits all taking anal and facials and enjoying themselves with it. The sets and outfits were always imacculate especially in the fetish themes.
Another feature I enjoyed was the technoporn that Michael Ninn produced. Jeanna Fine was always worth a look in them.
Quite right, Walter. In fact, as you say, it was a case of the producers initially rejecting what they thought was a radical and useless format to present pornography, whereas in fact the audience found the feature approach a much more palatable and familier way to watch hardcore sex in a public theater. Usually, when critics and business moguls are wrong about innovation in popular forms of entertainment (and porn is a good example), it is because they misjudge what will alienate vs. what will reassure audience expectations.On this point, however, I sadly suspect you and Lee O. are on the wrong track with the wall-to-wall, gonzo crowd. I think one of the primarily attractions of most all-sex porn these days is its relentless predictability; the customer wants to know that everyone will get analed, everyone will get a face full of cum, that everyone will get 30-40 minutes of screen time, that only the fetishes the customer wants will be shown, and not some other sissy stuff not on the boxcover, etc. I'm guessing that the one thing most wall-to-wall customers like best about porn today is that they will absolutely, positively never be surprised by the contents of the disc--I also think 80 percent of all reviews read on this site are read strictly to get accurate information about who fucks who, where the sperm ended up, and how many dicks to chicks were in each scene. By contrast, I don't think many people really care much about the reviewer's opinion, unless it is someone whose tastes correspond to their own. Experimenting widely in ones viewing practices is probably foriegn to most vetern porn watchers (except for a few of us oddballs, who have wasted so many hours watching this garbage that we need to be surprised to stay awake).
Mind you, I am not talking about the casual porn viewer--they probably don't have the experience with the genre to make normative judgments anyway--but rather the small but devoted "raincoater" who is the industry's most aggressive renter and buyer. I think the current crop of producers in the industry are more-or-less in bed with this customer, in the same way that sports franchises and opera houses favor their season ticket holders over the daily walk-up crowd. Which raises another very thorny issue: that the praxis of standardization/differentiation is maintained by a series of presumptions the producer has about who the audience is--presumptions which may or may not be accurate. For example, we have a pretty good idea about what sort of avid fan watches the average GGG production--but we have no idea how many novice viewers stumbled upon something like this and turned forever against porn as a result. I suspect there is a huge potential audience out there that do not require--in fact, are baffled and bored by--most of the standardization of sex in the genre as it exists today, but it is hard to know this, since the public stigma of pornography itself tends to thwart open disclosure by the mainstream viewing audience.
Lastly, I did not mean to suggest that we reinvent the wheel in pornography (although I certainly sounded like I did); but when I watch porn, I am usually less interested in what will happen, or who does what to who and in what hole(s)--but rather how the presentation of these things is managed. For example, in the case of Stagliano, what is most important about his style to me was never his POV antics (the amateur boom in the US circa 1988-92 used POV as a standard practice; the thirty minute sex scene also began in amateur porn during this time--JS simply refined these ideas and incorporated them into his own moody narrative style to great effect), but rather the particular way he used the moving camera to fetishize female bodies. Today, there seems to be some sort of five-hour training school in porn valley, where everyone learns exactly the same way to shoot sex and exhibit bodies the the viewer. I suppose I am suggesting that eroticism comes not simply from the content of the scene, or the vitality of the performers, but also (and perhaps in many cases mainly) from the selection and arrangement of the images for the audience to see. There is an old credo that talent makes the most mundane detail unique, where the hack makes the most unique detail mundane. Someplace amidst all the circus acts in porn today, I think that sort of criticism has a lot of merit.
This is the most intelligent & insightful discussion of today's porn I've ever read; it certainly puts the so-called "professional critics" to shame. You guys are thoughtful, & right on the money -- you even offer some valid potential answers to smut's current noisy but unmistakeable torpor.
Therefore, I have contacted the powers that be @ every gonzo studio in the Valley. You all will be shortly hunted down & killed. Thank you.
