Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, xfuse said:

They are 15. 16 and 17 years old. They have a right to be stand up and give their opinion.

It's not a criminal case and I doubt they would have been grilled but teenagers this age should have a voice and no I don't think that child services or therapists should speak for them. They are old enough to give their own opinion. It doesn't mean that the courts have to give them what they want they should have been heard.

These kids are old enough to go to a court system and get emancipated so why should they be allowed to talk about how much time they want to spend with their mother or father.

14 years old is the age for the court system

This idea that children can easily file a petition to be emancipated and have it granted just needs to go away. In my state, there is no legal mechanism to file to be emancipated. A minor can only be emancipated if they get married or join the military, and their parents have to sign off on both of those. 

Back in the day, my friend testified in her own custody hearing. It destroyed her relationship with her mother and over four decades later she is still dealing with the guilt.

Having children testify is horrifyingly awful for those children. And children are more likely to be honest when they aren’t having to declare their wishes when parents are in the room. In my experience, the Courts find it a sign of a terrible parenting if a parent wants a child to testify, especially after neutral parties have already relayed to the Court the child’s wishes.

Also, in my state, a child’s wishes are considered by the Court at birth. No seriously, the case law says that a child’s wishes are always to be considered in a custody determination, no matter the child’s age. But there is no magic age where a child gets to decide. A child can be 17 years, 363 days old and say “I want to live with my mom because she lets me drink alcohol and skip school” and the court will grant custody to dad until emancipation.

 

  • Like 11
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW,

It's hard if not impossible for me to imagine Miss Jolie wanting her children to testify in an open court if she thought they'd actually be willing to spell out both parents' clay feet and tell the whole truth and nothing but instead of just singing her kudos and echoing whatever disses she herself has had about Mr. Pitt. Hence, I think it was for the best that they got to be interviewed individually by experts with the judge hopefully carefully reading between the lines (and weighing all admissible evidence) before making any ruling.  

While Mr. Pitt's premarital record was by no means flawless, I think he was a hands-on parent for many years prior to their split and I think he's tried to work to improve his situation (and I don't see how he currently could be considered an abusive parent). 

Regardless of whatever one thinks of either Miss Jolie and Mr. Pitt, the bottom line is that their mutual offspring's wellbeing MUST be prioritized regardless of any inconvenience or hurt feelings on the part of either parent! 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I think the bottom line is unless or until one of the kids stands in front of the world and say "I wasn't allowed to speak my own piece in court" we won't know what is really happening behind the scenes.

The courts are not going to get into a public he-said-she-said back and forth with Angelina and Brad.  So far, Brad seems to be taking the higher road and not really talking up the kids.  So Angelina is the one crafting the narrative.  And unless Brad or one of the kids come forth, no one is going to contradict her.  But for all we know, the kids may not want to be testify on record and the court is taking their wishes into account by working with counselors etc.

What I am finding fascinating in all this... (well actually not really cuz I am not really following this until it is brought up here) is that Angelina is a one person masterclass in how to brand yourself so that the public sees you exactly how you want them to.  And yet her version of this divorce isn't quite sticking.  I think she may have underestimated Brad's popularity or what it will take to dent it.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

I think the bottom line is unless or until one of the kids stands in front of the world and say "I wasn't allowed to speak my own piece in court" we won't know what is really happening behind the scenes.

The courts are not going to get into a public he-said-she-said back and forth with Angelina and Brad.  So far, Brad seems to be taking the higher road and not really talking up the kids.  So Angelina is the one crafting the narrative.  And unless Brad or one of the kids come forth, no one is going to contradict her.  But for all we know, the kids may not want to be testify on record and the court is taking their wishes into account by working with counselors etc.

What I am finding fascinating in all this... (well actually not really cuz I am not really following this until it is brought up here) is that Angelina is a one person masterclass in how to brand yourself so that the public sees you exactly how you want them to.  And yet her version of this divorce isn't quite sticking.  I think she may have underestimated Brad's popularity or what it will take to dent it.

Call me a cynic, but I think the public was willing to buy Angelina’s narrative while she was with Brad, earth mother, loving wife, family-oriented, etc. Now that they have split, people are remembering the prior narrative, crazy chick whose sibling relationship seemed creepy and wore a vial of Billy Bob Thornton’s blood as a necklace. 

I’m sure, like everyone, Angelina is a complicated person with many different sides to her personality. Unfortunately, the entitled “Gwyneth Paltrow level entitled” side has come out during this litigation. Many people go through custody litigation and the “poor me, I can’t move my children overseas and away from their father” went over like a lead balloon. Just like, “I’ve only gotten 1.3 million in child support and that’s not a meaningful amount of money.”

