| Review:
DECEMBER 2005 RE-VISIT
We are Penthouse people. This was the magazine we grew up
on (OK, we'll date ourselves: we first got into porn in the 80s). We
definitely weren't into Playboy.
That was too boring. Penthouse was more what we wanted: raunchy
porn that was still intelligent, creative, and well-produced. Great
photography, and, of course, girls who couldn't be beat.
So
we
were
really
disappointed
by
the
online
version
when
we
first
reviewed
it
back
in
2002.
It
seemed
a
really
shoddy
job
that
illustrated
why
the
heavyweights
of
traditional
print
porn
were
getting
their
collective
asses
kicked
by
gonzo
nutjobs
from
Miami.
In
the
years
since,
someone
at
Penthouse
Corporation
has
seen
the
future
and
obviously
decided
there
just
might
be
something
to
this
"Internet"
thing
after
all.
The
version
of
Penthouse.com
we
saw
this
time
was
a
big
improvement.
But
they
still
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
Basically
what
you
have
here
is
an
online
version
of
this
outstanding
mag
and
their
video
label.
We
say
"basically"
because
(a)
there
is
some,
but
not
a
lot,
of
material
that
is
only
available
online;
and
(b)
you
won't
find
everything
that's
ever
been
in
the
magazine
here.
For
example:
When
we
visited,
one
of
the
most
recently
added
photosets
was
the
one
with
Jenna
Jameson
sucking
off
some
guy
in
silhouette
(you
know
the
one).
Well,
that
pictorial
ran
in
1997,
so
it
sure
as
fuck
ain't
new.
Search
for
Jenna
in
the
model
database
and
you'll
only
find
two
photosets,
and
we
know
she's
done
more.
So
obviously
what
they're
doing
is
updating
with
stuff
from
the
archives,
but
they
haven't
got everything
online
yet.
A
lot,
yes,
but
not
everything.
While
we're
bitching,
here
are
our
two
main
gripes:
(1)
The
picture
quality
is
good
for
the
newer
stuff,
but
varies
quite
a
bit
for
anything
going
back
a
few
years.
Looks
like
for
the
newer
pictures
you
have
a
choice
of
four
sizes
for
the
pics:
S (640x960),
M (800x1200),
L (1000x1500),
and
XL (1600x2400).
Sounds
good,
but
it
doesn't
always
look
good.
The
larger
sizes
appear
to
have
just
been
blown
up,
losing
quite
a
bit
of
picture
quality.
They
are
not
sharp
at
XL size.
The
other
thing
is
that
all
of
the
pictures
come
with
a
Zoom
function
on
the
viewer.
So
for
the
older
pictures,
many
of
which
are
disappointingly
small
(600x800,
or
even
400x600--are
they
just
using
scans
from
the
magazine??),
you
have
to
use
the
zoom
to
make
them
bigger.
The
problem
with
this
is
that
the
way
the zoom
blows
the
picture
up
makes
it
look
really
blurry.
They
aren't
big
pics.
They
are
small
pics
that
have
been
enlarged,
and
that's
what
they
look
like.
Bottom
line:
Most
of
the
pics
from
the
archives
are
nowhere
near
as
good
as
you're
probably
accustomed
to
seeing
from
any
of
the
top
photography
sites
nowadays.
And
they
should
be.
This
if Penthouse
for
fuck's
sake!
(2)
All
of
the
video
uses
DRM.
That's
right
folks,
you
ain't
going
to
keep
any
of
this
shit.
This
is,
of
course,
typical
for
most
mainstream
video
producers,
but
we
thought
they
could
have
been
a
bit
more
generous.
Let's
face
it,
how
many
people
are
out
there
looking
to
buy
the
Great
Pet
Hunt
from
1998?
A
lot
of
the
older
stuff
could
be
made
available
for
download
without
affecting
anyone's
bottom
line.
Content
is
the
library
of
Penthouse
titles,
with
some
extra
backstage
footage
and
interviews
among
the
newer
stuff.
And
it's
conveniently
split
into
scenes
which
makes
searching
by
model
a
lot
easier.
As
for
quality,
it
looks
pretty
good
even
fullscreen.
And
the
streams
worked
really
well.
One
annoying
thing
was
the
code
they
used
to
direct
to
the
video
clips,
which
uses
a
Java
script
that
sometimes
wasn't
working
for
us.
When
it
wasn't,
we
couldn't
get
to any
of
the
video
clips.
Argh.
Not
that
we're
the
most
sophisticated
people
in
the
world,
but
it's
likely
other
people
may
experience
the
same
difficulty.
They
really
need
to
simplify
things
a
bit
and
get
rid
of
some
of
the
jazzy
effects.
Most
of
the
content
here
is
what
you
get
in
the
magazine,
and
there
aren't
a
lot
of
surprises.
A
Pet
index
lets
you
search
all
of
the
Pets
going
back
to
1973.
Other
sections
in
the
Gallery
area
are:
models,
girls
on
girls,
couples,
and
group
sex
("group"
meaning
three
people).
In
the
World
of
Penthouse
area
you
get
Variations,
Penthouse
Letters,
Forum,
as
well
as a
Video
on
Demand
theatre
and
a
Store.
