What happened to the storyline?

Author	Post
HeroinJuggernaut Deactivated User Punisher 51 Posts 11/08	Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:01PM now its all handycam, bad interview dirty sanchez style. this isnt sexy. the best porns from the 70s made me come before the sex even started. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:11PM HeroinJuggernaut wrote: the best porns from the 70s made me come before the sex even started. Click to expand Good. This means you can forget about porn, and stroke to sexy mainstream movies. [Link]
Macko69 Senior Member Gone for a walk. 1985 Posts 5/08	Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:14PM I don't need a storyline when I watch porn. All it needs to have is good sex. If I want a storyline, I'll watch a non-porn movie. The porn that I remember watching from the 70s and 80s usually had silly stories and really bad acting. And the actresses usually sported wayyyy too much pubic hair. HeroinJuggernaut wrote: the best porns from the 70s made me come before the sex even started. Click to expand Oh no! That's not a good thing, is it? [Link]
solidsnake Member Dying To Live 266 Posts 10/07	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 3:41AM I would agree to a certain extent. Being a lot younger, I would have to say my fav has to be features from the mid to late 90's. It is a little spicier when the girls can act and some can act pretty good from that period. It adds to see a build up to a sex scene that you know where it is all gonna go but the lead up and undressing is the shit. Best example me being a girl/girl fan is No Mans Land 1-33 are the best with a few straggelers here and there but from then on out it has not been as good since they threw out the story lines I think. [Link]
witling Member 46 Posts 1/07	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 6:26AM I actually would prefer vignettes where there is just enough story and dialogue to establish the characters and their relationship before they get down to business. The setup can be silly and cheesy, as long as there is some effort. I used to watch porn also for the comedy value (bad acting, silly lines). Nowadays I don't have much patience for porn features - especially if the sex scenes are too long and seem unnaturally glued on top of a thin, derivative plotline. But I also like scenes done in the "interview, then fuck" format. Depends on who's in it and how it's done. Edited by - witling on 12/15/2008 6:29:11 AM [Link]

EvilMonkey Member 55 Posts 9/06	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 9:27AM witling wrote: I actually would prefer vignettes where there is just enough story and dialogue to establish the characters and their relationship before they get down to business. The setup can be silly and cheesy, as long as there is some effort. I used to watch porn also for the comedy value (bad acting, silly lines). Nowadays I don't have much patience for porn features - especially if the sex scenes are too long and seem unnaturally glued on top of a thin, derivative plotline. Click to expand That's my favorite kind as well. The setup can be cheesy, but even a cheesy reason for having sex is better than no reason (i.e. fading into the couple making out for no reason). I hate the interview and the dancing setup. Might as well just include the director giving her a wad of cash and her saying "thanks, let's get this over with so I can go pay my rent." It's actually a turn-off to me. [Link]
Savoy All-Star Member Sucker for Sinners 1844 Posts 12/06	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 9:59AM Storylines still exist. They are called features. There are many of them. Go check out the "The Feature Side". [Link]
ntfighter Member 645 Posts 7/07	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:10AM EvilMonkey wrote: I hate the interview and the dancing setup. Might as well just include the director giving her a wad of cash and her saying "thanks, let's get this over with so I can go pay my rent." It's actually a turn-off to me. Click to expand That's a good one.Lmao. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:43AM Storylines do exist. but not in nearly as great of a quantity or quality (in most instances) as they did 25+ years ago. Blame video, the internet, and the general homogenization of cinema. [Link]
EvilMonkey Member 55 Posts 9/06	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 11:52AM john lyons wrote: Storylines do exist. but not in nearly as great of a quantity or quality (in most instances) as they did 25+ years ago. Blame video, the internet, and the general homogenization of cinema. Click to expand To expand on my earlier comment, I'll just say I don't really care so much about features I guess. I just prefer a short setup to the scene (even if it's cheesy). For example (I am into G/G so I'll use that), you can have a great scene that fades into them making out. It's ok to watch. Now, put on a 1 minute intro (be it a seduction at a laundromat or two roommates or pretty much any setup) and all of a sudden there's a reason for them to be having the sex. All it costs is one minute, and makes the scene a lot hotter to me, and I get into it more. One of my favorite scenes is in Boundaries 2, where two roommates/lovers are fighting about money and then retreat to the bedroom for make-up-sex (during which the one gives up her anal cherry in order to be forgiven). Only took about 90 seconds to setup the scene, but it was hot because of the setup. Like I said, the reason could be as cheesy as possible, but I still like it more than just the fade-in to sex for no reason, or just the girl dancing and two guys walk in for no reason. It certainly doesn't have to be a feature with an entire plot and dialogue. Just my two cents. Edited by - evilmonkey on 12/15/2008 11:53:32 AM [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 7:56PM john lyons wrote: Storylines do exist. but not in nearly as great of a quantity or quality (in most instances) as they did 25+ years ago. Click to expand Exactly how much do we need to see? If there were 5 or 10 more on the shelf each would that be enough? Are those types of movies in such demand that what's out there not enough to satisfy consumers? Blame video, the internet, and the general homogenization of cinema. Click to expand Nah...Let's blame consumers. Because plain and simple if there was a bigger demand for them more would be made. If there was such a demand for them the VIVID, WICKED and feature stuff would always dominate the charts. [Link]
JennaRulez2006 Member The Best things In Life Are Chocolate 732 Posts 11/05	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 8:31PM Everything goes in cycles. Gonzo was the big thing and now it is all gonzo and all a repeat of one another. Girl gets a dick on her face, starts suckin, then the guy starts fuckin her. I like features, but I am more star oriented. Put a bunch of nobodies in a movie and I doubt I will buy it or rent it. Sometimes titles will attract me. How I got into Jada Fire was I took a chance and bought one, called Black Girls Wanna Cracker. Been a huge fan since and that was in the spring 2007. Like everything, it has to be quality and over the past handful of years that has lacked alot. With so many studios churning out stuff, alot is just to rip you off now. features I would say are the majority of the time good quality. Wicked has the best I think. Always liked Sydnee Steele's Wicked features. Jessica Drake is great too. Gonzo? I'll stick to Jada, Marie Luv for example. [Link]
DAF1740 Member 305 Posts 9/06	Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:19PM There sure were some great films back in the 70s: China de Sade, Expensive Tastes, Taxi Girls, Femmes de Sade... They're just so much better than today's "features," many of which I find to be pretty lame. Whether it's Wicked, or even Club Jenna, today the plot is often cheesy and the sex the same dull, cookie-cutter variety that we find everywhere else. (Maybe it has to do with the fact that rape/abduction scenarios were allowed back then. Fake violence and rough talk were probably easier on the women than all that gagging and anal pounding that goes on today, too.) Honestly, like EvilMonkey said, I find some all-sex films where they add a little bit of a plot to be among the best nowadays. Much better than the interview/strip-tease or just jump right into sex kind. My brain needs to be involved somehow, too. Personally, I prefer the old 1970s natural bush. I know it's a question of personal preference, but I had to add my . Just another reason why I prefer the classics. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 2:10AM Draxxx wrote: Exactly how much do we need to see? If there were 5 or 10 more on the shelf each would that be enough? Are those types of movies in such demand that what's out there not enough to satisfy consumers? Click to expand There's no "right amount" of plot for a movie, but rather creating a film which feels complete. Modern features often use plot as a transport device to move from one sex scene to another, leaving innumerable questions unanswered and an abundance of plot holes. They do however make room for at least 5/6 10-15 minute sex scenes which, in reality, could easily have been edited down to 3-4 minutes each. Then most modern features would run a mere 60-70 minutes (35 minutes of shallow "plot" and 30 or so minutes of fucking) and, despite still being incomplete feeling, would at least be short enough that I wouldn't have to pick up a remote to fast forward through every endless bout of screwing. What's more is that I have nothing against "all sex" movies as long as they are visually pleasing. Dicks going into pussies, asses, and mouths look the same each time. Give the film visual flare and and photography not restricted to 5 minute penetration close-ups and you might have a decent movie. To that extent, there were a number of films made in the 70s, by directors who considered themselves and truly were artists, that today would be considered "all sex" movies, but these titles still work as films because of the aesthetic intent with which they were created. Films like Visions, Little Girls Blue, Visions of Clair, The Pleasure Masters, Secret Dreams of Mona Q, and many others set up very basic narrative introductions which allowed the films to then blossom into near constant, though always visually remarkable, depictions of sex. Granted these films are mostly surreal and somewhat experimental in nature and I'm certainly not asking everyone to be a low rent Kenneth Anger, but if someone is going to do an "all sex" movie, make it a MOVIE and employ artistic techniques which, because sex is itself almost always boring to watch, make the film a visual feast. Nah...Let's blame consumers. Because plain and simple if there was a bigger demand for them more would be made. If there was such a demand for them the VIVID, WICKED and feature stuff would always dominate the charts. Click to expand Agreed. And I say fuck the consumers. The consumers are the reason artists like Alex DeRenzy, Gary Graver, Anthony Spinelli, and others had to give up making great hardcore films and take up shooting shot-on-video crap. Even today, when an artist like David Stanley tries to do something different, he is shot down and forced to conform to ridiculous consumer based standards of what X rated movies should be. Shame of the consumers for destroying the art of explicit sex. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 6:49AM Just watch, consumers are going to eliminate the DVD market because of the internet. Those who claim otherwise are living in a dream world: if quality was the determining factor in pornography VHS wouldn't have wiped out film. [Link]

Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 6:51AM JennaRulez2006 wrote: Everything goes in cycles. Gonzo was the big thing and now it is all gonzo and all a repeat of one another. Girl gets a dick on her face, starts suckin, then the guy starts fuckin her. Click to expand The sex in features isn't any different once it starts. The biggest difference is that the viewer doesn't have to sit through a weak story and bad acting before the sex starts and we get more sex scenes per movie with Gonzo. I'm not saying jumping straight into a sex scene is always the best way to go. I think a two or three minute set up to the scene is usually enough and many of today's movies give you that. For me the feature/story thing usually doesn't work because why am i sitting through a weak story and bad acting when I only want to see sex scenes? I suspect lots of people feel the same way and Gonzo is here to stay. [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 7:32AM BlackSix wrote: Just watch, consumers are going to eliminate the DVD market because of the internet. Those who claim otherwise are living in a dream world: if quality was the determining factor in pornography VHS wouldn't have wiped out film. Click to expand Quality had nothing to do with it. VHS, and now DVD, brought porn into the home... Privacy... With a remote... With some control over what you were watching. BIG step up from masturbating in public movie theatres! [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 8:09AM Exactly, 'quality had nothing to do with it' and that continues to be the watchword of the industry: it is much more convenient today to watch porn on a computer rather than to visit a porn store. It's even more convenient to download or watch the porn for free, which more and more people do everyday. Edited by - BlackSix on 12/16/2008 8:11:04 AM [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 10:00AM I prefer owning my porn. Purchasing and renting DVDs via the Internet is pretty darn convenient too. And, quality DOES matter! (However, as I pointed out, it had nothing to do with the migration of porn from film/theatre to VHS/DVD/home.) I want porn -- in my home -- of the highest quality. DVDs satisfy me. The Internet is great for stills, trailers and information. I do NOT enjoy watching porn -- especially if I want to whack-off -- on computer. I do NOT like the business models for watching Internet scenes/movies. I do NOT want to deal with DRM issues! As far as I'm concerned, there is no substitute for owning hard copies of my porn collection. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 12:39PM BigBobxxx wrote: BIG step up from masturbating in public movie theatres! Click to expand Where exactly is the improvement? With theatrical releases we had: Movies which were shot on film Oftentimes actual plots and acting Short, well shot sex scenes High production values People directing who not only considered themselves filmmakers but also artists A great many more people working who could actually act People who looked like people, not walking rubber. With the introduction of video we had: Movies shot on flat looking video (HD isn't much better) Very rarely any sort of real plot or acting Long, poorly shot, and above all boring sex scenes Generally low production values Directors who don't generally consider themselves either filmmakers or artists Very few people who can act Cookie cutter types galore [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 2:20PM ^^ John, read my whole post: Quality had nothing to do with it. VHS, and now DVD, brought porn into the home... Privacy... With a remote... With some control over what you were watching. BIG step up from masturbating in public movie theatres! Click to expand As I said... Quality had nothing to do with it. People preferred to masturbate at home, as opposed doing it in public theatres. There are other reasons -- again, having nothing to do with quality -- that killed porn on film in theatres. A few, off the top of my head... Large old theatres became worth more as land/real estate (even parking lots) than as theatres. Many (most) located in bad neighborhoods. As the VHS option pulled many customers into their homes, the remaining customers looking for gay blowjobs, drugs and hookers (which you couldn't get at home) only brought increased attention from law enforcement and angry neighbors. Movies on film are incredibly expensive to produce and, very importantly, costly to create prints for distribution to theatres. Basically, 35-mm theatrical prints have one use: showing films in theatres. Without enough venues to show porn on film in theatres, the economics were unsustainable. 16-mm prints, also used, had some potential for use outside of theatres, but the cost vs. VHS just didn't make it practical. Also, much of the early VHS product was simply redistribution of films previously created on film and shown in theatres. Also, many "loops" that had been floating around for years were compiled and sold on VHS. Economics and convenience killed porn on film shown in theatres -- and "quality had nothing to do with it." FYI, there's nothing to stop studios from creating original porn of "theatrical quality" for distribution on today's media. Films like "Pirates" and "Fashionistas" come to mind. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 7:49PM john lyons wrote: Where exactly is the improvement? With theatrical releases we had: Movies which were shot on film Oftentimes actual plots and acting Short, well shot sex scenes High production values People directing who not only considered themselves filmmakers but also artists A great many more people working who could actually act People who looked like people, not walking rubber. Click to expand I'm not joking even a little bit when I say for me when it comes to porn nothing on this list matters to me and it fact some of the stuff mentioned I don't even like. I've seen porn movies that were shot on film and it didn't enhance my watching experience one iota. I think the plots back then were actually just as bad or worse than the plots in today's porn. Sure you can probably name a few standout stories from those days but generally they were silly and not well written. The bad stuff gets remembered fondly and somehow (conviently) the bad stuff is forgotten. Give me a great looking girl who can do a great sex scene anyday over someone who can act any day! Some of those good actresses weren't always the hot women. Most people don't watch porn for the acting performances. It's very, very hard to try and convince me that the short sex scenes of those old days were somehow better. I believe that directors back then thought of themselves as "artists" but that doesn't make it so. Others making sexy/sexual movies like Russ Meyer, Tinto Brass, Joe Sarno and the like I think more of as "artists" most of the big directors back then were guys who turned to porn when they couldn't break into mainsteam. The porn guys mostly made low budget movies with sex scenes thrown in. Edited by - draxxx on 12/16/2008 7:50:54 PM [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 11:38PM Draxxx wrote: I'm not joking even a little bit when I say for me when it comes to porn nothing on this list matters to me and it fact some of the stuff mentioned I don't even like. I've seen porn movies that were shot on film and it didn't enhance my watching experience one iota. I think the plots back then were actually just as bad or worse than the plots in today's porn. Sure you can probably name a few standout stories from those days but generally they were silly and not well written. The bad stuff gets remembered fondly and somehow (conviently) the bad stuff is forgotten. Give me a great looking girl who can do a great sex scene anyday over someone who can act any day! Some of those good actresses weren't always the hot women. Most people don't watch porn for the acting performances. It's very, very hard to try and convince me that the short sex scenes of those old days were somehow better. Click to expand I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but you're the rule and I'm the exception. I realize that and have realized that ever since I started watching X rated films and discovered that I didn't give a rat's ass about the sex and actually wanted to view these films for plot and acting. The reason I mentioned and continue to mention film is simply due to the image quality, which even high end video used by Hollywood has not been able to fully match. I completely agree that 75% of the X rated movies made in the 70s and 80s just plain suck. They're badly written, acted, directed, photographed, etc. But these days I'd venture to say that 99.5% of the X rated movies made suck and even the vast majority of that .5% are about on par with the 75% of suckage from the 70s. Give me any year between 1973 and 1983 and I could list between 20-30 X rated movies made that year which are genuinely good films. Maybe not to everyone's taste (although that's beside the point), but undeniably well made and genuinely artistic pieces of cinema. Today I'd be lucky if I could make a top 5 list for every year between 1988 and the present (and I wouldn't be in the lest but surprised if the same 3-4 directors comprised 75% of the titles on those lists. Likewise, being less than a beauty queen but a talented actress is just fine by me. Why must sex scenes run forever? 5 minutes is more than plenty. Believe me, making something a tight 5 minutes is a lot harder than a loose 10. The bottom line is this: everything has already been done in porn. Every conceivable permutation of coupling based on gender, age, ethnicity, sexual position, volume of performers in a scene as well as gender ratios in group encounters, height, weight, accent, clothing style, hair style, tattoos, shaven, hairy, hair color, and the 500+ other ones I can't think of. So how many more interracial anal MILF tapes do we need, or midget gangbangs, or tapes dedicated to cum being shot on one's mouth, eyes, face, kneck, chest, hair, breasts, stomach, back, pussy, ass, legs, feet, some article of clothing, on the male himself (and by extension any of the above mentioned body parts)? How many more bareback series do we need? How many more series about lecherous old men finding supposedly teenage girls on the street and debauching them at their dull looking ikea decorated valley pads? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is none. What do we need? Stories, acting, production values, etc. Why? Because those things can never get old. No one is going to get tired of good scripts, no one is going to get tired of good actors, no one is going to get tired of good cinematography, lighting, editing, etc. And no, a porn star who can act but has never been given lines more complicated than "fuck my pussy" but has graciously performed every sex act known to man, has not been used to her full potential. But I know that 99.8% of the world (I'm just assuming that figure) disagrees with me on that and will continue to shell out lots of money to see the same thing they've seen hundreds of times before. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 1:24AM BigBobxxx wrote: FYI, there's nothing to stop studios from creating original porn of "theatrical quality" for distribution on today's media. Films like "Pirates" and "Fashionistas" come to mind. Click to expand Sorry, but neither of those are of theatrical quality, particularly Pirates. I doubt many men under the age of 30 bother buying their porn on DVD at all and they are the future, not you or me. The hardcore raincoater brigade represented on this forum (some of whom buy 20-30 titles a month!!) does not represent the average porn consumer out there. [Link]
BigBobxxx Senior Member 2681 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 7:09AM BlackSix wrote: BigBobxxx wrote: FYI, there's nothing to stop studios from creating original porn of "theatrical quality" for distribution on today's media. Films like "Pirates" and "Fashionistas" come to mind. Click to expand Sorry, but neither of those are of theatrical quality, particularly Pirates. Click to expand My point still stands. (Whether or not any movie will rise to your expectations of theatrical quality.) [Link]

