Anywho, I was wondering the same thing, and will await the answers...

- - - B-I-G-m-i-k-e, over & out! - - -

[Link]

Peace...

Scooter

Edited by - scooter on 6/2/2003 9:39:31 PM

[Link]

He said, cool. As soon as you turn 18, send me a few pictures of yourself.
Which she did, and he booked her for his next video.

[Link]

Ms Christine & JC, the first couple of adult review.

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere with a bag, waiting, hey, hey, hey.

[Link]

One of the great myths of the Radical Right is that Perverted Pornographers are on the prowl to find and corrupt the girls. I suspect that instead it is the opposite that nearly always happens: the girls (or their boyfriends) find the directors, not the other way around. At most a director may place an ad in the paper and see who calls.

My guess is that there are enough new girls looking for directors that there’s no point in the directors spending a lot of effort looking for them. Also, since most “new” girls are “slightly used” (a couple of other shoots already) a director may just swap names of “new” girls with their buddies most of the time.

PS. One problem with hunting for girls at strip clubs is that you get a stripper, and that may not be a good thing. A girl who looks good on the stage from a distance in club lights may not look so good in a close up in bright lighting on the set.

[Link]

Creating a minimum age of 21 would also help. I've said many times that I prefer fresh faced performers, but a girl can be 21 and look fresh or be 18 and look like a skank.

I would feel better about the porn I watch if I thought the performers had a clean bill of health both physically "and" emotionally.

CC

Edited by - Cyberchicken on 6/15/2003 3:00:08 AM

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere sniffing

[Link]

Edited by - cal444 on 6/15/2003 5:19:57 AM

[Link]

Actually, finding new fodder for the porn biz is not as exciting or dangerous as it used to be in the late 1970s, but it hasn't changed much since the late 1980s.

Most girls start off stripping in some bar until some freelance photographer tells them they should skip dealing with drunks and instead sign up with a "modelling" office like Jim South's.

Such offices then farm out the gals to "newcomer" outfits like Ed Powers and Randy West. Then the ladies wait until they're seen on such "amateur" videos by bigger companies like Vivid, Wicked, Evil Angel, etc.

It's much like legit stars in the old studio days would do bit parts for tiny Monogram and RKO, hoping to get picked up for long contracts with biggies like Paramount or MGM.

Yes, it sounds a lot like herding cattle and then cutting out the best from the herd, because it is.

The main difference in recent years, of course, has been the glutting of European pros into the American porn market, which has watered it down to a disgraceful state indeed.

A nasty new American girl beats a retreaded European any day of the week.

Edited by - snooper on 6/15/2003 6:18:36 AM

[Link]

I am awestruck that someone of Tricia D.'s stature is bothering to personally post so often on this forum. She didn't have to plug her DVDs, since people would have bought them anyway.

With a perfect (and silicone-free) body for sex, and a liberal attitude to match, she's always been regarded as easily one of the top 3 porn stars of the 1990s.

None of which I would debate.

Edited by - snooper on 6/15/2003 6:36:30 AM

[Link]

It may be your opinion that the American market has been watered down, and that's fine. We welcome opinions, and differing opinions here.

But when someone states something as a 'universal' truth, it raises the hackles and catches the attention of others. It has certainly caught my attention.

If the European performers didn't deliver what the studios and directors want, they wouldn't get the work. And there are plenty of new American girls that enter the business all the time.

You are new here, but if you read her posts you could see that she is a participant - and a studio rep. We value insider input as a valuable asset to help round out what would otherwise be mostly opinions and surmises. We also try to be respectful of other members.

You are walking the edge of trolling, and trolling is not tolerated on this forum.

Consider yourself warned.

[Link]

The classical studio system has been compared to the current porn biz before. On some levels, this makes sense, on other levels, it is complete nonsense. When speaking about talent (recruiting), it is somewhere in between, but leaning more toward complete nonsense.




Hardware said:
"That's it. I've reached porn saturation."

[Link]

(Excluding cigarettes and alcohol)

[Link]

Porn producer, director, performer. I am a huge fan of hardcore porn and I love all of the women in porn. "God Bless Pornography" A womans ass is a beautiful thing" Woman rule!

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere

[Link]

Seriously, for new girls, once you get a good repoire with them, they'll eventually call you after a monthlong crack binge desperate for money and beg to work with you. Works like a charm especially once you get a skeezy crackhead with a vulva puffing out with cilia attached.

Or I'll get them from other states, move them in the house, and kick them out. Like on Tuesday when some 19 year old whore pops by from New Orleans followed by two more from up North.

WW

[Link]

HOWEVER, there is the question of how she got that porn. If someone sold or rented it to her they're in trouble.

There are also very generic "corruption of a minor" statutes that might apply to anyone who loaned her a tape or let her watch it, perhaps even if she got hold of the tape without the owner's knowledge (you're supposed to lock up things as dangerous as porn tapes :-) In reality I don't think the sheriff is going to bother with it unless it's election time and they're a few votes short, or it comes up during an unrelated prosecution and the prosecutor wants more charges to use as leverage.

[Link]

Thanks a lot. Just doing my job.

Shylock

[Link]

Ron

[Link]

I never stated anything as any "universal" truth. The use of the phrase "of course" meant only of course according to MY opinion.

>If the European performers didn't deliver what the studios and directors want, they wouldn't get the work.

I never said that Euros (or Asians for that matter) didn't deliver for studios or directors. My comment meant rather that said studio directors have overloaded us with Euros.

>...here are plenty of new American girls that enter the business all the time.

I never said new American girls don't enter the biz much, and my comment there regarded their genuine girl next door quality over the mere quantity of slick Euro performers.

