Pornstars Soft- or Hardcore, when they should stop their career?

[schlünz]

Maybe someone asked this before: when a pornstar or model should stop with her/his work? When they are getting old or fat? Some of them are no more nice to look at. What do you mean about this theme? Thanks for your opinions.

[williamson78]

Kind of a silly question since the answer is when they stopped getting booked.

In the case of softcore, a number of actresses like Brinke Stevens and Monique Parent still act since they're not bad actresses (although they don't do new scenes anymore).

In the case of hardcore, again if they don't keep up their appearance, they won't get hired. Also, depends on the viewer also. For instance, I haven't seen any recent Nina Hartley films but she still seems to have a great body. I also find Julia Ann, Stormy Daniels, Lisa Ann and a number of older ones very attractive. Even Janine despite the tattoos looks good still.

For actors, I'm not sure. More of how they act. For instance I've been watching a number of videos from the 90's recently and I've had too much of Randy West (and let's not go into Ron Jeremy or the wooden acting of Peter North).

[sillyBus]

For a woman…when they develop some self-respect.

[Bullwank]

Porn (soft or hardcore) is a ridiculously wide field (Rule 34 isn't far from the truth) so for those who want to do it there is almost certainly a market.

In a majority of cases I assume that a majority of pornstars either choose to stop because they've moved on personally, or because they no longer fit in their current niche and don't want to move to another.

If they want to keep doing it and there's a market out there then they could just keep going. Ultimately it's their choice and not down to anybody else to tell them to stop.

[Jake Gittes]

Originally Posted by Bullwank

In a majority of cases I assume that a majority of pornstars either choose to stop because they've moved on personally, or because they no longer fit in their current niche and don't want to move to another. .

That’s exactly what Kay Parker said in the commentary track for Taboo.

For her, it was when she noticed the absence of pubic hair from female performers.

It was game over for her and she didn’t want to move on with the changing times.

[williamson78]

Originally Posted by Jake Gittes

That’s exactly what Kay Parker said in the commentary track for Taboo.

For her, it was when she noticed the absence of pubic hair from female performers.

It was game over for her and she didn’t want to move on with the changing times.

.
Parker may have said that on TABOO but in other interviews she said it was because the industry was moving from film to video. Films have a softer picture while video was sharper. So on video, things like blemishes and the like were much clearer. Probably some others left when they started shooting inHD video.

[slimnesbit]

Originally Posted by williamson78

.
Parker may have said that on TABOO but in other interviews she said it was because the industry was moving from film to video. Films have a softer picture while video was sharper. So on video, things like blemishes and the like were much clearer. Probably some others left when they started shooting inHD video.

Sorry, but the quality of film in the 70s was much higher than the video quality in the 80s.

[Gordon3]

Back to the original question, when it comes to male porn stars, it seems to devolve into a lowest-common denominator situation, like with Ron Jeremy. For the fans, it becomes a disgusting parlor game to see how revolting a man that some female porn stars will still have sex with. I guess some newbies just don't get told about the No List. At some point, there has to be some sort of self-awareness & self-pride for the guys who end up in this situation, and just exit the industry with dignity & grace. Yet, they don't seem to realize how embarrassed they ought to be, having sex in the public space, as unattractive, generally off-putting, and obese as they are.

If, on the other hand, they can stay in decent shape (I know, everyone ages), can still "act", and can conduct themselves on social media, etc. as an affable professional, and not become an obnoxious prick, then more power to them. Even with pharmaceutical help, if they still can look the part and can perform, then I'm OK with that. Softcore, if there's any of that left, is a little different, though. That is definitely a young person's game, with very few exceptions, because people are there for the perfect nude bodies, not really the fake humping.

Women are the same, in my opinion. If they just don't want to do it anymore, can't do the publicity, etc., they should just step away. If they are still interested in performing and can stay in reasonable shape, I would love to see the big stars stay as long as possible, even if it's just on OnlyFans. Janine is still gorgeous, and I'm a big fan of the tats, for full disclosure. Julia Ann and Stormy Daniels have aged like angels. Lisa Ann still has eternal lines at conventions of fans waiting for her autograph, probably the longest at the show. Nina Hartley did a few scenes in her 60's, and while she was having some off-screen issues, she still looked fantastic. Frankly, I wish she were still performing, even though she'll be eligible for Medicare and Social Security next year.

[williamson78]

Originally Posted by slimnesbit

Sorry, but the quality of film in the 70s was much higher than the video quality in the 80s.

I don't want to derail this thread but video has a much clearer picture then film. You can see much more detail on video shoots then on film shoots since film has a softer image. You can also shoot much closer to the subject so this enhances the image even more. I'm not saying video is better then film, I don't feel that way at all, but it was a reason Parker and and perhaps others left the business.

[slimnesbit]

Originally Posted by williamson78

I don't want to derail this thread but video has a much clearer picture then film.

I think you talk about Super 8 vs. VHS.


But high quality porn movies in the 70s were shot for cinema on high quality film.


Found this on the internet:

Why do porn videos from the 70s or even 80s look better quality than modern ones?


They were shot on 35mm film, a practice that largely ended by 1983 when low cost video cameras became available like the Super Betacam, which could shoot broadcast resolution video on normal Betamax cassettes.
The problem with film was it was expensive to procure and process - each second of film cost about $1. You could get a Betamax cartridge for $10 and it would last you 30 minutes.
It also became a lot cheaper to edit videotape in the 1980s. Film may be expensive to shoot, but editing it is a breeze. Before the 1980s, videotape editing machines were expensive, but in the 1980s inexpensive video editing equipment became normal.
This, of course, resulted in a massive drop-off of quality. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 8K in resolution. Broadcast quality video is 480p and most films from the 1980s don’t have original video masters - they were distributed in standard VHS resolution, which was well below broadcast quality.
At best, modern porn is shot in 4K which is very nice but still only about 1/4th the resolution of 35mm film.
On the other hand, the switch to video made porn more accessible. Film projectors, even home ones, are expensive and tricky to operate. Police presence meant you could really only exhibit films in a fair sized city in a liberal leaning state. Video porn was easy to distribute and despite the lower quality most porn theatres didn’t care and started replacing their expensive film projectors with cheap video projection systems. Video also got around the fact that most film labs wouldn’t touch porn with a 10 foot pole.