And yes, these are difficult things. Especially to someone like Angelina who likes to travel and live overseas and immerse herself and the children, and that child support is likely low considering their incomes. However, complaining about it to people who have to live in Detroit and who get 50/m in child support doesn’t make someone sympathetic. 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

In the 90s during my parents' very contentious divorce, my brother and I had a neutral guardian ad litem appointed to advocate for us, and she was damn good. She was very fair and was one of the only adults I interacted with during the whole process who seemed to care about the preference we expressed (which was living with our dad and not our mom.) My brother and I were 9/10 (me) and 11 (brother). We were also told that it was possible the judge may ask us privately in his chambers which parent we would rather live with, though that never happened.

I know I am biased because of my own experiences, but I am not really sure why any of the minors needed to testify in open court about this. As others have noted, they may not have felt comfortable doing so publicly, and it may have created further tension in their relationship with one or both parents. 

I've followed the Jolie-Pitt divorce thing for a while without being a fan of either one of them, and I have noticed that Jolie's camp definitely seems to be generating more spin about the separation, and his approach has been to avoid discussing it as much. Regardless of which one is right or a more functional parent, his approach is a lot smarter. She's just making herself look bitter and petty, IMO. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 20
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Quof said:

Having children testify in court, to be cross-examined by lawyers, about their parents is never good for them. That's why they are interviewed by experts, who then give evidence as to what the children said.  

Children testifying in custody cases does not mean they have to be cross-examined in California. The judge can chose to limit what questions attorney’s can ask or to limit who is there for the testimony. 

California also requires that a child who is 14 or older and expresses that they want to testify must be allowed to unless it is deemed not in their best interests for reasons stated on the record. That makes me thing the kids really didn’t want to speak or there is a reason why they couldn’t that Angelina just didn’t like. 

Rule 5.250. Children's participation and testimony in family court proceedings

  • Like 1
  • Useful 11

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

I just checked the ages of the children and the youngest are a set of 12 yr old twins. 

Obligatory "I feel old" comment.

Quote

I don’t think an interview after the competition is over is necessarily bad but don’t like the press conference being mandated.  Why not let an athlete make an independent choice about interacting with the press?  This mostly bothers me with younger althetes.

Oh, so that's what that was about. I heard an allusion to an tennis player not doing press elsewhere with no context. Anyway, her statement is beautifully composed and well-reasoned. It's crazy that they've made this press barrage mandatory. It's great that she can afford the fine and hopefully it will be the first step in others taking a stand.

Quote

Following [Osaka's] announcement, the Roland-Garros teams asked her to reconsider her position and tried unsuccessfully to speak with her to check on her well-being, understand the specifics of her issue and what might be done to address it on site.

Following the lack of engagement by Naomi Osaka, the Australian Open, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open jointly wrote to her to check on her well-being and offer support, underline their commitment to all athletes’ well-being and suggest dialog on the issues. She was also reminded of her obligations, the consequences of not meeting them and that rules should equally apply to all players.

lol, LIES. Like, even if they said that, that was not their real intention. Your boss doesn't check in when you're having trouble at work or if you file a complaint because they're deeply concerned for your well-being. They just want you to get back to performing like a good little cog and stop making trouble. 

Quote

The statement also emphasized that the rules are in place to ensure that "all players are treated exactly the same, no matter their stature, beliefs or achievement," and that the Grand Slams feel Osaka's media blackout gives her an "unfair advantage" over her competitors.

Stupid. Everyone has to experience the bad thing so we can all be miserable is a terrible reason to enforce a rule. It's not hard to understand why they ACTUALLY want press. Press is advertising which drums up interest which makes them more money. Also, there's no way to fully equate for fairness (unless you strictly control the questions asked). Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams are never going to be asked the same questions for... reasons. It's already unfair. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

What I am finding fascinating in all this... (well actually not really cuz I am not really following this until it is brought up here) is that Angelina is a one person masterclass in how to brand yourself so that the public sees you exactly how you want them to.  And yet her version of this divorce isn't quite sticking.  I think she may have underestimated Brad's popularity or what it will take to dent it.

Quote

Call me a cynic, but I think the public was willing to buy Angelina’s narrative while she was with Brad, earth mother, loving wife, family-oriented, etc. Now that they have split, people are remembering the prior narrative, crazy chick whose sibling relationship seemed creepy and wore a vial of Billy Bob Thornton’s blood as a necklace. 

Quote

his approach has been to avoid discussing it as much. Regardless of which one is right or a more functional parent, his approach is a lot smarter. She's just making herself look bitter and petty, IMO. 

 

 

I mean, I don't think that says too much about anyone's guilt/innocence, how fit of a parent they are, etc. It's just really difficult to strike a blow at a white guy in America, let alone a POPULAR movie star. People make Scientology jokes about Tom Cruise but they keep seeing his movies and mostly just brush past the weirdness. Johnny Depp has completely fallen apart and people are STILL defending him. 

I'm just saying Brad taking the "no comment" approach doesn't sway my opinion in either direction. And it's a tactic that's particularly useful for white guys that doesn't always work for everyone else. Presumption of innocence/morality/etc. is part of the privilege. 