Wait ... that would be .... fake insider humor? Anyway, if you must know, I used that cel I cloned from (FAMOUS GREAT GOOGLIE-MUCK GOD OF GONZO'S NAME DELETED SO HE CAN'T FIND IT WITH HIS RELENTLESS USE OF THE SEARCH FUNCTION) & they all picked right up.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jul 27 2005 : 2:35PM
Why would they have thought this? Loops were not the only game in town before the 70s. Many classic stags were little narratives. The feature format was hardly new in the 70s, no?
Edited: It just dawned on me that you were possibly thinking more about length than about formal structures, as in a 'feature length presentation'.
True. This reminds me of the way the Hollywood studio moguls reacted to the coming of sound. For instance, they were very much against using off screen diegetic sound. They were sure that this would confuse the viewer. However, in many ways, it was by using off screen diegetic sound that the modern sound film -- as we still know it today -- was formed.Yes, I know. Why do you think I am shaking my head in disbelief so often when I read these forums. Then again, I must come across as an oddity to many readers here as well.Not that this doesn't stop them from making them anyway. And it shouldn't.There is a similarity with the era of the classical studio system here. Instead of audience research, the studios relied on a shared 'industry wisdom'. Of course, they could afford this. They were certain that their films would reach the market -- more or less the same as with porn now. Working with a set of intuitive assumptions instead of working with a set of data from carefully constructed audience research, doesn't have to be bad though. I have rather have to deal with a producer going on his instincts than with one who follows a detailed marketing concept. Too bad most instincts in porn seem to be about making as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. I have argued elsewhere that there is both a conservative and a progressive side to the concept of 'industry wisdom' -- at least as it operated within the classical studio era. 'Industry wisdom' is at the root of not only standardizaztion but also of differentiation. Now about the question how big the untapped market of porn is, I have no idea to be honest. Maybe TonyC is better placed to answer this.As you know, I have been preaching this for years now -- although lately not that often anymore -- ever since I wrote the "rupture" thread up until the flawed "systemic pragmatics of porn" model I once posted here many moons ago.
When I mentioned Stagliano's evolution, I was indeed mainly refering to the development of the formal characteristics of his work -- since that was the topic at hand -- but all what was said bout this formal evolution can also be applied to his stylistic evolution. There are many relevant differences in the way Stagliano has used his camera to fetishize the female body througout his work from the late 80s till now. That is why I still like to watch Buttman movies today. It's NOT always the exact same thing, although the format hasn't changed that much since 1989.
squirtfan1 said: “Nice girls go home and go to bed. Good girls go to bed and go home.”
Two of the brighter lights on ADT to be sure. But speaking of money, am I the only one who's noticed that when porn played in theaters, budgets were higher, and creativity was (arguably) higher?
Video, especially digital video has had a spectacularly destructive effect on the industrial films industry; from my vantage point it's not so very different from what's happened to the porn industry over the last 25 or so years.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jul 27 2005 : 6:06PM
I have no idea if creativity was higher before video -- I suspect the average budget certainly was.
One thing is certain, video changed the game. For one thing, a lot more product is being made and therefore a lot more shitty product has been made too, making it harder to be noticed. I also believe that video made it easier for amateurs to start making porn -- and a lot of those amateurs didn't know or care about more traditional filmmaking techniques or norms. Not all of this is bad either, IMHO. In fact, at least some of it was at least as creative as the features from the 70s. It had to be, since at least at the beginning they were working within a format which had a lot less history to it as compared to features. They had to make up their own rules as they went along. How more creative can you get.
I don't know. Creativity is so difficult to measure and it's so easy to confuse it with effort. And then, neither creativity or effort will assure that the finished film will be any good. Teaching a video course to beginners has teached me that much. My students were often very creative and they always spent a lot of effort, but yet so few of their works were really any good all the way.
BrandonCruz said: “y'all are nuts. Of coure sex with a condom counts...”
I suspect that a working producer and a college professor mean different things when they say "creativity".
That not withstanding, I thought that digital video, and the lower barriers to entry would usher in a new golden age in porn. I suppose some think it has. I am not one of them.
