What confused me about the questions was the “combined” part. And that’s just for the simple fact that as soon as you have real sex on camera then it’s pornography. So, you could have a movie with high production values, excellent visual effects, a beautiful script, and people who can act, but as soon as you get some penetration it’s going to be pornography. Or an art film. Both of which are death at the box office.
I don’t want to be a kill joy (seriously) but it’s not going to happen. Not as long as we (the collective “we”) have hang-ups about sex.
Even though the porn industry probably has enough money to really crank up the production values, it’s not really in their best interest. Even the attempts at a real script and story from the 70s and early 80s failed. The main audience isn’t interested in a story, they just want to see people fucking.
Not to mention that anyone who even thinks they have a shot of being an actor wouldn’t do it because it would probably be the end of their career. I guess the same goes for directors and such, even though they could go with a pseudonym since they’re not generally on camera.
Your best bet would have been to have one of the “big hitters” of mainstream naked women, say Penthouse, who have a lot of money to throw around, hire an established actor or two, like Malcom McDowell, a script by an established author that had a controversial movie under his belt and a nifty name, sort of like Gore Vidal, and hope the novelty could carry it.
The big problem is, of course, the hypocrisy surrounding sex. Nobody watches it because it’s sick and evil, and yet the industry makes money hand over fist. I don’t have statistics handy, but I’m pretty sure the majority of adults in this world have sex.