  • Like 13
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Angelina is a one person masterclass in how to brand yourself so that the public sees you exactly how you want them to.

I don't agree. Ever since she got together with Brad she has always been vilified as the woman who stole Brad from Jen. She has always been the 'bad' guy in that relationship. It has always been there sometimes at smaller degrees but always there. BP and JA were divorced for over a decade and CH was still taking pot shots at AJ.

The moment the news came out that AJ and BP were divorcing most of the trash media and online were blaming her. 

6 hours ago, Dani said:

California also requires that a child who is 14 or older and expresses that they want to testify must be allowed to unless it is deemed not in their best interests for reasons stated on the record.

That is why she is appealing. From the article that I read, they wanted to but the judge (who works with Brad's lawyers on other cases) denied it.

Personality I don't care about any of them what bothered me was that the teenagers not getting a chance to have their say in either open court or in judges chambers.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

As a sports fan ive never liked the requirement to speak to the media after events for any of them.  

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I'm just saying Brad taking the "no comment" approach doesn't sway my opinion in either direction. And it's a tactic that's particularly useful for white guys that doesn't always work for everyone else. Presumption of innocence/morality/etc. is part of the privilege. 

Except what do Angelina's past antics have to do with Brad being a white guy? Yes, we don't know what she's like behind closed doors, but her public baggage was pretty public. She did a very good job of reinventing herself, but I don't understand her delaying tactic here, since it could end up backfiring on her.

 

1 hour ago, xfuse said:

I don't agree. Ever since she got together with Brad she has always been vilified as the woman who stole Brad from Jen. She has always been the 'bad' guy in that relationship. It has always been there sometimes at smaller degrees but always there. BP and JA were divorced for over a decade and CH was still taking pot shots at AJ.

To some extent, I think they both reinvented themselves, since Brad went from this

image.png.fb4d3c86c4f6b9bfebe9e881326b70f1.png

to this

image.png.4f52af74a9e613bdfd97e1ce47237c56.png  

over the course of the Jolie-Pitt marriage, but Angelina was still the one with the funky stuff about saying she was in love with her brother and just being involved with Billy Bob Thornton in general. She doesn't have to have ever been the other woman for those remarks to crop up now, especially if she's as intent as she seems on the kids testifying. Does she have expectations about what they'll say and for it to reflect badly on Brad? Who knows, and she may well have their best interests at heart and just wants them to be able to speak for themselves, but she also might not. Him keeping quiet, or trying to keep quiet, might just be because he doesn't want to argue with her anymore, privately or anywhere else.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I just don't know where this idea that Angelina is running to the press and Brad is staying silent is coming from. Pretty much every People story I remember reading cites a "source close to Pitt." He's consistently used People and Page Six as his outlets while she's used Vanity Fair. Even the article that kicked off this discussion from People on May 26th mentions the source close to Pitt. He's been playing the press just as much as her. How quickly everyone re-writes the story of Brad being the best dad ever when he goes full court press with the media. Brad uses those kids as props to look good just as much as Angelina does. I remember his Oscar speech and then his total unwillingness to talk about Maddox when he did his press backstage moments later.

I don't think we know near enough about this case to be decisive in terms of what the right decision is but I can be sure Brad is just as media savvy as Angelia. He just gets away with it.

  • Like 19
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think they both seem awful. It’s hilarious when you flashback to this time ten/twelve years ago when they were St. Brangelina. They’re a far cry from that now. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, vibeology said:

I don't think we know near enough about this case to be decisive in terms of what the right decision is but I can be sure Brad is just as media savvy as Angelia. He just gets away with it.

I think, at least to some extent, we (the royal we) will accept any excuse from a man and will go out of our way to lay blame on a woman especially when it comes to issues involving children.  I see this case as being somewhat typical of this mindset.  Pitt will be excused for past and present behavior but  no matter what Jolie is saying or doing now her past will be trotted out and used against her.  

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I think, at least to some extent, we (the royal we) will accept any excuse from a man and will go out of our way to lay blame on a woman especially when it comes to issues involving children.  I see this case as being somewhat typical of this mindset.  Pitt will be excused for past and present behavior but  no matter what Jolie is saying or doing now her past will be trotted out and used against her.  

Not to harp, but what I hear when I read things like "people are only saying stuff about Angelina because she's a woman" is that we (again, the royal we) aren't supposed to say anything negative about someone who happens to be female ever, because it's only since she's a woman and not for something legitimate. Unless it's Sharon Osbourne. Or Ellen DeGeneres. And sometimes Gwyneth Paltrow, which I guess means we can't make jokes about candles anymore. I kid. Sort of.

  • Like 13
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except what do Angelina's past antics have to do with Brad being a white guy? Yes, we don't know what she's like behind closed doors, but her public baggage was pretty public. She did a very good job of reinventing herself, but I don't understand her delaying tactic here, since it could end up backfiring on her.