john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:30AM BigBobxxx wrote: ^^ John, read my whole post: Click to expand I did, but only chose to comment on the last sentence. As I said... Quality had nothing to do with it. Click to expand When did I say that the average consumer cares about quality? I happen to but I realize I'm not normal for actually wanting to watch good movies :) People preferred to masturbate at home, as opposed doing it in public theatres. Click to expand Or just not masturbate if they feel ashamed of it. Large old theatres became worth more as land/real estate (even parking lots) than as theatres. Many (most) located in bad neighborhoods. Click to expand True and true. Another sad reminder of how this country doesn't care about its history. I'm from Chicago, which once had over 300 movie theatres and some of the most beautiful such venues in the world. And yes, the vast majority of them have been destroyed in favor of cookie-cutter condos and parking lots. That actually works as a metaphor for the death of theatrical hardcore: both X rated theatrical films, which were made by artists, and the theatres they were shown in, which were built by artists, were replaced with nondescript cookie-cutter crap. Movies on film are incredibly expensive to produce and, very importantly, costly to create prints for distribution to theatres. Click to expand Very true. The average feature film only had between 20 and 30 prints struck (usually 10 or so were 35mm and the rest usually 16mm). Some movies had a great many more made and some many less. It depended on the presumed successfulness of the film. The point is, when video came in, as you said, people chose to go to their homes and watch downright bad movies shot on tape over having to endure the social [non] stigma of going to a theatre to see a film. VHS won because it was cheap and people preferred it. I'm not arguing with that, just saying it's a shame. Also, much of the early VHS product was simply redistribution of films previously created on film and shown in theatres. Also, many "loops" that had been floating around for years were compiled and sold on VHS. Click to expand True, just like the early days of VHS for Hollywood films. Most of the VHS releases of X rated films up to 1983 were just re-issues of theatrical titles. The theatrical market boomed until 1983 because most people couldn't afford VCRs. FYI, there's nothing to stop studios from creating original porn of "theatrical quality" for distribution on today's media. Films like "Pirates" and "Fashionistas" come to mind. Click to expand As Blacksix said, although these movies have stories, they're hardly the same in either style of substance to theatrical films of the 70s. I'd say that the only directors who have really pulled off making films and videos in the last few years which are truly similar to theatrical works of 25 years ago are David Stanley, Paul Thomas, and Nic Andrews. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 12:24PM john lyons wrote: What do we need? Stories, acting, production values, etc. Why? Because those things can never get old. Click to expand Looking at mainstream Hollywood, do your not think than Nth gory action flick with Matrix type special effects is getting old? That making Nth lame remake of an old classic is getting old? How many comic based superhero nonsense do we need? How many Batmans, Spidermans, Supermans, Iron Mans do they need to make before it does get old? I am just wondering, because those are movies supposedly with stories and most definitely high production values. If we don't get tired of watching shoot-outs, gore, martial arts, explosions, car chases, etc. over and over again in mainstream, then why would we get tired of watching boobs, pussies, asses, fucking, and anal MILF midget gang-bangs in porn? However, there is really no need to put hardcore fucking into otherwise decent action thrillers or romantic comedies or whatever, just as there no need to put cgi, long dialogs, non-sex action sequences, creative montage, deep storylines into otherwise hot and steamy pornos. In my opinion, it won't make either them any better. Long sex scenes will annoy viewers like you who want to see artistic value, and storylines/scripts and "acting" will bore viewers like me who just want rub one out. [Link]
bear New Member 2 Posts 12/08	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 12:59PM I agree with witling that a series of cheesy whimsical vignettes are better that a long feature. At least if one of the scenes are lame you have a few more that are usually decent. I likedJames Avalons: Erotic Stories, Lovers and Cheaters. Wish I could find more like them. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 1:01PM Zoid wrote: Looking at mainstream Hollywood, do your not think than Nth gory action flick with Matrix type special effects is getting old? That making Nth lame remake of an old classic is getting old? How many comic based superhero nonsense do we need? How many Batmans, Spidermans, Supermans, Iron Mans do they need to make before it does get old? I am just wondering, because those are movies supposedly with stories and most definitely high production values. If we don't get tired of watching shoot-outs, gore, martial arts, explosions, car chases, etc. over and over again in mainstream, then why would we get tired of watching boobs, pussies, asses, fucking, and anal MILF midget gang-bangs in porn? Click to expand You're talking about very specific types of "mainstream" movies. There are still plenty of films being made which are creative and innovative and do not rely on explosions and bad computer effects to gain an audience. I'd agree that watching buildings explode in succession is just like watching dicks going into pussies over and over. That's why I said people will not get tired of GOOD stories, acting etc. I'm in complete agreement that most stuff coming out of Hollywood is crap. However, there is really no need to put hardcore fucking into otherwise decent action thrillers or romantic comedies or whatever, just as there no need to put cgi, long dialogs, non-sex action sequences, creative montage, deep storylines into otherwise hot and steamy pornos. In my opinion, it won't make either them any better. Long sex scenes will annoy viewers like you who want to see artistic value, and storylines/scripts and "acting" will bore viewers like me who just want rub one out. Click to expand But why not? I'm not saying that all gonzo production must stop but rather that I don't see why we can't have exactly what's you're saying is pointless: good movies with hardcore sex. There's no reason why an action thriller that would have had a sex scene or two in it anyway can't make that scene hardcore. I'm not saying it should last 10 minutes. It could last 30 seconds if the director thought it was best at that length. A great example of this are the Danish Tegn movies, a series of six hardcore sex comedies. The sex is infrequent and the scenes are very short (lasting an average of 2 minutes) but use the explicitness of the action as a comedic device, such as adding funny sound effects when hardons pop up or putting sex scenes in fast motion or in silly positions. The explicit sex actually makes the films funnier and better as films. I don't see why that same attitude can't be applied to hardcore feature films in this country. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 9:24PM john lyons wrote: I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but you're the rule and I'm the exception. I realize that and have realized that ever since I started watching X rated films and discovered that I didn't give a rat's ass about the sex and actually wanted to view these films for plot and acting. Click to expand So why even watch x-rated movies? If your biggest concern is plot, acting, production values etc., why look for it in a place where it's known not to exist? It sounds like the sex is only geting in your way anyway. Go watch some Tinto Brass or the Italian softcore stuff. Most porn isn't made to satisfy what you want to see. You're just wasting your time. The reason I mentioned and continue to mention film is simply due to the image quality, which even high end video used by Hollywood has not been able to fully match. Why on earth should porn films invest that type of money on that sort of production whe the returns are so low? And even more importantly when 99% of the viewers could care less about it. Give me any year between 1973 and 1983 and I could list between 20-30 X rated movies made that year which are genuinely good films. Maybe not to everyone's taste (although that's beside the point), but undeniably well made and genuinely artistic pieces of cinema. Today I'd be lucky if I could make a top 5 list for every year between 1988 and the present (and I wouldn't be in the lest but surprised if the same 3-4 directors comprised 75% of the titles on those lists. Click to expand That's because today's directors are making porn and not trying to fool themselves into thinking they're making "cinema" or that they even need to make "art". Likewise, being less than a beauty queen but a talented actress is just fine by me. Click to expand Good for you. Me? I'm standing in that really long line of guys who'd rather see a pretty girl with nice breasts and a cute ass who can do a hot scene. Why must sex scenes run forever? 5 minutes is more than plenty. Believe me, making something a tight 5 minutes is a lot harder than a loose 10. Click to expand How hard could it have been when a lot of it was simulated sex? For me the #1 most annoying thing about those old storyline porn movies were the the 5 minute sex scenes that had 2 and ahalf minutes of simulated sex or positions that didn't show any insertion. Call me crazy but maybe I don't want to see 2 minutes of two pornstars upper bodies in the middle of their 5 minute sex scene. I think you're looking back at that old stuff through rose colored glasses. The stuff I've seen from that era isn't anywhere as good as you make it out to be. Anyone looking at 20 seconds of those old movies can easily tell most of them were on par with the cheap D-list movies of that era. Who looks at that old stuff and thinks of it as "art" or even well done unless comparing in with even worse porn movies? [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 10:36PM Draxxx wrote: So why even watch x-rated movies? If your biggest concern is plot, acting, production values etc., why look for it in a place where it's known not to exist? It sounds like the sex is only geting in your way anyway. Go watch some Tinto Brass or the Italian softcore stuff. Most porn isn't made to satisfy what you want to see. You're just wasting your time. Click to expand I love Brass. He's a great filmmaker and, like it or not, a genuine artist. I think there's a lot of good hardcore out there. There are still folks trying to make good X rated movies but sadly people just don't want the stuff. Why on earth should porn films invest that type of money on that sort of production whe the returns are so low? And even more importantly when 99% of the viewers could care less about it. Click to expand Why not? You yourself have already said that Hollywood movies are full of pointless violence, explosions, etc. So why not go hardcore when a sex scene is going to be in a film anyway? I'm certainly not advocating that every movie contain hardcore sex but I just don't see why it's perfectly acceptable to fill screens with gallons of fake blood but somehow pointless to include unsimulated sex scenes. Neither of these things will ostensibly do anything for the film per se, but if they are handled well, can add to the realism and effectiveness of the film as a whole. That's because today's directors are making porn and not trying to fool themselves into thinking they're making "cinema" or that they even need to make "art". Click to expand Once again, I never asked for everyone to be or try to be an artist. If people want to make cheap, dull porn, that's OK by me. No one forces me to watch it so I really don't care. I simply don't get why everyone is against the concept of making a real film with hardcore sex. In general, I'd much rather watch a movie by a person who considers him or herself a filmmaker than something by a person who is perfectly content directing nothing but poorly photographed and generally emotionless sex. I think you're looking back at that old stuff through rose colored glasses. The stuff I've seen from that era isn't anywhere as good as you make it out to be. Anyone looking at 20 seconds of those old movies can easily tell most of them were on par with the cheap D-list movies of that era. Who looks at that old stuff and thinks of it as "art" or even well done unless comparing in with even worse porn movies? Click to expand Like I said, there's a lot of crap from the 70s and early 80s. If you'd like I can recommend you a few films which might just sway your opinion on 70s stuff. I'm not saying that these movies will turn you on, but they'll give you an idea of the kind of basic cinematic quality I seem to very rarely find in recent films. [Link]
RFrog Member 396 Posts 10/07	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:37PM I agree. I dig a good "story". A sexual fantasy come true. However, the scene has to be well directed with good acting and good writing. That's difficult to justify in porn. Think back and remember one of your most elaborate, kinky fantasies... and write a one page synopsis about it... and ask a director to make it. Seeing one of my twisted fantasies on video would blow me away! [Link]
ntfighter Member 645 Posts 7/07	Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:59PM I'd be happy if the actors were allowed to fuck as realistically as they did in the past. Not one studio has shot the actual missionary position since 1980. The doggy position died out about the same time. Now it seems that the director only objective is to keep the "plunging penis" in the frame, and not miss the cum-shot. When they are successful at these two thing they are satisfied that they have made a good movie. [Link]
Skyscrapper Member 667 Posts 12/08	Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 7:52PM Two words. Boogie Nights. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 9:09PM Skyscrapper wrote: Two words. Boogie Nights. Click to expand What exactly about Boogie Nights? [Link]

Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 9:11PM john lyons wrote: I love Brass. He's a great filmmaker and, like it or not, a genuine artist. I think there's a lot of good hardcore out there. There are still folks trying to make good X rated movies but sadly people just don't want the stuff. Click to expand In the past few weeks I've bought a few of the type of movies you'd probably like. "PRIVATE" and "MONAMUR"(SP?) by Tinto Brass. "IMAGES IN A CONVENT" and "EMANUELLE IN AMERICA" by Joe D'Amato. I Plan to get "PORNO HOLOCAUST" and "THE BEAST" soon. These movies pretty much are the kind of movies you're talking about, actual movies with a plot, location shots, an accomplished director and starlets who go much further than mainstream actresses go and girls who'll do real hardcore scenes. In fact in an interview D'Amato says that the film distributors overseas encouraged him and other film makers like him to add hardcore footage to make the film perform better. So they shot hardcore scenes and put them in. In most cases the sex was very natural looking and the girls often looked surprisingly good. But....I don't consider that stuff porn per se. I consider that "erotica". Two pretty different things in my mind. Two different things with two different approaches and two different mindsets. I don't think either works when either tries to be more like the other. In my opinion the porn movies you're talking about try to go the "erotic" route but don't do it nearly as well as the stuff I mention because the directors and "actors" aren't nearly as talented, the budget big enough and the stories are usually bad. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 11:01PM Draxxx, if you think Joe D'Amato, one of the worst directors to ever breath air, is more talented than Armand Weston or Gary Graver...I don't know what to say, we obviously have such different views of things. I actually think Brass' best movies are the ones he did before Salon Kitty. Edited by - BlackSix on 12/18/2008 11:02:38 PM [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 11:43PM BlackSix wrote: Draxxx, if you think Joe D'Amato, one of the worst directors to ever breath air, is more talented than Armand Weston or Gary Graver...I don't know what to say, we obviously have such different views of things. I actually think Brass' best movies are the ones he did before Salon Kitty. Click to expand D'Amato is OK here and there but I'll agree that his movies are pretty lame overall. Porno Holocaust has more sex in it than 75% of most X rated films made in the 70s so I'd hardly call it "erotica." I love Brass' films but I'd agree that a number of his 80s and 90s films are quite slow. I'd love to find a copy of L'Urlo with English subs. I just got Action, from 1980, and it's pretty terrific (even though my copy is Italian only). Agreed though: to say that D'Amato, with his often tedious globe trotting adventures, is a better filmmaker than Gary Graver, Armand Weston, Anthony Spinelli, let alone the great Chuck Vincent or Radley Metzger (both of whom made some films which were 10 times better than many art films of the period) is horribly inaccurate. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 9:59PM BlackSix wrote: Draxxx, if you think Joe D'Amato, one of the worst directors to ever breath air, is more talented than Armand Weston or Gary Graver...I don't know what to say, we obviously have such different views of things. I actually think Brass' best movies are the ones he did before Salon Kitty. Edited by - BlackSix on 12/18/2008 11:02:38 PM Click to expand When I named Joe D'Amato's work it was actually more about the kind of movies he made/makes because those seem to be movies more in line with what John wants to see...movies with a plot, "real" actors, locales, and some hardcore sex thrown in. When all those things are involved that cuts list of directors who shoot those types of movies outside of porn down to just a few that I'm personally aware of. Perhaps D'Amato and Brass weren't technically better directors than the people you name but I personally think their work was overall a better finished product than most of the porn I've seen from that era. But that's just my opinion because I'm going by the limited amount of porn from that era and the fact that I generally fastforward through much of story of that porn era. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 10:30PM john lyons wrote: Porno Holocaust has more sex in it than 75% of most X rated films made in the 70s so I'd hardly call it "erotica." Click to expand I haven't seen it yet. I plan to check it out based on the trailers. I didn't compare it directly to any specific porn director. Yes, you're right "Holocaust" isn't really "erotica" from what I've seen in the trailer but I liked IMAGES IN A CONVENT and his Emanuelle stuff so I thought it'd be along those lines. Not great films in the general sense but for movies that have hardcore scenes that aren't true porn I don't think they're all that bad overall. [Link]
echoplex Member 197 Posts 9/08	Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 10:47PM Heh... I sometimes like the short "storylines" that Gag Factor does on occasion. I quite enjoy some of them. [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 11:25PM Draxxx wrote: Yes, you're right "Holocaust" isn't really "erotica" from what I've seen in the trailer but I liked IMAGES IN A CONVENT and his Emanuelle stuff so I thought it'd be along those lines. Click to expand Images might have been his best film. The Emanuelle stuff is often dull. I do like how he shot sex, but it's not the style of the sex scenes in so many XXX films that I hate but their usual length and irrelevance to the film. Take a gander at Chuck Vincent's Roommates or Armand Weston's Taking of Christina if you want to get a good idea of the type of film I'm going for and the type of film I really feel should be the norm in features rather than the exception. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 4:37AM I get'cha now Draxxx, sorry if I sounded like a dick. I enjoy D'Amato's films but mostly as camp and inept sleaze. Honestly I wouldn't even bother with Porno Holocaust, it sounds a lot better than it is, Emanuelle Around the World would be the best of his sleaze epics, imo. Brass, though, is definitely a talented director. Caligula is pretty terrible but Guccione took it away from Brass and had some simpleton edit it into the mess that it is today. Borowyczyk, the director of The Beast, did a really excellent film with Joe Dallesandro and Sylvia Kristel (the REAL Emmanuelle!) called La Marge which I really liked even though it was in unsubbed French. Edited by - BlackSix on 12/20/2008 4:42:44 AM [Link]
Uppercut Member 74 Posts 3/08	Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 12:40PM What drives me nuts is when a scene starts out with a storyline and dialogue between the two actors, and then, as soon as they get down to sex, the female turns and stares right into the camera. Tlak about ruining the illusion. [Link]
Ibrox Deactivated User 120 Posts 12/08	Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 7:45PM The storyline is still here. See *Corruption* and *Upload*. [Link]
RFrog Member 396 Posts 10/07	Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 11:55PM As a guy, I like story lines that appeal... to guys. I'm not into the ritzy story lines in a Playboy mansion. I'm not into the dangerous world of sexy private-investigators trying to crack the mystery of the century. I'm not into smoke-filled dream sequences. I'm not into sexy alien women de-virginizing un-suspecting men at truck stops. I'm not into surreal or outlandish fantasy stuff. I prefer stories that hit close to home. I prefer stories that are based on the usual male fantasies. I fantasize about hooking up with a cute bartender at the local club. I fantasize about screwing a sexy milf at the local laundry matt. I fantasize about getting it on with a hot dental assistant. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08	Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 12:05AM ^It's "laundromat". [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 4:44AM RFrog wrote: As a guy, I like story lines that appeal... to guys. I'm not into the ritzy story lines in a Playboy mansion. I'm not into the dangerous world of sexy private-investigators trying to crack the mystery of the century... I'm not into surreal or outlandish fantasy stuff. Click to expand Your notions of what doesn't appeal to 'guys' seems pretty limited to me. The detective storylines in particular play pretty directly to macho fantasy, although perhaps of a different generation. [Link]
XXXenophile Member 343 Posts 1/07	Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 5:20AM Uppercut wrote: What drives me nuts is when a scene starts out with a storyline and dialogue between the two actors, and then, as soon as they get down to sex, the female turns and stares right into the camera. Tlak about ruining the illusion. Click to expand LOL in other words, every movie made by Private. And they generally do fairly good plot driven movies when they're doing the big budgets. But yeah, everytime they turn toward the camera I'm just going "Oh not again!" [Link]
john lyons Senior Member Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome 1188 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 11:54AM RFrog wrote: I prefer stories that hit close to home. I prefer stories that are based on the usual male fantasies. I fantasize about hooking up with a cute bartender at the local club. I fantasize about screwing a sexy milf at the local laundry matt. I fantasize about getting it on with a hot dental assistant. Click to expand But what you're proposing aren't really storylines. They're set-ups. They just end after the sex. Believe me, there's plenty of what your after. But what makes your "usual male fantasize" usual male fantasies? As Blacksix mentioned, the detective story is a classic macho and masculine motif and it can actually be developed into a story, not just a vignette. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 1:26PM BlackSix wrote: I get'cha now Draxxx, sorry if I sounded like a dick. I enjoy D'Amato's films but mostly as camp and inept sleaze. Honestly I wouldn't even bother with Porno Holocaust, it sounds a lot better than it is, Emanuelle Around the World would be the best of his sleaze epics, imo. Brass, though, is definitely a talented director. Caligula is pretty terrible but Guccione took it away from Brass and had some simpleton edit it into the mess that it is today. Borowyczyk, the director of The Beast, did a really excellent film with Joe Dallesandro and Sylvia Kristel (the REAL Emmanuelle!) called La Marge which I really liked even though it was in unsubbed French. Edited by - BlackSix on 12/20/2008 4:42:44 AM Click to expand No offense taken. I like lots of those 70s and 80s film that have some sort of a story going and have "sex scenes" that come very close to actual sex without going all the way. I often wonder how he guys can stand doing all that stuff without going all the way. Plus there's the aspect of how'd they get those actresses to go that far. I get a bit of a thrill from that and if there's a real story going on, all the better. Seeing full penetration in one of those types of movies is exciting to see simply because they aren't pornstars (that I know of) and the sex often looks more real and less staged and machanical. Some of those types of movies I buy because of who's staring in them. Sometimes it's because the plot sounds interesting. Sometimes it's because I liked the director/producer/company who did something else I liked. Lots of times I'm disapointed, sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. But with actual porno, I view it to see the actual sex act. So any type of real story that stops or slows things down from me seeing that only gets in my way. The best case senario is a short 3 to 5 minute set up where everyone starts out dressed and a senario is introduced to set up the reason why they're about to have sex. The we see them start and we see the undressing and foreplay. It's okay to occasionally just see a girl in a room posing and already nude or semi-nude dancing (for no reason) and the guy just walks in they start going it at it but it's not my fav way to start a sex scene. But even with those if the sex is hot then I don't even care. [Link]

