[Link]
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| Bangkok25 New Member 1 Posts 2/09 |  Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 12:43PMI mean no disrespect to anyone. I'm a producer in mainstream Hollywood, and I have the same issues (generic product, lack of originality, etc.) with the mainstream entertainment community. So, I'm wondering: who do so many of the porn actors nowadays look exactly the same? No matter what race we're talking about, the dominant look is all the same: women with fake tits, and completely shaved vaginas. Guys who are mostly smooth as far as body hair is concerned, and completely shaved pubes. I don't get this bald trend at all. Whatever happened to VARIETY? The way I see it, there's a huge market of billions of people out there. Just like mainstream Hollywood, the audience encompasses a wide spectrum of tastes, etc. There's certainly nothing wrong with the bald look, but that's all you see nowadays. Everything is interchangeable, and there's hardly anything to distinguish one studio from another. I just don't understand this follow the leader mentality. How can someone call themselves a producer, if all they do is recycle the same generic stuff that everyone else produces? If you want to produce the fake, bald look, then fine. But why not also produce stuff which features actors with a bit more natural, realistic look? [Link] |
| spitty Member 730 Posts 12/04 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 1:11PM [Link] |
| Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 1:22PM The women have way too many to really name, but the variety among them couldn't be much better in my opinion. I do wish there was more mixture in the genres though. Luckily someone like Julia Ann is now a free agent and is showing up in films she couldn't really do before, as well as the now retired Janine and Cassidey. There is plenty of variety out there. [Link] |
| fatalbert Member Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 1:25PM I hope porn makers, many of whom post on this site, address your questions, but I'll posit based on my own long-term observations. I think it's a Lowest Common Denominator thing. Subtlety doesn't sell as well as "hit the short-attention span types over the head with it" does. As a participant in mainstream cinema, you must certainly see evidence of that every day in your own field. I think it's driven mainly by the same demographic: young males who are not primarily rocket scientists, or even English majors. Nuance? A woman whose charms don't immediately shout Sensory Overload/Overblown Barbie Doll? What young dude on the go has time for a contemplative, or second, look? Give it to me in the three or four seconds' attention I'm willing to expend, or I'm going on to the next flash-bang jump cut. Right or wrong, that's the way I see it. And it's more lament than snarky cynicism. [Link] |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 4:07PM The problem I have with porn is the lack of variety in the sex itself. The sex in porn is so uniform, regardless of who's producing it. Same positions, same over-the-top moaning, same passionless action. It's now at the point where the performers can go a whole scene without actually having to even look at each other in the face. Lately, I've started to become more drawn in to websites that offer amateur-produced type content, like TeenSexReality, for example, where the sex looks more genuine, and less robotic and manufactured, like it does in most mainstream porn. A big part of me thinks that even when the performers want to get really into the action, they can't because they feel that they have to follow some porn sex formula that dictates that all sex in porn must follow the same pattern. Manuel Ferrara has a new movie out called Raw, where he just puts down the camera and fucks the girls as if there were no camera present. Erik Everhard does the same thing in the BTS of his movies, which he calls his "Me Time Moments." I would like to see more porn that follows this same format; where the performers forget that they're being recorded, and just go at it, like normal people do. The whole idea of a porn sex format (BJ, followed by cunnilingus, followed my 90-degree mish, followed by doggy, followed by CG/RCG, followed by stroke to cumshot) is old and tiresome. I say let the performers keep the way they look. Just give us some action that's more interesting than the same old porn-formula style of robotic sex. Just because they're on camera doesn't mean they have to always act like it. [Link] |
| RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 4:56PM [Link] |
| xxaru Member 128 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 9:45PM [Link] |
| UnkwnUsr2 Member 443 Posts 2/05 | Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 9:49PM Porn is made to by visually stimulating because it is made for men. If the guy has a huge bush and an average 6 inch dick, that can be rather counterproductive. I don't think I need to elaborate. Women get their tits upgraded because on average, women with bigger tits are recognized as more attractive by males. Hence, having bigger tits would increase your fanbase and sales. I know that many people try to push the idea of the media shaping our image of beauty but the truth is that for many things, it's the other way around. So girls have a reason to shave and upgrade their rack just as they would get a haircut and cut their nails rather then having everything grow forever and then call it "natural". There is a lot of content available for people who like the bush. I would argue that variety in porn is greater than ever. There is almost endless content available for almost any preference, in girls, actions or fetishes. I find that many directors have very distinct styles, in content as well as visually. The reason that mainstream porn is mainstream is because it is mainstream. Mainstream isn't supposed to offer variety, hence it being called mainstream. I can't really comment on the sex positions thing because I don't watch regular male/female. As for the sex being uniform, I would imagine it's because porn is fake and fake production can often time beat something "real" in terms of efficiency, when targeting a specific consumer base. [Link] |