 

To some extent, I think they both reinvented themselves, since Brad went from this

image.png.fb4d3c86c4f6b9bfebe9e881326b70f1.png

to this

image.png.4f52af74a9e613bdfd97e1ce47237c56.png  
 

YMMV but I'm not getting the point of those two images. The only thing I see is that Brad got older and looked a bit puffier in the second picture. People love to pull an image or two of Brad, particularly when playing the Brad morphed into all his partners narrative, when the truth is, Brad has changed his looks a lot of over the years, irrespective of who he's with. 

During his time with Angelina, Brad went through like four or five different looks. There was the long hippie beard situation at one point, the moustache when he was filming Inglorious Bastards, the cropped hair, then longer hair, etc. 

 

2 hours ago, vibeology said:

I don't think we know near enough about this case to be decisive in terms of what the right decision is but I can be sure Brad is just as media savvy as Angelia. He just gets away with it.

This so much. Particularly the part about Brad getting away with things. As I've said once before, the dude is like teflon. Nothing sticks to him.

This is the man who made sure to get photographed with his young Instagram model fling, on the weekend that would have been his and Angelina's anniversary, at the location they got married. The location that also holds a tribute to her dead mother. And no one talked about how fucked up that was.

Though I think he did get enough of a side eye that the IG model was quickly dispatched with that same week, never to be seen again. He used his Oscar season run to throw a lot of not at all subtle shade in his speeches. And as someone noted, without a script written for him, he couldn't even fake some response about his relationship with Maddox in his post-win press conference. 

Everyone wants to be all "Brad and Jen forever" now, forgetting how Aniston herself was the one to publicly declare how Brad had a sensitivity chip missing when he and Angelina did that infamous W Magazine photoshoot for Mr. and Mrs. Smith that featured them as a couple with five children.

This was of course as rumors were swirling that Aniston's not wanting children played a role in her and Brad's marriage ending. The photographer and creative director of the shoot later confirmed that the concept was all Brad's idea. 

But more importantly, while we may not know the exact specifics, we do know that Brad indeed had some issues with alcohol, that something happened on that plane that was enough to ensure Maddox to this day wanting nothing to do with him, and convinced Angelina to file for divorce immediately. Because Brad's initial statement in response to the filing always made clear this was not a mutual split. That he was blindsided by the filing. 

And yet, all of that has just been water off a duck's back and Hollywood continues to lay the red carpet down for him and the middle America moms keep dreaming about his and Jen's great reunion one day. That said, I'm not going to deny that Angelina completely gives me control freak tees. And I do think that at this point, it's best to just let go for the sake of all parties involved, particularly the children and move on. 

This has gone on way too long and I'm never a fan of things being messy and ugly when children are involved. That's why whatever I may think of them personally, I respect couples like Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin and even Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck, despite the latter being a raging alcoholic, where they've been able to split amicably and co-parent with no issues. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 23
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, vibeology said:

I guess I just don't know where this idea that Angelina is running to the press and Brad is staying silent is coming from. Pretty much every People story I remember reading cites a "source close to Pitt." He's consistently used People and Page Six as his outlets while she's used Vanity Fair. Even the article that kicked off this discussion from People on May 26th mentions the source close to Pitt. He's been playing the press just as much as her. How quickly everyone re-writes the story of Brad being the best dad ever when he goes full court press with the media. Brad uses those kids as props to look good just as much as Angelina does. I remember his Oscar speech and then his total unwillingness to talk about Maddox when he did his press backstage moments later.

I don't think we know near enough about this case to be decisive in terms of what the right decision is but I can be sure Brad is just as media savvy as Angelia. He just gets away with it.

'Sources say' is NOT the equivalent of someone calling a press conference much less speaking directly to the press. ALL it means is that people who claim to be connected to a celeb are speculating to individuals working for the press rags who think  that they can pass this off as a legit source. Maybe Mr. Pitt is actually having his cronies deliberately leak his spin like the late Princess of Wales would later admit she did OR maybe he's staying out of it entirely but  there are others who want to make a fast buck are claiming to speak on his behalf (and he may feel he has too much on his plate to try to pin then chase down every single attempted claimed leak) .  At this point, we (the public) truly do not know how much or even IF he's involved in these claims at all. Period. 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

Except what do Angelina's past antics have to do with Brad being a white guy? Yes, we don't know what she's like behind closed doors, but her public baggage was pretty public. She did a very good job of reinventing herself, but I don't understand her delaying tactic here, since it could end up backfiring on her.