>Tricia has been a member for more than three years, far longer than I have been a member. You are new here, but if you read her posts you could see that she is a participant - and a studio rep.

My unabashed praise of Tricia D. did not deny that she is connected to any studio. (She should be, since last I checked she was hitched to an Evil Angel boss, the legendary genius John Stagliano.) I only expressed joy that she posted here, and I frankly don't care what reasons she has for doing so.

>You are walking the edge of trolling, and trolling is not tolerated on this forum. Consider yourself warned.

Trolling? A troll is an overly restrictive commentator and snitch, usually at the behest of the forum owners. And I'm certainly not one of those.

I doubt that any of my comments could even be considered to have reached the "flame" stage, in fact.

Edited by - snooper on 6/22/2003 11:30:18 PM

[Link]

Believe me, you should have let it pass.

I didn't say RKO was a Poverty Row studio, anymore than I would say Columbia was.

As one who has worked in screenwriting and directing in "legit" Hollywood (before being lured toward the adult biz), I know of which studios I speak.

RKO didn't survive to see any lasting status - Lucille Ball bought it to do her Desilu thing with. The real Big 5 were (and still are):

Fox, MGM, Paramount, Universal and Warners.

And since I compared porn studios to establishment studios (and it wasn't the first time you've heard that comparison here, as you admit ), it's neither really off any topic discussed here, nor is it "nonsense".

###

Speaking of porn studios, the handful of larger outlets that control porn today keep a nice tight conservative lid on things, grinding out a comparatively glossy but harmless product. That's a far cry from all those so-called uncontrollable, wild and crazy digital camcorder amateur gonzo adventures we were all promised a few years ago.

Video store owners are still the preview audience and their customers represent the demographic group that is closely catered to.

Just as in the old film world, any variance to this is strongly discouraged. Any display of gross originality that results in departing very far from the lowest common denominator of whatever is considered "hot" for that decade (oral in the '70s, lesbos in the '80s, anal in the '90s) is met with total scorn.

GWB would be proud. The President hasn't seen new porn directions erased, but at least he's seen them slowed almost to a standstill.

###

BTW, I like your "Walter Burns" monicker. It's the part played by Cary Grant in the remake of The Front Page that he did with Roz Russell, called His Girl Friday (1940). Very cool!

Edited by - snooper on 6/23/2003 12:16:44 AM

[Link]

Now, let's look at what you wrote in your first post:

Second: "bit parts for tiny Monogram and RKO"
I must be a devious reader to interpret that you put Monogram and RKO on the same level. Whatever was I thinking? Maybe I thought you had written a "text scriptible"?

Third: Now that we have established the time period you were referring to, let's do some research, yes? Well, after the sound conversion, Hollywood studios were placed in the following categories within the classical, vertical integrated studio system:

- 5 Majors (who owned theater chains and were thus fully vertically integrated): MGM, Paramount, Fox (after 1935 Twentieth Century-Fox), Warner-First National and RKO (Radio-Keith-Orpheum, Keith-Orpheum being a theater chain; they fucking owned Radio City Music Hall, the biggest theater of the time)

- 3 minors: Columbia, Universal and United Artists: they didn't own theater chains and were depended upon the big 5 for exhibition deals, although they did own national distribution arms. Both Columbia and Universal worked their way up in the chain after the "Paramount decrees" of 1948, when the big 5 had to divest themselves from their theater holdings; in order to survive during the classical integrated studio system, these 3 minor studios employed different strategies: both Columbia and Universal survived on the basis of their B-film production, which was needed to complement the standard double bill, while they only occasionally devoted time and effort on prestige products, which the Big 5 could not pass up; United Arists was under the guidance of David O. Selznick completely dedicated to "quality" pictures, that won access to the market solely on the basis of their merit and star power (as could be expected, this was quite unrealistic).

- there were a handful of independent producers, who sometimes made distribution deals with United Artists or with RKO. Disney was one of them, who signed a distribution deal with RKO. Goldwyn, who was ousted of his company that became part of MGM in the 20s, is probably the best known. He made a deal with UA.

- last, "Poverty Row", or "The B-Hive": strictly B-films and programmers on the top half of a double bill. The most important were: Republic, Monogram, Grand National and in the 40s, PRC and Eagle-Lions.

So, when you put RKO and Monogram during "the old studio days" on the same level, you are talking nonsense. If you were a student of mine and you said this during an exam, I would see you back in September, for a second chance.

Fourth: "The real Big 5 were (and still are):Fox, MGM, Paramount, Universal and Warners."
Hmm, about the "were" part, look above. About the "still are" part, let's see what the people at Columbia think about that. And let's not forget Disney, shall we. And MGM is still part of the Big 5?? MGM ceased to exist as a classical studio in 1973, only to merge with United Artists in 1981. From there on, it has passed through many hands (Ted Turner, Kirk Kerkorian, ...) without ever making a really big splash, when compared to the other big studios of today.

I am not even going to comment on some other nonsense you have written, such as: "Just as in the old film world, any variance to this is strongly discouraged." You clearly show you have no idea whatsoever how the studio system worked and how it dealt with innovation or creativity. I am done discussing this, with you that is, so post whatever you want, I will not reply to it. It IS way off topic anyway.

(Sorry Mods, for straying way off topic and for the vitriol in this post. I have a low tolerance level for nonsense when it comes to my field of study. I hope I will not make your lifes on this board difficult.)



For once, I will use an old quote of my own:
Walter Burns says:
"If you want to teach a history lesson, learn the difference between a 'fact of the past' and a 'historical fact'."

[Link]