Budgets were a lot higher--generally a porn film budgeted between 25 and 200 grand in 1980 dollars; the figures got higher after the arrival of video transfers, which sold in those days at about 60-80 bucks a pop. Remember though, that a 50,000 dollar grinder could gross over a million dollars (or more) in the theater circuit (before video sales), and you can see that the video age ultimately drove a lot of serious investors, as well as behind-the-camera talent, out of the business. The gradual loss of profitability is what porn has been fighting as a industry for over a generation now. Also consider, while you're at it, that top female performers have not seen a real increase in day wages since girls like Shauna Grant, Traci Lords, Ginger Lynn, and Christy Canyon were bringing in 1,000 a day or more for simple boy/girl (no anal) stuff in 1984-5; adjusted for inflation (especially in a place like So Cal), girls in the business today are being paid less to do more than any time in the history of the adult--hell, hippie girls in LA were being paid 100 dollars in 1969 to do simple split-beavers.
I agree the "insider wisdom" is usually more valuable than marketing, simply because insiders usually care more about the integrity of their work--but you need a more diverse group of people doing the thinking than porn valley has today; you also need a attitude than quality equals profit (which no one seems to believe in any industry in the US any more), and you need a healthy dose of competition from your peers. And as I've said before, porn is a one party state now, a small fraternity of guys who pretty much all have the same attitude about what they do and who they do it for. They are also captives to a rigid system of marketing and distribution which makes it almost impossible to try out a new idea--the reason being that this system of distribution exists outside of the mainstream marketplace (at least in America), and therefore sees no reason to explore any potential audience who don't have easy accessibility to adult product to begin with. For example, if a major mainstream audio/video retailer decided to begin hardcore adult sales (which isn't likely, given the cultural milieu in current America)--say Best Buy, or Target--I imagine it would have a huge ripple effect through the entire industry. Gonzo companies would scramble for a piece of that action, and would invent product that they think might appeal to a different, more mainstream audience (and would probably make boring, vanilla porn, but that's a whole different subject). Over-the-counter sales of product would increase dramatically, and budgets would go up. And so on.
But back to the "sameness" of gonzo: I think we can all agree the novelty is important and sustains interest, but what sort of novelty is where opinions differ. If you look at another current thread in this forum, you will see that most viewers remain stuck on novelty as actions which take place in front of the camera--gapes, new spins on group sex, new ways to make girls eat cum through the eye of a needle, etc.--where in this thread a few of us are suggesting an alternative to this might by more creative formal and stylistic changes from behind the camera. Can this be done without alienating the traditional audience? I think it can, although it is a tightrope walk. In any event, if there is one thing I would really like to see end in gonzo, it is what I call the Ed Powers scenario: "Hi, I am a teenage girl who is being paid to have my pussy, ass, and face violated by this ugly little man for your viewing pleasure." The fact that this is just a formal narrative not dissimilar from any plot in a porn feature doesn't seem to have occurred to most of the raincoat crowd .
But I thought gonzo meant it was real ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . . .
There are also various types of "gonzo" which might be suited to the idea I suggested concerning multiple set-ups , and a resultant sense of expectant unknowing in the viewer . Scenario based vignettes as produced by John Leslie in The Voyeur series , and travelogue fuckathons like the Shane's World flicks , for instance . They both look to be ripe for this kind of change , based their current structure and also the expectations of their target audience (as inferred from the Shanes world marketing) .
The question of change in the end always comes back to whether or not there's an audience , and hence any money , doesn't it . Which is why TonyC's experiment (from my viewpoint) is so intriguing - is there a vast untapped , and generally repulsed/bored market out there ? We shall see . There are also possibilities with cable and satellite with Pay Per View which might help porners looking to up their quality . The way to a market might no longer be through the hands of a tiny number of distributors , who must warp things based on their own judgment of what will and won't sell .
I've asked before , without answer , but does anyone know where there's a list of the dos and don'ts for American cable based porn ? It would be interesting to see what constraints currently exist in that market .
