I am a new indie filmmaker my classification will be adult films. I am approaching this business with the same quality and expectations as I put upon myself doing any project. I would like to find some other adult film makers to brainstorm with and ask advise of, so if there are any out there please raise your hands.

thanks

Brainstorm on porn? What is there to think about. It's such an uncreative use of film but I'm sure it's not that hard to think of ideas.

There is another guy, look in the finance section and check out the thread "Grants'

lux is right though, "adult" isn't part of the indoe scene, it's a completely different industry.

The only advice I can offer is don't star in it and don't store it on your hard drive.

:blush:

Are there adult filmmakers? Are you calling me childish? Seriously, good luck with your endeavors. It'd be neat to see some actual quality adult movies (decent acting, plot more than 10 seconds long, motivated sex - sounds like an 80's action flick).

hey glitter. I actually applaud your idea of wanting to bring an actual storline to an adult film, but face it . Most guys just fast forward to the good parts. Its a waste of time.

But if you're serious, Just rent a bunch of films using different camera techniques and lighting. Experiment. Use neon pain on your "actors" and go with it.

Porn is not art. Porn is just a sex aid.

I dabbled in the porn biz for a while. Mostly as a shooter back when they were paying well - it was an easy way to make a quick $500. I spoke to a lot of the producers, asking about better porduction value and stories. They all said exactly what King said.

Simply put, they make just as much money on 2 hours of sex scenes as they would on a 2 hour movie with 30 minutes of dialogue and plot. And spending the time (and money) to shoot "real" scenes with dialogue, sets, props, production design and crews just doesn't pay off.

And try getting most porn actors to memorize and deliver lines....

Brainstorm on porn? What is there to think about

I thnik one of the problems with porn is that I get the impression that because it's such a phenomenally sucessful business, very few people have ever really thought about it from a production POV.

It's not an industry that attracts good writers or actors. It's also an industry where production values aren't a necessary part of having a profitable production.

What this tends to mean is that the adult industry has never really turned out anything that has anything interesting to say about even it's core subject, human sexuality.

Although there have been great indie films that dealt with sex and sexuality, "Blue Velvet" "Last Tango In Paris," the adult industry has never managed to create a product that crossed over into the mainstream.

I think this is because the people it attracts don't have to compete as artists, on those merits alone, in order to be sucessful. It makes for lazy filmmaking, if everyhting you shoot is going to sell regardless.

I'm sure that there is scope for the adult industry to turn out "real films," but only when they realise that that has got to be smarter than glueing on a plot that is only there as a loose excuse to string together a series of "fuck" sequences.

Human sexuality is a potentailly great topic for filmmakers as it brings many of the key elements of drama, conflict, inner struggles with ethics over desire, etc. It's an area where the public face and the private life come into conflict in almost everyone's life. And, it's universal, in that there are points of identification for all viewers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that there is stuff to brainstorm, but I don't think that industry is ready to do the work. It's too easy for adult film makers to get away with making stuff that indie filmmakers would be ashamed to have credits on, not because of the sex, but because of the quality of the work.

I think the primary fault with the adult industry is that it is male dominated and as such the concentration has always been on the purely physical and not on the emotional charge of sex. I think for many men the idea of sex without an emotional connection is the primary atraction of porn in the first place. However, it means that the films themselves then have these empty two dimensional characters that have no emotional ives and therefore are essentially boring.

This has always been my main problem with porn, not the graphic sex, but just how tedious it is to watch. That's why people fast forward through the plot pieces, they're just not good enough to hold the attention and therefore the film is just a moving girlie mag, or boyie mag (depending on what floats your boat).

My latest screenplay "True" is set in the Romanian Sex Industry, but despite having graphic sex sequences in it, it is primarily a story about the people, what happens to them. The sex is part of the story and part of their emotional journey. To create this script took months of work and if it ever sees production those months will turn into years. It's a different ballgame altogether.

However, if you want to get rich in adult films can I suggest that you think larger than one film and think in terms of creating a brand. Something that you can repeat over and over again with with minimal costs and where the low production values are an asset.

Try this - "Hooker Hotel" it's fake reality TV, you set up half a dozen fixed camera points and pretend that they are "hidden cameras. You tell the audience that you've set up hidden cameras in a hotel used by hookers and then you show the footage, which you degrade in post to make it more realistic.

You do it all with actors, it's cheap, low production costs, low on location cost and give you a product you can reapeat again and again and again and again.

You can run this franchise for ever and it taps into the basic voyeristic nature of all porn buyers.

That took me all of two minutes to figure out and will probably make a multi millionaire out of you. But that's porn for you, no challenge.

I dabbled in the porn biz for a while. Mostly as a shooter back when they were paying well...


Um...never mind. I'll wait for ZenSteve to comment on that one!! :D

While I agree 100% with everybody on this thread, they are making those cable "adult" films. I've been caught by them a couple of times while surfing channels. Private detectives, cops etc, with a lot of soft porn in between. Horrible acting of course. There's room in those to have a 30 minute short of some substance, filled in with an hour and a half of soft porn.

