Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News 2.0

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Social media is a tool.   It's neither good nor bad.   it's how you use it.   People who cheat on their spouses are going to cheat, whether with an old flame or not.   Please who are going to spread disinformation, well that's what chain letters were in the old days.   People who seek validation through likes were always going to seek external validation.   

It is what it is.   

Social media is a tool like other tools currently being debated... not the direct CAUSE of bad things, but of a nature that makes those bad things all too easy to summon. 

Obviously we are not talking about a direct correlation here, but the parallel IS somewhat illustrated by certain people being banned by social media platforms. Because while the tool doesn't make the person a nutter... 

So (like the other situations being discussed elsewhere) it's not a simple one of if it exists out in the world for people to use or not.  There ARE real regulatory issues not being properly addressed, even if they're vastly different from other dangerous tools in our society. 

Just to bring this back to celebrities, I firmly believe that social media has hurt far more of them than helped them. Unless your business model is built on branding/influencing, like a YouTuber, or Model, lifestyle brander who actually sells stuff, or even a stand up comedian or musician advertising gigs, I to this day don't get why most of them bother. At least for traditional actors, it's bad news. Do you get gigs or sell product or get hits on online content?  Otherwise... why bother? It's just ego. 

[Irlandesa]

Influencers and influencing are just another way to market. I guess celebs do it because it's a way to make "easy" money the way doing commercials is easy money.  Even when they weren't doing ads in the US, they'd do them abroad.

Social media is a negative because the fringe elements are more noticeable. (Don't need to know my neighbor thinks Elvis is alive running a vacuum cleaner repair shop in Idaho.)  And that means more negativity reaches celebs more easily.  Unfortunately, a lot of production companies want their stars on social media because that's where you have to advertise so it's harder to stay away.

On the other hand, there has been some good in social media.  I think it was too easy for production companies, producers or fixers in the past to hide the misdeeds of someone famous--the racism, the sexism, the jerkiness, the harassment  when victims had no way to share their stories unless they could convince a publication to run the story. 

 

[Trini]

8 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

On 3/23/2021 at 9:57 PM, BlackberryJam said:

I might have been only one of three people to watch Kings with Ian McShane, but I loved Sebastian Stan in it!

I watched that too. It was great and if it was available streaming somewhere for me I would totally watch it again. But yea no one else did. I think I remember that one of the episodes that got burned off on a Saturday got the lowest ever Neilsen rating for any first run episode of a show on NBC (or possibly on any major network) in the history of the Neilsen ratings.

I guess I'm the third person! Yeah, Sebastian was a standout in that series.

BTW: https://www.nbc.com/kings

But it seems like only the first three episodes are working. I don't know if it's on the new Peacock app.

[BlackberryJam]

9 minutes ago, Trini said:

I guess I'm the third person! Yeah, Sebastian was a standout in that series.

BTW: https://www.nbc.com/kings

But it seems like only the first three episodes are working. I don't know if it's on the new Peacock app.

This show had so much potential, but really needed people to invest in the world it created. That male lead, David, was a bit of a charisma vacuum though. 

[GaT]

23 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

I am on exactly zero social media platforms. I even talked an acquaintance into deleting Facebook once. Not a Luddite, but 99.99% of it is useless. For Crissy Teigen, I was reading an article today, of course I don't remember the source, that pointed out as a Black woman online she was subject to an immense amount of racist/sexist harassment and vitriol.

Chrissy isn't black, her mother is from Thailand, & her father is white & of Norwegian descent.

Edited March 27, 2021 by GaT

[Mabinogia]

19 hours ago, DearEvette said:

There were people who cheered and gloried in her miscarriage and tagged her to let her know about it.  So there is simply negative feedback and then there is concentrated online abuse.

YIKES! I didn't realize it was that fucking hateful. WTF is wrong with people? She's annoying, sure, but she's fairly harmless. She's just looking for a pat on the head and some meaningless acceptance from strangers. This is why I avoid most social media like the plague. It is unfortunately the place horrible people go to be horrible without repercussions. 

