Looks or performance

[8TB]

I think looks are more important when it comes to which porn stars I favor, but I do not ignore performances. For example, as some might know, Holly Michaels is hands down my favorite porn star. Not only does she have the looks, but she is bar-none the best performer I've ever seen. (And no, I'm not judging how loud the "oohs" and "aahs" are.) While I agree with gtzaskar that the looks are what "get them the interview" so to speak, the performances are what retains "the job." For me there's a threshold for attractiveness; and once that threshold is met, even if they're insanely attractive (e.g. Amanda Aimes, Lana Rhoades, Leah Gotti, Holly Michaels, Jessica Robbin etc.,) it's their performances that provide clear distinction.

[TtaeTtae]

Both but not all the time.

As long as it make me superhorny

Sometimes the pornstar has the looks but they are boring as fuck

[Mango]

Originally Posted by V1c1ous

Both are important. Many times looks win in modern porn because there's not much performance really...

agreed +1

[EchelonV]

Needs to be a combo for me. Most of my favorite girls might look a little more on the average side to some people, like Kat. She could almost pass for that realistic dreamy girl next door type. Not a crazy super model. But her bubbly personality, fun charm and communication in scenes makes me love these types even more.

I'll never forget this one girl, Lexi Leigh... she reminded me of Kat and I love her body type and face, but her performance was so dull there wasn't a single standout scene of hers haha.

On the other hand you've got girls like Ariana Marie, who I think is really hot... but I've come to realize there's not a single "steller" scene of hers that I've seen since she's been around for years now. She's completely dry and robotic, now I'm losing interest and don't care to watch much more of her. Give me someone like Riley Reid over her who puts in more passion and energy into the scene, and I'll be a bigger fan in the long run.

[lellor123]

Both, I only want the best out of porn.

[alexora]

It has to be a good balance of both, but I am willing to accept a poor performance if the looks are very good more than if the performance is very good but the looks are poor...

[OnyxShadow]

I think there was a time when I could enjoy a scene just because the girl was drop-dead gorgeous even if she had no idea what she was doing...or if a girl had explosive enthusiasm but was average looking at best.

Those days are over I think. Perhaps because of the overwhelming abundance of available porn that is being produced I've gotten incredibly picky. And why not? There are numerous scenes produced every week that have:

A girl who's stunning looking.
A competent partner (male or female).
Good production values.
A combination of niches that I don't find objectionable.

Final Answer: Both

[misterfall]

Both. That's why Stacey Valentine was the greatest ball draining whore that ever stepped into the vision of camera lens. And I willing to fight you guys on that point, ANYTIME ANYWHERE!

[verysmartperson]

Rather than looks vs. performance, I think the role of the director/editor is important.

I can't tell you how many scenes I've watched and stopped watching -- not because the girl isn't drop dead gorgeous, but just that the director doesn't know what to do with her, or that he doesn't make much effort to create a nice scene. I just think, "My god, that director had a sexy goddess and didn't know how to make a decent porn clip."

Maybe people are going to disagree with me, but the GDP scenes are incredibly boring, even though the girls are incredibly hot. Contrast to ECG where the girls are generally very hot and the scenes stay interesting (to me at least). Legalp***no are always dull to me (and sort of gross) and the clubseve***en clips are usually boring. Yet the girls in those two European studios are among the most beautiful you'll see. ...

Part of it is editing and production values (like makeup, setting), part is just creating a scene that is comfortable and not too degrading (unless that's your thing).

I do agree with OnyxShadow that the ratio of quality-to-crap scenes has gotten better, if only because the so-so scenes just don't get shared or promoted.

[herrgunther]

Totally agree with verysmartperson.

Although for me it's 70% looks, 30% performance. I think the directors have a lot of influence on the performance part.

Take Eva Angelina for example, her early scenes are incredible. But those made later on are all the same. They let her do her obligated signature move (reverse cowgirl) and scream a lot. Although you can't necessarily blame the director, I do feel like the directors in general are like. "This girl sells, so let's encourage her to do what she did already but more."

I think a lot has to do with the abundance of female performers nowadays. Most girls who get into porn do a lot of scenes asap and then are out already. There is no time to grow for them and their scenes are pretty flat and the same. This takes out a big chunk of the revenue for potential long term porn stars. And then there are the girls that stay and build a social media following but don't grow at all. But they look incredible and therefore get a big following on their instagram, they will get booked anyway because of this and therefore have no incentive to grow in their performance.

It's the girls who are hot and don't match above description which should be booked. Like these girls:
Rachel Roxxx (retired?)
Asa Akira
Jaclyn Taylor
Alexis Monroe
Cali Carter
Holly Michaels (retired)
Nekane Sweet
Kagney Linn Karter
Juelz Ventura
Summer Brielle (onlyfans only...)
Kelsi Monroe
Reagan Foxx