"Make a celebrity disappear" machine (1 Viewer)

[Paul Padilla]

I agree, but it's difficult with the amount of money and effort that goes into making it next to impossible to ignore. I'm all for capitalism, but as usual, money is at the heart of this one.

Checking out at the grocery store, the gas station, 7-11, commercials for TV Rags, radio ads, etc. I've never been to New York, but I've seen clips of these kind of ads being played on the jumbotrons down town. (Any big apple-rs...correct me if I'm wrong) So in some instances one can't even walk down the street without celeb BS hitting you in the face. Celebs are a product to be pushed, just like the latest razor. In some cases I think the closest analogy would be New Coke. New and deteriorated.

It's so pathetic sometimes. On the next Oprah, Celine Dion tells of her life changing toenail clipping tragedy. ...and hocks her new best of CD.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Now THAT would be an interesting read! Sounds far more interesting than any of the other celeb stories.

I think most of us in this thread are well aware that we can ignore this stuff. I doubt it gnaws at any of our guts. This thread is just for fun.

 

[Holadem]

Now that would be interesting news. I admit I would tune in for that one.

EDIT: Holy cow Bob, you stole my line word for word.

--
H

 

[Scott Simonian]

Angelina Jolie, etc.

And I never want to hear about "Lost" anymore! I don't care.

 

[Carlo_M]

All of them...





In seriousness, I think my criteria would be any celebrity whose "status of celebrity" or "private" [because come on, how private can it really be?] life shenanigans has eclipsed his/her actual talent as an actor/musician/etc.

George Clooney is a great example of a celebrity I would *NOT* make disappear because despite the fact that he's adored by millions of women, he is still focused in on his craft and IMO does a spectacular job. Tom Cruise, on the other hand...

You get the gist.
Don't you DARE zap Stacy Keibler!!!!!!

 

[MichaelBA]

OK, she can stay because I like her cookies.

 

[Bryan X]

I'll do it for you then.

I would include all celebrities who, because of their fame, think we want to hear their political views.

 

[David Williams]

A-freaking-men!

Celebrities, listen up! If I wanted to hear your political views I'd elect you to office. Until then, keep it zipped and keep us entertained. Is that so hard to do?

 

[Carlo_M]

And yet, can you (the generic "you" not necessarily you specifically) name the stance of your local congressperson or Senator on specific issues?

I would venture to say for the vast majority of Americans, the answer is no.

So I don't blame celebs, famous authors, musicians, TV commentators, etc. for trying to publicize their beliefs (quite a few of whom I disagree with). At least they're trying to get Americans to think about politics. Just look at recent election turnout results and public awareness. And I'm not talking about just the presidential election turnout, what about the ones that put congressmen and senators in their seats (which impacts individuals just as much--if not more--as presidential elections). They are woefully low across the U.S.

I'm not a fan of Clooney's (or Tim Robbins') politics, but I'm at least glad they're trying to get people to think about it.

As someone said earlier in the thread, you can choose not to listen to them. I've enjoyed quite a few of Clooney's most recent works (admittedly I haven't seen Syriana) and I couldn't tell you what he stands for politically (though I could probably hazard a guess and be close).

To me, trying to get people involved in politics is not something that gets you zapped by the disappearing machine.

Having an out-of-control PR machine that hawks your image and pseudo-private life over your substance (a la Paris, JLo, etc.) to the point where it completely overshadows what it is that they supposedly do well...that's instant zappage.

Hopefully I tiptoed the forbidden line with this post, as I certainly do not mean to advocate any one set of political beliefs with it.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Celebrities

No, they aren't. They're trying to get Americans to stop thinking about politics and just accept their own vast political wisdom.

The argument is usually offered that celebrities don't give up their right to voice an opinion just because they're famous, and that's true as far as it goes. They have the same right as you and I do to hold and express opinions. The flip side, however, is that their fame gives them access to the media that you and I will never have. If George Clooney or Clint Eastwood calls a press conference, people will show up and whatever they say will end up on TV and in the papers. Not because they have any particular political or foreign policy insight, but because they're famous people. If you job happens to give you access to a giant megaphone for reasons having nothing to do with your politics, intelligence or ability to reach an informed position on any topic then you shouldn't abuse the privilege by bloviating on whatever topics you think we should be interested in. Just sing, act or direct and leave the politics to others. Nobody cares. And anybody who does base their political opinions on what their favorite celebrity says is frankly too stupid to vote.

As for the celebrity disappearance machine, I thought there already was one - isn't it called UPN?

Regards,

Joe

 

[MarkHastings]

And that too is why these tabloids hype up the stories. While a lot of us can chose to ignore it, too many get sucked into all the drama.

Case in point: Reality TV, Soap Operas and Wrestling. A lot of people have this "catty" side to them that just LOVES to gossip about others misery. If not for that side, the aforementioned would not be as popular.

