Fame and fortune isn’t worth the price tag

Sad Sad Reality says:

10:34am | 17/08/12

You could hear the wistful sighing all the way through.

M says:

10:45am | 17/08/12

All the way through the Snow white movie or this article?

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:16am | 17/08/12

Either or.

M says:

11:45am | 17/08/12

Touche.

I’m waiting for all the She’rahs to start preaching.

VVS says:

08:05am | 17/08/12

This.

Losing your privacy is unfortunately one of the downsides to being a successful, famous actor. The upsides are making obscene amounts of money and being flown around the world for parties etc.

If you don’t like the bad, then give up the good.

Actors have done it before. Bridget Fonda retired about a decade ago.

yobogod says:

08:53am | 17/08/12

so by this logic we should have access to the private details of every rich person in the world?

you don’t think theres just a little curiousity born from watching an actor’s performance, that by partaking of their art, you feel you some how own them?

nono you’re right…boohoohoo, they be richness, they deserve to have sucky lives for choosing to be actors (cough 3 years old cough started acting coughcough .. cough… )
yeeeaaahh… that be uber logic sparkly pony shizzle right there bru

Greg says:

09:50am | 17/08/12

@yobogod

There are plenty of actor’s you hear nothing about ever unless they are promoting a movie, then there are people like sour puss and her sparkly dickhead boyfriend who whore themselves out at every opportunity.

Jodie Foster can say all she wants about wanting privacy because she probably deserves it, but for morons like Kristen Stewart who would sell her services to be seen at the opening of an envelope I have no sympathy.

There are ways to get rich without being in the public eye 24/7, people like Stewart have chosen the opposite direction, no one is forcing her to pimp herself out she does it by choice in order to be famous and rich.

CorBlimey says:

09:56am | 17/08/12

That’s just silly. So they shouldn’t do a job that they love unless they forsake all their privacy until the end of their days and then some. Really?

This is nothing to do with how much money they make - it’s about a person’s right to spend their life doing what brings them joy. I don’t see how certain careers are automatically stripped of all their personal rights of privacy. I certainly don’t see why people get dragged through the mud for making mistakes when 90% of the world population has probably made the same mistakes at one time or another. People in glass houses, and all that jazz.

And before some smarty pants points out that a lot of them choose to forsake their own privacy, I’m not talking about those glorified bogans who inhabit the reality TV world, or ‘actors’ that know that the only way to garner a following is to be a “celebrity” because they can’t act for shit. The aim of these two is not to enjoy their craft; they suffer from the misunderstanding that fame is an end-goal in itself rather than a by-product of doing something noteworthy, and are quite often the first ones to complain when people claim too much purchase over their lives (think, the Kardashians). I don’t think Kristen Stewart falls into that category, because from what I can see in the social medias, she tries to keep to herself fairly well. JMHO.

Sea Dog says:

11:10am | 17/08/12

Every job has downsides and sacrifices.  Actresses complaining about lack of privacy is so passé.

Anne71 says:

12:55pm | 17/08/12

“Boo hoo sucks to be them with their obscenely huge piles of money. They’re happy to take that, aren’t they, and the other perks and benefits. Well they can suck up the negatives as well.” - Wow, Justme. You could feed a whole developing country for a month with that chip on your shoulder.

True, famous actors have to expect a certain loss of privacy, but where does it stop? It’s one thing having fans coming up to them in restaurants and the like,  asking for autographs, but quite another having them find out where they live or are on holidays and pestering them there too.  And what about being constantly followed by the paparrazi?  Nobody deserves that, no matter how much they’re earning.

However, I did once read where Kristen Stewart was moaning about being recognised when out and about. Well, yes, I can imagine that’s a drag, but really, if she doesn’t like being recognised as That Girl Out Of That Movie, then I really do think she might have picked the wrong career…

D says:

05:19pm | 17/08/12

Yawn. The money they make is definitely relevant - without the interest from the public (which is very much tied into their celebrity status), the money doesn’t come and flow on to the actor. Simple. If she wants to be an actor but not have to deal with the negatives such as huge public attention, there are other avenues available - less money, more anonimity (I’m thinking theatre or just work on a smaller scale).

