And like others have said, music videos, especially MTV back in the day, had a clear and profound affect on the way porn was shot, and still is. Funny how MTV barely even shows videos or even music anymore. Pretty ironic.
[Link]
RemyGetsMeWet Deactivated User
Freedom Of Speech Isn't A Punchline 300 Posts 6/12
Posted - Jun 14 2012 : 9:00PM
^Yet they can't seem to understand why they aren't as popular as they once were. I will add stunt dicks who think that people pay to see them, not the Gorgeous Women that they couldn't get within 5 miles of if the companies were not paying the girls to f*ck them.
^I think MTV could look at why they aren't as popular as they once were but that would require them to find their soul and that's usually quite hard when you sold it to make money by creating shows like The Real World, The Osbournes, Nick and Jessica, Laguna Beach, The Hills, Jersey Shore and so many other despicable shows with a combined IQ of -50. I'd call that kind of programming reatrded but it would be insulting to people with actual mental deficencies. I don't know if you can blame all the stunt dicks of today. Yes there are quite a large number of them but I don't think it's because they can't be more but that no one wants them to be more. A large part of why i like older porn is because the guy was more than a penis with legs. The guys could act and that was important tin those movies but which director today need acting from his male or female talent?
[Link]
RemyGetsMeWet Deactivated User
Freedom Of Speech Isn't A Punchline 300 Posts 6/12
Yeah back then, acting was all they really had. Not everyone was crazy about it, which is probably why gonzo and all-sex films took off so much. I think in minds of those opposed, sex and acting simply couldn't be effectively mixed, and neither was really ever that good. I disagreed mostly, but was clearly outnumbered. There really aren't many directors producing feature films, outside the occasional parody. I think most have more or less given up, or are trying to produce films that are decidely more hardcore. Here's hoping they bring a story with them. Edited by - aplus on 6/14/2012 10:40:58 PM
[Link]
RemyGetsMeWet Deactivated User
Freedom Of Speech Isn't A Punchline 300 Posts 6/12
Posted - Jun 14 2012 : 11:00PM
I don't find porn that erotic anymore. is it a turn on watching hot women screw? of course, It isn't Insatiable, Budding Of Brie, TDIMJ, but then I don't find Deep Throat erotic either. Lovelace's performance is fantastic but not erotic. There are so many hot stars today, and it may be pompous on my part but I'd love to see someone like Ann Marie Rios Do "Emmanuelle" as a porn film. Bobbi Starr in "The Story Of O" would be monstrous. Stoya in the Lead of "Lady Chatterley's Lover", Remy LaCroix in "Lolita" ... something with some depth to it. But it isn't gonna happen and that's sad.
There is so much more porn available nowadays that it's hard for me to believe that 'porn is getting killed'. Getting killed is usually associated with less availability and not more. Perhaps some previously profitable business models in porn are now getting killed. But not everybody in porn is out to make money, at least not directly. Plenty of amateur porn-makers are now making their own porn movies and releasing them for free for everyone to see, which was unheard of in the so called good old days. Amateur porn is not only alive and well; it's exploding on the internet in both the number of new porn actors and the kinds of sex they have with each other. But the thing about amateur porn is that a lot of it is poorly made. Which gives an opportunity for professional porn makers to compete in terms of porn quality and still make some money in porn. And much of what you call 'male aggression' in porn is actually male sexual passion. When the horny guy truly wants the nice lady's ass, then he wants her ass now and not later. Patience is a virtue only for the satiated guy, whose balls aren't aching for the nice lady's ass. A truly passionate guy skull-fucks the pretty lass, so that he quickly gets an erection going to penetrate her ass. And once the passionate guy starts going with his cock inside the nice lady's ass, then there is no way he is going to stop, until she gives a big wet kiss on his balls with her open pussy lips. Because no truly passionate guy is going to resist his natural instinct to penetrate the pretty lady as much as he can and pound away between her sexy ass-cheeks. Edited by - Dan on 6/15/2012 6:25:28 AM
MTV's influence goes much further than porn, the way movies, tv and even commercials are shot and edited have been effected by MTV. But I don' always think that's a bad thing.