When it comes to he said/she said, it's usually on the woman to prove the guy is bad. Even if she didn't have public baggage (and I was Team Jen back in the day), people find it much easier to vilify women. She's crazy, emotional, bitter, controlling, etc. This is getting into the predator topic so I'll be vague, but it's usually on the victim to do the talking while the predator takes the "ignore it and it'll go away" approach as long as it's viable.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Blergh said:

'Sources say' is NOT the equivalent of someone calling a press conference much less speaking directly to the press. ALL it means is that people who claim to be connected to a celeb are speculating to individuals working for the press rags who think  that they can pass this off as a legit source. Maybe Mr. Pitt is actually having his cronies deliberately leak his spin like the late Princess of Wales would later admit she did OR maybe he's staying out of it entirely but  there are others who want to make a fast buck are claiming to speak on his behalf (and he may feel he has too much on his plate to try to pin then chase down every single attempted claimed leak) .  At this point, we (the public) truly do not know how much or even IF he's involved in these claims at all. Period. 

Yeah, I was gonna say... “A source close to Mr. Pitt” could be anything from “Brad leaked it himself” to “I followed Brad to the can” to “I completely made this shit up.”

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, aradia22 said:

The statement also emphasized that the rules are in place to ensure that "all players are treated exactly the same, no matter their stature, beliefs or achievement," and that the Grand Slams feel Osaka's media blackout gives her an "unfair advantage" over her competitors.

I think this is kind of a ridiculous statement from the tennis people. If not doing something that everyone else has to do gives you an unfair advantage, then it sounds like all of them would benefit from not doing it. It's not like she's trying to get away with using steroids; she's trying to avoid something she feels is detrimental. They're basically admitting that having to do press prevents everyone from performing their best (whether that be due to mental health factors, getting more rest, getting a bit more practice in, etc.) and that they just want everyone hobbled equally.

FYI, Here's a longer quote from which "unfair advantage" was pulled:

"As a sport there is nothing more important than ensuring no player has an unfair advantage over another, which unfortunately is the case in this situation if one player refuses to dedicate time to participate in media commitments while the others all honour their commitments."

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Blergh said:

'Sources say' is NOT the equivalent of someone calling a press conference much less speaking directly to the press.

It may as well be a press conference when it comes from People Magazine. People is the go-to magazine when celebrities and their team want information to get out without saying it directly themselves. They pretty much never post rumors, it's right from the horse's mouth. They just call the horse "Sources".

Edited by Abra
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Abra said:

It may as well be a press conference when it comes from People Magazine. People is the go-to magazine when celebrities and their team want information to get out without saying it directly themselves. They pretty much never post rumors, it's right from the horse's mouth. They just call the horse "Sources".

I don't care if were to come from The New York Times.    'Sources say' is NEVER a foollproof   guarantee of 'right from the horse's mouth' instead of just repeating hearsay that may or may not have been sanctioned by the party they claim to speak on behalf of (and it's not for nothing that hearsay is not admissible in court).  

 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, janie jones said:

I think this is kind of a ridiculous statement from the tennis people. If not doing something that everyone else has to do gives you an unfair advantage, then it sounds like all of them would benefit from not doing it. It's not like she's trying to get away with using steroids; she's trying to avoid something she feels is detrimental. They're basically admitting that having to do press prevents everyone from performing their best (whether that be due to mental health factors, getting more rest, getting a bit more practice in, etc.) and that they just want everyone hobbled equally.

FYI, Here's a longer quote from which "unfair advantage" was pulled:

"As a sport there is nothing more important than ensuring no player has an unfair advantage over another, which unfortunately is the case in this situation if one player refuses to dedicate time to participate in media commitments while the others all honour their commitments."

So Ms. Osaka has about 10 more minutes to train than her counterparts?   SERIOUSLY?   It's not like they devote HOURS AND HOURS to the media committments.   And if they do, that is fucked up and needs to change.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, xfuse said:

 

That is why she is appealing. From the article that I read, they wanted to but the judge (who works with Brad's lawyers on other cases) denied it.

Personality I don't care about any of them what bothered me was that the teenagers not getting a chance to have their say in either open court or in judges chambers.

Yes, I know. My point is that a doubt the judge completely ignored the rules specifically set out for kids testifying in a high profile case. As I said that makes me think either the kids did not express the desire to testify or there was a reason given that it was deemed not in the best interest of the children. Without knowing the details it’s impossible to know if they should have testified or if they even really wanted to testify. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

It's not like they devote HOURS AND HOURS to the media committments.   And if they do, that is fucked up and needs to change.

Exactly! If not answering some questions post game gives her such an unfair advantage maybe NONE of them should be forced to hinder their own game by doing the stupid press gambit. I mean, what ever comes out of it? "I feel great about winning" or "I'm super sad I lost. I'll have to train harder, which I can't do because I'm answering your stupid questions". 

I give her a lot of credit for going against what is "expected" of them but not really a requirement of what they do for a living. They are athletes, not media stars. let her go do tennis. It's what she was hired for and what she's apparently really good at. 