If that's the shit she was getting I hope she stays far from social media (I think for some it's more of an addiction than something they enjoy and hopefully she is that way so once she breaks the addiction she won't miss it) and spends her time and effort on real, flesh and blood friends instead. 

[BetterButter]

Sharon Osbourne Exits ‘The Talk’

[Leeds]

On 3/24/2021 at 6:29 AM, SmithW6079 said:

 

In Harry's case, it will be "here's your office and a secretary/assistant where you can sit for eight hours while we pay you handsomely for your name to increase our public recognition and then you can go home."

I find it hard to believe that Harry will be making a career spending 8 hours a day in an office.

 

[WinnieWinkle]

10 minutes ago, Leeds said:

I find it hard to believe that Harry will be making a career spending 8 hours a day in an office.

 

He may be a figurehead who does nothing of substance or he may work  hard for them (who knows) but they aren't hiring him to sit at a desk and push papers.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, BetterButter said:

Sharon Osbourne Exits ‘The Talk’

Quote

Sharon Osbourne has decided to leave ‘The Talk,'” CBS said in a statement.

Sharon decided to leave? I bet, probably happened right after CBS told her that she was getting fired.

Also, this confuses me

Quote

We also did not find any evidence that CBS executives orchestrated the discussion or blindsided any of the hosts. At the same time, we acknowledge the Network and Studio teams, as well as the showrunners, are accountable for what happened during that broadcast as it was clear the co-hosts were not properly prepared by the staff for a complex and sensitive discussion involving race,

They weren't "properly prepared"?? For what? Talking about Piers Morgan? People who are working on a show called "The Talk" really shouldn't need preparation to, you know, talk.

[WinnieWinkle]

7 minutes ago, GaT said:

They weren't "properly prepared"?? For what? Talking about Piers Morgan? People who are working on a show called "The Talk" really shouldn't need preparation to, you know, talk.

And someone defending Piers Morgan in the context of Meghan Markle should bloody well have known that him being racist was going to be brought up.  I don't think anyone needed to prepare Osbourne for this.

[GaT]

I don't know how, but I had forgotten just how horrible a person Sharon Osbourne actually is. She fired an assistant after she made him go back in a burning house to grab some paintings & then didn't laugh about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/sharon-osbourne-house-fire-artwork-fired-would-i-lie-you-a9261156.html

Quote

She woke up his assistant, ordering him to “go in and get the paintings out”.

When he initially refused, Sharon told him: “How very dare you. You work here and you get more paintings out right now.”

 Sharon added: “I took the mask and I put it on my dog.

 

[Blergh]

10 hours ago, GaT said:

I don't know how, but I had forgotten just how horrible a person Sharon Osbourne actually is. She fired an assistant after she made him go back in a burning house to grab some paintings & then didn't laugh about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/sharon-osbourne-house-fire-artwork-fired-would-i-lie-you-a9261156.html

 

Yeah that was quite awful ! However even THAT isn't the worst example of how nasty a person she is! She actually forced her minor offspring to put their own  feces into boxes which she would then mail to folks she disliked- and, yes, she BRAGGED about doing this on the Late Show to James Corden rather than expressed even the slightest shame or remorse for having done that. That even THIS nasty deal didn't get the viewers outraged en masse  to urge CBS to dump her from The Talk and that any person with even the vaguest sense of ethics (i.e.   those who care about how folks treat their own offspring,etc.) would still have wanted to associate with her after this much just shrugged or laughed this off is something everyone who didn't get instantly and permanently  revolted by her needs to look in the mirror about! 

http://www.vh1.com/news/7370/sharon-osbourne-sent-kids-poop-mail/

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Blergh

[Shannon L.]