I've never watched or even seen most of those shows but I think they are actually a big part of what kept MTV alive or brought them attention for all these years. I hear people say MTV went to hell when they stopped showing music videos but I also remember people used to complain about MTV showing the same videos over and over. In the early days of video there was an excitement to them and they were "must see" entertainment but as the years went on they weren't as important to people. If MTV hadn't started putting on something other than non-stop videos they might sank. Most people can only watch so many of same videos before they get bored and look for something else to watch. For the people who want an all video MTV, there are several MTV stations that give them that. There are about 6 different MTV/VH1 channels on cable. Some are all video, some show "classic" videos, some devoted to rock, etc... Another thing people don't seem to understand is that those MTV reality shows are aimed at teens. Of course adults won't like them because they aren't the intended audience.
^ Teens and immature adults like myself... I agree with what you say about the music video impact on culture at large. It's not just porn. And when you consider people like Gregory Dark (who made some of my favourite porn films of the 80s), then it gets more complicated in a chicken/egg sort of way. I don't think it's as simple as "this caused this" or "this made this worse." It's certainly easier to think in those terms though.
Remember that in the early days of porn most of it was viewed in a theatre. If you expect people to pay for a movie and sit through it it needs to have a story to keep you interested past the sex scenes. For the story to work the story needed at least serviceable acting to it from not falling apart. Once porn was able to be watch at home or elsewhere and the veiwer could control what or how much they could watch the story beame less important for many people. Many people only put up with the feature aspect because they didn't have any/few alternatives. Lots of people watch porn only care about seeing sex and a story only gets in the way of that. There are people who want a sexy story and people who want a sex scene.
[Link]
RemyGetsMeWet Deactivated User
Freedom Of Speech Isn't A Punchline 300 Posts 6/12
Posted - Jun 15 2012 : 9:30AM
sadly the former is ignored do to the latter making the quicker money at the expense of quality. very few films shot today will be "all time" films, despite the attempts by the industry to make them seem as though they belong in the same league.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Jun 15 2012 : 1:17PM
One thing I remember about the 70's -- let's call it the "Deep Throat Era" when porn was being shot on 35mm film and shown in real theatres -- is that the girls were absolutely stars. There was a glamour and stardom associated with being in real movies -- with real scripts, original music, production values and an actual budget. I'm not saying that the actual sex was better. In most cases, well shot scenes today, with quality audio/video and competent editing, are far more satisfying from the simple sex (and masturbating to it) standpoint. Yes, we have great pornstars today. But, the performers from the "Golden Age" were just larger-than-life genuine stars.
[Link]
RemyGetsMeWet Deactivated User
Freedom Of Speech Isn't A Punchline 300 Posts 6/12
Well I won't say the mystique is totally gone, but it's clearly has lessened. Porn was much more underground back then because it was basically illegal. They did seem larger than life because they weren't nearly as accessible as they are in today internet and showy world.
Apples and oranges. It's not fair to compare a 70s feature to a 2000s Gonzo movie because the goals of the two are very different. I think a JULES JORDAN movie can be high quality for what he's trying to accomplish. For the people who want to see well shot sex I think plenty of the directors doing Gonzo movies do it well and put out quailty product. Just because they can do it faster and cheaper than the 70s feature guys doesn't mean it lacks quality. As far as comparing today's features to the features of the 70s everyone has their opinions about it but for me and what I've seen I can say the 70s stuff was "different" but I can't say it was necessarily always "better". When I see people talk about the supposedly great stuff of the 70s porn I keep seeing the same movies mentioned over and over. The movies mentioned so often may have been great stuff but like every era it was surrounded by not so great stuff that the nostalgic defenders seem to ignore or forget. I tend to think if an unbias person just took 10 random features from the 70s and put them up against 10 random features from the 2000s the 70s stuff probably wouldn't be the clear winners. The 70s had some strong actors and some good scripts but there was lots of bad actors and bad scripts also. I'm really not a big porn features guy but I have a much easier time sitting through most of today's features than the 70s stuff. I'd say the 70s stuff was more ambitious in a lot of cases but for me that doesn't always translate to being a better porn movie.It all depends on how they're being judged.