Author

Post

HeroinJuggernaut
Deactivated User

Punisher
51 Posts
11/08

Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:01PM

now its all handycam, bad interview dirty sanchez style. this isnt sexy. the best porns from the 70s made me come before the sex even started.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:11PM

Good. This means you can forget about porn, and stroke to sexy mainstream movies.

[Link]

Macko69
Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1985 Posts
5/08

Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:14PM

I don't need a storyline when I watch porn. All it needs to have is good sex. If I want a storyline, I'll watch a non-porn movie. The porn that I remember watching from the 70s and 80s usually had silly stories and really bad acting. And the actresses usually sported wayyyy too much pubic hair.

Oh no! That's not a good thing, is it?

[Link]

solidsnake
Member

Dying To Live
266 Posts
10/07

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 3:41AM

I would agree to a certain extent. Being a lot younger, I would have to say my fav has to be features from the mid to late 90's. It is a little spicier when the girls can act and some can act pretty good from that period. It adds to see a build up to a sex scene that you know where it is all gonna go but the lead up and undressing is the shit. Best example me being a girl/girl fan is No Mans Land 1-33 are the best with a few straggelers here and there but from then on out it has not been as good since they threw out the story lines I think.

[Link]

witling
Member

46 Posts
1/07

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 6:26AM

I actually would prefer vignettes where there is just enough story and dialogue to establish the characters and their relationship before they get down to business. The setup can be silly and cheesy, as long as there is some effort. I used to watch porn also for the comedy value (bad acting, silly lines). Nowadays I don't have much patience for porn features - especially if the sex scenes are too long and seem unnaturally glued on top of a thin, derivative plotline.
But I also like scenes done in the "interview, then fuck" format. Depends on who's in it and how it's done.
Edited by - witling on 12/15/2008 6:29:11 AM

[Link]

EvilMonkey
Member

55 Posts
9/06

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 9:27AM

That's my favorite kind as well. The setup can be cheesy, but even a cheesy reason for having sex is better than no reason (i.e. fading into the couple making out for no reason).
I hate the interview and the dancing setup. Might as well just include the director giving her a wad of cash and her saying "thanks, let's get this over with so I can go pay my rent." It's actually a turn-off to me.

[Link]

Savoy

All-Star Member

Sucker for Sinners
1844 Posts
12/06

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 9:59AM

Storylines still exist.
They are called features. There are many of them. Go check out the "The Feature Side".

[Link]

ntfighter
Member

645 Posts
7/07

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:10AM

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:43AM

Storylines do exist. but not in nearly as great of a quantity or quality (in most instances) as they did 25+ years ago.
Blame video, the internet, and the general homogenization of cinema.

[Link]

EvilMonkey
Member

55 Posts
9/06

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 11:52AM

To expand on my earlier comment, I'll just say I don't really care so much about features I guess. I just prefer a short setup to the scene (even if it's cheesy).
For example (I am into G/G so I'll use that), you can have a great scene that fades into them making out. It's ok to watch. Now, put on a 1 minute intro (be it a seduction at a laundromat or two roommates or pretty much any setup) and all of a sudden there's a reason for them to be having the sex. All it costs is one minute, and makes the scene a lot hotter to me, and I get into it more. One of my favorite scenes is in Boundaries 2, where two roommates/lovers are fighting about money and then retreat to the bedroom for make-up-sex (during which the one gives up her anal cherry in order to be forgiven). Only took about 90 seconds to setup the scene, but it was hot because of the setup.
Like I said, the reason could be as cheesy as possible, but I still like it more than just the fade-in to sex for no reason, or just the girl dancing and two guys walk in for no reason.
It certainly doesn't have to be a feature with an entire plot and dialogue. Just my two cents.
Edited by - evilmonkey on 12/15/2008 11:53:32 AM

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 7:56PM

Exactly how much do we need to see? If there were 5 or 10 more on the shelf each would that be enough? Are those types of movies in such demand that what's out there not enough to satisfy consumers?

Nah...Let's blame consumers. Because plain and simple if there was a bigger demand for them more would be made. If there was such a demand for them the VIVID, WICKED and feature stuff would always dominate the charts.

[Link]

JennaRulez2006
Member

The Best things In Life Are Chocolate
732 Posts
11/05

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 8:31PM

Everything goes in cycles.
Gonzo was the big thing and now it is all gonzo and all a repeat of one another.
Girl gets a dick on her face, starts suckin, then the guy starts fuckin her.
I like features, but I am more star oriented. Put a bunch of nobodies in a movie and I doubt I will buy it or rent it.
Sometimes titles will attract me. How I got into Jada Fire was I took a chance and bought one, called Black Girls Wanna Cracker. Been a huge fan since and that was in the spring 2007.
Like everything, it has to be quality and over the past handful of years that has lacked alot. With so many studios churning out stuff, alot is just to rip you off now.
features I would say are the majority of the time good quality. Wicked has the best I think. Always liked Sydnee Steele's Wicked features. Jessica Drake is great too.
Gonzo? I'll stick to Jada, Marie Luv for example.

