Anyone read this - top 5 reasons porn is failing

[belfast_birty]

I'm clearly mistaken!

[planeterotica]

Deuce Bigolo wrote:

> 180,000 a year on 50,000 invested
>
> We must be talking Bluebird then....lol
>
> Even the best investors(warren buffett) etc worldwide think 25%
> return is achievable without overly risking your capital but
> claims of 300+%
>
>
> Pure spin

planeterotica wrote:

No i believe it cause it was in The Times !wink! had it been the Sunday Sport it would be spin !idontbelieveit!

[one eyed jack]

Dave Wells wrote: And I met JLG in 1987, Roy Stuart in 1984.

Crikey Dave you are ancient!!!! LOL But yoou know I loves ya really you old goat.

[videokim]

I agree because most films have the same stereo typed themes everyone thinks this is how we have to produce films to keep up with the big boys, the public want to see something different so be the odd the one out & film ladies/guys all ages, shapes, looks, shaven/unshaven, condoms/no condoms etc..
If you worry about what other producers will think then you are in the wrong job!

[Deano!]

videokim wrote:

(snip)
>its about imagination not money.

Exactly. I know that quite a few people must buy Private videos, but I find the few that I've bought (for huge $$$$) utterly boring. They're pretentious crap made by some geezer who thinks he's really an 'art house' producer waiting to be discovered.

In the mid 80's there was an American producer who went by the name of John T Bone and he made a short series of porn vids deliberately made to look el-cheapo and tacky. They were great because he knew that porn fans just want to see hot girls being slutty for no reason other than to get the viewers off. With titles like "Sex Sluts in the Slammer" and Bimbo Cheerleaders from Outer Space" - you knew what to expect!