It's really just "we want our money for getting the scoop" than any concern about her getting an advantage over the competition. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, janie jones said:

I think this is kind of a ridiculous statement from the tennis people. If not doing something that everyone else has to do gives you an unfair advantage, then it sounds like all of them would benefit from not doing it. It's not like she's trying to get away with using steroids; she's trying to avoid something she feels is detrimental. They're basically admitting that having to do press prevents everyone from performing their best (whether that be due to mental health factors, getting more rest, getting a bit more practice in, etc.) and that they just want everyone hobbled equally.

I don't know, I looked it up and the top prize for winning a singles title at the French open is 2.2 million Euros. It doesn't seem unreasonable to tell someone that if they want a chance at that they need to do some interviews. It seems way less a pain in the ass than press junkets that stars promoting a movie have to do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Press conferences are mostly stupid. However, the reason athletes make a living at sport is because people pay to watch. It’s a business and part of that business is promotion and advertising. Without any promotion, no one would know a damn thing about these players and have little interest in seeing them. The WTA and ATP have determined that it is an athlete’s responsibility to take part in that promotion by doing press conferences. They have made that determination because it’s free press advertising their product, which is professional tennis. 

Most people have have to do something at their job that is detrimental to their mental health (sitting through evaluations, meetings, being polite to assholes). They don’t get to say, “No I’m not doing that.” I mean, wait staff doesn’t get to say, “I’m only going to deliver the food, I refuse to speak to the diners and ask them if they like it because listening to people criticize is detrimental to my mental health.”

On the other hand, I don’t want anyone subjected to something damaging. 

It’s not cut and dried. 


ETA: Back to the Pitt/Jolie situation. I’ve not had a really positive thought about him since A River Runs Through It. He was peak hot then and has just been sliding down since. There are certain male actors I rank only by hotness because they aren’t worth ranking by acting talent or personality. That’s Brad. 

On the Brad/Jen v Brad/Angelina front, my thought was, “Why do you want him? He’s past his prime. There are more interesting men out there.” So yeah, no dog in that fight. I think Brad is probably a fine parent, not a helicopter but doesn’t let the kids raise themselves (Hi Ryan O’Neal.) I’m certainly not banging the drum thinking he should get custody, and previously joked Mindy Cohn should take them. 

At the same time, I look at Angelina’s arguments and just want to tell her she’d doing this all wrong. Her PR strategy is problematic. She’d do better to say nothing. 

Just a point of clarity, the Court does not need the children to testify to consider their wishes. Those are relayed to the Court by neutral professionals like a counselor, a visitation coordinator, a guardian ad litem, etc. The press info said many experts testified after having spoken with the kids. So saying the kids didn’t testify is NOT the same as saying their wishes weren’t considered. That’s what bugs me about Angelina wanting the kids to testify. Testimony is traumatic and should be avoided.

 

Edited by BlackberryJam
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The post game/match press conferences are all dumb and are vestigial appendages from a pre social media era.  The tours/leagues needed the press to see their products back in the day but that is no longer the case.  The athletes themselves have much more say about their own branding and what gets out there via their own platforms (which I think is a double edge sword but it is what it is) and the press is now butt hurt that they are mostly obsolete in these situations.  No one in any sport should be forced to do press of he/she doesn't want to.  

 

ETA:  I'm all for people having to suck it up and do the parts of their job that they don't want to but I just don't think this is it in this situation.

Edited by kiddo82
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

Who is being forced? Entering into a tennis tournament is completely voluntary. And having to do some interviews in exchange for a chance at 2.2 million Euros (or 40,000 if you go out in the first round) seems fair. Saying you don't want to do it when you know about it before you enter is like complaining that the court should be bigger.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Abra said:

It may as well be a press conference when it comes from People Magazine. People is the go-to magazine when celebrities and their team want information to get out without saying it directly themselves. They pretty much never post rumors, it's right from the horse's mouth. They just call the horse "Sources".

That was the People Magazine of old.  People Magazine today is under new ownership, has an editor who cut his teeth at In Touch and working for Rupert Murdoch, and is living off it's past A-lister go to reputation.  

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blergh said:

I don't care if were to come from The New York Times.    'Sources say' is NEVER a foollproof   guarantee of 'right from the horse's mouth' instead of just repeating hearsay that may or may not have been sanctioned by the party they claim to speak on behalf of (and it's not for nothing that hearsay is not admissible in court).  

 

When it's People Magazine, it is foolproof. It's well know that they take stories and quotes directly from publicists.  This isn't the Times or the Post where someone is doing actual investigating. It's not even TMZ where you can get paid for a tip. Celebrities go to People when they want to get a story out and not attach their name directly to it. VF, Page Six and a few others also frequently work this way and have in the Pitt/Jolie divorce but People Magazine does this for everyone. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, xfuse said:

I don't agree. Ever since she got together with Brad she has always been vilified as the woman who stole Brad from Jen. She has always been the 'bad' guy in that relationship. It has always been there sometimes at smaller degrees but always there. BP and JA were divorced for over a decade and CH was still taking pot shots at AJ.