There's nothing wrong with that stuff by the way... People forget what a huge impact shows like THE OSBORNES and THE REAL WORLD had and what fun it was to watch by people of all ages. When that stuff was new and fresh it could make for interesting/funny entertainment. People say stuff like THE JERSEY SHORE is low brow and has no value but that's true of a lot of entertainment. No one is claiming it's important intelligent programming and the appeal of it is probably that it's a train wreak. I have to imagine the majority of that other stuff like THE HILLS serves the same sort of entertainment value and appeal that soap operas and dramas serve except they aren't completely scripted and actors playing totally made up characters.Again, not always a bad thing... I like movies, tv, comercials, etc., having a visual style and being fast moving. It doesn't work well for everything but it often makes for interesting visuals and sometimes faster pacing is good. With visual mediums I think it's a good idea to keep the images interesting and exciting and moving forward.
Just a thought: Is it possible that unscripted/gonzo is a better vehicle for porn? Perhaps scripted erotica was the "early draft" of the form and got superseded in evolution. Look at sitcoms: generally they last for 4-5 seasons if they're lucky. Any longer than that, people will inevitably start complaining that the show is repetitive or stale. Then look at Saturday Night Live: It will soon have its 40th season and maybe even its 50th in 2025. Doing comedy in 5-15 minutes sketches may be a better vehicle for laughter than stretching a single concept for 22 minutes over the course of a 20-show season. YMMV.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 26 2012 : 3:53AM
I love the 70s films and always will, when it comes to g/g I'd agree that the stuff being produced these days is much better than what you got in most features and definitely better than the crapola produced in the 80s/90s but let's not forget Georgina Spelvin's absolutely volcanic lesbian scenes throughout the 70s and early 80s. She was a one-woman Girlfriend/Sweatheart/Club 59, cranking out one great scene after another.
I'll see you your "SNL was only funny for four years" and raise you a "Simpsons has sucked since season five". *note:that's not my personal belief, just what others often say...
https://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/scenes-w-genuine-passion-intensity/ This was a discussion on some of the current scenes that have the passion that we associate from the 70's-80's quality porn . Not all porn produced today is jack hammer bukkake stuff (not that theres anything wrong with that) . From Nica Noelle's Sweetheart and Sweet Sinner lines to Manuel Ferrara's Raw series , there is high quality to be found . It's also a matter of the stars , from Jenna Haze over the last decade to new stars like Remy .
I think Porn today is far more of a contact sport than what it use to be, I think some are looking to add shock value more and more these days because porn is far more mainstream and acceptable in our society than it was decades ago.
Porn director Gregory Dark probably more than any director had a very MTV video type feel with his porn movies back in the day. Dark not only used lots of quick cuts but strong imaginative images, camera angles, lighting and costumes in his porn movies. The MTV style of shooting movies, tv, commercials, porn, etc., isn't always a bad thing. The style makes for more exciting visuals on screen.
I agree and disagree. I mean it can be good, and certainly isn't always bad. At some point though, I simply want to see some fucking and sucking, and not constant teasing.
Pornmakers generally don't have any original ideas. Gonzo porn followed along with the reality TV model, which pretty much eliminated the paying of writers and actors. So, what we now have is glut of mostly crappy gonzo with 5 or so sex scenes with each gal pretty much playing herself until a porn stud (or two) is brought in to fuck her in whatever way the director sees fit. It's cheap; it's easy (and getting easier) and a far cry from the low budget film shoots prior to 1985. If this is how you like your porn, then have at it.
