Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike33
That's why modern porn is so much better.
|
The criteria for producing porn without being prosecuted for obscenity was much tighter in the 70's. If those same films were shot today by the same people and with todays technology and freedom of content the stuff you think is good would easily been seen for the slack shit that it is.
Most porn makers today don't even know how to shoot a decent close up.
When's the last time you saw a slow motion shot?
Sound track is a joke. Lack of super stars, there is no John Holmes or Seka.
A lot of the video is not truly in focus, and they're using video to begin with.
There's a reason why mainstream feature film actually uses film!
Video is cheap, but so is the quality of the product.
Cheap production is winning the financial game though.
You would be right to say, "So what, nobody gives a fuck".
I'm just putting this out there purely as an academic look at pornography.
While we need stuff like the Paris Hilton sex tape in order to have a single explosive product it might be possible for a super producer with the skills of the 70's to actually give us this type of explosive movie without having the celebrity involved and that would be something to make us more money on a continual basis. So maybe this is not all about the academics.
I mean, what was the last big porn movie made that everybody had to see?
Maybe the Houston 500 might qualify, but that was like 1999 or so.
I'm just saying that with all the complaining about conversion ratios maybe we should consider the quality of what we are trying to sell sometimes instead of blaming the traffic. Surfers can see amateur style vidoes any where on the net so why do we continue to try to make money off the same quality product? The only difference in totaly amateur vids and what some sponsors push is only a more expensive camera.