Why does vintage pornography have much better acting and higher production values than contemporary pornography?

Anyone else notice this? Look at the pornography from the 70s and 80s. It looks as if it had production values that were up to par of movies an TV shows of the time. Porn nowadays seems so trashy and the acting is always horrific. Can the denigration simply be attributed to the fact that, because of the wide availability of it on the internet, porn studios have decided that quantity is more important than quality?

Posted Oct 17, 2009, 3:56 AM UTC

728
cheddarben•

plot doesn't matter when you are watching it 5 minutes at a time.

13
deadapostle•

Oh, if only I could last for 5 minutes.

1
matts2•

OK, now for a real answer. The Supreme Court ruled that pornography could be legally banned unless it had "some redeeming social importance". So for some time they put some story in to satisfy that condition. As time has gone by the necessity for this to avoid banning as relaxed and so there is more of what people buy porn for.

10
botsford01•

Regrettably, it's true, standards have fallen in adult entertainment. It's video, Dude. Now that we're competing with the amateurs, we can't afford to invest that little extra in story, production value, feeling...

6
Rette•

People seem to forget that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone

4
hehdot•

On you maybe.

1
tallwookie•

umm... because portable digital video recording, the internet, and ass to mouth hadnt been invented yet

5
Robopuppy•

Good news everyone! I've invented a way to make you ejaculate and gag at the same time!

3
[deleted]•

I swear, any time someone starts a sentence with "good news everyone"... I CAN'T GET HIS FUCKING VOICE OUT OF MY HEAD NOW

2
YosserHughes•

"ass to mouth hadnt been invented yet"

Thanks, I've been waiting for a laugh all week.

1
tallwookie•

my pleasure

1
[deleted]•

I'll tell you why.
Way back then, porn was new. They figured if they were to make a movie, regardless of the content, they should go by the usual movie standards.

And they still do to this day.

5
YosserHughes•

"porn was new"

Ever been to Pompay?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
deeperest•

No, but I've been to Pompei and even Pompeii. You?

1
theyliedaboutiraq•

Two videos each of 1hr length.

The first contains a well developed plot and characters, and good production values. Lets say they spend 15-20 minutes of the 1hr on story.

The second video is 1hr of lesbian hardcore, with no plot.

Which is going to outsell the other?

4
bradyblack•

Thats cause Burt Reynolds directed those.

2
BadDecisionDino•

When barriers to entry are high, you're going to see higher quality stuff. Nowadays, anyone with a portable camera can shoot a porno, so even though there is still high quality stuff out there it's just buried beneath the absolutely enormous mountain of crap that floods the market. Back in the day, making porn was serious business. If it didn't sell well, you might actually lose money on the investment. Now, it's very cheap to produce, making its production a whole lot less of a risk. If there's less risk, there's less incentive to really work at making a quality product.

2
truco•

yeah but in porn nowadays women actually shave their vaginas. I feel like this is more important.

1
EgregiousWeasel•

Vulva. Not vagina. The vagina is the tube. It's inside, and it has no hair on it.

8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

9
truco•

...

1
betelgeux•

aaand now I have a horrible image of shaving a vagina - thanks a lot you two.

1
EgregiousWeasel•

Oh sure, any time! :D

1
guywithbigproblemsOP•

I actually prefer unshaved.

7
truco•

well that's because you have big problems.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

Quality not quantity

1
Kuris•

It's all about the smut. No "blue movie" veneer.

1
Xet•

Someone let me know where I can find me some decent 70s and 80s porn.

1
betelgeux•

Shame too, more women would watch it if there was a story to be had. Combine Harlequin romance stories with porn and you'd have a winning formula.

1