Sure do enjoy it now. I'm relieved i dont have to endure lengthy acting before they get to the sex. If those guys in the 70's had been given a fast forward remote control while taking their seat in the cinema, i bet few people would have ever known what the plots to those movies were. I tried watching some 70's porn once. They director kept cutting to these facial reaction shots of the men while they were being blown. They never seemed to focus on any action for more than three seconds before cutting to someones mugshot of badly feigned ecstasy. To someone who didnt grow up on that type of porn ,it felt alien and slightly slapstick. How can i get off when im mainly being shown their faces. The idea of arriving at a different angle by moving the camera without cutting had not yet occurred to the directors of the limited clips that ive watched. Whenever there was an shot of something i found appealing, such as the girl giving head, it would always cut away before i could even start to get into it. Cut cut cut. Face face face. I truly wanted to enjoy it but the directing and editing style wasnt for me. But i recognize they also made feature movies back which some people think of fondly. So credit to that era. Without it, we wouldnt have this one. Edited by - fevrinnn on 7/1/2012 6:32:16 PM
Exciting visuals are OK if the real-life real-time version of events is inferior to what you desire to show on screen. TV commercials need to convey a lot of intensity/interest within 30 seconds or 60 seconds. The action sequence within a movie or TV show needs rapid-fire insane editing to create an hyped-up level of excitement which is impossible to achieve at normal speed. OTOH a sex tease sequence is very stimulating and very interesting all by itself, at normal speed, in real time. But many directors feel compelled to make the tease sequence an MTV-style disaster, where you never see anything for more than 2 seconds before there is a jarring switch to something different, sped up or slowed down or zoomed in or zoomed out, switching from the girl's butt to her face but for only 1.5 seconds and then shes pulling down her panties and suddenly shes in a bikini by a pool then suddenly she's wearing jeans, walking down the sidewalk...Whew All in all it's a tease of a tease, showing us snippets of all the great footage they could have shown us, but elected to slice and dice it to smithereens so nobody can enjoy it, just for the hell of it. Then, to add insult to injury, after the fiasco of a tease sequence, the male performer appears, and suddenly the editing style switches to normal. The message is that we don't really want to see the girl (so they have to resort to all that crazy editing crap so we don't fall asleep), but we really do want to see they guy and watch every second of of everything he does, at normal speed, in normal time.
This is how I see the plot aspect in old porn movies: If I see two women and the other is known to me from some instance and the other is a complete stranger, it most often would be more titillating to see that known woman naked than the complete stranger. In quite a same way it's way more titillating to see a sex scene happen after it and the people in it being set up in previous scenes. It's more titillating to "know" the characters in one way or another. Even the gonzo movies are much better if they have a longer "interview" before the sex. Casual talking can also do the trick. But what comes to features, it's in my opinion always better to have a longer setup with good dialogue than a rushed quickly shot small talk of some modern movies (not that the old ones didn't have that too, though).I love the old movies, and certainly prefer them to the modern movies, but you are somewhat right in what you said. I recall Shaun Costello saying that the studios in the 70's used to do really cheap movies in a few days so that they could afford to do that one more artistic movie. So, there must be a lot of movies without that kind of merit that those often mentioned classics have. I'd say those cheap movies might have a certain charm but they can be amazingly dull too. The thing with modern features is that even though the image is more crisp and clear with nowaday's technology, it still looks like a video instead of a film. I'm a huge lover of 80's horror films too, but even then the movies which were shot on video are way more harder to look at than those shot on film. It's much more satisfying to watch people talking and the plot advancing when it's shot on film than watching the same thing shot on video.
What comes to the "MTV visuals", I'd say the style isn't really just a "music video" style. It's called "video art" and has been around way longer than music videos as we know them. For some reason the style of video art just fits into the concept of music videos. Perhaps it's something that just happens to fit in the concept of individual porn scenes too.
Hmmm...To each his/her own I suppose. I don't remember ever seeing anything cut in the extreme way you descibe here unless it was a teaser sequence not meant to last more than a minute or two and not really meant to be linered on by the viewer. But yeah, there are lots of cuts in most "tease" scenes because it just makes it look more visually interesting. As much as I enjoy a tease sequence focused on a nice bubble butt I tend to think it would get old and boring pretty fast if the camera just stayed in the same position at the same angle for too long. Plus the fact that it's "tease"...meaning it just gives you a little and then takes it away, or changes to something else leaving you wanting more. I think the girl usually gets the right amount of attention most of the time in most teasers. With teasers I think the main goal is to make what could be mudane images look sexy and exciting. When the actual sex begins that's the main reason for the scene and there's enough going on that a much slower style and speed of cutting is needed. Most people are most interestd in seeing the sex and the teaser is just a prelude or warm up to the sex so it's important that the tease portion is shot as visually interesting as possible to keep people from getting bored with it and fastforwarding through it to get to the part they really want to see (the sex).
Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09
Posted - Jul 2 2012 : 2:25AM
Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion, apologies been offline for a while and not quoting directly. I fully agree on the full production of 70s movies versus the commmodization of porn scenes today, but what I was really interested in was the sex in these movies themselves? Someone mentioned rough sex etc, I didn't mean rough porn, and I have watched alot of porn over the last 25+ years. What I mean for example is a comparison of.. 70s - Desiree Cousteus with a sexy O face and sexy slightly closed eyes moaning softly in pleasure. v Pretty much any scene form any genre today - Pornstar with O mouth and slightly closed eyes and moaning from seems an element of discomfort. Sure I loving seeing girls getting fucked hard, and also enjoy the fetish scene vids of today like POV Jugg Fuckers, but what seems to be non-existent is girls making love. Maybe its back in the 70s the couple got to know each other a bit before the scene over a 2 week shoot, whereas today is Hi I'm John, I'm Kate .. and action! Maybe as mentioned with millions of starlets and insufficient male talent (and also realist junk back then versus every guy today with a third forearm) these guys have to be full of viagra and jack-hammer fuck to get the job done 5 times a day? No discussion of the drugs or the feminism angle so maybe I was completely off base. But did seem to be girls genuinely enjoying it then versus sometimes appears to be just getting the job done today. Someone mentioned the couch. Couple of other things is clothes and location. In the VIP is the best example of both. Awesome leadup in a club of girls with lots of voyeuristic peeping upskirts and cleavage, then for the sex leave the club for a bog standard couch/bed and strip off all their sexy clothes. Also wanted to mention I love when two scenes are intercut, and Salieri was the master. A girl stripping in the background you can see through a girl in the foreground giving a blowjob. Or guy spying on a couple having sex while getting a blowjob etc, or a girl spying or dreaming while masturbating.
Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09
Posted - Jul 3 2012 : 7:10PM
The best example I have seen for years of doing it right is Wowgirls. I am obviously in no way affiliated with this site in any way whatsoever but just an example of beautiful natural (albeit young and slender) girls and the scenes are very intimate and erotic with proper worshiping blowjobs, deep slower rhythmic fucking instead of jack-hammering (including anal), the girls being genuinely aroused with wide head back long sexy O mouths.. all the good stuff, the guys paying attention and worshiping her also, and finishing with great cumshots and facials with the girls mouths open wide almost begging for your cum and great cleanup afterwards. Really imo a perfect example of how to do erotic porn.
Hmmm...To each his/her own. My point is, to those of us who actually care about seeing the woman solo, who want to see/enjoy the woman's body for a bit, why not at least let us have that? If you have a short attention span or are jonesing to see some sex, then that is why the skip/FF button was invented. Why presume that 100% of the viewers have no interest in seeing the woman solo? I understand your point of view, but given that mindset, why not give the same slice-and-dice treatment to the BJ sequence, because I happen to find BJ boring. I am adult enough to realize that others may prefer the long drawn out BJ's, so I just FF or skip over it. Why should the opening solo sequence be treated any differently?