Audra Blue says:

02:39pm | 18/08/12

It all depends on how you conduct yourself and what kind of image you want to project.  You can still be a huge bankable star and have your private life (see Tom Hanks).  But the young ones are often thrust straight into the glaring spotlight coupled with obscenely large amounts of money with nobody to help them keep a clear and level head.

They have managers, publicists, stylists, marketing people and various hangers on who all have a financially vested interest in keeping them in the public eye.  This kind of life can take its toll on anyone, even the most experienced.  Why do you think the older stars tend to avoid the spotlight?

We have become a fickle, instant gratification society and these young people are paying the price.  It’s no wonder they end up in broken relationships, on drugs and dying young (River Phoenix for example).

I’m sure if they cultivated a little mystery about themselves, the fans would still spend money seeing their movies.  The frenzy around them would also be bigger because of the limited exposure the fans get.  That would keep filling column inches in the trash mags, the fans would still be thrilled, the movie theatres would still get bums on seats and the young stars could grow and mature into their “craft” and maybe make better decisions about which movies to star in.

kitteh says:

01:20pm | 17/08/12

That’s my take on it as well. ‘Famous’ as long as I get to dictate when and where, ie: promote my film, put me on the cover of Vanity Fair, but don’t make eye contact or publish unflattering photos or talk about me, plebs.

I also had to smirk at the idea of Jodie Foster lecturing the masses on how difficult a Hollywood life is. Let’s flip this on its head: as she herself points out, she has no idea about any life and career other than her own. Maybe if she had worked 70+ hours a week for peanuts at a biotech company, taught in a private high school or written ads for an advertising firm, she would realise that everyone, everyone has had their privacy invaded and their efforts exploited in the course of their career. Actors - and in the case of Stewart, I use the term loosely - are not poor oppressed little snowflakes in that regard; they are just better paid than the rest of us.

Scotchfinger says:

12:00pm | 17/08/12

she claims there was no bedroom shenanigans.
Did you see the documentary on Roman Polanski the other night? Now he knew how to create a scandal with girls, the naughty man.

Admiral Ackbar says:

12:12pm | 17/08/12

Yeah this is more the point Mouse, I would’ve thought anyways.

“Just to set the record straight, a salary for a given on-screen performance does not include the right to invade anyone’s privacy, to destroy someone’s sense of self.”

Probably true, but if a person is an unfaithful arse clown then boo freakin hoo, we’re going to know about it. So is she supposed to be the victim now? This makes my brain hurt, like the idea of Twilight (I haven’t seen it, and never will. Just the idea of it is enough to give me seizures).

“Foster is writing in defence of Kristen Stewart, a fellow actress…”

Ohhh…. she’s an ‘actress’. Ok. Awkward.

“Maybe they should make a movie out of it!” - Don’t encourage them Mouse.

M says:

12:31pm | 17/08/12

She fucked the director because she was bored.

Admiral Ackbar says:

01:35pm | 17/08/12

“She fucked the director because she was bored.”

Grrrrl Powah!

M says:

02:01pm | 17/08/12

I’m an empowered feminist and no patriarchy is gonna make me stay faithful to my boyfriend.

Scotchfinger says:

02:14pm | 17/08/12

M, Kristen couldn’t even spell feminism. I think you’re stretching a little.
She’s a run-of-the-mill little hollywood tramp, go to any LA cafe and there you will find the next one.

Mouse says:

02:32pm | 17/08/12

Scotchie, maybe she didn’t have her affair in a bedroom then! Did you consider that?? lol   If “kissing” is having an affair, then Geezus I’m having multiple ones!!  Roman Polanski, is he still alive??, well I wouldn’t kiss him anyway!  LOL :o\

Admiral, I agree, but gee the publicity is nice isn’ it!?!  hehehehe :oz

M, lol, you are not having a good day are you!  We luvs ya anyway!  :ox

Scotchfinger says:

02:49pm | 17/08/12

he he Mouse, I hope you respect them the next day.

M says:

03:04pm | 17/08/12

@ mouse, on the contrary, any day where I get to rant and rave about motorcycles is a good day

Slothy says:

03:26pm | 17/08/12

“I’m an empowered feminist and no patriarchy is gonna make me stay faithful to my boyfriend.”

Does Kirsten Stewart even identify as a feminist?

Even if she does, feminism is about giving women the chance to make choices. There’s nothing in there that says they’re always going to be good, or laudable ones. Facing consequences for poor choices is not a feminist concern. Facing consequences that are disproportionate to the consequences faced by a man making the same poor choices is a feminist concern.

Mouse says:

09:07am | 17/08/12

“She’s a trampire!”  LMAO Love it!  :o)

T-rev says:

11:09am | 17/08/12

True. Case in point:

The highest grossing film for both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in their respective careers is, you guessed it, Mr and Mrs Smith.

Yes, the movie that caused the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston breakup and was tabloid fodder for months leading up to its release.

Jack says:

02:43pm | 17/08/12

Troy made over $20m more than Mr and Mrs Smith.

You just made that up, didn’t you? I can’t believe someone on the internet would lie, just for the sake of winning an argument!

Also, Fast and Furious 5 > Empire Strikes back. So let’s not pretend your linear regression is all that sound.

VVS says:

03:19pm | 17/08/12

According to boxofficemojo Mr & Mrs Smith made $50M more domestically than Troy did. Worldwide Troy did $20M more than M&MS;.

Therefore you are both corect in some respects, however given that domestic gross is generally considered the barometer of success/failure in Hollywood, T-rev is probably more correct, if that is possible.

If you account for production budget ($110M vs $175M), M&MS; was the more profitable by about $50M.

I used to work in HW, a crapper of a place if ever there was one.

the cynic says:

03:38pm | 17/08/12

Yes how true look at the likes of just one actor to come to mind. Paul Newman, great actor no scandals, needed no extra exposure with off screen shenanigans because he had no need He had talent.Most of the over exposed lot do not.

Jennifer says:

09:27am | 17/08/12

Absolutely correct. And dont take endorsements either - al la Brad and Angelina and Cate Blanchett and George Clooney. Once you go as far as taking the advertsing dollar - which is sheer greed - you are complete fair game.

Jennifer says:

09:27am | 17/08/12

Absolutely correct. And dont take endorsements either - al la Brad and Angelina and Cate Blanchett and George Clooney. Once you go as far as taking the advertsing dollar - which is sheer greed - you are complete fair game.

Traxster says:

09:51am | 17/08/12

Kristen Stewart ‘mopey mug’ ???
How dare you, Sir, you have impugned a lovely young ladies reputation, Sir.
Pistols at dawn Sir….outside the local Abbatoir’s front gates Sir!!!

Markus says:

10:51am | 17/08/12

Traxter sir, I would strongly recommend a perusal of the latest musings in the local telegraph.
Placing no value in her relationship with her young gentleman friend, nor in the sanctity of marriage, I would suggest to you, good sir, that the young Miss Stewart is no lady!

Richard says:

11:40am | 17/08/12

@ Traxter: Chivalry only made sense when women were virtuous. In this modern age of r-selection in western women, your white-knighting looks loser-ish.

bella starkey says:

11:58am | 17/08/12

@Jennifer:

Robert de Niro advertises American Express.

JoniM says:

01:10pm | 17/08/12

Kristen who ?

Saw her last couple of films !
If that is acting ability, I’m a Gillard adviser !
Now I know why I prefer World Movies with subtitles !
At least you have actors, film makers, new locales,  rather than Hollywood’s formularised passing parade of celebs in franchised pap !

St. Michael says:

02:32pm | 17/08/12

Bear in mind that Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro don’t have to sell their appearances anymore, mostly because they’ve built up goodwill in their names over literally a lifetime of acting.  You don’t have to put Nicholson out the front of his films, just knowing he’s in it draws the hoi polloi in.

Not so much with young actors who are just starting out in their careers, where they don’t have a lifetime of work behind them and where their target demographic has about as many pubic hairs as they do.

I think as an actress Kristen Stewart has all the emotional range of a slightly annoyed pet rock, but you’re not comparing apples with apples.

MitchJitz says:

11:32am | 17/08/12

Totally agree, many people on here are talking about actors making obscence amounts of money for acting and that just because they do endorsements, paid public appearances etc that we are entitled to see into their private lives.

How does this even make sense. They get famous and put their face out in the public eye, but this is just part of the job to increase earnings work their way up in their chosen career to the highest possible level, just like the majority of every working person in the world, what is wrong with career advancement?

I am trying to advance my position and earn more money just like they are. I will never earn as much but good for them. they earn 7 figure multiples I earn 6 figure multiples. Whats the difference? We are both trying for the same outcome, to maximise personal income.

People also say that invasion of privacy is a known part of the job so they should suck it up. Just because it is known doesnt make it right. Everyone is entitled to a work life and a private life. Their public appearances are merely part of their work life and should not impede on their private lives.

M says:

11:15am | 17/08/12

Oh, i’m sure she’ll find a way some how with her millions of dollars.

I feel sorry for her because of her lack of acting ability. With the success of twilight she’s going to think she can actually act, and we’ll be subjected to movies featuring her for decades. She’s not even that hot either.

Markus says:

11:27am | 17/08/12

Ranier: The film is just me in front of a brick wall for an hour and a half. It cost 80 million dollars.
Jay Sherman: How do you sleep at night?
Ranier: On a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.

M says:

11:46am | 17/08/12

Clearly you’ve never seen a woman with a set of freshly purchased Jimmy Choo’s.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:59am | 17/08/12

Clearly you’ve never seen a woman with a set of freshly purchased Jimmy Choo’s looking at another woman in the same Jimmy Choo’s.

M says:

12:32pm | 17/08/12

Haha, touche again.

CorBlimey says:

12:33pm | 17/08/12

“Clearly you’ve never seen a woman with a set of freshly purchased Jimmy Choo’s looking at another woman in the same Jimmy Choo’s.”

LMFAO. I think you won that one, SSR.

Mouse says:

02:45pm | 17/08/12

But SSR, if that bitch is wearing the same Jimmy Choo’s as mine they won’t look as good when I spill that bright red nail polish on them will they!!  hehehehehe   xoD

SydneyGirl says:

01:04pm | 17/08/12

Confused rant. Er yes - so you are buying on the basis of the created personality not the person.  In the case of a performer persona is all unlike us keyboard experts here. Acting is a visual job, people are interested in actors, every film needs publicity hence the extensive coverage. Folk confuse roles/public images like posters and billboards with the person but that is not the performer’s fault.

Its not pushing, its the nature of the modern world of capitalism. Every slick salesman has to do some variant it. Every company has to create an image of itself and stick to it. Even when they are on twitter/facebook they choose to share and control their public persona.

But demanding that you somehow have a right to know their bedroom antics or their every movement on this basis suggests prurience, jealously over the money earned and fame (what the hell is you choose to be in the public eye and earn oodles so suck it up but that) and a society that needs to take a long hard look at itself.

Muggles says:

05:17pm | 17/08/12

“But demanding that you somehow have a right to know their bedroom antics or their every movement on this basis suggests prurience”

Who demanded that? I didn’t. It’s just something you made up, drawing a very long bow in the process.

People who deliberately put themselves in the spotlight should not be surprised when people take notice of them.

Pretty freaking obvious, really.  It’s not a one way street.  How about actors showing some personal responsibility? And refraining from attending every opening, every photo shoot, every interview, every party, every single chance to be noticed?

Or is that just too much common sense?

Slothy says:

03:19pm | 17/08/12

I thought you were talking a load of gender essentialist bullshit, but then you brought in the nature of Yin energy, and I realised the inherent truth of your words. Who can disagree that Yin energy is the dominant aspect of femininity?

Thanks Richard!

Scotchfinger says:

01:24pm | 17/08/12

every ordinary man fantasises about the supposed proclivity of women to be exploited. You have just expressed this, Robert Crumb-like. I only meet hypogamous women - isn’t this the real source of male rage? Clearly I frequent the wrong therapy sessions.

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:34pm | 17/08/12

Five minutes of Alpha = 50 years of Beta.

M says:

01:59pm | 17/08/12

I thought it was only 5 years?

Sad Sad Reality says:

02:18pm | 17/08/12

It was until hypergamy got a firm grip on it.