Bindi Irwin welcomes her first child, a baby girl: 'Our graceful warrior'

Grace Warrior Irwin Powell.  Warrior is for her father who was nicknamed the Wildlife Warrior.  Because Stephanie was too easy, I suppose.  That aside, I do love the name Grace and I think Bindi has grown up to be a fine young woman (and Robert, who is over the moon about being an uncle, a fine young man).  Terri did a good job raising them and I'm still sad that Steve wasn't around to see them grow up and to become a grandfather. I have a feeling they'd have had to tear Grace away from him  🙂  The picture in the article is beautiful.

ETA: I was just thinking about her the other day. I feel like she's been pregnant for over a year.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Shannon L.

[MissAlmond]

9 hours ago, GaT said:

I don't know how, but I had forgotten just how horrible a person Sharon Osbourne actually is.

Wasn't a big part of The Osbournes reality show about how crude they were?  CBS knew what Sharon was when they picked her up.  Sharon's obnoxious ways just caught up with her this time.   Nobody told her to defend a man behaving  like a stalker from the ID Channel.  

Edited March 27, 2021 by MissAlmond

[merylinkid]

Congratulations to Bindi Irwin Powell.   Warrior is okay for a middle name.   The child need never use it.   Or heck, she may go by G. Warrior Irwin Powell when she gets older who knows?     They are a little too stuck on "preserving Steve's legacy."  But other than that the kids turned out okay.   

[aradia22]

Quote

Warrior is okay for a middle name.   The child need never use it. 

Yeah, as far as unusual celeb names go, it's tame to hide it in the middle name. It's not like Powerful Queen Cannon. There's no worming your way into something normie there. Though maybe I'm being hypocritical because I hate Jamie Oliver's kids' names. They tested the waters with some weird middle names (Poppy Honey Rosie, Daisy Boo Pamela) and then suddenly escalated to (Petal Blossom Rainbow, Buddy Bear Maurice, River Rocket Blue Dallas). Let someone sneak in a "Boo" and they take a mile.

[Blergh]

2 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

Wasn't a big part of The Osbournes reality show about how crude they were?  CBS knew what Sharon was when they picked her up.  Sharon's obnoxious ways just caught up with her this time.   Nobody told her to defend a man behaving  like a stalker from the ID Channel.  

True but the chickens came home to roost FAR too late here considering her record. After the  above-mentioned abuses she bragged about, I'm surprised that any of her then co-hosts or even Mr. Morgan himself would have wanted to have been in any way associated with her instead of regarding her as plutonium waste. But then let's not forget that she first got herself into the major limelight via steamrolling her clearly troubled minor offspring AND their still drug-addled  co-parent (not to take away from the fact that Ozzy should have been ARRESTED for his near-murder of her ) into the family broadcasting their excesses on camera!

[Zella]

I mean, Sharon stole Ozzy as a client from her own dad (who was a massive asshole in his own right). She's been shameless long before she was a TV presence. 

Edited to add: some things say Black Sabbath had fired Ozzy before she took over his management, but I am not sure if Don Arden (Sharon's dad) was still managing him at the time. It's hard to keep track. But her shtick was well-established before she went on TV. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Zella

[SuprSuprElevated]

Sketchy source perhaps, but yeah, she would sue. 

sharon-osbourne-sue-cbs-defending-piers-morgan

[Llywela]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:11 PM, Kromm said:

Unless your business model is built on branding/influencing, like a YouTuber, or Model, lifestyle brander who actually sells stuff, or even a stand up comedian or musician advertising gigs, I to this day don't get why most of them bother. At least for traditional actors, it's bad news. Do you get gigs or sell product or get hits on online content?  Otherwise... why bother? It's just ego. 

I agree with your point, but just to note that, increasingly, a degree of social media presence is becoming a contractual obligation for actors in some of their projects. I can think of a few actors who quite blatantly only opened their Twitter account to promote a particular project and then barely touch it once that gig is over - or pick it up again only when there is another gig that needs promotion. It seems to be becoming a 'thing' that shows/films want their cast to have a strong social media following for promotional purposes.