Silly rabbit.I never saw that question; when I get a chance, I will hip you (& the rest) to Playboy standards, which can be pretty draconian & nonsensical not so much regarding the softcore sex but themes, props & locations -- I'm not allowed to portray drug use of any kind (though a little -- hic -- drinkie-poo is fine, lol) & I am right now dealing with Playboy demanding to one of the companies I shoot for that in my last feature, largely shot in Vegas, every friggin' outdoor shot with a casino somewhere in the background has to either be cut out or have a location release from that casino ...
I have also had most of my (AVN-award-winning, blah blah blah) ASIA NOIR series rejected there because a lawyer turned film critic decided that the "general tone" was too dark; I had to cut a special compilation version that took out any bite whatsoever for VT to make their cable sale.
In SHADOW OF A GEISHA, besides the aforementioned non-sex cuts, I also had to trim the emotional core of the movie, when (in a very artsy, hazy, slo-mo fashion) deluded hooker Suki re-enacts a famous tabloid crime from Japanese history & chokes her lover to death with a red sash after making love with him.
& if you think it's ironic that the RLD clones & all the rest can slap, spit and choke girls out on the video shelves, but I can't have a girl choke a guy in an OBVIOUSLY fictional narrative (I had to make the clip in the DVD hard cut, too), then ... you're paying attention.
So, in other words, although it's "adult" entertainment, the standards of what sort of adult behavior (besides sex) you can portray in any context are actually tigher than, oh say -- Adult Swim? Certainly light years more restrictive than FX, USA ... actually, if you look at network TV, more restrictive than that, too!!!
(this is doubtless also why Playboy TV seems to continue to flounder financially, as they are still catering to a extinct mentality that "good" adult entertainment stays away from politics, the real world or any truly "mature" themes.)
This is at least one of the reasons why, over on the "feature side," you very rarely get anybody with any noticeable degree of vision or originality even ATTEMPTING to make anything for that market ... although it's lucrative enough for the production companies who get their bang for both soft & hard versions, if the auteur in question is just the hired help, making nothing more than between $2000 and $8,000 for his trouble, it's really not worth the heartbreak and disappointment.
That's why most of the (old school) guys -- notice I said, MOST of, oh sensitive ones -- who excel on the softcable world are those who utlilize their creativity only in finding ways to pad the budget, keeping in mind that when it comes to "content," straying from the mind-numbingly same-old same-old will only disrupt the cash flow.
As has been sort of mentioned in this thread, in the U.S. at least, there is no porn Sundance -- or even Cannes, for that matter -- where there is an actual interest in the art & quality of this genre of filmmaking. In porn, there are no breakout indie hits -- only companies that have been around forever coming up with testosterone-laden new monikers they think sound "dangerous" & that they think skew "young" that they hope will create some consumer excitement over the same old shit.
(I.E. -- hey, it's not the same old shit -- it comes with SILVER FOIL PRINTING on the cover!)
DAC , did you ever think that some of the studios that you shoot for might need a cable version, ie playboy sale, to be able to provide you with a budget? Maybe without this extra revenue you wont be able to shoot for such companies? or provide yourself with steak and lobster catering . Hopefully no one from playboy is listening
Anyway, I believe the gonzo market is getting like reality tv, everyone is jumping on the marketing bandwagon, and dilluting the industry with tons of "gonzo" movies, alot is bad, and a few are good, but ultimately the consumer has more choices than ever to either watch survivor or the bachelor, or a Buttman movie or ......... (insert hack name here)
As usual, Jules, you're ignoring what I'm actually saying in order to disagree with me. I'm not complaining about cable versions. I'm pointing out silly standards & practices in terms of content. Unlike YOU, I am capable of shooting a hard & soft at the time, & don't mind doing it at all, because the point of my shows is not what you can fit up somebody's ass or how many loads they swallow when you bring them in on a leash.
As for if somebody from Playboy is listening -- too bad they're not, & if they are listening, probably not actually hearing. Just like you!