The question is who wants to waste their 30 minute short script in the middle of soft porn.

As Clive says though, I could probably write a decent 2 hour soft porn flick with substance in a short period of time. It's just not where I'd want to waste my efforts.

Chris

I would love to be in a porn film, but what if someone sees the film who knows me?!

It would be such humiliation for the whole world to know me as Mr. Eddie Rex "the Porn King!"

I think the primary fault with the adult industry is that it is male dominated and as such the concentration has always been on the purely physical and not on the emotional charge of sex. I think for many men the idea of sex without an emotional connection is the primary atraction of porn in the first place. However, it means that the films themselves then have these empty two dimensional characters that have no emotional ives and therefore are essentially boring.
I agree. But it isn't so much the makers of porn as the buyers of porn.

I worked with a pornstar from the 1970's who was producing "sensitive" porn for couples and women. Stories, romantic settings, people talking about feelings. Didn't sell.

Could be because as you mention: good writers and good actors aren't attracted to porn so the stories and acting were painful to watch. Women - for the most part - just don't respond to naked bodies like men do, so they didn't respond to the romantic setting and story and men just wanted to get to it.

Soft core is very different. I've worked with actors - good actors - who have started doing some soft core films. It's even a pretty good place for a writer to make the first sale. Not too different than DTV horror - at least you can pretend you are trying to rise above the rest.

There is a difference between hard core pornagraphy and erotica. "Adult" filmmaker is vague, I don't know if that's full on pornography or SHOWGIRL'S 2: Leaving Las Vegas.

Adult means porn. If it's got real sex it's porn. Simulated, it's soft-core. This isn't indie film, and I hope this is the last porn discussion.

This is a funny thread...not one you would expect here. Please don't ban me for bumping it up...

My two cents? Porn or erotica is definitely an art form. Matter of fact it is probably THE ONLY art form that systematically invokes a physical reaction (fast heartbeat, arousal and ultimately...you know...the money shot). I have never...you know...to the Mona Lisa (I almost did to Last Tango In Paris)...or any other work by Cezanne, Godard or Shakespeare

If you expose a person/persons, and their having full frontal sex (or rear), then the plot is over. Movies have a bit of mystery to them. Softporn can have good storylines. Hell, "Network" had one or two softporn moments. It was one of the greatest movies.


Bottom line, When it comes to porn, Guys just want to get it over with. Money shot now.

...is probably THE ONLY art form that systematically invokes a physical reaction (fast heartbeat, arousal and ultimately...you know...the money shot). I have never...you know...to the Mona Lisa (I almost did to Last Tango In Paris)...or any other work by Cezanne, Godard or Shakespeare


There is a notion called 'aesthetic arrest'...and it can affect MANY physiological things in a human body. Many people experience this when they behold something of wonder (like the Schumacher-Levy comet, a child being born, a great piece of art like the Mona Lisa).

BTW, I know someone who fainted in front of a Rothko.

This is one of those threads that had to turn up.
The ol' porno has had one precedent however. Amazing yet seemingly true, low-cost production technologies have usually been used in porn (Since it's "Boogie Nights" era) prior to the legitimate film-maker.
It's amazing what you pick up from Channel 4 these days...

See I disagree... I think that Adualt movies require the same creative input and spark as any other type of films. Why dismiss someone for the area they work in?

Personally I love action films but can't stand romantic comedies. I don't however say (like it has been said to me in the past) it takes less art or time or creative spark to make one film over another.

I may appricate the merits of one over the other but I wouldn't be narrow minded to think that one is les commercial or artisitcally important than the other.

And no before you all jump down my throat (I guess and unfortunate phrase considering) I'm not saying you are being narrow minded.

But each to tehir own. I have seen some very good, artistcally merited adult films, and as far as cost to slae goes there are few better types of film to make money off.

As for 'if it has real sex it's pron' I tend to disagree.

Brown Bunny ahd real sex (oral) and that's not porn.

Nine Songs had full sex as did Intamacy and again niether would be considered porn but infact both are award winning serious films.

The line between porn and art is getting blurred again and if we as a community start segregating or outcasting areas of film making then I for one will try and find somewhere to speak where the community isn't headed by people with a limited (and others may say narrow minded) view on the business.

And for the record I'd love to have a 30 min short film surrounded by porn and yes I probably would show my mother (as long as i wasn't a performer...)

Phil Hobden
--- Producer ---
Modern Life?

But wouldn't you agree that most porn is made with the simple goal of showing the sex act and not for any artistic merit?

I know that there are porn directors out there that try to infuse art into the work, but they are few and far between because these types of porn films usually do poor profits.

Poke

But there's still a camera man setting up shots, an editor practicing his art, a lighting guy.... and don't forget many mainstream directors came from Porn (Verhoven for example).

