Quote:


But if you're talking to the general public, the kind of porn consumers that DON'T post on chatboards and are a "Vivid-type" porn consumer, then I think it's a bit off the mark. I don't know the current ratio of sales in terms of who watches what, but I assume that the general public still favors the "couples-type" movies, such Jenna's, Wicked's, etc? As far as I know there is only a small niche of people who watch the Khan Tusion/Max Hardcore movies, but it's a strong niche, the kind of people who consume a lot more porn than those who purchase a Vivid flick every once in a while. I personally do believe that there is a lot of porn out there that is NOT degrading to women, but you just won't find the audience for those movies here.



For what it's worth, I prefer features or 'high end' stuff with really good production values. But I think you've hit on a bigger issue here with regards to features vs. gonzo.

Gonzo fans seem to populate internet forums more than the casual Vivid/Wicked/Digital Playground customer and be a lot more vocal in denouncing feature companies...just look at the predictable bleatings from the ADT gonzo shut-in fanboys when their favourite starlet signs a contract.

Their heads are so deeply buried in the sand, and I don't think it's particularly healthy for producers to take too much notice of what they want, as there are bigger markets out there. After all, if Vivid sucks so much, how come they are #1 and able to put all these girls under exclusive contract?

I think you are correct in saying that gonzo fans buy more porn (or maybe just watch more porn...I tend to think gonzo gets pirated a lot more than features because after all, features suck, right?), but casual feature buyers are a larger and more profitable overall audience. It's the old quandary of selling 10 DVDs to one person, or one DVD to 10 people, and I think features just have a bigger audience to shoot at.

Quote:


For example, I don't believe that the porn we produce is degrading to women, because if I did, I wouldn't have chosen this as my career. My members really glorify the girls I shoot: they want to see them portrayed as strong, sexually powerful women, not pre-pubescent school girls. Which is why we lean so heavily on the glamor aspect, and in virtually every fetish/domination scene we produce, the woman always plays the dominant role.



Holly, I would put you and your mum in the same ballpark as the likes of Ninn, Blake, Wicked, DP, etc.,...people who shoot porn that doesn't degrade women, but instead seeks to upgrade women, and by that I mean present them in the best possible fashion: hair, makeup, outfit, lighting, set or location, and indeed the physical quality of the models themselves. Shooting for yourself or Andrew Blake is like Extreme Makeover:Porn Edition...it shows how beautiful the girl could look with a little bit of time and effort invested. Gonzo=fast food, high-end features=three course meal in a fancy restaurant is what I'm saying, I guess.

I keep hearing this oft-repeated mantra that people don't want to see impossibly beautiful girls who are unattainable to the average man, and instead want to see warts-and-all amateurs instead. Well, count me out of that one. I like what I would call 'aspirational porn', and judging by the size and success of the companies who make it, so do the majority of people out there too.