The moment the news came out that AJ and BP were divorcing most of the trash media and online were blaming her. 

That is why she is appealing. From the article that I read, they wanted to but the judge (who works with Brad's lawyers on other cases) denied it.

Personality I don't care about any of them what bothered me was that the teenagers not getting a chance to have their say in either open court or in judges chambers.

Who's CH?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Who is being forced?

Not Osaka since she withdrew from the tournament earlier today.  It will be interesting to see if this is a blip on the radar or Kickstarts something bigger.  On the one hand, I get why these tours want the players to do the post match stuff but on the other hand it's antiquated.  In a practical sense, the match is over and people either watched it or didn't watch it.  A post match press conference won't change that.  Will it make people tune in to the next one?  I don't know.  I think the interviews on the off day heading into the match do more of that.  And even then, do we really learn anything from them?

Edited by kiddo82
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

Not Osaka since she withdrew from the tournament earlier today.  It will be interesting to see if this is a blip on the radar or Kickstarts something bigger.  On the one hand, I get why these tours want the players to do the post match stuff but on the other hand it's antiquated.  In a practical sense, the match is over and people either watched it or didn't watch it.  A post match press conference won't change that.  Will it make people tune in to the next one?  I don't know.  I think the interviews on the off day heading into the match do more of that.

I did some reading up on the situation. She intended to skip all media, not just press conferences. She skipped media day. I get how post match press conferences suck, especially if you’ve lost, but she indicated pretty much a media blackout, which is unfair to the other players. 

I think she, and maybe some other players, need to sit down with tournament directors and discuss some alternatives.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I hope Naomi is seeing a sports psychologist and do wish her well, but I’m kinda all about Serena until she surpasses that bitch Margaret Court. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I think, at least to some extent, we (the royal we) will accept any excuse from a man and will go out of our way to lay blame on a woman especially when it comes to issues involving children.  I see this case as being somewhat typical of this mindset. 

YMMV, but personally, I think Jolie uses her kids as a shield & an image, her kids are her Goop & she is just as pretentious about it as Gwen is about her candles. I've seen her more than once on a red carpet being interviewed by someone when she suddenly stopped & said "excuse me, my children need me" & then she walked away. So ridiculous, like there's some big emergency with her kids she must take care of right that instant. How strange that this keeps happening when she's talking to the press, good thing she's the world's best mother.

 

  • Like 12
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I did some reading up on the situation. She intended to skip all media, not just press conferences. She skipped media day. I get how post match press conferences suck, especially if you’ve lost, but she indicated pretty much a media blackout, which is unfair to the other players. 

I think she, and maybe some other players, need to sit down with tournament directors and discuss some alternatives.

How is it beneficial for the tourney if popular players just drop out over having to do the media events?  

Better to have them stay in the tourney and excuse them from it.  

Or have someone appointed who can help answer for them in these situations like a personal media director.  

The president does it. He isn't out their answering media questions hardly ever. The media survives.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think the mandate about having to sit and describe in detail what people literally just saw after each game is silly.  All the questions are a variant of "how are you feeling about..." or 'Describe to me..."  how does that help anyone?  How does that help the game or the athlete?  Who wants to do a blow by blow of a devastating loss?  How do you properly contextualize a win.  And 9 times out of ten your words are used against you to either paint you as 'arrogant' (if you actually praise yourself in some way) or as a sore loser (if you lament yourself in some way).

She has decided to not speak and take the hit.  There needs to be some balance where they do some media maybe after the whole thing is over.  I mean, She could be like Marshawn Lynch who is hilariously passive aggressive and answers non-sensically (hey, they say you have to do media, they don't say you have to actually give answers that make sense).

My favorite of his is when he answered every question with just : 'Thank you for asking."  Super polite but that was the only thing he said.  Until one journalist asked him about his stomach issue earlier in the game and his answer was 'I appreciate you asking about my stomach, thank you".  LOL.

Edited by DearEvette
  • Like 17
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

How is it beneficial for the tourney if popular players just drop out over having to do the media events?  

Better to have them stay in the tourney and excuse them from it.  

Or have someone appointed who can help answer for them in these situations like a personal media director.  

The president does it. He isn't out their answering media questions hardly ever. The media survives.  

This is one player in one tournament. The tickets have been sold. The sponsors are in place. 

There has not been a huge groundswell of support for her from other players. No one appears to be ripping her, but it’s mostly, “press is part of the job, *shrug*, we all have to do it.” I don’t see anyone else dropping out in solidarity, but a lot of people wishing her well. 

Sports isn’t like politics. A sport will die, a tournament will get cancelled, etc if they don’t get spectators and sponsorship. I live very near one of the tennis Masters tournaments. The amount of hustle the tournament personnel have to put in every single year to fill the seats, get the sponsors, sell the merch, is massive. You get a Rafa, a Serena, a Roger, a Naomi to show up and it’s a huge boost to sales.

