Its just in my brief experience selling porno, there is a market out there that enjoy seeing average people, fucking in average settings. ED Powers for example, a ton of people find him repulsive...But I used to get droves of men that enjoyed his creepy ass. They want something easy to understand, and very easy to relate to.
Good point but there are thousands more Hollywood actors coming into mainstream every year as well, completely oversaturating the market with a lot less talent or training then years past.
If I was one of those actors and got a Co-Lead in Bad Boys III, would you say "Wankus is a moviestar?" No. You'd say, Wankus is an up and coming actor.
The term porn star is thrown around way to loosely now-a-days and to be quite honest, many sex performers, haven't earned that title yet. In fact, shooting 50 double anal scenes should count for points deducted towards star status.
The careful decisions made through a career in the kinds of scenes they'll participate in, the marketing behind them and their participation in public functions (ex: award show presentations, cable specials, near-mainstream television appearances, etc.) will bring their STAR value up. At least that's my opinion.
Agreed. This is one reason Ron Jeremy is a hero among many. It's also why MOST men of porn over the years didn't have to be all that attractive.
It takes regular Joes like us and makes us think, "Wow..if that hot chick is banging that dude...I may even have a chance." That thought process makes the scene very jerkable.
But on the other hand, if the average Joe wants to see and ugly guy do an ugly girl...he'll wake up his wife.
Yeah but doubled between 1992 and 2006 is only multiplied by 1.39 with average inflation taken into account. But it seems that for videos, inflation is above average. So I'm not sure she's spending more money in proportion to produce her movies.
[Link]
Midtown Deactivated User
299 Posts 7/05
Posted - Apr 28 2006 : 1:43AM
This will probably piss off a lot of people. But, I'll say it anyway. I think the porn studios are ultimately to blame. The more attractive a girl is, the more in demand she probably is. The more in demand she is, the more she can charge for her services. Rather than pay a higher rate though, the studios would rather troop out clearly inferior talent who are willing to accept less money. If, in order to continue to reap what must be a huge profit margin, this is what the industry wants to do to itself, then so be it. But, standards (and consequently peoples' expectations) have sunk so low that the next logical step is to say "Screw it, may as well film it on a camcorder." And, when that happens, you can completely kiss goodbye your profits - since you will have completely lost control over the product.
Another thing to remember is that gonzo porn, beginning with the rise of Ed Powers, has created a completely different kind of focus. The real "stars" of these videos are never the females, but the guys shooting and/or starring in them, whether Powers or Rocco or Max or (today) Ferrera or North or any other POV director. These videos are really built around the male director/stud, and around the routine the he is putting the girls through. The female parts start to all blur together after a while. Brandon's recent 50 to 1 series is a perfect example of this taken to an extreme level. In the old days, the girls were the stars and the guys were the random meat; now the girls blend together into one big ornamental orifice while the male and his fixations create the genre.
One reason why I am interested in the recent hybrid gonzos which are focued on a single female performer--such as those recently released with Naomi, Jenna Haze, Kinzie, etc--is that they restore on the female performer as the main subject of the video.
[Link]
Midtown Deactivated User
299 Posts 7/05
Posted - Apr 28 2006 : 2:42AM
You raise a good point, which leads us to a very basic question: Is all of this debasement of female performers / emphasis on multiple men engaged in sex with one woman just one big charade and aren't the guys who enjoy viewing this stuff just homosexuals in denial? It sure seems like it.
The market has always been saturated - there have always been more who wanted to act, sing, or simply wanted to be famous and rich than actually had the skills for it.
The problem now is that, with more competing product and more awareness of "disposable income", Hollywood has been cranking out more sub-mediocre crap. As if that will right the ship.
Well yes and no. True that the focus has shifted more towards the guys and there are fans who are fans of the guys. However, quite a few buy/rent based on the women and not the routine. Then again, while Jules Jordan is in his own movies, he is really known for the excellence of his work even when he is not in the scene. It is the way he shows the female body. Also, it is the men who tend to get the financing to have own their own lines. That being the case, they are the only durable part and, as buisnesspeople, there is every incentive to make the other parts fairly replaceable.
I think what you were describing is generally called 'captialism'. I notice that some directors are more likely to have the better looking women. They tend to be the more well known lines and I'm guessing they have the best sales. I don't know if going with lower cost porn stars really evens out the potential loss of sales. I know my money does towards discs with the women I like to watch in them. Of course it is also true that after the initial deluge, when a porn star may not be in as much demand, their prices may be lower yet they still look as good.
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Apr 27 2006 : 9:49AM
