Do feature directors underestimate their audience?

Author	Post
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Mar 28 2010 : 2:36PM Do feature porn directors underestimate their audiences? [Link]
wcw43921 Senior Member Look Into My Eyes-- 1252 Posts 4/08	Posted - Mar 28 2010 : 3:30PM I certainly would hope not. What leads you to think that they do? _________________________________________________________ "There can never be too many beautiful women Hypnotized for our pleasure." [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Mar 28 2010 : 3:50PM Very often the scripts aren't very developed to put it mildly. Some dialogue thrown in-between the sex isn't enough. Do some directors think the term "feature porn" was simply developed to help raincoaters to persuade their girlfriends/wives to watch porn with them? [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 2:43AM Yes, I think a lot of features should have a lot more plot. If people just wanted a bunch of long sex scenes strung together they'd rent gonzo or vignettes. [Link]
Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 8:50AM ^ I agree. I often feel like filmmakers are scared to not follow the "Nasty Train" and make their films "hotter, more sex, dirtier, etc" like Vivid seem to feel compelled to do at the moment to "keep up." I haven't seen their recent films, so I'm not in any way commenting on the quality of their content, I'm more speaking to a trend toward "more action." I honestly think that if some companies made a few films that followed the format of older features, they would sell well. Feminist/indie woman-made porn sells well, and they don't follow the mainstream rubric (I know, they're not usually features, but still) - in fact, I read somewhere that they aren't nearly suffering from economic downturn like some of these other more generic gonzo companies. If I want a good, recent porn movie with verbal/dialogue interaction between people, I go for the instructional videos or an old 70s/80s film. They're great, but isn't it kinda sad that there isn't any other option? P.S. I have major respect for Wicked, but for some reason their recent output hasn't felt as vibrant as it once was. I think David Stanley leaving has a lot to do with it. Stormy is still around though, which is great. [Link]

V_H_ Member 160 Posts 4/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 12:51PM I'd like to say yes, but I'm not all that familiar with the market for features. I imagine there are lots of porn fans that would enjoy more in depth plots and sex that actually fits the plot. I know there are a lot of fans for which features are something to watch with your girlfriend in hopes to get her into something harder. If it were profitable to make more highbrow features, it makes economic sense to do it. So what does that say about the lack of them? [Link]
Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 1:08PM ^ Not much, really. There are plenty of very profitable sub-genres of porn that do not become the dominant genre. Same with plenty of other mediums. [Link]
V_H_ Member 160 Posts 4/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 1:23PM But these successful sub-genres are niches. Be it in porn, film, music, or whatever. These niches can be profitable as long as they sell to their base, but may have little appeal to a mass audience. If everyone started producing niche content it would kill the profit margin by flooding the market. The question is whether the market for this type of porn is actually niche, or if people just don't know it exists. That I do not know, but the lack of big company investment seems to indicate it doesn't have a large market. If only a small subset of people like it (although it is profitable, just not on a mass scale), I wouldn't say directors are underestimating the audience at large. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 2:38PM ^ But you're assuming that the market automatically 'gives the audience what it wants.' If this were true then one wouldn't find so many complaints on porn forums about a whole bunch of issues. There are a whole host of other factors influencing production. Greed for one. Once producers realized they could make the same amount of money off a cheap video as they could off a full feature that is the way that the market moved, but that doesn't mean that producing a feature wasn't profitable, just less profitable than a cheap gonzo video. Of course, we all know where that race to the bottom has brought modern porn. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that there isn't enough of an audience for features to sustain them as a niche market, but just because 'the market' (really porn producers) has 'decided' this doesn't make it ipsto facto true. The exact same porn producers had been claiming for years and years that there was no market for 'porn for women' either. Edited by - BlackSix on 3/30/2010 2:47:46 PM [Link]
V_H_ Member 160 Posts 4/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 2:48PM Completely agree, except for the part where you think i disagree, haha. Just making some observations and certainly not making any concrete statements about something as crazy as the economy of porn. I don't know what the market is and sadly few companies seem to be interested in finding out. btw, since when does using phrases like "i do not know" and "seems to indicate" mean saying it's ipsto facto true? Edited by - V_H_ on 3/30/2010 2:51:52 PM Edited by - V_H_ on 3/30/2010 2:52:13 PM [Link]
V_H_ Member 160 Posts 4/09	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 3:07PM Anyway, no more silly back and forth. Regardless of reason, there isn't enough of this kind of porn for our tastes. [Link]
Dracula Member Women's necks are too damned sexy for me! 756 Posts 3/06	Posted - Mar 30 2010 : 10:42PM It's the same with motion pictures, screenplays and books. Money is the bottom line, but the execs really want a sure thing. If it's selling today, keep making it! I think there's a lot of fear in trying something new, taking that risk. Their jobs are on the line. Another factor is time, talent and cost. The porn star may be a knockout in every way, but can't act or remember lines. It takes more time and effort to write the lines, for characters to memorize them, and then act that character's part in a believable way. It's so much easier to wing it. Costs less, takes less time, makes the same money so there's more profit. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Mar 31 2010 : 7:21AM V_H_ wrote: btw, since when does using phrases like "i do not know" and "seems to indicate" mean saying it's ipsto facto true? Click to expand Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I wasn't addressing your argument as much as the industry's standard argument when it comes to the issue of features: no one wants them. [Link]
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Mar 31 2010 : 4:48PM juha wrote: Very often the scripts aren't very developed to put it mildly. Some dialogue thrown in-between the sex isn't enough. Do some directors think the term "feature porn" was simply developed to help raincoaters to persuade their girlfriends/wives to watch porn with them? Click to expand I suspect feature directors and companies feel the heat from both sides. Must be tough hearing people say your films sucks and also lack sexual heat from so many. Features, from what I hear, are a lot more expensive to shoot, and yet shot extremely fast. The standard used to be they were shot in 3-4 days, which is unheard of in any other genre. Generally speaking, that's not an awful lot of time to shot a comprehensive film, which is probably why so many are poorly made and conceived. Unless some extra money and time are spent on them, it's probably best they keep it simple. I do think there are some decent and good films shot occasionally. People generally want to see hot sex with their stories though, which has always been the rub against features. Usually the story is good or decent, but the sex sucks, or vice-versa. [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Apr 3 2010 : 10:42AM Dracula wrote: Another factor is time, talent and cost. The porn star may be a knockout in every way, but can't act or remember lines. It takes more time and effort to write the lines, for characters to memorize them, and then act that character's part in a believable way. It's so much easier to wing it. Costs less, takes less time, makes the same money so there's more profit. Click to expand And if a director gets the green light for a bigger budget he spends it on a crane or a helicopter to get some fancy "Hollywood camera angles". Even a big budget feature porn is low budget filmmaking. Instead of trying to look like a blockbuster every dime should be spend on the script and the acting. I don't need CGI or stunts in my porn. I want a good story and convincing acting. The story has to support the sex and the sex has to support the story. I want the stars to stay in character during the sex. I want the sex and the story to be an entity. [Link]

Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09	Posted - Apr 3 2010 : 10:45AM ^ Amen brother/sister! [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Apr 3 2010 : 10:49AM Aplus wrote: Features, from what I hear, are a lot more expensive to shoot, and yet shot extremely fast. The standard used to be they were shot in 3-4 days, which is unheard of in any other genre. Click to expand Many B-pictures were shot in only 5 or 6 days. The key is a good pre-production. If the talent learns the script beforehand and the director plans all the angles beforehand it is possible to shoot a decent porn in 3-4 days. [Link]
Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09	Posted - Apr 3 2010 : 10:57AM ^ Right. And there are a ton of excellent XXX films, made on a shoestring budget, often illegally (or at least in a grey area), and with very little time. There's no excuse, in my book. [Link]
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Apr 4 2010 : 1:56AM Gore Gore Girl wrote: ^ Right. And there are a ton of excellent XXX films, made on a shoestring budget, often illegally (or at least in a grey area), and with very little time. There's no excuse, in my book. Click to expand Oh I agree it can and has been done many times over the years. Sometimes the talent, both in front of the camera and behind the cameras, simply isn't there though. 3-4 days tended to add up to 16-18 hour work days, which is brutal on the cast and crew, and B-Film actors aren't expected to fuck-on-film either. Sitting around doing nothing for 8-10 isn't always conductive to hot sex scenes, and I'm sure time-is-money. Features are just a different animal IMO. There really are only a few handful of directors who I believe do them well consistently. [Link]
Gary Orona Member Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10	Posted - Apr 5 2010 : 10:09PM It's very difficult to produce an 'A' looking feature on a tiny budget which all porn features are (relative to the mainstream world). The most difficult component is the talent. Very few porn performers have good acting chops. A weak actor kills a feature instantly. All the production value in the world will not remedy poor performances. This is our biggest challenge with respect to adult features. This is why even the porn epics (Pirates, 2040, 8th Day etc) look like B movies at best when the sex is removed. Many of the directors really sink their blood sweat and tears into these shows, but alas that one bad performance causes so much pain. And frankly there is little the director can do. In my opinion this is the biggest challenge for porn features. It's a challenge I'm actively attacking. Special Effects are easier than ever to produce these days, but good performances are an elusive beast. We spent months casting for my HBO/Cinemax softcore features and episodics and even then only a handful of shows featured complete casts that were genuinely good... and that's softcore. [Link]
Dracula Member Women's necks are too damned sexy for me! 756 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 5 2010 : 10:50PM How many days did it take for you to shoot one 30 minute HBO/Cinemax softcore feature like Hotel Erotica? [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Apr 6 2010 : 12:19AM Hell, I would be ecstatic if the average porn feature these days looked like a B-movie. [Link]
Gary Orona Member Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10	Posted - Apr 6 2010 : 1:10AM Dracula-- "Hotel Erotica" took 2 to 3 days shooting per 30 minute episode depending on the complexity of the script. "The Erotic Traveler" took more mostly because we were filming all over the world. BlackSix-- I agree, and despite severe budget limitations these days I am committed to making better than 'B' Movies in the adult world. "The Vampire Sex Diaries" was the first step in that direction... this crazy passion I have for real movies with sex is a work in progress! How cool would it be to watch a 'top quality' film that happens to have great hardcore sex. And I mean really top quality, not something that is just tolerable. [Link]
Dracula Member Women's necks are too damned sexy for me! 756 Posts 3/06	Posted - Apr 6 2010 : 2:36AM Thanks for the info Gary. Two to three days for thirty minutes. And that's just shooting the film. You probably still have to edit, add music and trim it to fit that thirty minute slot. Not to mention the time to write and polish the script and anything else. Combining a top rated movie with top rated sex -- I don't think it's ever been done before. I know I risk sounding like a broken record here, but a vampire movie is one heck of a movie that can be horror, action and sex all in one. I can name so many great movies that skimped on the sex scenes. Well, all of them. Maybe the movie's ratings come into play. Maybe to get people into movie theaters, the rating can be no higher than "R". Look at how promoters of movies try to get the ratings down from even "R" to attract larger audiences. If you made an exceptional movie that included full XXX sex, it would be ground breaking. Only XXX theaters could play it (I think), but it could be picked up in cable, and sales might go through the roof since your audience would double in size with women being attracted to it as well. What you need is a strong love story. [Link]