Request For New Classification/Reclassification of "Vintage"
-
I've blown this off the first few times I saw this, but now I think I'm at the end of my rope. I love vintage porn, both gay and straight. I seek it out. I even click on the side graphic to go to the category (one of the few that I do). But the Vintage category here is being abused.
There is no way, simply no way, that a film from 1995 can be called "vintage" by any definition of the word. Yet there are people here uploading films from the 90s and putting them in the Vintage category. It's happened more than once here. That is total nonsense. In 2020, maybe it'd be appropriate, but not in 2008.
"Vintage" not only is a date designation, but also denotes a particular style that's only being rediscovered, a movement toward actual plots and away from PWP, along with a certain visual style (see any Joe Gage film or any of the old Falcon material). The Twink Takeover took place starting in roughly 1985-1987. That time period coincides with the final transition to videotape as the main recording medium. It's at the point that the style of gay porn that's commonly regarded as "vintage" died. Let's face it, gay porn made twenty years ago looks pretty much identical to (professional) gay porn made today, except that it's more fragmented into niche markets.
In older straight porn, there's a clearer set of guidelines because there's more to work with. "Vintage" is normally used to designate porn made before 1968 or so, the pre-commercial era. Material from 1968 through the 1980s is usually tabbed as "retro". But there's a lot larger quantity of straight porn films pre-1968, enabling this kind of definition to come about. There's no "retro" period of gay porn; as said, there was a sharp dividing line when gay porn moved from film to videotape and from the more masculine, hirsute actors toward twinks.
"Vintage" does not equal "more than ten years old", guys. This category is getting abused by people with that mindset. Therefore, I propose some solutions:
-
Eliminate the "Vintage" category altogether and reclassify the films in it now as "70s", "80s", and "90s".
-
Keep the "Vintage" category and reserve it for films up to 1984 (twenty-five years, like the requirement for Vintage auto license plates in most of the US states) or, better, 1989 (twenty years). Classify anything else in the appropriate category (Hunks, Twinks, etc.) with a date in the description.
-
As per #2 with a 1989 cutoff point, and create a "90s" category.
The Vintage category needs to be cleaned up to eliminate films that are, by no description, vintage. How do people feel about that?
-
-
Sorry to have abused in your eyes the "vintage" category for old Cadinot footage…
BTW : "Oldtimer" (vintage) cars in Germany, where I grew up, are considered to be it from 20 years.
-
I've heard about "vintage" as another term of speaking about "pre condom" times - IIRC the virus was first described in the early 80ies (1983?) and lead to the "condom flicks since then. So I think it rather ok to "equate" pre-condom porn and vintage porn. Which also is ok with the "oldtime definition" given by Uwe before
Just my two cents
-
No argument from my end about pre-condom films being considered vintage. Safe Sex was the industry standard by the late 1980s. My objection was labeling as Vintage films that can't be defined as "vintage" by any common standard; Uwe's 20-year cutoff is one of the options I recommended and the one that I think works best.
(Please note the difference there between the category and the definition. The category name does imply standards set by a commonly-held definition of the word.)
That being said, Cadinot's 1990s work does make for a difficult classification. Cadinot's films aren't my cup of tea because of his choice of stars, but there's no doubt that he kept alive the standards that pretty much died when gay porn went to videotape and PWP. His films I would put in a category that we might consider adding: "Classic", for works of less than twenty years of age that are considered high watermarks of gay porn. Without that kind of category, Cadinot's films would more appropriately be placed under Twinks with a description of its date.
Uwe, I don't blame you at all for what you did, given Cadinot's style. As I said, 90s Cadinot material does tend to blur the lines. But you weren't the only person to do that here, and it's been used for 90s material not from Cadinot. So, let me add that officially as a fourth proposal for people to mull over:
"Vintage": for works produced in 1989 or earlier.
"Classic": for works made after 1989 that have achieved a reputation in gay porn over and above the run-of-the-mill. This could be due to a film obtaining a certain reputation over the years. It could also be due to a director of fame whose work maintains a thematic style that's immediately indicative of that particular director (Cadinot, Kristen Bjorn, etc.). It could also cover the work of certain stars whose fame has transcended the movies they're in, like Jeff Stryker's post-1989 work or Pavel Novotny's work.Of course, there will be arguments about what goes in what category. Take the Barracks Glory Hole series, which was released between 1996 and 1999. It definitely qualifies for the Classic category due to age, reputation of the films, and the reputation of Dirk Yates. So, do you put it under Classic or Military? What about Kristen Bjorn's "A Sailor In Sydney"? Classic, Military, or Hunks? It's going to happen, so I might as well bring up the negative myself.
I apologize if I'm being pedantic about this. All the categories are being abused in certain ways, but the other abuses are more easily classified as the personal taste of the uploader (what's the dividing line between Youngblood, Twinks, and Hunks?). This abuse is different in that it can be mostly corrected easily through a solid definition and the possible addition of a new category or two. And, of course, Uwe, if you thought that I was unnecessarily going after you, I apologize. I wasn't going after you personally.
-
Dear Manhunter,
Actually your initial post made me realize, that I used the "vintage" category on some uploads wrongly and didn't took it personal.
Your long and detailed reasoning is easy to follow and there is for me a noticeable change in movies with the change from celluloid film to video tape technology. This can be seen in Cadinot's too.
-
Dear Manhunter,
Because my posts are elder than 7 days, I can't edit them and would need to ask a moderator to change something to allow me to edit. Would you mind to left them wrong?
For new, I'll use the vintage category very carefully, promised.
Sincerely yours
Popper -
No problem at all. I just wish that you can convince everyone else to do it. Someone else posted a mid-90s Cadinot as Vintage over the weekend.
-
Hallo from Sweden. Im 51 years old and kinda addicted to "Vintage Porn"
I was a "bit" to young to remember the real old good stuff
For me Vintage films are from about 1968-1980
Some of the movies/clips are real hard to find
Best greets from Matthias -
I think I'd agree with ImseVimse, maybe a bit later into the 80s.
I think 'pre-condom' (not bareback) would generally qualify