To be clear, (I) wasn't really wasn't talking about tease segments that are shot before the scene. I was specifically talking tease elements that tend to happen often or repeatedly during the actual sex in the scene. Although I would prefer longer moments during the opening parts, it doesn't bother me as much then. I really like looking at the women during the actual sex. I like seeing: her eyes, her facial expressions, her vocal utterances, sweat on her body, hard nipples, her body-tone or skin-tone, muscles flexing or contracting, what she does with her hands, and her athletism. Things that tend to get lost or distorted when the camera is constanting moving or angles are constanting being changed. Edited by - aplus on 7/4/2012 1:38:45 AM Edited by - aplus on 7/4/2012 1:40:02 AM
I think you do get that but just not the way you may prefer to see it. Every director doesn't shoot that stuff exactly the same way so I can't just lump them all together and say all shoot it badly or are great at it. There are some who do a lot less cuts and some that cut much more often. I personally don't like either extreme and prefer the stuff in the middle. These guys are putting their own artistic stamp on their work and it's impossible to please everyone.I don't presume that 100% of viewers just want to see sex and never claimed that. But most people are there for the sex. Of those people, many of them probably don't mind the tease portion as long as it's interesing enough to hold their attention or doesn't last too long. With me personally there are a few pornstars that the tease portion is my favorite part of the scene. I'm a fan of big bubble butts and have bought movies just because the butts are highlighted in the movies. There's one pornstar in particular I could watch her walk around for an hour and be entertained but could care less about her having actual sex. But that's not always typical of me with every girl and I totally understand that's not typical for most fans. I don't even think it's a "short attention span" thing as much as a desire to keep it visually interesting.Because the tease segment usually just consists of having a girl walk around and strike an occasional pose. If you really aren't that into just looking at the girls body for those minutes then it gets boring fast because there really isn't that much going on. The cuts make it more interesting for a longer time. Like it any movie. If you saw a straight on shot of a car dring down a street it gets boring fairly fast. But if you have cuts and multiple points of view it looks more interesting. You don't need the same kinds of cutting once the sex beings because there more stuff happening on the screen to keep your attention. I believe if you took a poll you'd find most people think watching sex is more interesting than seeing a girl walk about and occasionally pose.
Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09
Posted - Jul 7 2012 : 9:08PM
^^ The Big Wet Tits Series tease intros are excellent.. sexy music and the girl bouncing around in a wet t-shirt and slowly revealing her breast and then covered in oil and shaking them all about, bouncing and jiggling around.. actually my fav part of the dvd :)Neglected to quote this, an excellent post! One other thing is lighting or too much. The old porn has some mystery and sensuality to the scene with a bit of darkness and shadow, whereas as today its all fully lit.
^I may love older porn but many movies could use better lighting. I'm not sure that the director was going for mood as much as the lighting they used was inadequate to properly show the action.
I just watched a few scenes from a few 70s movies last week. To add to my list of things I don't like about porn scenes back then....Strange/horrible/goofy music that had absolutely nothing to do with what was happening on screen playing that often didn't have any natural sound during the scene. I can understand the director not having the money to afford or get permission to popular or then current music but I've heard the same music from THE LITTLE RASCALS film shorts played during what was supposed to be a serious sex scene. I suppose there was no natural sound sometimes because the director was shouting out directions to the performers and just layed a music track over the scene but I think it always end up hurting the scene. There was also sloppy editing in some of those scenes. In some scenes it's obvious that the guy didn't last long enough and there's shots of him taken from the beginning of the sex and patched into the middle, shots of him clearly not having any actual penetration, and shots that jump from one position to another and back again within seconds. All this is particularly annoying considering most scenes back then were so short anyway. There are a few girls I like from that era I like to watch but I'd enjoy them better if the sex scenes were shot better.
^Although it's true that editing was not always the best. You at least had some editing in those movies. This is not the case with most porn made today. Now movies have no editing so a sex scenes that should not be longer than 20 minutes is easily over half an hour long.
Some of old old (the era of King Paul) videos Ive found on filesharing sites (I know, I know) have that goofy music. But I remember seeing some of those same scenes in the 80's and there was natural sound, the performers were talking and making sounds. So, in at least some cases, someone has decided after-the-fact to fuck with the sound and substitute that goofy soundtrack crap.Also remember that the early stuff was made with REAL film camera equipment, everything had to be filmed and developed and every bit of film footage was tedious and expensive to make and therefore precious. So I think it was more a matter of frugal film-making that explains the editing...they were stretching things to get the maximum scene from the minimum film. Edited by - ninja1 on 7/9/2012 10:16:47 AM
I don't really think anything is "killing porn". Yes, hardcore became prevalent with the dawn of Internet porn. A lot of people like it, some don't. Truth be told I think hardcore better serves why most men watch porn, straight and to the point fucking. Sensual themes are usually not what men are after in a porn video. Porn nowadays is more efficient. Pick your fetish, and watch a million and one ways it can be done, and a million and one girls it could be done to. It cuts out all the BS and things you really don't care about, and gives you that fantasy straight up. "Erotica" is different from porn. Most guys just want a quick (but satisfying) fix and to move on.