 

[todd s]

The only thing I would zap on Jessica Simpson or Stacy Kiebler is their clothes....whoops did I say that outloud??

 

[Paul Padilla]

And genuine politicians are trying to......????

George Dubyah and every other politician who ever existed does/did the same thing every time they open their mouths. They're trying to swing people to their point of view for some kind of personal gain whether it be monetary or pure power.

We all use opportunities to bloviate our opinions. Our posts here are the perfect example, though we're limited by the almighty moderators. The point is if someone feels strongly about something, no matter how misguided, I agree that at least they're speaking out towards that principle. The fact that they have more powerful delivery system is just an advantage they have. If one of us here writes op/eds for a newspaper, we're going to take advantage of it for something we believe in. I pretty much disagree with nearly every star's political opinion I've heard...but I don't begrudge them trying to get it out there save the idea that much of it is publicity for publicity's sake.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Let's ease up on the political bantering. Carry on, let's continue to talk about those you want to be removed from the public's consciousness.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

For a period of several weeks, I couldn't browse the internet without seeing REESE WITHERSPOON's plastic smile prominently displayed on the homepages of Yahoo, CNN, and Seattle's local papers. That is a sight I could do without.

 

[Bryan X]

Let's get rid of the Olsen twins.

 

[Lucia Duran]

While I dispise most if not all of the media whore celebs, I will say that there are some celebs that do use their name and status for good causes. These particular celebs aren't the kind that help out strictly to get their name in the papers or to add more shelf life to their careers.

My number one all time favorite do gooder celeb is Paul Newman. If anyone does any research on his charities, they will find that this man does quite a lot for children and for the environment and it's not something that is thrown in the publics face on a daily basis. He does amazing things with his money. He is sincere and really works hard to help out.

Some of my other favorite celeb do gooders:

Woody Harrelson
Daryl Hannah
Susan Sarandon/Tim Robbins
Johnny Depp
Alyssa Milano

These people really do help bring attention to their causes by using their name, but they also don't make a mockery of it because of their name. There is a difference between telling the world that you just donated 5 million dollars so that you can be in every paper on earth for all to see and actually walking the walk and talking the talk and using your name to help out. The celebs I listed actually care and are trying to make changes.

as for the Paris Hilton's of the world who just donate to get a tax write off and their picture in the paper.... yeah use your machine on them.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Just to clarify my own comments before letting this aspect drop:

1) Politicians and office holders = Politics is their JOB. I expect them to talk about politics and try to persuade people to share their views.

2) Actors, singers, directors, novelist = Politics is NOT their job.

I'm not sure which part of this people find difficult to follow.

I expect them to act, sing, direct and write and to use their access to the media to promote their acting, singing, directing and writing - because that's why the media hands them the megaphone in the first place. The lot of them, of every political stripe, can just STFU about their views on the environment, the balance of trade and the designated hitter rule. (Unless they actually play baseball for a living.) An exception will be made for genuine charity work. Political fund-raisers (however disguised) don't count in my book.

End of commentary on previous commentary.

Back on topic - can we hunt down and kill whatever lazy jerk decided to take the term "supermodel" - which once applied to a half-dozen women at the very top of that profession - and apply it to every girl whoever appeared in her underwear in J.C. Penny Sunday circular? One way to thin the celebrity herd would be to stop treating every media whore on his or her 14th minute like the next Marlon Brando or Marilyn. Nobody who is famous for being famous is a celebrity. The whole concept of celebrity is based on being celebrated by the general public for some actual acheivement. The definition immediately excludes every single person who has ever been on The Real World, Survivor, The Apprentice or any of their spin-offs, rip-offs, imitators.



Joe

 

[Holadem]

This is completely absurd. Politics is not a job, it concerns us all and we should ALL be active participants in the process. Of course most people here will disagree (and that's part of the problem).

--
H - and no, you do not get to have the last word, under the guise of some "clarification".

 

[Yee-Ming]

Nicely put Andrew MW and Joe DM. I'd agree with that supermodel observation: it once applied to a few women identifiable by first name only (Cindy, Linda, Naomi, maybe Tyra, today only Gisele comes to mind), yet now is applied to anyone. For that matter, what's a "superlawyer"? The term was bandied about in relation to Clinton's lawyer Vernan Jordan.

When I saw the thread title and read the first post, I immediately thought of Paris Hilton, so like Jeff I'm surprised she only rated post #13. I think she fits 4 of Andrew's 5 criteria, does anyone else come close?

Personally, I'd add Omarosa, maybe the Gastineau Girls.

I think the Brit equivalents might be even more mind-boggling, at least to the Brits who have to put up with them: to this day I don't know why Tara Palmer-Tomkinson is a "celeb".