Accept it or not, there is still art involved in porn just like there's art in coportae videos or even wedding videos.

Phil Hobden
-- Modern Life? --
www.mod-life.com

I'll accept that. But at the same time, I understand the bias against "artists" that come from the ranks of porn.

Poke

I agree that there is a bias. Where that is fair or not again is open to debate. I will always fall into the 'no it's not' camp but I can undersatnd why it is frowned upon.

For my money anyone lucky enough to be working in this industry, being paid and getting there films out there... we'll they deserve respect whatever medium they choose to work in!

Phil Hobden
-- Modern Life? --
www.mod-life.com

But wouldn't you agree that most porn is made with the simple goal of showing the sex act and not for any artistic merit?


Yes -- but emphasis on most.

I know that there are porn directors out there that try to infuse art into the work, but they are few and far between because these types of porn films usually do poor profits.

Poke

But what about the reverse -- the art directors that infuse explicit sex into their work? I think that is what Phil was getting at above. He cites two examples, Brown Bunny and Intimacy, but there are plenty of other examples of this. In the Realm of the Senses, Pola X, Le Pornographe, just about anything from Catherine Breillat, Guardami ... to name but a few. What about the early work of John Waters? His films often included explicit acts, but he is considered and indie icon...not a pornographer. (Well...maybe he was at the time.)


Is most explicit content made simply for arousal? yes.
Can explicit content be successfully included in an artistic project? yes.
Will explicit scenes (regardless of artistic merit) be denounced by a percentage of the population? yes.
Will the same scenes be appreciated by another percentage of the population? yes.

It all comes down to a matter of taste and morals.

John,

You nailed it. Taste and morals. Two words that strike fear and concern into my heart.

But also perception... specifically that of the film maker.

Unless you are an established director, to include or work in porn you will be shunned and considered a dirty porn director.

But the reason someone like Walters and the like gets away with it is that they are considered by the masses to be art directors and that means that you can pretty much do anything you want.

it's a shame that society and the film making community like to put people in a box and not allow or respect them for their creativity.

In part Shakespear, was pornographic (in his prose at least) but he's not considered a prornographer.

Art = license to do what you will.

Phil Hobden
-- Modern Life? --
www.mod-life.com

The onlyu problem I have with what's being said here is in a matter of intent. The emphasis is on most, as in most pornographic videos or films are made with little to no artistic merit in mind. All the films that have been sited as containing explicit acts yet considered art, all originated as art pieces that had pornographic elemets added. Porn flicks start as porn that sometimes have art elements added.

Orgination of ideas is a big thing.

Poke

I'm gonna add what I've said on previous 'porn' threads....to paraphrase James Joyce...'ANYTHING which makes you want to POSSESS IT, is pornographic'.....therefore I propose, 'SUGAR IS THE NASTIEST PORN EVER, D*AMN REFINED DEVIL'. :yes: :weird: :lol:

LOL Bird! Right on.

My husband/writing partner/producer is considering working with an erotic film company. He is thinking of doing this because he bought some of their films at a festival and found they had the production value of amatuer home video. His wish is to elevate the level of production taking what are quality story lines (soft core) and making them marketable to a wider audience. At first, I admit, I felt it dubious at best. Now, however, I have come to like the idea of him doing something in the 'film biz' that I am not involved in.

In part Shakespear, was pornographic (in his prose at least) but he's not considered a prornographer.

Art = license to do what you will.


How would you say Shakespeare would be considered pornographic?

Erotic, "dirty", lewd, sexually explicit, (in parts), etc... but pornographic?

"Romeo, Romeo, unleash thy manhood upon me..."
"I swear by my Maiden-taker, I will fill thy mouth with the finest gravy thou hast ever sampled..."
"Oh Romeo! How do you ever fit thy blade in yonder sheath?"
"S'wounds! It's retractable honey, now shut up and get ready for the money-shot"

I don't think so. :P

Otherwise there could be a whole new reason for all the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands...

Otherwise there could be a whole new reason for all the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands...

I must away to yon shower, for nowest I feelest veryest dirtiest.

Pokest

[QUOTE=Spatula]How would you say Shakespeare would be considered pornographic? [QUOTE]

Ha. For it's time it probably was ....

My point was just high art vs commerical. Both can be violent, pornographic or morally dubious but one gets a higher standing and is considered more worthy because of it's standing as high art.

Phil Hobden
edit: Ad removed. Please stop advertising your film in every post.

The whole thing is- were those much-talked-about "Greek Orgies" of old classified as art?

I just don't feel pointing a camera at something classifies it as art. It's skill, yes, but art?

Then again, anything can be argued to be art, even this: djfbnsduiovb

But I don't think Shakespeare could be considered "porno". I'd imagine he was quite the controversial toad, but I'm sure the wild group orgies with midget overlords happened OFF-stage.