I can completely understand why some actors seemingly have to have their arms twisted to open an account in the first place and then use it only sparingly - but on the flip side of those who get too involved in their social media, I've also seen others being ripped apart by fans for not posting enough. They really are better off without, but I definitely think that production companies bring a degree of pressure to bear on actors to have social media accounts to help with project promotions.

[Crs97]

My favorite story is Mark Rufflo being told he had to engage fans via social media and he accidentally live-streamed the first ten minutes of an Avenger movie because he didn’t know how to turn it off before putting his phone in his pocket.

[Zella]

And it's not just actors. Musicians and authors are also pressured to have social media accounts. Quite a few publishers make it mandatory and won't even consider you if you don't have an online platform. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

38 minutes ago, Zella said:

And it's not just actors. Musicians and authors are also pressured to have social media accounts. Quite a few publishers make it mandatory and won't even consider you if you don't have an online platform. 

Nora Roberts doesn’t have a Twitter account and she’s doing just fine.

While she does have a Facebook page, it’s run and moderated by her publicist. Nora rarely posts. And even pre-pandemic , would have a video where she would answer questions abandoned let fans know what she was working on or what her new release is about. Like twice a year, even though she has two titles, plus whatever trilogy is released during the year.

Edited March 28, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[DearEvette]

Yeah, but she's Nora Roberts. She doesn't need social media and she has the clout to say no to that.  I would imagine there is a tier of authors who can get away with saying no to stuff like that.  I almost think JK Rowling's publishers would wish she'd shut up on social media.  LOL.

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Nora Roberts doesn’t have a Twitter account and she’s doing just fine.

While she does have a Facebook page, it’s run and moderated by her publicist. Nora rarely posts. And even pre-pandemic , would have a video where she would answer questions abandoned let fans know what she was working on or what her new release is about. Like twice a year, even though she has two titles, plus whatever trilogy is released during the year.

As @DearEvette points out, there is a big difference between Nora Roberts and most authors. She has been a successful author since before social media, so she can do things a new author cannot. Go look at the requirements of top agents and publishers. Even university presses often want to see social media platforms before they consider a manuscript. I work as a freelance editor, and this comes up a lot when advising authors as they move toward publication. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Nora Roberts doesn’t have a Twitter account and she’s doing just fine.

While she does have a Facebook page, it’s run and moderated by her publicist. Nora rarely posts. And even pre-pandemic , would have a video where she would answer questions abandoned let fans know what she was working on or what her new release is about. Like twice a year, even though she has two titles, plus whatever trilogy is released during the year.

In addition to what everyone else has said, Nora Roberts is in a very rare tier who is much more likely to be hurt by a social media presence than helped. She doesn’t really need the publicity and social media is just too volatile. Particularly since she has no problem telling irate fans to just stop reading her books if they are not happy. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Guest

[Shannon L.]

I like that she wasn't afraid to address people on her FB page and defend Alyssa Milano.

Nora Roberts responds to criticism over Alyssa Milano casting in Netflix movie

The bestselling novelist shared a statement on Facebook and her website Wednesday, saying she was "sincerely appalled" by some of her readers' online hostility after Milano was cast as mystery writer Grace McCabe.

After it was revealed Tuesday on Roberts' Facebook page that Milano would be playing the movie's protagonist, hundreds of angry fans began attacking the former "Who's the Boss?" star for her involvement in the #MeToo movement as well as for her outspoken criticism of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

[biakbiak]

Tig Notaro was required to get a Twitter account for one of her projects but instead of using it herself she has a variety of friends and up and coming comedians use it. The person who uses it always does an introductory post but my favorite thing is when someone retweets something of her not realizing it and it goes sort of viral with an opinion that is clearly something she would not think!

Edited March 28, 2021 by biakbiak

[GHScorpiosRule]

25 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I like that she wasn't afraid to address people on her FB page and defend Alyssa Milano.

Nora Roberts responds to criticism over Alyssa Milano casting in Netflix movie

 

 

Oh she did more than that. And it was glorious. Basically, she has “no fucks to give.”

She was just as vocal over the RWA kerfluffle  back in December 2019/January 2020.

