Options
Matt Smith and Daisy Lowe Split
davrosdodebird
Posts: 8,697 Forum Member
✭
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere, but I think it is a shame, they looked so happy together...
0
davrosdodebird
Posts: 8,697 davrosdodebird
Posts: 8,697
Comments
Edit: And to echo what stcoop said, I've never understood why this sort of thing is reported on in the press...
As for Matt and Daisy, their split has nothing to do with me, but as I said it is interesting as a "behind the scenes of DW" thing. It does prove that working on the show can be wearing, and that it gets in the way of other commitments. Therefore it takes someone super-human to work on the juggernaut that is Who.
In an attempt to lighten the mood a tad I wonder how that conversation went:
Moffat: "We'd like to offer you the role"
Smith: "That's Good!"
Moffat: "It's nine months a year of shooting plus promotional commitments"
Smith "That's bad"
Moffat: "But the nine months is split into shooting blocks so you can have a break"
Smith "That's good!"
Moffat "You'll be based in Cardiff almost non-stop"
Smith: "...."
Moffat: "That's bad"
Smith "...."
Moffat: "Here's your co-star"
Smith "Yeah, okay, I'll sign"
(With apologies to the Simpsons for mangling a really good gag)
The press spun the story that David dumped Sophia Myles over the phone in 2007 and then linked him to every girl he was seen with, and labelling him as someone who goes through girlfriends as often as his socks... The Daily Mail even wrote an article about who would be next in his long line of 'conquests'... fortunately for David, that article came out when he started dating Georgia Moffett and of course they now have a family together and are due to marry.
Matt made the mistake of being very public with Daisy, its his call but he opened himself up to this kind of intrusion by being very public about it, which is something David has never done with Georgia. The press have left them alone because they have never done what Matt or Daisy did together in public.
It's really nobodies business what Matt does but in a way he opened himself up to it, but the papers assume we are interested and will report on it. One of the bad things that can happen if you become popular with the audience... if you did not become well known then the chances of your private life being respected increases... but the more you are open about it, the more intrusion you are going to get.
It's actually sad that The Sun thought the Matt breaks up with Daisy story was considered front page news... There are more important things going on in the world then actor breaks up with girlfriend.
Why shouldn't he go through girlfriends as often as his socks? I never read about any of them complaining.:D
Sounds like nice work if you can get it to me...
Though I'm chuffed for him that he's now happily settled with Georgia and their baby.
I agree.
Because them saying it gave him a reputation that wasn't true and one he didn't want.
I'm chuffed too. He deserves it.
I can't see anything in this "story" that supports the above. They are just as likely to be young people who don't want to settle down together for any number of reasons. In any case, the general point that screen actors and models etc have factors in their lifestyles that challenges the stability of a relationship is already thoroughly documented to the point of banality.
if they choose to speak to the media and blame each others work circumstances then you may just as well take that with a pinch of salt. if I were them It's what I'd say just to make them go away.
I've been following the Leveson inquiry into press intrusion and I find this train of thought a bit troubling really...look Matt and Daisy were a couple of young people in love doing the things that many young people in love tend to do, I don't think there was anything terribly outrageous in anything they did that should make them "fair game" for the media. It's fair enough if David is the kind of guy that likes to keep things behind closed doors, but it's rather sad if he did it/does it because he feels he has to to keep the media at bay. I don't think it makes him a better person, as you seem to suggest, just a person that lives his life differently.
Anyway, getting back to the Leveson enquiry....I think the media have for a long time over played the "in the public interest" angle when it comes to a lot of stories and this story is really just another example of that. And I think people saying things like "well if they have a snog in public then they are asking for it" is part of the reason the media have gotten away with it for so long.......and why things have gotten so badly out of hand.
The way Matt conducted himself made him a target for the paparazzi and the media, they managed to make stories out of them being a normal couple and that is quite disturbing. actually. The media loves things like that... Matt snogging in public, fondling Daisy's bum in public and all sort of things...He is allowed to do what he wants but to the media that made a story which because they had quite a high-profile romance has caused the media to make a story out of them breaking up and in one newspapers case make it front page news. I wasn't implying that they were asking for it because they weren't, unfortunately that is the type of behaviour that attracts the paparazzi.
David has always been very private, its the way he is, unfortunately the way the media treated him during the period of 2007 and 2008 in regards to his private life and fan reaction to it might have made him a lot more private then he was though he has always been like that.
Even with the Leveson enquiry, is anything going to really change?
Sadly, people buy this sort of stuff. When they stop, the press won't print the stories.
Tbh, I don't have a vast amount of sympathy for people who self publicise like mad, then whinge when they get publicity they didn't want.
Different for people who find themselves in the news for tragic reasons and are shockingly used by the media in order to get ever more sensational stories.
Maybe, maybe not, doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and except it.
20 years ago today Freddie Mercury died. A short while before he died, the sun managed to get a pap shot of a very sickly man and published it in the paper with the headline stating "is this man dying?"
I think people need to ask themselves: is this the kind of media we want in this country? And not resign themselves to the media doing certain things because they effectively resign themselves to it.
But how many people is that? Sure you have the Jorden's of this world who are famous for being famous, but they don't represent the majority, and then there is the impact it has on people around them. For example, the horrific treatment dished out to the mother of Hugh Grant's child.
Well, I've asked myself that, and replied "No", but so what? People buy the papers. And how do I stop it?
Regulation of the press is a slippery slope.
The press is supposedly already regulated by the PCC (laughable and ineffective as it is). It doesn't have to be the start of a slippery slope. The press in my view get so carried away with the notion of "freedom of the press" that they forget with rights come responsibility's, and indeed consequences, thus if they choose to make lured (and largely erroneous) claims about someone like Stephen Gately in the days and weeks after his death then they should have to pay the consequences for it.
As things stand it's almost impossible to hold papers accountable for what they have printed. It should be made far easier to do so. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, because if these consequences were more clearly defined then reporters would be less inclined to post made up mumbo jumbo stories. In fact the standard of journalism would probably increase in the longer term.
I distinguished in my post between the two sorts of people.
Some find themselves in the spotlight through no fault of their own, some want to be there, do all sorts to make sure they are, then when they are photographed in a less than flattering situation, take out injunctions.
I don't know a single thing about Hugh Grant's child or the mother thereof (and am not interested). I didn't know he had one. If everyone were like me, there wouldn't be a problem.
EDIT: I don't know anything about Stephen Gately either. I sort of vaguely remember the name.
Oh good lord.
(In other news ... Matt looks sexier every time I see him. I am so pleased that he doesn't look in the least bit sexy as the Doctor because that would be very, very wrong).
I disagree quite strongly that they made any kind of mistake at all. Just because the press exists doesn't mean they should modify their behaviour one way or the other.
To this "old goat" it looks like they made an honest attempt at a long term relationship but couldn't overcome the realities of their career choices.
My sympathies to the both of them along with my worst wishes to the Murdock rags.