Dicks

I much prefer the porn of the 1970's and 1980's because it usually had at least a weak plot and the actresses didn't shave their pussies.
I've been on a vintage porn streak lately. While I don't necessarily care for the bushes, the attempt at having a story/plot with some acting is a nice change of pace.
 
Human society and culture has centred the penis for millennia as a totem of fertility. In patriarchal culture, it is a symbol of power. Although cultural homophobia tells men it's wrong and unnatural, men are still drawn to the penis as the ultimate symbol of male potency and sexual prowess.

That's why the penis pervades porn - but, at the same time, the men attached to the penises are seldom the focus of the action.
That’s a really interesting observation.
 
My wife and I enjoy watching porn together. So, a few years ago, when I bought a Virtual Reality system for the kids and grandkids to play VR games, my wife made the offhand comment "I wonder if they make VR porn movies?"

Inquiring minds want to know. So, I was on a quest to download some VR porn ...(for her, yeah, we'll go with that.)

Most of that is first-person POV as the other partner comes toward you and performs on you. I had a few lesbian POV videos. But most were from the male POV.

When my wife put on the headset, she selected a random video from the list and was amazed at the 3-D view of the gorgeous, naked woman crawling toward her. Then she looked down, exclaiming "Oh, my god, I have a penis! It's a nice penis. But WOW!"

She also had me put the headset on and select a video. Then she'd watch the actress on the TV monitor, seeing what I viewed in the headset. And my wife tried to keep pace doing the same things to me to enhance my VR experience!
 
Damn. Thought we were gonna have a spirited, in depth discussion about the sporting goods store. But apparently not.
The company was indeed started by a guy named Richard "Dick" Stack. Jesus, Dick Stack. You would think people would call themselves Rich or Richie.

Elon Musk's Boring Company is a good one. He's got to be kidding, just a bit, right?
 
It's a bit like when you're looking at a gorgeous sunset, or a stunning piece of architecture, and you have to ignore the power lines that are in the way.
Saw a great post on X the other day by a guy in the movie industry explaining how much cinematographers LOATHE powerlines. Apparently in the days before CGI it was common for productions to pay to relocate or bury power lines.
 
Saw a great post on X the other day by a guy in the movie industry explaining how much cinematographers LOATHE powerlines. Apparently in the days before CGI it was common for productions to pay to relocate or bury power lines.
It depends on the time period. Power lines are part of modern life. When Cold Mountain was filmed (set in 1864), Romania was chosen for most of the exteriors precisely because they have little modern infrastructure. It really gets crazy when you're filming ancient Rome or the Old West, and you constantly have to cover over the tire tracks that the camera trucks make. Often they miss a few.
 
It depends on the time period. Power lines are part of modern life. When Cold Mountain was filmed (set in 1864), Romania was chosen for most of the exteriors precisely because they have little modern infrastructure. It really gets crazy when you're filming ancient Rome or the Old West, and you constantly have to cover over the tire tracks that the camera trucks make. Often they miss a few.

He was even saying in film where they would be period appropriate, simply because they messed up the composition of the shot.
 
It's a bit like when you're looking at a gorgeous sunset, or a stunning piece of architecture, and you have to ignore the power lines that are in the way.
I'm on the verge of digressing hugely. That's why some cities like Washington and London didn't have wires for streetcars; they spoiled the view. Eventually the problem solved itself: buses. For the 2% of you who care, you can look up how they did power them.
 
I'm on the verge of digressing hugely. That's why some cities like Washington and London didn't have wires for streetcars; they spoiled the view. Eventually the problem solved itself: buses. For the 2% of you who care, you can look up how they did power them.

Or cable cars like San Francisco.
 
He was even saying in film where they would be period appropriate, simply because they messed up the composition of the shot.
Save us from cinematographers and their shot compositions. They believe the audience is thinking, "Is Eastwood going to shoot that guy or not? Damn, all those wires are distracting me!"

The thread topic: oh yeah, dicks. Now I've got to think of something to say about that.
 
Or cable cars like San Francisco.
This thread is digressing into movies and transit. I've got to restrain myself. Cable cars were invented in 1873 to climb steep hills; it had nothing to do with views. It wasn't until the next decade that electric propulsion was perfected, and San Francisco had wires all over the place.

I did use some of this in one of the Geek Pride competitions several years ago.
 
Last edited:
Audiences are capable of appreciating something that doesn't look half-assed and anachronistic. And of hating stuff that does.

And I suspect cinematographers care about things like composition even if a large part of the audience won't.
 
And I suspect cinematographers care about things like composition even if a large part of the audience won't.
I feel like the same thing is true about composers vs. listeners, and I'm going to use this to illustrate how they do care, they just care differently. Just because a listener isn't reading the score and naming the chords doesn't mean they don't have taste and genuine appreciation.

It also doesn't mean they don't "care" about whether the composition is flawed. They might not be able to rattle off the harmonic structures and pick apart the counterpoint, but they can cringe at a bad note.
 
Audiences are capable of appreciating something that doesn't look half-assed and anachronistic. And of hating stuff that does.
If the movie or TV show has a modern setting, sometimes filming what is already there is best. Just randomly, I thought that one of the strengths of The Sopranos was the extensive use of New Jersey locations. It begins with the opening credits, although those are somewhat geographically skewed in that Tony drives south for a while. (Drive Safely!) Then he's in north Jersey again. The exterior of his house is a real one, I think in North Caldwell.

Mad Men had an issue in that none of it was filmed in New York. Most of the exteriors are somewhere around Don's house in Westchester County. There are older suburbs around Los Angeles that looked right for those.
 
I feel like the same thing is true about composers vs. listeners, and I'm going to use this to illustrate how they do care, they just care differently. Just because a listener isn't reading the score and naming the chords doesn't mean they don't have taste and genuine appreciation.

It also doesn't mean they don't "care" about whether the composition is flawed. They might not be able to rattle off the harmonic structures and pick apart the counterpoint, but they can cringe at a bad note.
I think the audience is aware of the composition although perhaps subconsciously. We were talking about what to include in the scene if filmed on location. The further back in history the film is set, the more difficult it is to make it look right. Even for the 19th Century, Martin Scorsese built the New York sets from scratch in Italy I think. (The Gangs of New York.) For Once Upon a Time in America (about 1915?), some impressive efforts were made to have Williamsburg, Brooklyn look the part. If you really look closely, you can see modern light poles with the arms removed. The poles themselves were so dirty and rusty that they almost blend into the background.
 
Back
Top