Nora doesn’t fuck around.

Edited March 28, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[aradia22]

Quote

Go look at the requirements of top agents and publishers. Even university presses often want to see social media platforms before they consider a manuscript. I work as a freelance editor, and this comes up a lot when advising authors as they move toward publication. 

That's such BS. Unless you're a journalist publishing nonfiction or a youtuber or blogger or chef or someone with a following for another reason besides writing books, how would an author have a social media following? I mean, maybe if you wrote fanfic or self-published but unless you're EL James, isn't that something publishers don't really like? I guess it feels worse to me because actors and musicians are public facing. Like, is that the way you'd judge whether to give opportunities to painters or lighting designers or costumers? Idk, maybe it is and the whole world is more trash than I thought. 

[biakbiak]

16 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

Like, is that the way you'd judge whether to give opportunities to painters or lighting designers or costumers? Idk, maybe it is and the whole world is more trash than I thought. 

For up and comers it definitely is and in the case of artists SM accounts have also opened up revenue streams for them. I have a friend who does hair and makeup and got an agent and started booking big fashion shoots after she started an IG.

Edited March 28, 2021 by biakbiak

[Zella]

25 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

That's such BS. Unless you're a journalist publishing nonfiction or a youtuber or blogger or chef or someone with a following for another reason besides writing books, how would an author have a social media following? I mean, maybe if you wrote fanfic or self-published but unless you're EL James, isn't that something publishers don't really like? I guess it feels worse to me because actors and musicians are public facing. Like, is that the way you'd judge whether to give opportunities to painters or lighting designers or costumers? Idk, maybe it is and the whole world is more trash than I thought. 

I'm not a fan of it myself and think of it as its own form of gatekeeping, but it is a reflection of how publishing has changed as how books sell have changed. Before the rise of Amazon and social media, book sales were happening in book stores, and book publishers had their own marketing departments handling the bulk of promotion. Now, authors are expected to do far more actual marketing for the books themselves, so publishers would be foolish to not factor it when they are considering whether to publish a manuscript. My biggest issue is they expect it but often aren't interested in working with otherwise very good authors who just need some help with it since whether someone is good at marketing online is entirely separate from whether they are good at writing books.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Zella

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

My biggest issue is they expect it but often aren't interested in working with otherwise very good authors who just need some help with it since whether someone is good at marketing online is entirely separate from whether they are good at writing books.

Exactly.  It can absolutely be  a good thing. Issa Rae is someone that likely would have been ignored in the past as a writer/creator by established companies but she got to share her artistry on YouTube, which built her brand and got her noticed by HBO.  She just signed a major deal this week.

But talented people who don't have those same marketing skills could be found by big companies who put marketing behind that talent.  Sometimes it seemed misguided but other times, they need help getting in front of an audience and once they do, they're successful.

[aradia22]

@Zella I guess I'm more sensitive to it because I would love to be a writer but I'm a person who has been online for years and never amassed any kind of substantial following (for writing or just on social media). I don't know how I'd even go about it unless I suddenly tried to court controversy and post hot takes. To some extent, I think that's what Chrissy Teigen did. Before the clapbacks, the humor that seemed to attract people to her had a meanspirited tinge to me. I don't think it's fair for wannabe actors who have never been in projects to amass some kind of following themselves but at least I can see how a comedian could post skits or an attractive actor could post generic influencer/thirst trap content. I understand that a lot of people making decisions are risk averse and want to align with things that are already popular but it seems shitty to force everyone to hustle for attention in addition to also doing the work they want to be noticed for. Who are most fiction authors before they have a book to present to people? How are they supposed to sell themselves unless they're connected to people in media (journalists, podcasters, etc)?

I kind of feel like you should sign book deals with the actors and politicians and youtubers and such and then use the money they bring in to nurture the unknown talents until they become the next Julia Quinn or Courtney Milan. Similarly, you make those huge deals for TV reboots or those weird Apple TV shows that are just a list of A-list stars and then you make a Little Voice. And I know that Sara Bareilles and Jessie Nelson are not nobodies but, for most people, their names are not going to attract the same attention as Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, Steve Carell, Jason Sudeikis, or even Hailee Steinfeld.

Also, I don't know if she counts as a celebrity, but I'm trying to absorb the Lindsay Ellis "controversy" from last night and it's a massive woof. Right now I'm on the side of her not handling things perfectly but it certainly not being a cancellable offense. I feel like there's no good way to talk your way through that sort of thing if people are determined to be offended.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I guess I'm more sensitive to it because I would love to be a writer but I'm a person who has been online for years and never amassed any kind of substantial following (for writing or just on social media).

Same here. I would love to be a writer, I have no interest at all in being any kind of "celebrity". I like the idea of sharing thoughts about my work, but I don't want to have to cultivate any kind of following or make any kind of name for myself on social media. I just want to tell stories. 

I just read a quick bit of that Lindsay Ellis thing and that is exactly why I have no interest at all in joining the Twitterverse. They are just a pack of piranhas  waiting for the next big feeding frenzy. I agree with the one person who basically said they are just waiting for you to put a foot wrong so they can go after you. 

And from things I've read regarding the literary twitter world. Nope. No thank you. Some of those writers are just flat out evil. (primarily it seems in the paranormal and YA romance genre.) I would rather just write for myself than jump in those shark infested waters. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Also, I don't know if she counts as a celebrity, but I'm trying to absorb the Lindsay Ellis "controversy" from last night and it's a massive woof. Right now I'm on the side of her not handling things perfectly but it certainly not being a cancellable offense. I feel like there's no good way to talk your way through that sort of thing if people are determined to be offended.

I didn’t have a problem with her original tweet but she does have an history have saying some odd things mostly about movies with POC leads. I don’t follow her closely so she may do the same thing with movies with white leads but the things being brought up do paint an interesting picture. 

ETA: Here’s the Twitter thread with the questionable stuff she has said. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Guest

[aradia22]

@Dani Honestly, so much of that is young people looking to be offended. I don't trust the summaries without screenshots because everything with a screenshot is such a deliberately harsh misreading of the original intention/context. Saying you don't like The Prince of Egypt is not anti-semitism. Also, that person's twitter bio is just exhausting.

ETA to add tweets with screenshots of what people found offensive. 

https://twitter.com/thehoosh/status/1375738861645484040

https://twitter.com/ratedm4musician/status/1375963009579941892

I'm not jumping to her defense as there have been some claims that there are missing tweets in between these so I'm reserving judgment. But from what is in these screenshots, I would say I understand why people were upset but I think it requires reading all of the tweets in question in the worst possible light.

Edited March 29, 2021 by aradia22

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I'm not jumping to her defense as there have been some claims that there are missing tweets in between these so I'm reserving judgment. But from what is in these screenshots, I would say I understand why people were upset but I think it requires reading all of the tweets in question in the worst possible light.

I don't even know the movies she's talking about so I can't comment on the newest controversy. I didn't read them all either and some might be missing but I did keep scrolling down to the screencaps of the tweets wanting to see what hot takes made her truly awful.  I could see not liking the opinions or disagreeing with her but many of them seemed like a stretch.  Some of the examples would be things like tw: rape and then point out her liking Twilight.  Or tw: death and point out that she jokes Zach Snyder must hate his mother (his mother is dead but she didn't know that when she made the joke nor did she tag him on her tweet). 

Or liking things in fiction that are problematic.  I'm guilty as charged on that front.

But she wasn't cancelled.  She closed her account.  For whatever reasons, she did it. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Irlandesa

[aradia22]

Quote

But she wasn't cancelled.  She closed her account.  For whatever reasons, she did it. 

I agree that she wasn't cancelled. But there are people on twitter cheering about how they successfully cancelled her. And I was making the point that I don't think anything she said (about Raya and her later defenses of herself) warranted a reexamination of who she is as a person or whether you should support her as a creator. At least in my opinion. 

I would guess she left because of the harassment. Based on her past experiences, I can't imagine it was good for her mental health, if it wasn't outright triggering. She's been on the internet long enough to know how to "take it" but like Lindy West, Natalie Wynn, Carlos Maza, Anita Sarkeesian, etc. let's just say she's been targeted to an extreme degree by the worst kinds of people before. No one should have to subject themselves to that even if your business is creating online content.

ETA the context...

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by aradia22

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

 

@Dani Honestly, so much of that is young people looking to be offended.

Isn’t that exactly the group that she courts to make money off of them? 

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

Saying you don't like The Prince of Egypt is not anti-semitism.

No it isn’t. Telling the story of Moses also doesn’t glorify genocide but that was her criticism of Prince of Egypt. She also called Soul pro-life. She does exactly what is being done to her. 

[aradia22]

Quote

Isn’t that exactly the group that she courts to make money off of them? 

I don't have her analytics but based on her age and when she started making videos as The Nostalgia Chick, I'd guess her audience is more millennials than Gen Z.

I've heard the Soul pro-life thing but I wasn't able to find a screenshot of that tweet and I haven't seen the movie (don't have Disney+) so it wouldn't make sense to me either way.

What is she doing that is also being done to her? Saying she doesn't like a movie is not going to Stephen Schwartz and demanding he apologize for it and bringing up what she finds problematic about Pippin and Wicked and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 

[GaT]

Alabama Shakes Drummer Facing Child Abuse Charges

Quote

Steven William Johnson, 35, was arrested Wednesday after being indicted on charges of willful torture, willful abuse and cruelly beating or otherwise willfully maltreating a child under the age of 18, news outlets reported.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

What is she doing that is also being done to her? Saying she doesn't like a movie is not going to Stephen Schwartz and demanding he apologize for it and bringing up what she finds problematic about Pippin and Wicked and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 

Interpreting things in the worst possible way with little to no evidence. I’m not talking about simple disliking a movie but the specific examples I mentioned.

36 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I don't have her analytics but based on her age and when she started making videos as The Nostalgia Chick, I'd guess her audience is more millennials than Gen Z.

I was more referring to the people looking to be offended. Although it’s probably more accurate to say people looking for offenses. That is something that isn’t exclusive to the young. 

[aradia22]

@Dani Ah, thanks for clarifying. I get your point but I still think that interpreting a movie in a bad way (I wouldn't say no evidence because the movie does feature a plague that kills all the first-born children of Egypt and presents it as a justifiable act in service of the greater good. Glorifying genocide is hyperbole and we do see Moses upset about it. Again, no idea what happens in Soul.) is different from interpreting everything a person says in a bad way. One case is a work of art. One is a human. We should try to have empathy for humans whereas it's up to you how charitably or uncharitably you interpret a piece of media. I don't agree with most of the takes that were in that thread (I love The Prince of Egypt) but for me nothing she said crosses into hateful except the Zack Snyder one. Even though it was likely in reference to his movies, it was a callous quip to make without even the nuance of "Christopher Nolan has a problem writing wives in his movies" (which is a hot take of mine 😉).

I won't say that the recent Omegaverse and J.K. Rowling videos don't give someone a villain to find offensive. But the majority of her content is still just film/book criticism. But fair point about how attracting viewers who enjoy being offended as much (or more so) than thinking critically is a dangerous move if your twitter brand is irreverence and not taking things seriously. I do think it's an age thing based on my experience when it comes to judging progressiveness but whatever, just anecdotal. 

I do think that at least from what I've seen excerpted on all sides, Lindsay has trouble saying the words "I'm sorry." It probably wouldn't sate the worst of the twitter mob but I think it counts for something and it seems her go to is explaining instead of apologizing.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

 

@Dani Ah, thanks for clarifying. I get your point but I still think that interpreting a movie in a bad way (I wouldn't say no evidence because the movie does feature a plague that kills all the first-born children of Egypt and presents it as a justifiable act in service of the greater good. Glorifying genocide is hyperbole and we do see Moses upset about it. Again, no idea what happens in Soul.) is different from interpreting everything a person says in a bad way. One case is a work of art. One is a human. We should try to have empathy for humans whereas it's up to you how charitably or uncharitably you interpret a piece of media. I don't agree with most of the takes that were in that thread (I love The Prince of Egypt) but for me nothing she said crosses into hateful except the Zack Snyder one. Even though it was likely in reference to his movies, it was a callous quip to make without even the nuance of "Christopher Nolan has a problem writing wives in his movies" (which is a hot take of mine 😉).

 

I agree with you. However, my point was that when you make your career from being tuned into and pointing out problematic things (in movies and in real life) you can’t be too surprised when others do it to you. She is very aware of certain types of issues and very dismissive of others. 

28 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I do think that at least from what I've seen excerpted on all sides, Lindsay has trouble saying the words "I'm sorry." It probably wouldn't sate the worst of the twitter mob but I think it counts for something and it seems her go to is explaining instead of apologizing.

From what I’ve seen this seems to be the biggest problem. Her language in her explanation was like throwing gasoline on a fire. In a discussion with Asian Americans saying “if you squint” is a 🤦‍♀️moment. Or the response when she says something isn’t based on Asian folklore but on Russian/Chinese folklore. I don’t believe she meant those things the way they were interpreted but they show a real lack of understanding and dismissiveness for the issues at play. 

[SVNBob]

7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Also, I don't know if she counts as a celebrity, but I'm trying to absorb the Lindsay Ellis "controversy" from last night and it's a massive woof. Right now I'm on the side of her not handling things perfectly but it certainly not being a cancellable offense. I feel like there's no good way to talk your way through that sort of thing if people are determined to be offended.

 

2 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I agree that she wasn't cancelled. But there are people on twitter cheering about how they successfully cancelled her. And I was making the point that I don't think anything she said (about Raya and her later defenses of herself) warranted a reexamination of who she is as a person or whether you should support her as a creator. At least in my opinion. 

I would guess she left because of the harassment. Based on her past experiences, I can't imagine it was good for her mental health, if it wasn't outright triggering. She's been on the internet long enough to know how to "take it" but like Lindy West, Natalie Wynn, Carlos Maza, Anita Sarkeesian, etc. let's just say she's been targeted to an extreme degree by the worst kinds of people before. No one should have to subject themselves to that even if your business is creating online content.

I'm of the opinion that a majority of the hate and "criticism" she's getting for this current "controversy" is these same people taking this opportunity to dog-pile on her again.  They don't actually care about the "issue" in question; they just care about being opposed to her opinion and flaming her.

 

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, SVNBob said:

 

I'm of the opinion that a majority of the hate and "criticism" she's getting for this current "controversy" is these same people taking this opportunity to dog-pile on her again.  They don't actually care about the "issue" in question; they just care about being opposed to her opinion and flaming her.

 

Or the long history of her problematic/tone deaf language are being highlighted because she hasn’t listened to any of the criticisms before and now there is a groundswell of multiple examples.

[Robert Lynch]

15 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Oh she did more than that. And it was glorious. Basically, she has “no fucks to give.”

She was just as vocal over the RWA kerfluffle  back in December 2019/January 2020.

Nora doesn’t fuck around.

And that's the way to say what's there. Bravo, Ms. Nora Roberts.

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Yeah, but she's Nora Roberts. She doesn't need social media and she has the clout to say no to that.  I would imagine there is a tier of authors who can get away with saying no to stuff like that.  I almost think JK Rowling's publishers would wish she'd shut up on social media.  LOL.

Oh! I missed this comment! I was typing on my phone last night.

Yes, so true. I can think of a few others offhand who are so private and refuse to have a social platform for their work. So I suppose this is just for new and upcoming authors. So what I'm reading is, it's now a requirement? And I guess that means they shouldn't bother to get a publicist because the publishers want the authors to be their own publicists? That is so whack.