Under
Readings
you'll
find
Forum
Letters
(quite
a
good
archive,
well
catalogued),
Vices
and
Vanities
(including
Ask
Doc
Zdrok),
and
X-Rated
Video
Reviews
(these
are
just
short
blurbs).
This
is
all
stuff
from
the
print
version.
And
finally
there
is a
section
of
live
feeds.
Much
as
we
love
the
Penthouse
brand,
we
just
couldn't
get
too
excited
about
this
site.
Maybe
we
expected
more
given
the
name.
We
were
actually
quite
surprised
by
how
sloppy
some
of
the
presentation
was.
It's
hard
to
believe,
for
example,
that
a
photo
of
the
box
cover
for Bella
Loves
Jenna
was
"unavailable"
for
inclusion
with
the
review.
The
could
have
grabbed
one off
of
countless
sites.
And
that's
just
a
minor
point.
More
upsetting
was
the
way
the
pictures
in
the
photo
galleries
are
often
presented
wildly
out
of
order,
with
many
pics
being
repeated
two
or
three
times!
There's
no
excuse
for
that.
Elsewhere
we
found
video
clips
featuring
some
models
that
weren't
included
on
their
model
pages,
making
the
index
ineffective.
There
were
also
dumb
spelling
mistakes
in
some
of
the
graphics
("eroric
fiction"?),
and
too
much
of
an
emphasis
on
selling
things.
The
main
page
features
a
"bestselling
DVDs"
chart,
which,
when
we
visited,
had Matters
of
Size
-
The
Ultimate
Guide
to
Penis
Enlargement
coming
in
at
#6
and Caligula
at
#10.
Kind
of
hard
to
believe
those
numbers.
Also
included
on
each
model
page
are
links
to
their
DVDs
that
are
available
for
purchase.
That's
too
much
advertising
for
the
members
area.
By
the
way,
Caligula
was
a
pretty
good
movie.
It
sure
as
fuck
wasn't
sexy,
but
that
machine
that
cuts
people's
heads
off
was
amazing!
Yes,
there
is
some
great
content
here.
And
it
is a
big
step
up
from
what
it
looked
like
three
years
ago.
But
the
below-average
quality
of
the
older
pics,
the
DRM
on
the
video,
and
the
general
messiness
in
the
presentation,
all
take
it
down.
Perhaps
it's
unfair
holding
Penthouse
to a
higher
standard,
but
we
do
expect
more
from
these
guys.
SEPTEMBER 2002 REVIEW
The Internet killed adult magazines. Their subscription and newsstand
sales have plummeted while porn on the Web has taken off. Unable in most
cases to adapt, a new generation of industry leaders has stepped into
the void, leaving the brand names of the 70s, 80s and 90s to wonder what
happened.
For a good example of transition failure, take the case of
Penthouse.com. This site should have set the standard. Penthouse had the
biggest name, the best talent (both in front of and behind the camera),
the most money . . . everything! And now virtually any amateur couple
with a Web-cam can put out better porn.
Where to begin? The site is overdesigned, with way too many
background images (leaving only ten thumbnails per page in the average
gallery). The navigation doesn't make any sense at all. It can be
overdone (with duplicate menus on the main page), or be absent entirely
(as in the "Strongbox"). The classification scheme is no help.
What is the "Pet Pleasures" section all about? Is it just a
grab-bag?
It is very hard to find what you want, though the fault isn't all
with the navigation here. The indexing is inadequate. Try looking up
Janine (Lindemulder) under Pets of the 80s or Pets of the 90s. She's not
there. You have to do a search to find her galleries. You also won't
find Tera Patrick listed with the rest of the Y2K Pets, despite her
picture being used as the link to that section.
Once you make it to the galleries you are in for more unpleasant
surprises. Many of the thumbnails (especially in the Fetish section) are
only of details. Sometimes you can't even make out what the big picture
is supposed to be of. Bad idea. When you click on them, they sometimes open up in another window that doesn't allow
you to view the whole image, or that changes size! We ended up
accidentally closing our browser three times!
The pictures themselves are only mid-size, with none of the large or
"super-size" formats popular on other sites. You know you're in trouble when you're surfing a Penthouse site for
stories on foreign policy, but this is what we soon found ourselves
doing. But we would rather be reading the magazine.
But by far the biggest disappointment is the video section. Again,
with the resources at their disposal you would have thought Penthouse
would pull out all the stops and put a first-rate selection of
movies on their site. Think again. The "Penthouse Theatre" is
just a bunch of channels featuring streaming versions of some of the
movies Penthouse puts out. There didn't seem to be anything happening in
terms of original content being shot just for the site. The size of the
viewer screen is a pathetic little joke. And nothing available for
download! We couldn't believe what we (weren't) seeing.
There are banner ads and even pop-ups (yes pop-ups! in the members'
section!) trying to sell you stuff from the Penthouse store. The nature
and frequency of the updates was hard to determine. Some of the stuff
that was listed as being "new on PetNet" we've had on our hard
drive for over a year. Ugh.
A site like this can't be all bad. There's simply too much content.
Certainly anyone with an interest in retro porn will want to take a
look. But in almost any way you can think of this is, perhaps
deliberately, an inferior product to the magazine. So much for the
twenty-first century.
|