[Link]

DAF1740
Member

305 Posts
9/06

Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 10:19PM

There sure were some great films back in the 70s: China de Sade, Expensive Tastes, Taxi Girls, Femmes de Sade... They're just so much better than today's "features," many of which I find to be pretty lame. Whether it's Wicked, or even Club Jenna, today the plot is often cheesy and the sex the same dull, cookie-cutter variety that we find everywhere else. (Maybe it has to do with the fact that rape/abduction scenarios were allowed back then. Fake violence and rough talk were probably easier on the women than all that gagging and anal pounding that goes on today, too.)
Honestly, like EvilMonkey said, I find some all-sex films where they add a little bit of a plot to be among the best nowadays. Much better than the interview/strip-tease or just jump right into sex kind. My brain needs to be involved somehow, too.
Personally, I prefer the old 1970s natural bush. I know it's a question of personal preference, but I had to add my

. Just another reason why I prefer the classics.

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 2:10AM

There's no "right amount" of plot for a movie, but rather creating a film which feels complete. Modern features often use plot as a transport device to move from one sex scene to another, leaving innumerable questions unanswered and an abundance of plot holes. They do however make room for at least 5/6 10-15 minute sex scenes which, in reality, could easily have been edited down to 3-4 minutes each. Then most modern features would run a mere 60-70 minutes (35 minutes of shallow "plot" and 30 or so minutes of fucking) and, despite still being incomplete feeling, would at least be short enough that I wouldn't have to pick up a remote to fast forward through every endless bout of screwing.
What's more is that I have nothing against "all sex" movies as long as they are visually pleasing. Dicks going into pussies, asses, and mouths look the same each time. Give the film visual flare and and photography not restricted to 5 minute penetration close-ups and you might have a decent movie.
To that extent, there were a number of films made in the 70s, by directors who considered themselves and truly were artists, that today would be considered "all sex" movies, but these titles still work as films because of the aesthetic intent with which they were created.
Films like Visions, Little Girls Blue, Visions of Clair, The Pleasure Masters, Secret Dreams of Mona Q, and many others set up very basic narrative introductions which allowed the films to then blossom into near constant, though always visually remarkable, depictions of sex. Granted these films are mostly surreal and somewhat experimental in nature and I'm certainly not asking everyone to be a low rent Kenneth Anger, but if someone is going to do an "all sex" movie, make it a MOVIE and employ artistic techniques which, because sex is itself almost always boring to watch, make the film a visual feast.

Agreed. And I say fuck the consumers. The consumers are the reason artists like Alex DeRenzy, Gary Graver, Anthony Spinelli, and others had to give up making great hardcore films and take up shooting shot-on-video crap.
Even today, when an artist like David Stanley tries to do something different, he is shot down and forced to conform to ridiculous consumer based standards of what X rated movies should be. Shame of the consumers for destroying the art of explicit sex.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 6:49AM

Just watch, consumers are going to eliminate the DVD market because of the internet. Those who claim otherwise are living in a dream world: if quality was the determining factor in pornography VHS wouldn't have wiped out film.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 6:51AM

The sex in features isn't any different once it starts. The biggest difference is that the viewer doesn't have to sit through a weak story and bad acting before the sex starts and we get more sex scenes per movie with Gonzo.
I'm not saying jumping straight into a sex scene is always the best way to go. I think a two or three minute set up to the scene is usually enough and many of today's movies give you that. For me the feature/story thing usually doesn't work because why am i sitting through a weak story and bad acting when I only want to see sex scenes? I suspect lots of people feel the same way and Gonzo is here to stay.

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 7:32AM

Quality had nothing to do with it.
VHS, and now DVD, brought porn into the home...
Privacy...
With a remote...
With some control over what you were watching.
BIG step up from masturbating in public movie theatres!

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 8:09AM

Exactly, 'quality had nothing to do with it' and that continues to be the watchword of the industry: it is much more convenient today to watch porn on a computer rather than to visit a porn store. It's even more convenient to download or watch the porn for free, which more and more people do everyday.
Edited by - BlackSix on 12/16/2008 8:11:04 AM

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 10:00AM

I prefer owning my porn.
Purchasing and renting DVDs via the Internet is pretty darn convenient too.
And, quality DOES matter!
(However, as I pointed out, it had nothing to do with the migration of porn from film/theatre to VHS/DVD/home.)
I want porn -- in my home -- of the highest quality.
DVDs satisfy me.
The Internet is great for stills, trailers and information.
I do NOT enjoy watching porn -- especially if I want to whack-off -- on computer.
I do NOT like the business models for watching Internet scenes/movies.
I do NOT want to deal with DRM issues!
As far as I'm concerned, there is no substitute for owning hard copies of my porn collection.

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 12:39PM

Where exactly is the improvement?
With theatrical releases we had:
Movies which were shot on film
Oftentimes actual plots and acting
Short, well shot sex scenes
High production values
People directing who not only considered themselves filmmakers but also artists
A great many more people working who could actually act
People who looked like people, not walking rubber.
With the introduction of video we had:
Movies shot on flat looking video (HD isn't much better)
Very rarely any sort of real plot or acting
Long, poorly shot, and above all boring sex scenes
Generally low production values
Directors who don't generally consider themselves either filmmakers or artists
Very few people who can act
Cookie cutter types galore

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 2:20PM

^^ John, read my whole post:

As I said...
Quality had nothing to do with it.
People preferred to masturbate at home, as opposed doing it in public theatres.
There are other reasons -- again, having nothing to do with quality -- that killed porn on film in theatres.
A few, off the top of my head...
Large old theatres became worth more as land/real estate (even parking lots) than as theatres.
Many (most) located in bad neighborhoods.
As the VHS option pulled many customers into their homes, the remaining customers looking for gay blowjobs, drugs and hookers (which you couldn't get at home) only brought increased attention from law enforcement and angry neighbors.
Movies on film are incredibly expensive to produce and, very importantly, costly to create prints for distribution to theatres.
Basically, 35-mm theatrical prints have one use: showing films in theatres. Without enough venues to show porn on film in theatres, the economics were unsustainable.
16-mm prints, also used, had some potential for use outside of theatres, but the cost vs. VHS just didn't make it practical.
Also, much of the early VHS product was simply redistribution of films previously created on film and shown in theatres. Also, many "loops" that had been floating around for years were compiled and sold on VHS.
Economics and convenience killed porn on film shown in theatres -- and "quality had nothing to do with it."
FYI, there's nothing to stop studios from creating original porn of "theatrical quality" for distribution on today's media. Films like "Pirates" and "Fashionistas" come to mind.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 7:49PM

I'm not joking even a little bit when I say for me when it comes to porn nothing on this list matters to me and it fact some of the stuff mentioned I don't even like.
I've seen porn movies that were shot on film and it didn't enhance my watching experience one iota.
I think the plots back then were actually just as bad or worse than the plots in today's porn. Sure you can probably name a few standout stories from those days but generally they were silly and not well written. The bad stuff gets remembered fondly and somehow (conviently) the bad stuff is forgotten.
Give me a great looking girl who can do a great sex scene anyday over someone who can act any day! Some of those good actresses weren't always the hot women. Most people don't watch porn for the acting performances.
It's very, very hard to try and convince me that the short sex scenes of those old days were somehow better.
I believe that directors back then thought of themselves as "artists" but that doesn't make it so. Others making sexy/sexual movies like Russ Meyer, Tinto Brass, Joe Sarno and the like I think more of as "artists" most of the big directors back then were guys who turned to porn when they couldn't break into mainsteam. The porn guys mostly made low budget movies with sex scenes thrown in.
Edited by - draxxx on 12/16/2008 7:50:54 PM

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 16 2008 : 11:38PM

Draxxx wrote:
I'm not joking even a little bit when I say for me when it comes to porn nothing on this list matters to me and it fact some of the stuff mentioned I don't even like.
I've seen porn movies that were shot on film and it didn't enhance my watching experience one iota.
I think the plots back then were actually just as bad or worse than the plots in today's porn. Sure you can probably name a few standout stories from those days but generally they were silly and not well written. The bad stuff gets remembered fondly and somehow (conviently) the bad stuff is forgotten.
Give me a great looking girl who can do a great sex scene anyday over someone who can act any day! Some of those good actresses weren't always the hot women. Most people don't watch porn for the acting performances.
It's very, very hard to try and convince me that the short sex scenes of those old days were somehow better.
Click to expand

