NY Times Discusses The Future Of Porn…And We Respond

Today’s NY Times Business section has an article on, of all things, porno plots—and, more specifically, their disappearance from modern porns.

As the Times sees it, plots were big in the ’70s, resurged in the ’90s, and have completely fallen by the wayside in the modern era, as studios focus far more on all-sex releases that can be easily chopped up into scenes for online and VOD distribution.

They’re sorta right, but they’re also missing a very big part of the picture.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: plot-driven porn movies (or features, as they’re called in the industry) aren’t going anywhere. For one thing, there are enough people who like them to make them worthwhile; for another, they’re incredibly important PR and marketing tools. Digital Playground can screen “Pirates 2″ at UCLA, but we’d wager that the administration would be far less friendly to a screening of “Filth Cums First 4.” Or, better yet: New Sensations may primarily produce all sex fare like “Girls ‘n Glasses” (cited by the NY Times), but “Scrubs – A XXX Parody” is what got them on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

There’s also the fact that—for the time being, at least—features are still worth buying on DVD; and as long as studios can still make a profit off DVDs, they’ll be more than happy to sell them.

At the same time, however, there are many people who are buying their porn primarily for the sex (and let’s face it: even those of us who like features are still in it primarily for the sex). And for those people, the DVD model isn’t the most economical way of getting what they need: why pay for four hours of sex, when all you really want is that two minutes of Gianna Michaels humping her way to heaven? And it’s these people who are driving the trend towards content that is, well, primarily sex—and, more importantly, can be cut up and repackaged without losing that certain something.

What we predict is that we’ll end up seeing a split system: a smaller number of high budget, easily marketable features available on DVD for one section of the porn viewing public; and a larger number of sex-focused scenes, perhaps on DVD, but primarily online, for the rest.

And frankly, we think that could be for the best. Imagine if studios took their features really seriously, casting performers who could act as well as they fuck, crafting a movie with a plot that’s actually worth watching, while allowing performers whose talents lie in a more prurient direction to simply focus on their fuck craft? You may say we’re dreamers…but we think it could be a beautiful thing.

· Lights, Camera, Lots of Action. Forget the Script. (nytimes.com)
· Thumbnail: Gianna Michaels and Faye Reagan ponder the future of porn (nsgalleries.com)

Tags: , , , , ,

  • hodayathink is walking in the glow of love

    You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

  • Conrad

    I’d say that porn with plot today is vastly different from the 70s. Porn with plot then had a storyline with 5-10 minute sex scenes. Porn with plot today has storyline with 20-40 minute sex scenes. Most 70s porn I’ve scene also seem to start with a girl being raped, and then becoming sexually aware, and lusting it at every turn. Ron Jeremy is in about 90% of them.

  • Anonymous

    The porn of today gets the job done but it is not entertaining at all!!

  • Conrad

    @Lux Alptraum: Here, here! You can always just adjust all of your photographs to make them look like it’s the 70s.

    I always forget that the world didn’t look like what pictures looked like, in the past. It’s hard to believe it’s a recession without the world being in sepia tone, or black and white.

  • Anonymous

    The problem with porn as a storytelling medium is that the story has to stop frequently so that people can have sex. In this regard, porn movies are a lot like musical comedies, which interrupt the story so that people can sing and dance. But at least a musical number can also advance the plot a little; in porn, a sex scene almost never has that effect.

  • Anonymous

    I like my porn with the pretense of intimacy. Features provide that unlike gonzos. One gets ZERO intimacy in these gonzo films, and that’s exactly why I don’t watch them. Hogtied.com provides much more intimate stuff to me even though the girls are being bound, gagged, and beaten until they turn all kinds of red. Just the simplicity of seeing the interactions outside of sex makes it for me. Maybe I’m just a girl stereotype, though.

  • MindTricked

    Another thing about “golden age” porn was the fact that many of the best performers could actually act, and had indeed trained for it (mainstream) before they went right instead of left (by intention or by need). Today, seemingly 99% of the performers couldn’t act their way out of a box of Trojans, which makes many of the features today painful to watch. That being said… I’ve been inundated by the “gonzo” movies in the past decade, and I’d much rather watch a plot-orientated movie than the latest big-wet-ass-dirtpipe-worship gagfest (not that I don’t indulge… I’m just saying what I’d rather be watching).

  • hodayathink is walking in the glow of love

    Okay, now that I’ve actually read the article (yeah, I know), what’s with throwing her name at the end? Why? I can’t think of a single reason why it makes sense.

  • Anonymous

    I think Lux’s remarks make a lot of sense. We’ve got both feature and plotless porn and frankly, it’s extremely rare for us to be too excited about the scripts in any of the features. The Jonathan Morgan movies can be good for a guffaw, but their replay value is limited. A hardcore Jules Jordan scene that dispenses with the silliness can be considerably more satisfying in its own way.

    It sounds like there is an audience for plot-driven movies, so it would be nice for a feature to be made that could actually stand on its own as a legitimate movie, without having the disclaimer “it’s pretty good… for porn.” Maybe if Soderburgh decides to redo “The Girlfriend experience” with hardcore scenes?