^1- Tubes sites, torrents sites and file sharing sites are killing the industry. 2-Hardcore porn precedes the internet by probably 2 decades. 3-I guess men do prefer hardcore porn to softcore but I think I'd rather watch a great softcore porn movie to a shitty hardcore one. 4-I know I'm not in a minority when I say that sensuality in a porn video is a major plus for me and when it's lacking then the scene is incomplete and often not as satisfying as it could have been. 5-Porn is more efficient if what you are interested is a penis going into a woman's orrifice as quickly as possible and where you can see so much of what's inside the woman that you could probably give her a gynecologist exam from your screen. 6-No you can't watch a million different kinds of porn because most people aren't doing that anymore. They almost all shoot identical stuff to each other. 7-There are certainly more gilrs in porn but none of them stay for more tha a year so we never really get to enjoy them. 8-I agree that erotica is a different thing from todays porn but there are plenty of great porn movies from the 70's and 80's that knew how to incorporate the erotic with the hardcore stuff. I don't know how old you are but how many movies made prior to the 90's have you sseen? How many movies made prior the 80's have you seen? There is some incredible porn from those era's but if harder to find because most of it never made it to dvd.
What he means is for people who just want to get to the sex it's nice to have Gonzo movies that you don't have to fastforward through a story you probably have zero interest in that wastes your time and movie time that could've been devoted to more actual sex. For the people who aren't into plots and story and just want to see the sex Gonzo is a great thing. As far as the type of sex anyone is into or likes there is no right or wrong as long as it's legal and no one got hurt performing it. Sometimes I think it's hot to see a couple really going at it. And sometimes it's hot to see more sensual type sex.????! Really? So a big butt movie is just like a big breast movie, is just like an all anal movie, is just like an IR movie, is just like a all oral movie, is just like an all black movie, is just like a barely legal movie, is like a lesbian movie, is just like a MILF movie, is just like a parody movie, is just like a BBW movie, is just like a bukkake movie, is just like a masterbation movie, is just like a feature movie, is just like a cuckold movie, is just like a natural breats movie, is just like a feature movie, is just like a gangbang movie...all alike, all identical. That would also mean EVIL ANGEL is just like VIVID, is just like GIRLFRIEND FILMS, is just like BANGBROS, is just like BRAZZERS, is just like MAX HARDCORE, is just like SCORE, is just like DIGITAL PLAYGROUND, is just like KINK, is just like MERCENARY PICTURES, is just like WICKED, is just like DEVIL'S FILMS, is just like ADAM & EVE, is just like NEW SENSATIONS, is BLACK ICE, is just like HUSTLER, is just like DOG FART, etc., etc., etc.... Yes, it's all almost identical and hard to tell apart.
But I'll take that too long with little editing extreme over a short badly edited scene. At least with a scene going on too long I have the power fastforward and do my own editing to make it shorter if I wanted. With those short badly edited scenes there's very little anyone can do make them better.
One of the most obvious difference between the 70s and now is that the stuff in the 70s was shot on film and modern stuff is shot on video. This simple difference made a huge difference; from having to have fairly large crews, to complicated lighting and sound set ups, to having to have dudes stay hard while film is whirring away. Because of the complications involved, the end result is just fundamentally different than video productions. I remember in the mid to late 80s when the conversion to video began; hustler used to run two separate review columns; one for stuff shot on video and one for presumably better and more well-made productions shot on film. But it was within just a couple of years that film 100% disappeared (what WAS the last full length porn shot on film, anyway?) Most of the classic 70s movies these days seem way way too dark; I guess I'm just comparing it to current, exceptionally brightly lit video productions. Two things I won't miss from 70s productions: A 10 second headshot of the dude's face just before his cumshot; it's amazing it took like 25 years for porn directors to realized that we have absolutely no interest in seeing a guy's face just before he splooges. The second thing is the plethora of semi-hard sausages. I've never used viagra, but thank god for it's invention because it allows current porn stars to go and go like the energizer bunny.
Hazel Heart Interview
Posted - Jun 14 2012 : 6:43PM