BlackSix  All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 3:32AM [Link] |
| Gunzo Senior Member 1377 Posts 2/05 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 3:55AM But I've been watching a few big productions like Fashionistas and Pirates, and I can't say the cast is all fake tits and buff robot men, waxed to smoothness perfection. [Link] |
| UnkwnUsr2 Member 443 Posts 2/05 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 7:22AM Edited by - unkwnusr2 on 3/1/2009 7:23:22 AM [Link] |
| Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 10:36AM If you like teens, there's a market for that MILFS Granny porn BBWs and SSBBWs Hairy IR All *insert race here* Gay Tranny The list goes on. I've found more variety in porn than I have with any other type of media. [Link] |
| xxaru Member 128 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 11:09AM There’s variety in the outlying shells or niches, but the underlying framework is invariably similar. It’s almost like building the same style house over and over again… but painting it a variety of different colors. Does that really give you a different house from the guy next door to you? [Link] |
| NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 11:59AM Because they are trying to appeal to everyone, and not offend anyone... so you end up with milquetoast... You can say the same about music or movies or anything main-stream. Know why they call it main-STREAM? Cause it's fast moving and shallow [Link] |
| fatalbert Member Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 12:48PM I stand by my analysis of general market forces. Eye-grabbing, wham-bam blow-up dolls will sell more successfully to the unsophisticated porn consumer than will more individualistically alluring women whose greater charms are less immediately obvious. [Link] |
| ntfighter Member 645 Posts 7/07 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 1:54PM Kidding aside I agree with xxaru. I believe the problem is fucking for the camera. It has given rise to generic "porn fucking" and bald everything leaving little room for individual expression. Imagine how your favorite porn girl/guy would actually behave sexually if he/she were given the opportunity. [Link] |
| ntfighter Member 645 Posts 7/07 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 2:02PM [Link] |
| betamale Member 93 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 2:11PM [Link] |
| betamale Member 93 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 2:11PM [Link] |
| Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 5:59PM There are only so many ways to shoot the act of sex, after a while, nothing is new under the sun. Personally, the personification of my very existence in porn is a niche market (I'm a black male), so for me, black on black porn is MY mainstream (I worry less about what the Vivid's and Wicked's of the worlds are doing). As such, my viewing of anything outside of black on black is niche viewing in my world. While I'm not trying to turn this into a conversation on race, it does--to an extent--inform the way most of us will approach this topic. [Link] |
| killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 6:37PM In my mind the big thing we're noticing in porn is that everything is separated into its own little niches. You used to be able to watch a feature that had some black guys and some white guys, some black girls and some white girls. Probably some black folks would fuck some white folks during the movie. You'd also have some flat-chested girls and some busty girls amongst those actresses. There'd be a vanilla scene, and a scene with some S&M elements. There'd be a DP scene too. And a g/g scene. One girl would have a hairy bush and one girl would be shaved. There might even be a scene where a woman dominates a man. etc. In today's mostly gonzo market, you just don't find that kind of variety in a single flick anymore. So everything that isn't "fake tit blonde shaved-pussy white Barbie fucks muscular shaved-body white hunk in the same positions and same order" is relegated to a 'niche' market, and thus kept out of the flicks made for mainstream audiences. While there are tons of women with small breasts in the biz, and tons of women with big natural breasts in the biz, you don't often see any of either type working with the women who have big fake breasts. And you don't see them working with each other either. It's equally rare to see a girl with a bush in a movie with girls with shaved pussies. And how often do you see a gonzo flick with three scenes with white guys and two scenes with black guys (or something similar). Yeah you can see all those things in the same movie, but very rarely. What used to be considered diversity is now considered different genres, appealing to different markets. It's assumed that if you like a girl with big natural tits, you therefore can't like a girl with small tits. If you like to watch anal sex, you therefore don't like to watch vaginal sex. If you like big girls, you don't like skinny girls too. If you like to watch black guys, you can't watch white guys, and if you don't have a fetish for IR, you can't tolerate a single black guy in your movie. It's fucked up man. This is why I think the future of porno is going to end up being individual scenes which are made as such. That way you won't have to buy a movie with five busty girls just because they're busty. You can buy a scene with a busty girl, and maybe the next scene you buy is a girl with small boobs, because you like her. You can buy a scene with a girl with a bush, and a few hours later maybe you want to buy a scene with a girl with a shaved pussy. Maybe because it's shaved, or maybe because you just like the girl. But I think the industry's assumption that if you like a thing then you like only that thing is both untrue, as well as a detriment to the biz. [edit: typos] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 3/1/2009 6:40:58 PM [Link] |
| Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 7:15PM Point taken. I see what you're saying. As the OP mentioned, this is a problem with the state of media and entertainment as a whole. while I haven't been watching porn that long (I'm 24), I do remember some 90's era movies with stars of different ethnicities, body types, etc. It's something I deal with everyday on the job (journalism), but never thought about as far as porn (not a heavy consumer, getting their though). The solution is that there may not be a solution with the majors and this becomes a chicken and egg argument. There is probably a significant section of the consumer population that says (or said long ago) "we want more of _______," or some savvy CEO that figured niche markets bring in more money (I'm not sure if this is true). I think directors need to go back to making good porn--featuring attractive stars that actually WANT to work with each other. Niches are fine and dandy, but crossover movies would probably help everybody in the long run by exposing stars to different audiences. And while I think it would work, I think people are wary about spending money on a "new" concept in this economy and want to stay safe by doing what has been working. [Link] |
| xxaru Member 128 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Mar 1 2009 : 8:45PM [Link] |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 2:41AM [Link] |
| betamale Member 93 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 3:09AM [Link] |
 | |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 3:26AM [Link] |
| Mr Springer Member You don't do more with less, you do less with less. 61 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 9:55AM [Link] |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 2:47PM [Link] |
| ettin Deactivated User 14 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 3:05PM What strikes me as odd is that the OP claims to produce mainstream hollywood films and says that porn is generic and lacks originality, well fuck me, whens the last time hollywood produced a film that didnt follow the mold of [main actor enters a difficult situation and comes out learning a valuable moral, finding love, getting revenge, or a combination thereof]. Yeah, they exist, but just like porn it becomes an "indy" film or an "art" film and gets relegated to a niche market. Just because you have hundreds of people working on it, and your shooting film, and you paid $3m in post for vfx and CG, doesnt make your film any more legitimate than anything else. Hell, porn has alot more variety than hollywood ever would be allowed to produce. If it werent for the mysterious MPAA censor board and its legendary council of 9 enforcing censorship, there would be alot more variety in hollywood, and not just sexually either. |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 3:15PM [Link] |
| Dubious_Leftovers Senior Member And on that fateful day, the hatred consumed me... 1423 Posts 3/09 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 9:28PM I think more or less everything is catered for. If you want big tits, there's the big tit genre. Want 'em natural? Fake? Both catered for... Small, different body type... Old? Young? Inbetween... Professional? Amature? Feature? Gonzo... And on, and on, and on... It's all there. The similarities... Well it's sex. Sex has been filmed a lot - in every conceivable way so it can be seen by a camera. What new ground is there really to cover? The basic act is the same since the start of human evolution. If it's the omnipresence of certain actresses and stars amongst the top companies that's the issue, that's because they're very popular and having them in the cast and on the cover sells units. Most people have a fairly standard idea about who or what is attractive. For example, if a company cast someone like Sasha Grey in their movie, and place her on the cover, they're more likely to sell more than if they didn't due to her looks and willingness to do sexy sexual acts. This appeals to many, many people. If though, Sasha Grey isn't your type, there is an abundance of other choices at your disposal as a viewer. The whole essence of "mainstream" is that it appeals to the majority way of thinking. If fat girls are your thing, it's very well catered for, but less people are going to be into it as a whole. Hence the term "niche". It's all there if you want it; it just might not be the first thing you see when you walk into a store, or be on the front page of a website. [Link] |
| Richie04 Deactivated User 50 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Mar 2 2009 : 10:13PM 1-Dont wish to or 2-it's not economically feasible to spend the money required to make a good sex video and make a profit at the same time. For example (and this is just one of many) The vast majority of porn I see nowadays is filmed with a single camera. It's about as boring as the relentless pounding the girls take. It does go well with all the monotoned music our great music studios put out nowadays. [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |