Bonnie Wright: Fame has been devalued.
Neomysterio
Posts: 13,440 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a178287/potter-star-fame-has-been-devalued.html
I agree to be honest.
I agree to be honest.
0
Neomysterio
Posts: 13,440
Comments
You really need two definitions of the word Famous now don't you?
One for truly talented people who have achieved fame through hard work and years of practising their craft (or people who do good works etc...)
Another for the reality tv lot and the it girls etc etc
Maybe I should call the Oxford Dictionary people and suggest it...
Or has it been done already ?
Emma Watson shows that despite having loads of cash at her disposal, she is still a human being, and at the same time has no airs & graces
and we are to blame for devouring it
Exactly.
There are hunreds and hundreds who do not pop up regularly in media and whilst they have huge fan base, not one fan chases them or their pitiful "news" , because it is not reported.
It is same old mediocre subjects over and over and over who live by press and without it and public their so called "careers" would be dead..and that includes a lot of half cocked pop stars Beckhams, Winehouse, and Hurley and Kensit and so on and on of mediocre pool.
Public does have a choice to ignore it but they do not as it is akin to gossip over the suburban fences. Fills the gaps as it were.Media would not bother if public did not guzzle it all up .
And the constant "spin" touted by PR merchants gives their clients the exposure they demand and the PR gets a nice little earner
That's very true and every single person who comes into showbiz forums is guilty of adding to it all. Controversy sells eh. Maybe if we all stopped, these non-entities would go away but I can't see that happening any time soon.
She was dreadful in the last Potter film though, they should have replaced her with someone who can act. I would say she's is rather lucky to have an acting career of sorts.
There is the word "celebutard" - which I think sums it up pretty well.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=celebutard
i thought she was pretty good to be honest
I thought she was rather wooden and unsexy. Not a vibrant enough personality for Ginny, but that's just my opinion.
I agree. She is so boring in the films and IMO Harry is much more suited to Luna.
It's just a pity Emma Watson has no talent, rather like the rest of the 'young' cast of the Harry Potter films.
Not a decent actor/actress amongst them.
And yet Watson and Radcliffe are the highest earners of the decade.
There's really something wrong there.
Nah, Luna should have ended up with Neville, but Rowling even cocked that up in the Epilogue to the Epilogue which she always insists on.
Serious actors, musicians, etc, are more concerned with their work than pandering to the media, and thus are not as useful.
Its not so much talent, as being famous for actually doing something.
Radcliffe and Watson, however you rate their talent, are not "famous for being famous".
A bit of trivia: If Peter Jackson's aborted Evangelion movie had went ahead, Emma Watson would have been a shoe-in to be offered a starring role in it. That role would, if she pulled it off, have easily eclipsed her role in Harry Potter.
Whilst that may be the case, I'd still rather they were the ones making money and the ones we have to see in magazines and papers. I'd rather read about them than any of that moronic Big Brother brigade and low-life "zelebrity" mothers such as Katie Price and Kerry Katona.
good post. WAGS/Realities are like junk food news - cheap and filling. They are easy and satisfying to read in 90 second bursts and fill more column inches than more difficult to write and investigate "proper" news.
I also think that the internet and the free newspapers and filled up on this junk food and we are all a little bloated but still addicted because it is an easy source of entertainment and the alternative of engaging our brains on the issues in Darfur or the indepth politics of Afghanistan can be a little too much.
I am guity as much as anyone else on this point - I try not to get sucked in but its so pervasive.....
The whole zelebrity thing was predicted by Warhol and in some ways he actually encouraged the start of the zelebrity.
In the 70s there was a show called the family,a fly on the wall documentry about an average working class family.
They were not talented,they didnt have any special gifts to display to the world..they were just normal people who agreed to be filmed as a family,early reality tv.
After and during the show they got recognised in the streets,people asked for autographs,stories came out in news of the world about them..zelebrities of their day.
wives of politicians,trade union leaders,etc also during the 70s and 80s became zelebrities.
The difference now is two fold.
The media has changed,the internet creates fame for people like chris crocker,the magazines aimed at pampering to reality tv players,satellite channels in their hundreds and the cowell productions that infest our tvs with shows like x factor that encourage people to make an idiot out of themselves to get a bit of time on tv,and the agencies that promise so much to those wanting fame.
The other thing is reality tv.
We have always had it,opportunity knocks,new faces,the family,come dancing.
The thing is now we have the new media outlets that exist because of the reality tv shows.
Forums for example,look at DS and see how many of its forums rely on reality tv and zelebrity.
Heat magazine,basically a magazine to promote big brother.
If it was not for these forums like DS how many of us would know what katie price is up to every day of the week.
As FMs contributing daily to places like showbiz and big brother or x factor forums we are all part of the reason for the rise and encouragement of fame and zelebrity.
Fame has not been devalued,its simply been encouraged by a need.
Zelebrity has however devalued Celebrity.