The following is from a yahoo group, JP either is or was an AVN Reviewer
Jesse Writes
Okay, at the risk of seeming like a total dumbass, I gotta know: how are the following similar, and how are they different?
1. Rob Black
2. Tom Zupko
3. Paul Thomas
4. Justin Sterling
5. Mike South
The following seems to indicate that they are different in a substantial way, and that some people might find good reason to imagine that they are substantially similar:
<greenlantern1973@y…> wrote:
>
>I also don’t want to turn this into a Poli-Sci debate. However, the problem the industry is facing right now(which is the main reason WHY they want W out of office) is that the Attorney General wants to shut it down ENTIRELY! He doesn’t want to make a distinction between the movies produced &/or directed by Rob Black & Tom Zupko and the movies produced &/or directed by Paul Thomas, Justin Sterling & Mike South. He thinks they’re all bad so he wants to decide for you and for me what he thinks is suitable for adults over the legal age like ourselves to watch. If I don’t want to watch a Rob Black production, I don’t because I can make my own decisions as to what porn I want to buy/rent and thus watch. Do you want someone telling you what you can watch?
JP RESPONDED
Rob Black and Tom Zupko make pretty rough, gross porn, with depictions of rape, violence, blood, and bizarre symbolism. Paul Thomas is the quintessential Vivid director – pretty couples’ porn. Justin Sterling is Jenna’s husband, and since Jenna is the mainstream face of porn, I guess Pete is lumping PT and Justin together, even though Sterling is as fond of disgusting symbolism as Zupko, although Zupko is patently insane and Sterling is a
thoroughly decent guy. Pete is making the point that in his view, Ashcroft makes no distinction between mainstream adult entertainment and the weirder, riskier stuff, and that he’d like to get rid of both. I suppose he probably would, but he doesn’t seem much inclined to prosecute either, and I don’t really see any evidence for Pete’s assertion. I find it interesting, though – there is at least a suggestion that as far as Pete is concerned, it would be OK with him
to prosecute Black/Zupko stuff, or to treat different pieces of legal porn differently, based on their content – an idea far more dangerous to the First Amendment than anything John Ashcroft or George Bush has ever done.
I have absolutely no idea, by the way, why Mike South is in this list. Mike South is like me – a totally insufferable, opinionated know-it-all. Unlike me, who has only six-seven years of experience in porn that ended five years back, Mike has twenty-plus years (I think) of success in the porn biz to back him up. In my opinion, Mike South has always had one of the best eyes for new talent in the biz – he finds tons of flat-out sexy new girls. (I always used to keep a weather eye out for South at CES and other porn public events in order to see the new eye candy on his arm!) But as a director, he’s never been anything more than a point-and-shoot worn-out hack. To his credit, he doesn’t pretend to be a great director, and has always marketed his stuff as amateur or gonzo, without any pretensions to more. I’d call his work solidly mainstream, but unlike Black, Zupko, and Thomas, each of whom calls a definite style
to mind, Mike South doesn’t HAVE a style – as a director. He has quite a provocative and interesting style as a writer and commentator on adult entertainment. I also think he’s a very competent producer and a very good marketer. Mike has a reputation in the biz as being somewhat unlikeable, but he also has a reputation as an honest and solid pro who is both good and easy to do business with.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies what Pete meant by referring to these directors – well, at least what I thought he meant. If he meant something else, he’s the guy to believe.
JP