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but you're the rule and I'm the exception. I realize that and have realized that ever since I started watching X rated films and discovered that I didn't give a rat's ass about the sex and actually wanted to view these films for plot and acting.
The reason I mentioned and continue to mention film is simply due to the image quality, which even high end video used by Hollywood has not been able to fully match.
I completely agree that 75% of the X rated movies made in the 70s and 80s just plain suck. They're badly written, acted, directed, photographed, etc. But these days I'd venture to say that 99.5% of the X rated movies made suck and even the vast majority of that .5% are about on par with the 75% of suckage from the 70s.
Give me any year between 1973 and 1983 and I could list between 20-30 X rated movies made that year which are genuinely good films. Maybe not to everyone's taste (although that's beside the point), but undeniably well made and genuinely artistic pieces of cinema.
Today I'd be lucky if I could make a top 5 list for every year between 1988 and the present (and I wouldn't be in the lest but surprised if the same 3-4 directors comprised 75% of the titles on those lists.
Likewise, being less than a beauty queen but a talented actress is just fine by me.
Why must sex scenes run forever? 5 minutes is more than plenty. Believe me, making something a tight 5 minutes is a lot harder than a loose 10.
The bottom line is this: everything has already been done in porn. Every conceivable permutation of coupling based on gender, age, ethnicity, sexual position, volume of performers in a scene as well as gender ratios in group encounters, height, weight, accent, clothing style, hair style, tattoos, shaven, hairy, hair color, and the 500+ other ones I can't think of.
So how many more interracial anal MILF tapes do we need, or midget gangbangs, or tapes dedicated to cum being shot on one's mouth, eyes, face, kneck, chest, hair, breasts, stomach, back, pussy, ass, legs, feet, some article of clothing, on the male himself (and by extension any of the above mentioned body parts)? How many more bareback series do we need? How many more series about lecherous old men finding supposedly teenage girls on the street and debauching them at their dull looking ikea decorated valley pads?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is none. What do we need? Stories, acting, production values, etc. Why? Because those things can never get old. No one is going to get tired of good scripts, no one is going to get tired of good actors, no one is going to get tired of good cinematography, lighting, editing, etc. And no, a porn star who can act but has never been given lines more complicated than "fuck my pussy" but has graciously performed every sex act known to man, has not been used to her full potential.
But I know that 99.8% of the world (I'm just assuming that figure) disagrees with me on that and will continue to shell out lots of money to see the same thing they've seen hundreds of times before.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 1:24AM

Sorry, but neither of those are of theatrical quality, particularly Pirates.
I doubt many men under the age of 30 bother buying their porn on DVD at all and they are the future, not you or me. The hardcore raincoater brigade represented on this forum (some of whom buy 20-30 titles a month!!) does not represent the average porn consumer out there.

[Link]

BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 7:09AM

My point still stands.
(Whether or not any movie will rise to your expectations of theatrical quality.)

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:30AM

I did, but only chose to comment on the last sentence.

When did I say that the average consumer cares about quality? I happen to but I realize I'm not normal for actually wanting to watch good movies :)

Or just not masturbate if they feel ashamed of it.

True and true. Another sad reminder of how this country doesn't care about its history. I'm from Chicago, which once had over 300 movie theatres and some of the most beautiful such venues in the world. And yes, the vast majority of them have been destroyed in favor of cookie-cutter condos and parking lots. That actually works as a metaphor for the death of theatrical hardcore: both X rated theatrical films, which were made by artists, and the theatres they were shown in, which were built by artists, were replaced with nondescript cookie-cutter crap.

Very true. The average feature film only had between 20 and 30 prints struck (usually 10 or so were 35mm and the rest usually 16mm). Some movies had a great many more made and some many less. It depended on the presumed successfulness of the film.
The point is, when video came in, as you said, people chose to go to their homes and watch downright bad movies shot on tape over having to endure the social [non] stigma of going to a theatre to see a film. VHS won because it was cheap and people preferred it. I'm not arguing with that, just saying it's a shame.

True, just like the early days of VHS for Hollywood films. Most of the VHS releases of X rated films up to 1983 were just re-issues of theatrical titles. The theatrical market boomed until 1983 because most people couldn't afford VCRs.

As Blacksix said, although these movies have stories, they're hardly the same in either style of substance to theatrical films of the 70s. I'd say that the only directors who have really pulled off making films and videos in the last few years which are truly similar to theatrical works of 25 years ago are David Stanley, Paul Thomas, and Nic Andrews.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 12:24PM

Looking at mainstream Hollywood, do your not think than Nth gory action flick with Matrix type special effects is getting old? That making Nth lame remake of an old classic is getting old? How many comic based superhero nonsense do we need? How many Batmans, Spidermans, Supermans, Iron Mans do they need to make before it does get old? I am just wondering, because those are movies supposedly with stories and most definitely high production values. If we don't get tired of watching shoot-outs, gore, martial arts, explosions, car chases, etc. over and over again in mainstream, then why would we get tired of watching boobs, pussies, asses, fucking, and anal MILF midget gang-bangs in porn?
However, there is really no need to put hardcore fucking into otherwise decent action thrillers or romantic comedies or whatever, just as there no need to put cgi, long dialogs, non-sex action sequences, creative montage, deep storylines into otherwise hot and steamy pornos. In my opinion, it won't make either them any better. Long sex scenes will annoy viewers like you who want to see artistic value, and storylines/scripts and "acting" will bore viewers like me who just want rub one out.

[Link]

bear
New Member

2 Posts
12/08

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 12:59PM

I agree with witling that a series of cheesy whimsical vignettes are better that a long feature. At least if one of the scenes are lame you have a few more that are usually decent. I likedJames Avalons: Erotic Stories, Lovers and Cheaters. Wish I could find more like them. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 1:01PM

You're talking about very specific types of "mainstream" movies. There are still plenty of films being made which are creative and innovative and do not rely on explosions and bad computer effects to gain an audience. I'd agree that watching buildings explode in succession is just like watching dicks going into pussies over and over. That's why I said people will not get tired of GOOD stories, acting etc. I'm in complete agreement that most stuff coming out of Hollywood is crap.

But why not? I'm not saying that all gonzo production must stop but rather that I don't see why we can't have exactly what's you're saying is pointless: good movies with hardcore sex. There's no reason why an action thriller that would have had a sex scene or two in it anyway can't make that scene hardcore. I'm not saying it should last 10 minutes. It could last 30 seconds if the director thought it was best at that length.
A great example of this are the Danish Tegn movies, a series of six hardcore sex comedies. The sex is infrequent and the scenes are very short (lasting an average of 2 minutes) but use the explicitness of the action as a comedic device, such as adding funny sound effects when hardons pop up or putting sex scenes in fast motion or in silly positions. The explicit sex actually makes the films funnier and better as films. I don't see why that same attitude can't be applied to hardcore feature films in this country.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 9:24PM

So why even watch x-rated movies? If your biggest concern is plot, acting, production values etc., why look for it in a place where it's known not to exist? It sounds like the sex is only geting in your way anyway. Go watch some Tinto Brass or the Italian softcore stuff. Most porn isn't made to satisfy what you want to see. You're just wasting your time.

The reason I mentioned and continue to mention film is simply due to the image quality, which even high end video used by Hollywood has not been able to fully match.
Why on earth should porn films invest that type of money on that sort of production whe the returns are so low? And even more importantly when 99% of the viewers could care less about it.
Give me any year between 1973 and 1983 and I could list between 20-30 X rated movies made that year which are genuinely good films. Maybe not to everyone's taste (although that's beside the point), but undeniably well made and genuinely artistic pieces of cinema.
Today I'd be lucky if I could make a top 5 list for every year between 1988 and the present (and I wouldn't be in the lest but surprised if the same 3-4 directors comprised 75% of the titles on those lists.
Click to expand
That's because today's directors are making porn and not trying to fool themselves into thinking they're making "cinema" or that they even need to make "art".
Likewise, being less than a beauty queen but a talented actress is just fine by me.
Click to expand
Good for you. Me? I'm standing in that really long line of guys who'd rather see a pretty girl with nice breasts and a cute ass who can do a hot scene.
Why must sex scenes run forever? 5 minutes is more than plenty. Believe me, making something a tight 5 minutes is a lot harder than a loose 10.
Click to expand
How hard could it have been when a lot of it was simulated sex? For me the #1 most annoying thing about those old storyline porn movies were the the 5 minute sex scenes that had 2 and ahalf minutes of simulated sex or positions that didn't show any insertion. Call me crazy but maybe I don't want to see 2 minutes of two pornstars upper bodies in the middle of their 5 minute sex scene.
I think you're looking back at that old stuff through rose colored glasses. The stuff I've seen from that era isn't anywhere as good as you make it out to be. Anyone looking at 20 seconds of those old movies can easily tell most of them were on par with the cheap D-list movies of that era. Who looks at that old stuff and thinks of it as "art" or even well done unless comparing in with even worse porn movies?

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 10:36PM

I love Brass. He's a great filmmaker and, like it or not, a genuine artist.
I think there's a lot of good hardcore out there. There are still folks trying to make good X rated movies but sadly people just don't want the stuff.

Why not? You yourself have already said that Hollywood movies are full of pointless violence, explosions, etc. So why not go hardcore when a sex scene is going to be in a film anyway? I'm certainly not advocating that every movie contain hardcore sex but I just don't see why it's perfectly acceptable to fill screens with gallons of fake blood but somehow pointless to include unsimulated sex scenes. Neither of these things will ostensibly do anything for the film per se, but if they are handled well, can add to the realism and effectiveness of the film as a whole.

Once again, I never asked for everyone to be or try to be an artist. If people want to make cheap, dull porn, that's OK by me. No one forces me to watch it so I really don't care. I simply don't get why everyone is against the concept of making a real film with hardcore sex. In general, I'd much rather watch a movie by a person who considers him or herself a filmmaker than something by a person who is perfectly content directing nothing but poorly photographed and generally emotionless sex.

