That’s a recent quote, appearing around 2010 I think.
People in the 70’s were actually performing quite well in their porn, the film rolls were expensive, the morals were still very much conservative, and they were calling it ‘art’ and hiring big name Hollywood actors.
The most expensive porn movie ever is Caligula, with a budget of $17.5 million, and it was released in 1979.
Cheap porn is a recent trend, because, well, no jerking off in the cinema, so the distribution is limited to streaming, plus porn was customarily pirated for a long long period, and not much protected by courts.
The definition of pornography has changed over time. Caligula might have been considered pornography AT THE TIME, but by modern legal definitions, I don’t think it passes. Even the extended version with penetration, because the film isn’t “intended to arouse” and also does not “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.
That’s interesting. Does that mean that something like Monster Girls anime is acceptable for big-screen cinema, because it includes enough fantasy elements (and exotic body parts) to be considered artistic? It’s still very much “intended to arouse”, does the movie need to match both criteria to be considered porn?
There was this Supreme Court case in 1973 "Miller v. California, during which the Supreme Court basically decided that it has to be obscene in order to be considered pornography, and then the question became, “What is legally considered to be obscene?” From that case we derive something called the “Miller Test”, which has three criteria:
Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
For a something to be considered pornographic, it must be ALL THREE criteria, with the first two criteria being left in the hands of local ordinances and governments, and the last being left sort of up to interpretation depending on a locality’s culture and values.
Yeah, I’ll agree that porn actually tried to do acting and storytelling back in the 70’s. I miss it, kinda, but I think the pacing of having to watch 100 minutes of film for 5-6 7-minute sex scenes probably wouldn’t fly today. In fact, I really agree with your whole comment.
My point (if I had one, it was more of a quip) was that singling out the 70’s for particularly bad porn acting isn’t necessary.
I do find it humorous there was such a reaction to my comment, but I like when posts lead to interaction and not just silent up-/down-votes.
Also, I think Pirates! is considered to be the most expensive porn with a budget of $1 million. As MnemonicBump said, that’s probably due to changing definitions.
I’d love to see a limited return of high-brow porn, though.
“And we’re sooooooo evil! We don’t have any friends, family, loved ones, children, pets, or other responsibilities! Here we are, a victimless crime waiting to happen!”
70’s grade?
“Help us, step-wizard! There’s a 40’ circle drawn on the ground and we can’t get out!”
ETA: My idea, poorly expressed, is that you don’t have to single out 70’s porn for bad acting. There is plenty of bad porn acting yet today.
I don’t think step-sibling porn was that popular in the 70s …
Exactly my point. Any period of porn acting is at that level. It certainly hasn’t improved from the 70’s.
That’s a recent quote, appearing around 2010 I think.
People in the 70’s were actually performing quite well in their porn, the film rolls were expensive, the morals were still very much conservative, and they were calling it ‘art’ and hiring big name Hollywood actors.
The most expensive porn movie ever is Caligula, with a budget of $17.5 million, and it was released in 1979. Cheap porn is a recent trend, because, well, no jerking off in the cinema, so the distribution is limited to streaming, plus porn was customarily pirated for a long long period, and not much protected by courts.
The definition of pornography has changed over time. Caligula might have been considered pornography AT THE TIME, but by modern legal definitions, I don’t think it passes. Even the extended version with penetration, because the film isn’t “intended to arouse” and also does not “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.
That’s interesting. Does that mean that something like Monster Girls anime is acceptable for big-screen cinema, because it includes enough fantasy elements (and exotic body parts) to be considered artistic? It’s still very much “intended to arouse”, does the movie need to match both criteria to be considered porn?
There was this Supreme Court case in 1973 "Miller v. California, during which the Supreme Court basically decided that it has to be obscene in order to be considered pornography, and then the question became, “What is legally considered to be obscene?” From that case we derive something called the “Miller Test”, which has three criteria:
Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
For a something to be considered pornographic, it must be ALL THREE criteria, with the first two criteria being left in the hands of local ordinances and governments, and the last being left sort of up to interpretation depending on a locality’s culture and values.
Well, I consider Backdoor Sluts 9 to be a work of art, so I guess it’s not porn?
Would “the average person” agree with you?
The average person has one testicle, so who knows?
Yeah, I’ll agree that porn actually tried to do acting and storytelling back in the 70’s. I miss it, kinda, but I think the pacing of having to watch 100 minutes of film for 5-6 7-minute sex scenes probably wouldn’t fly today. In fact, I really agree with your whole comment.
My point (if I had one, it was more of a quip) was that singling out the 70’s for particularly bad porn acting isn’t necessary.
I do find it humorous there was such a reaction to my comment, but I like when posts lead to interaction and not just silent up-/down-votes.
Also, I think Pirates! is considered to be the most expensive porn with a budget of $1 million. As MnemonicBump said, that’s probably due to changing definitions.
I’d love to see a limited return of high-brow porn, though.
“And we’re sooooooo evil! We don’t have any friends, family, loved ones, children, pets, or other responsibilities! Here we are, a victimless crime waiting to happen!”