"Deep Throat" grossed over $800,000,000

Over the years, I've read a number of histories and articles about the porn industry and now that we have the web there's even more of it available. But one thing I've read fairly consistently is that the movie Deep Throat which starred Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems has grossed over $800,000,000 in the 30+ years since it's release.

How is this possible?

Granted when it was first released it caused a fairly big sensation and there were reportedly long lines outside theaters where it was being shown. But this was in the days when major Hollywood movies weren't shown on 4,000+ screens across the country, let alone hardcore pron films. Also it seems that most porn theaters couldn't seat more then a few hundred people per showing and it's fair to say that there probably would be more then a few empty seats to give viewers some *ahem* privacy.

At most there are one or two porn theaters in cities and then only in the major ones like NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC etc. If you lived in ButtF*** Arkansas you were out of luck.

And even in the age of VCR/DVD's most porn titles sell fewer then 1,000 copies.

So how was that $800,000,000 number come up with?

[rhiandmoi]

I'd guess this movie has sold a lot more than 1,000 copies. I am sure some people have purchased more than one copy. That movie is hilarious. Not that I have seen it several times or anything.

[ThistleS]

I would think that the eight hundred million dollars would be quite an exaggeration. However, I'm sure it has grossed pretty dang high for a porn film, since it is by far the best known and has been around for so long and is still in print.

[Eddylizard]

Am I the only person in the world that has never seen this movie?

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Am I the only person in the world that has never seen this movie?

Yes. But that's a good thing. Nothin' like watchin' filmed rape.....

[matches]

Let's say that a new copy of the film retails for about $15. Likewise let's assume that most every rental store in america with an adult section has a copy (it is very popular after all and is probably the first one young men with fake ids look for).

If there are 27 million video stores with adult sections in the America, when they had to switch everything over from VHS to DVD, they get to $800,00,000 easily...

And that doesn't even take into account the canadian market!

O.k. so there are probably not 27 million adult video stores in the united states, but it's not impossible that there are 54,000,000 units of the product out there, so it is not impossible that the number is not grossly inflated.

but yeah, 80,000,000 is much more likley, that's only 5 and half million units or there abouts, and that's easily acheivable, so is 100,000,000. either way, I am sure the producers made their money back.

[PallasAthena]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Am I the only person in the world that has never seen this movie?

Nope. I haven't seen it either. Of course, they don't carry porn at my local video store, and I am not in the habit of watching porn.

[rhiandmoi]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Yes. But that's a good thing. Nothin' like watchin' filmed rape.....

What are you basing this on?

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

What are you basing this on?

Probably her autobiography. ETA: Or her testimony before the Meese commision, when she said "When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time.”

[rhiandmoi]

I believe that even Boreman meant that metaphorically. She felt that she was under the control of her husband at that time and IIRC heavily into drugs, but I don't think that she meant that other performers in the movie literally raped her.

ETA: Harry Reems is pretty sure he didn't rape her.
http://www.moviehole.net/news/20050211_5046.html

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I believe that even Boreman meant that metaphorically. She felt that she was under the control of her husband at that time and IIRC heavily into drugs, but I don't think that she meant that other performers in the movie literally raped her.

Her autobiography makes it pretty clear that she meant that she didn't want to do pornography and made the movie under threat of significant violence from her husband, who beat her badly enough to leave marks during the filming. I'm not sure that makes it a metaphorical rape.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

I believe that even Boreman meant that metaphorically. She felt that she was under the control of her husband at that time and IIRC heavily into drugs, but I don't think that she meant that other performers in the movie literally raped her.

Uhh. No. She testified, with some backup, that her husband/pimp beat and sexually abused her in order to get her to "perform."

A bit more than being under control, and certainly falls under the catagory of rape, IMHO, as she didn't give meaningful consent.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi

ETA: Harry Reems is pretty sure he didn't rape her.
http://www.moviehole.net/news/20050211_5046.html

Well, I have no doubt he would say that. And, in fact, he might believe that. Doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

[Chloe]

Indeed, assuming the rest of the cast didn't know the situation she was in (big assumption), one might consider them alleged instruments rather than alleged perpetrators.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Indeed, assuming the rest of the cast didn't know the situation she was in (big assumption), one might consider them alleged instruments rather than alleged perpetrators.

Indeed. In fact, I'd say her husband, not her fellow castmembers, was guilty of rape.

[eeriespawnsybil]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Well, I have no doubt he would say that. And, in fact, he might believe that. Doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

I would venture to guess that most rapists believe they don't rape anyone. As for this guy he has the old standby excuses "well she wanted it, she shouldn't have been on drugs, shes his wife (possession) , she helped spend the money "they" made" etc.
There are a lot of ways he can try to justify how he didn't rape her or farm her out to be raped. It doesn't make it true.

[Wicked Tinkerbell]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Am I the only person in the world that has never seen this movie?

Originally Posted by PallasAthena

Nope. I haven't seen it either. Of course, they don't carry porn at my local video store, and I am not in the habit of watching porn.

That makes (at least) three of us.

[eeriespawnsybil]

I haven't either.

[Koshka]

I haven't either.

[Admiraldinty]

I'm happy to say I haven't seen it either, although I vaguely remember seeing a biography of "Linda Lovelace" (I'm guessing that's not her real name) on E! some time ago. I seem to recall that her husband made her doing other unspeakable things as well.