Like I said, there's a lot of crap from the 70s and early 80s. If you'd like I can recommend you a few films which might just sway your opinion on 70s stuff. I'm not saying that these movies will turn you on, but they'll give you an idea of the kind of basic cinematic quality I seem to very rarely find in recent films.

[Link]

RFrog
Member

396 Posts
10/07

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:37PM

I agree.
I dig a good "story". A sexual fantasy come true.
However, the scene has to be well directed with good acting and good writing. That's difficult to justify in porn.
Think back and remember one of your most elaborate, kinky fantasies... and write a one page synopsis about it... and ask a director to make it.
Seeing one of my twisted fantasies on video would blow me away!

[Link]

ntfighter
Member

645 Posts
7/07

Posted - Dec 17 2008 : 11:59PM

I'd be happy if the actors were allowed to fuck as realistically as they did in the past. Not one studio has shot the actual missionary position since 1980. The doggy position died out about the same time. Now it seems that the director only objective is to keep the "plunging penis" in the frame, and not miss the cum-shot. When they are successful at these two thing they are satisfied that they have made a good movie.

[Link]

Skyscrapper
Member

667 Posts
12/08

Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 7:52PM

Two words. Boogie Nights.

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 9:09PM

What exactly about Boogie Nights?

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 9:11PM

In the past few weeks I've bought a few of the type of movies you'd probably like. "PRIVATE" and "MONAMUR"(SP?) by Tinto Brass. "IMAGES IN A CONVENT" and "EMANUELLE IN AMERICA" by Joe D'Amato. I Plan to get "PORNO HOLOCAUST" and "THE BEAST" soon. These movies pretty much are the kind of movies you're talking about, actual movies with a plot, location shots, an accomplished director and starlets who go much further than mainstream actresses go and girls who'll do real hardcore scenes. In fact in an interview D'Amato says that the film distributors overseas encouraged him and other film makers like him to add hardcore footage to make the film perform better. So they shot hardcore scenes and put them in. In most cases the sex was very natural looking and the girls often looked surprisingly good.
But....I don't consider that stuff porn per se. I consider that "erotica". Two pretty different things in my mind. Two different things with two different approaches and two different mindsets. I don't think either works when either tries to be more like the other.
In my opinion the porn movies you're talking about try to go the "erotic" route but don't do it nearly as well as the stuff I mention because the directors and "actors" aren't nearly as talented, the budget big enough and the stories are usually bad.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 11:01PM

Draxxx, if you think Joe D'Amato, one of the worst directors to ever breath air, is more talented than Armand Weston or Gary Graver...I don't know what to say, we obviously have such different views of things.
I actually think Brass' best movies are the ones he did before Salon Kitty.
Edited by - BlackSix on 12/18/2008 11:02:38 PM

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 18 2008 : 11:43PM

D'Amato is OK here and there but I'll agree that his movies are pretty lame overall.
Porno Holocaust has more sex in it than 75% of most X rated films made in the 70s so I'd hardly call it "erotica."
I love Brass' films but I'd agree that a number of his 80s and 90s films are quite slow. I'd love to find a copy of L'Urlo with English subs. I just got Action, from 1980, and it's pretty terrific (even though my copy is Italian only).
Agreed though: to say that D'Amato, with his often tedious globe trotting adventures, is a better filmmaker than Gary Graver, Armand Weston, Anthony Spinelli, let alone the great Chuck Vincent or Radley Metzger (both of whom made some films which were 10 times better than many art films of the period) is horribly inaccurate.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 9:59PM

When I named Joe D'Amato's work it was actually more about the kind of movies he made/makes because those seem to be movies more in line with what John wants to see...movies with a plot, "real" actors, locales, and some hardcore sex thrown in. When all those things are involved that cuts list of directors who shoot those types of movies outside of porn down to just a few that I'm personally aware of.
Perhaps D'Amato and Brass weren't technically better directors than the people you name but I personally think their work was overall a better finished product than most of the porn I've seen from that era. But that's just my opinion because I'm going by the limited amount of porn from that era and the fact that I generally fastforward through much of story of that porn era.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 10:30PM

I haven't seen it yet. I plan to check it out based on the trailers. I didn't compare it directly to any specific porn director. Yes, you're right "Holocaust" isn't really "erotica" from what I've seen in the trailer but I liked IMAGES IN A CONVENT and his Emanuelle stuff so I thought it'd be along those lines.
Not great films in the general sense but for movies that have hardcore scenes that aren't true porn I don't think they're all that bad overall.

[Link]

echoplex
Member

197 Posts
9/08

Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 10:47PM

Heh... I sometimes like the short "storylines" that Gag Factor does on occasion. I quite enjoy some of them.

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 19 2008 : 11:25PM

Images might have been his best film.
The Emanuelle stuff is often dull.
I do like how he shot sex, but it's not the style of the sex scenes in so many XXX films that I hate but their usual length and irrelevance to the film.
Take a gander at Chuck Vincent's Roommates or Armand Weston's Taking of Christina if you want to get a good idea of the type of film I'm going for and the type of film I really feel should be the norm in features rather than the exception.

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 4:37AM

I get'cha now Draxxx, sorry if I sounded like a dick.
I enjoy D'Amato's films but mostly as camp and inept sleaze. Honestly I wouldn't even bother with Porno Holocaust, it sounds a lot better than it is, Emanuelle Around the World would be the best of his sleaze epics, imo.
Brass, though, is definitely a talented director. Caligula is pretty terrible but Guccione took it away from Brass and had some simpleton edit it into the mess that it is today.
Borowyczyk, the director of The Beast, did a really excellent film with Joe Dallesandro and Sylvia Kristel (the REAL Emmanuelle!) called La Marge which I really liked even though it was in unsubbed French.
Edited by - BlackSix on 12/20/2008 4:42:44 AM

[Link]

Uppercut
Member

74 Posts
3/08

Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 12:40PM

What drives me nuts is when a scene starts out with a storyline and dialogue between the two actors, and then, as soon as they get down to sex, the female turns and stares right into the camera. Tlak about ruining the illusion.

[Link]

Ibrox
Deactivated User

120 Posts
12/08

Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 7:45PM

The storyline is still here. See Corruption and Upload.

[Link]

RFrog
Member

396 Posts
10/07

Posted - Dec 20 2008 : 11:55PM

As a guy, I like story lines that appeal... to guys.
I'm not into the ritzy story lines in a Playboy mansion.
I'm not into the dangerous world of sexy private-investigators trying to crack the mystery of the century.
I'm not into smoke-filled dream sequences. I'm not into sexy alien women de-virginizing un-suspecting men at truck stops.
I'm not into surreal or outlandish fantasy stuff.
I prefer stories that hit close to home.
I prefer stories that are based on the usual male fantasies.
I fantasize about hooking up with a cute bartender at the local club. I fantasize about screwing a sexy milf at the local laundry matt. I fantasize about getting it on with a hot dental assistant.

[Link]

killbillvol69

All-Star Member

^Lucy Pinder
18634 Posts
4/08

Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 12:05AM

^It's "laundromat".

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 4:44AM

Your notions of what doesn't appeal to 'guys' seems pretty limited to me. The detective storylines in particular play pretty directly to macho fantasy, although perhaps of a different generation.

[Link]

XXXenophile
Member

343 Posts
1/07

Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 5:20AM

LOL in other words, every movie made by Private. And they generally do fairly good plot driven movies when they're doing the big budgets. But yeah, everytime they turn toward the camera I'm just going "Oh not again!"

[Link]

john lyons
Senior Member

Co-founder of Vinegar Syndrome
1188 Posts
1/08

Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 11:54AM

But what you're proposing aren't really storylines. They're set-ups. They just end after the sex.
Believe me, there's plenty of what your after.
But what makes your "usual male fantasize" usual male fantasies?
As Blacksix mentioned, the detective story is a classic macho and masculine motif and it can actually be developed into a story, not just a vignette.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Dec 21 2008 : 1:26PM

No offense taken. I like lots of those 70s and 80s film that have some sort of a story going and have "sex scenes" that come very close to actual sex without going all the way. I often wonder how he guys can stand doing all that stuff without going all the way. Plus there's the aspect of how'd they get those actresses to go that far. I get a bit of a thrill from that and if there's a real story going on, all the better. Seeing full penetration in one of those types of movies is exciting to see simply because they aren't pornstars (that I know of) and the sex often looks more real and less staged and machanical.
Some of those types of movies I buy because of who's staring in them. Sometimes it's because the plot sounds interesting. Sometimes it's because I liked the director/producer/company who did something else I liked. Lots of times I'm disapointed, sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.
But with actual porno, I view it to see the actual sex act. So any type of real story that stops or slows things down from me seeing that only gets in my way. The best case senario is a short 3 to 5 minute set up where everyone starts out dressed and a senario is introduced to set up the reason why they're about to have sex. The we see them start and we see the undressing and foreplay.
It's okay to occasionally just see a girl in a room posing and already nude or semi-nude dancing (for no reason) and the guy just walks in they start going it at it but it's not my fav way to start a sex scene. But even with those if the sex is hot then I don't even care.

[Link]