i should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky

[Link]

However, in today's porn world, new "studios" pop up on an almost weekly basis. Also the Video/DVD market is far different than that of the theatrical release model. Even with cable/satellite distribution, companies are allowed to carve out their own market presence rather freely. But most of all, I think the internet has changed porn forever, bringing producers and customers together in an almost collaborative relationship…just look at the industry people who frequent ADT. The internet also allows even the smallest of companies to make a ripple.

We the people, and our government, should not allow a "studio system" to monopolize the adult film industry, either.

Do you really want the government to get more involved in the porn business? As bad as it may seem to some, it'll have to get much worse before I see government involvement as a positive influence.

[Link]

That "you'll work for us and only us and we'll decide if we want to make you a star" system is completely backward from modern porn studios. Newcomers are not locked out of the industry by Vivid and Wicked, they're free to work for whomever they want in an effort to build their name. In fact, the whole process is very Darwinian in nature as there are plenty of aspiring performers looking for work and the untalented, unmotivated or just unattractive are quickly and efficiently relegated to the lesser studios. Meanwhile the best, most promising performers quickly become household names on the basis of the amount of work they're able to find by being free to work for any studio they want. Only after making themselves stars are they in the position to choose to become a contract girl. In porn, unlike 1930's Hollywood, the star performers have the clout.

So what do you suggest? We penalize the performers that have survived the ultra-competitive process and made themselves recognizable names by forcing them to abandon the cozy contracts that insure their financial security? Shall we just line up all the performers in front of a bar like a brothel in Thailand so that producers can pick and choose who works with whom while giving the performers no say in the matter? That's far more regressive than the current system. This is capitalism at it's finest and you vote with your wallet. If you feel a studio is producing crap (can you say Vivid?) then you buy from their competitors and you let the offenders know why you're doing it. But to suggest laws restricting a performers right to job security because it prevents you from seeing some dream match-up is just asinine. It's also a greatly short-sighted and misguided to subscribe to the theory that tossing performers together in new combinations will produce good results and that seeing people work together often is by definition a bad thing. The same 6 cast members of Friends have worked together for many years. Cheers, M*A*S*H, Seinfeld, Bonanaza and dozens of other shows have had long, creative and successful runs with the same core group working together day after day, week after week and year after year. Meanwhile, all of the Seinfeld cast bombed out when they split up and started working with new people, Shelly Long disappeared when she left Cheers for ostensibly greener pastures and has anyone seen Jimmy Smits since he got tired of working with Dennis Franz every week and decided it would be good to hook up with some new actors? That Chicken Little "the sky is falling because some performers work together too much" attitude is just plain wrong. Good performers and directors make it work time after time while bad ones fail in any combination. Besides, who wants to see the Vivid girls work with anyone else? Leave them all with Vivid so that they can be safely avoided and don't move on to sully any decent studios with their clock-watching "is this almost over so I can pick up my check?" performances.

Edited by - Vroomfondel on 11/17/2002 1:22:46 PM

Edited by - Vroomfondel on 11/17/2002 1:51:32 PM

[Link]

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more.

Mike L.

[Link]

But saying that contracts are bad for the girls themselves is something I just don't agree with. Probably over 90% of the studios that have contract girls treat their girls like queens. The girls are guaranteed a pre-determined amount of money on a regular basis. They have more flexible schedules, which works great for girls who want to feature dance or go to school or spend time with a family. In fact, I can't think of one bad thing for the girls about being a contract girl.

[Link]

Edited by - eaglespirit on 1/18/2004 6:36:37 PM

[Link]

No one can say if being under contract is good or bad because it's different for every performer. We all have our own ideas of what success is and how to get it. Just because you don't hear of other girls as much as you do a significant few doesn't mean that they aren't as wealthy or successful. It may mean that they are comfortable where they are and don't require public acknowledgement for their accomplishments. I'm beating a dead horse I know, but again, it's up to the performer to decide what's best. There are many opportunities for both contract and non-contract performers alike. The doors are there for them and they have to decide which ones to open.

xoxo
Devinn
p.s. sorry if I started ranting like a maniac

Edited by - devinnlane on 1/17/2004 10:54:28 PM

[Link]

Welcome to the forum and it's nice to see you post.

[Link]

It's not the conspiracy that you make it out to be. Just try reading the various sites that cover the porn biz.

You'd be hard pressed to find an industry with more infighting, politicking, back stabbing, rumor mongering, well you get the idea.

The movers and shakers in the porn industry are about as organized as a Benny Hill skit, so I find it laughable that anyone thinks there is a shadow government working behind the scenes, hand picking the most attractive white girls and threatening to destroy their career if they work with black guys.

The truth is probably much closer to this:

1. Most girls are recruited into the biz by boyfriends, and not all white guys want to see their girlfriend banged by black dudes. That's why pressuring the girl gets you no where, because she lets her significant other call all the shots.

2. Many girls strip, and they are afraid that interracial scenes will hurt their career down south.

3. Many girls feel some guilt about doing porn, and worry about upsetting their parents, and maybe feel that doing interracial would be too much for their mom and dad to accept.

4. As hard as this is to believe, maybe some white girls just aren't attracted to black guys.

Ask anyone who bothers to read my post here at ADT, and they'll tell you that I have zero problem with IR.

