egafd.com

I saw a trailer recently for a film called Bonnie & Clyde starring Natasha Marley (I'm so pleased she has moved from glamour modelling to having full sex on film!). They have put so much effort and expense into the movie that the sex bits, not that I have seen any of those scenes yet but intend buying the movie, are almost incidental to the production. You could have run this trailer in a cinema or even on TV - the vintage cars, clothes, sets and so on. I think it's a bit strange when a porn film is 98% Hollywood production and 2% sex. What do other people think? After all we watch these films for the shagging!

I can take it or leave it. Some of the Private "arty" stuff I've seen has been awful, some of it worthwhile. Same with all the Dark and Passolini films. On the other hand, watching Jane Berry get her arsehole destroyed in a derelict toilet in Dogging Diaries beat all that material hands down.

Like you say, its all about the sex. If the glitzy settings don't get in the way of the fucking, and the fucking is good when it happens, high gloss porn is ok.

In the olden days of porn, I used to love the tacky stories, the bank was going to foreclose on their bar so they fuck to earn investment etc...the value was the tackiness, the wooden acting and the great context sex where people would actually take off their clothes revealing their skimpies before having sex.

But when modern porn production brings itself up to B-movie standards and the story is taking itself too seriously, or taking itself seriously in its parody, I don't think it quite works. In my opinion, the sex usually blows (and not in a good way) in these kind of movies. People, well men, (I have a feeling women may enjoy this high production porn more) now seem to enjoy watching sex in a more raw, realistic way, rather than with dissolves, edits and cutaways.

So maybe that's the point, porn you can watch with your missus. The Ann Summers brigade.

It help sells the movie, as you mentioned you havent see any of the sex scenes yet but you already intend on buying the movie.

From most of the big budget movies i have seen, a lot of them dont do it for me and i prefer the normal stuff.

For the most part, plot driven movies and those that have high budgets nearly always seem to foul up on the sex.
They spend so much money on sets, costumes, location, make-up, direction, lighting (usually on the dark side), special effects, etc, that when the sex comes along you squirm and just want to fast forward to the next scene. The editing and artsy fartsy post production work (smoke, super impositions, shifting from b x w to color, slow motion, color shift in scenes, etc) don't help much either.
Even Private has screwed up with such "epics" as GLIADIATOR and CLEOPATRA, for the very same reason, and so they are forced in releasing them in 2-3 parts to justify the expense. I don't even know whether they really make their money back in the short run. I think for the most part, they are "vanity" productions for the company to boast high production values and their company culture.
It is hard if impossible to spend a lot of money and have volcanic sex at the same time.

I actually quite like the higher-end stuff, as the HQ/clear filming suits my tastes. I find that gonzo can at times be a bit repetitive, and of variable quality in terms of picture resolution etc. (Just my opinion - and I do accept that Private stuff, for example, can be a bit formulaic too). For me, though, the higher end stuff has a higher strike rate than point-and-shoot type material.

Usually, the stars look incredibly hot in the higher-end stuff; always a bonus!

alicia_fan_uk

I have come to the conclusion that Bluebird productions is run as a hobby. The guy just loves making movies. A movie buff. So what if it just breaks even he had fun doing it.

Sex with humour is definitely more voyeuristic than sex with gloss, but it's easier to find millions to produce gloss than to find a pornstar with a sense of humour.