Talk:Gonzo pornography

Old, settled discussion

Is there a connection to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Point_of_view_pornography ? maybe we could consider linking these two articles Intagli (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

dude, did you never watch porn? gonzo porn for the most part is, like said, just more graphical and without a lot of the old school conventions, while POV is really as if you see trough the eyes of one of the actors, but in Gonzo most of the times the camera is placed between legs eg., not a POV at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.152.84 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question were apparently merged a long while ago. Guy1890 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image necessary?

Is the image really necessary? And isn't Wikipedia supposed to be for all ages? 83.54.232.237 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Having at least one image in an article, any Wikipedia article, is a good thing. Guy1890 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This image is unnecessary and is derogatory Leelu2277 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it's useful to have an image to illustrate the POV nature of the genre. Equally it's useful to avoid genitals in the image if we can do so without compromising the value of the image to the article. There are many possible gonzo shots that would achieve this. Does anyone have a better image we could use? Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

worldwide view

Except for a small section on POV porn in Japan, this article concerns itself exclusively with the US market. For instance:

• It claims an American director started the genre
• all awards are US based and involve American productions
• not a single one of the notable directors is based outside the US (as far as I could tell, I can be wrong)

The article reads almost as if "gonzo" is unknown outside the US (with the aforementioned exception of mentioning that a POV style exists in Japan). Therefore this template. CapnZapp (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gonzo pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021017212630/http://www.rogreviews.com/interviews/john_stagliano.asp to http://www.rogreviews.com/interviews/john_stagliano.asp
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69VXJ9fMA?url=http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=30298 to http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=30298
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212102723/http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2012 to http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gonzo pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127002849/http://laist.com/2011/04/22/xrco_awards_2.php to http://laist.com/2011/04/22/xrco_awards_2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing false claim that Gonzo is "one of two types of pornography"

I have removed the claim that: "there are two broad types of pornography, gonzo and feature" because it is a false categorisation of pornography, for 2 reasons:

1. Because "Gonzo" pornography is not opposed to "Feature" pornography: These are two separate styles of film-making that could easily be combined, ie a pornographer could make a "Gonzo Feature" movie which combines the first-person, Gonzo style with the scripted, Feature style. Therefore the article is wrong in saying that Gonzo and Feature are two broad and entirely mutually-opposed types of pornography.

and: 2. Because the overall category of "pornography" contains many distinct types, and not just two. This is easily seen by looking at the "categories" section of any pornograhy tube site such as Youporn or Redtube.

Also, the claim is only cited to a single article which is a polemic anti-pornography rant, in a left-wing and heavily anti-pornography newspaper. The author, Martin Amis, is not generally recognised as an authority on the subject of pornography categorisation. The only other place this absurd claim appears is in Gail Dines' hysterical anti-pornography rants. This is not a reliable or impartial source of information.

Since the claim is entirely false and without sufficient support or reasoning, I have deleted the entire section that is based around this claim, because it is irrelevant and misleading in an article that is intended to accurately explain what "Gonzo" pornography is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE17:200:94F2:5442:78C2:A8C3 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)