In fact, I think Sandra Romain's scene in Up Your Ass #20 was probably the single best anal scene of 2003, but this subject has gotten extremely old, and I just wish some folks would get over it, and accept the fact that not every cute white girl in porn is going to fuck black guys, and harping on conspiracy theories is really a waste of time and credibility.

CC

Edited by - Cyberchicken on 1/18/2004 12:17:44 AM

[Link]

You've got me confused. I thought this was about the "Studio System" not IR.

DenverDon

[Link]

Before I made my previous post I skimmed the original entry and the subsequent answers. I guess I skimmed the first one a little to fast. However the subsequent posts only addressed the Studio System point and not the IR.

Also when Aposterula 'revived' the thread, only the 'contract' part was brought up.

I stand corrected.

Edited by - DenverDon on 1/18/2004 9:11:16 AM

[Link]

[/quote]

The article is quoted:

When did the Jewish liberals who took porn to its highest heights sell out to the worldview of the neo-Nazis?

Rocco Siffredi is a member of that clan.

[/quote]

So I guess when Rocco had the euro star Sandy do a GB, where she lined up several extremely black Africans and one by one licked their ass holes, that he was just engaging in a sneaky porno cover up.

This was done so Rocco could hide from his true secret identity!

Yes the truth is out there!!!!!

LMAO

CC

Edited by - Cyberchicken on 1/18/2004 9:40:52 AM

[Link]

And the one person who he's worked with alot is Franco (Teo)Roccaforte, who's black and from Brazil. He's been in 24 Rocco films, according to iafd.com. Plus, it's obvious that Rocco and Teo are buddies, from the way they talk to each other when they're in a scene (usually in Italian). It's hard for me to see how you could call Rocco a member of some racist clan in light of this. And I see Rocco is casting a new black man in one of his recent films.

It's true that Rocco doesn't perform much with black or Asian women, but I suppose that is because he works mostly in Europe, and takes his pick of the women he has there. For that matter, he doesn't perform much with American women, except for the few times in the past couple of years that he has come over to the US to work. Though he has worked in Buttman films shot in Brazil, I believe?

Frankly, I don't like it when someone is cast in a movie primarily because of the race they belong to, more than anything else about them. I think it's demeaning to both whites, blacks and Asians.

As for the old Hollywood studio system, they would loan out stars to a rival, of course for the right amount of money. Sometimes in old movies, you'll see next to a star's name in the credits that they appear courtesy of their home studio.

[Link]

Darth-Morpheous
adultdetective.com

[Link]

Thanks for ranting like a maniac Devinn!!!

[Link]

xoxo
Devinn

[Link]

The studio system is an interesting one in the adult industry in a lot of ways since it can actually be used to punish the women who are under contract in a way. If you are a new girl like Jesse Jane and under contract you might get 2-4 movies out your first year which will hurt you when it comes time for things like "Best New Starlet". But by the same token that company will put your name out there 10 times more than if you were freelance.

Also as far as money goes a contract has it's good and bad points. Good points is a set amount of money for a set amount of work usually with health care included. Bad is that as a freelancer you can easily double that amount of money if you want to.

As far as missing out on your favorite pairings that usually has nothing to do with the studios and more to do with the money involved. Devinn is actually a good example of this. She has mentioned on several occasions her desire to do a scene with Rocco. Rocco isn't under contract as a performer only a director but he still does very little outside of his own stuff so it just wouldn't be cost effective for Wicked to try and get him to agree to do a movie for them. Even if we would all like to see Rocco does the Wicked Girls video series.

The inter-racial thing has always kind of amused me. No one calls a girl a racist if she doesn't want to have sex with Ed Powers or any other white guy but the second she says no to a black man she must be racist? Maybe she doesn't find him attractive. I know there aren't many black women I find attractive (though I have dated one I did like). The porn industry should be all about choice and if a woman says she doesn't want to work with someone then that choice should be respected.

[Link]

Though in the adult industry that could be difficult to manage with so many companies releasing their older titles to be used in compilations.

[Link]

As to the studio system, at the current time Hollywood wants nothing to do with the San Fernando Valley. Neither SAG, AFTRA or any other union wants to be associated with porn. It will be some time before unions hit porn but it will probably happen some day.

Ric Williams
President/COO
Private USA

[Link]

As for the topic at hand (comparison between the "studio system" and contract porn stars), I will just advice everybody who wants to comment on this to do their homework, especially about the "studio system".




Hardware said:
"I may be a madman, but cobalt's a madman on speed."

[Link]

But then, a few months later, new Wicked features came out with you doing guys. What the hell happened?

In any event, what do make of the fact that, should you want to do a scene with, say, Lexington Steele for a 35mm Wicked feature, that your boss, Steve Orenstein, will tell you, "No way!"? Do you think that constitutes being treated like a queen?

*********************************************************

One of the great embarrassments of this industry, to me as a Jew, is that my fellow "lantzmen"(tribesmen) like Steve Hirsch and Steve Orenstein sold out to racist cable sompanies. Why? Because making millions wasn't enough for them - they were tempted by the lure of BILLIONS from cable revenues.

Of course, Russ Hampshire of VCA (not Jewish) pulled the same crap. But now that Larry Flynt owns VCA, one hopes that his well-known pro-IR impulses will lead to more inclusive cable porn.

Edited by - Sheldon on 9/28/2004 6:10:24 AM

[Link]