Maybe not Gallo’s cock, but it will change the perception of other sexually explicit movies if people don’t call them porn. When someone calls a film pornography, the word is used as a pejorative.
I think that most studios use your definition of porn, which is based on how much penetration/nudity you show, and that’s why we don’t see many sexually explicit movies. The producers of the film are worried that if you show penetration, the film will be labeled as pornography and no one will take it seriously as a film.
It won’t change the response after the movie is made and people watch it, but the problem is with studios who green light the film. They actually do make decisions based on what is called porn and what isn’t called porn.
Arnold Winkelried, the definition might be obvious to you, but I think gaffa’s problem is that it isn’t obvious to film producers.
I think producers understand the distinction just fine, but they’re making business decisions, not artistic ones. From a purely business standpoint, explicit blowjobs can’t play in multiplexes. It doesn’t matter how the film is labled.
Then why do you think explicit blowjobs can’t play in multiplexes?
I think calling movies that have them “porn” has a lot to do with whether the public will decide to see them or not. When someone tells me I’m about to watch porn, I don’t assume they mean “20 minutes of a guy driving and one explicit blow job.”
Bums in seats. The more explicit the unsimulated sex in a film, the more some potential audience members are alienated and decide to see some other film than the one with the dangly bits. It comes down to “Will it play in Peoria?”
With more and more films being distributed directly via DVD/online without playing in theatres (other than film festivals), I expect we will start seeing more indie productions that have explicit unsimulated sex.