Also, if I’m the corporate sponsor of an athlete, I want that athlete sitting on the ESPN set, being interviewed, wearing my logo, saying something that’s going to go viral. I’m paying for that advertising with my sponsorship. 

I do think this situation can open up a larger conversation about the brutality (and repetitive nature) of post match press conferences. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

My favorite of his is when he answered every question with just : 'Thank you for asking."  Super polite but that was the only thing he said.  Until one journalist asked him about his stomach issue earlier in the game and his answer was 'I appreciate you asking about my stomach, thank you".  LOL.

My personal favorite is Belichick's "We're on to Cincinnati." after just about every question.  

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

This is one player in one tournament. The tickets have been sold. The sponsors are in place. 

There has not been a huge groundswell of support for her from other players. No one appears to be ripping her, but it’s mostly, “press is part of the job, *shrug*, we all have to do it.” I don’t see anyone else dropping out in solidarity, but a lot of people wishing her well. 

Sports isn’t like politics. A sport will die, a tournament will get cancelled, etc if they don’t get spectators and sponsorship. I live very near one of the tennis Masters tournaments. The amount of hustle the tournament personnel have to put in every single year to fill the seats, get the sponsors, sell the merch, is massive. You get a Rafa, a Serena, a Roger, a Naomi to show up and it’s a huge boost to sales.

Also, if I’m the corporate sponsor of an athlete, I want that athlete sitting on the ESPN set, being interviewed, wearing my logo, saying something that’s going to go viral. I’m paying for that advertising with my sponsorship. 

I do think this situation can open up a larger conversation about the brutality (and repetitive nature) of post match press conferences. 

If sponsor doesn't like her not talking they can choose someone else.  That's between her and the sponsor not the tourney directors.  And I'd rather have her in the tourney as a sponsor than out of it 

And your comments about how hard it is to sell tickets is precisely my point. The player being IN the tourney is more important than what they say at a press conference. Or having a press conference.  

Forcing players to do these things when not interested is counterproductive.  I'm sure there are plenty of players that want the press and will do them.  It's not like they are all going to refuse.  

There are alternatives to the current system which is in place mostly for the worst answer in the world, which is 'its just the way it's always been'

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Not to harp, but what I hear when I read things like "people are only saying stuff about Angelina because she's a woman" is that we (again, the royal we) aren't supposed to say anything negative about someone who happens to be female ever, because it's only since she's a woman and not for something legitimate. Unless it's Sharon Osbourne. Or Ellen DeGeneres. And sometimes Gwyneth Paltrow, which I guess means we can't make jokes about candles anymore. I kid. Sort of.

For me, it's context, and the amount of care and evidence people provide. I'm not a big fan of the blanket "I just don't like" approach (although I'll admit I'm hardly immune from it and slip occasionally). 

Angelina is a tough sell as simply a victim of slanderous talk.  She's got a lot of influence, and weilds it quite regularly.  Her career control is admirable, but I can certainly see the Joan Crawford-like comparisons (or at least speculation about her being a control freak or manipulative).  I mean a certain amount of her behavior is out in the open.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Forcing players to do these things when not interested is counterproductive.  I'm sure there are plenty of players that want the press and will do them.  It's not like they are all going to refuse.  

That's where I find the "it's not fair to the other players" thing interesting. I would think most player want the press, they want the publicity and want their name out there. It's self promotion, it's becoming a "star" vs just a player. So do the other players really care that she's not out there getting the attention, getting the press, getting the publicity? Are they really upset that she gets a half hour or so to do whatever while they are getting their names, words and faces all over the media? I can understand the tourny leaders wanting her to do press as it gives them free publicity, but if she's the only one not doing it, they have others. Trying to present it as unfair to the other players is just silly. 

I have bad social anxiety, like I have to work up the nerve to go grocery shopping, so I can't imagine going into a game with the fear and anxiety of the looming press attention afterwards hanging over me. 

Edited by Mabinogia
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I used to like Amy schumer but now, god, she can be such a bitch.  

Is she joking about this?  If so it's a bad one. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/31/entertainment/john-krasinski-emily-blunt-amy-schumer/index.html

 

 

Unkind thing to say but does it still happen?  It supposedly happened a lot during the studio system days.

But I remember hearing on the radio that when the Brangelina thing happened, especially the way he left American's Sweetheart Jennifer Anniston, it resulted in a mountain of publicity for all of them.

They quantified it by the number of magazine covers they got, how much it shot up for each of them, probably helped their box office draw, etc.

Krazinski's response was good though, smart to take it in stride.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

In my opinion, just because something has always been done a certain way or because others do it should never be a good enough reason when preserving one's mental health.

This should be engraved somewhere, or put in some school book that everyone uses.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

She has decided to not speak and take the hit.  There needs to be some balance where they do some media maybe after the whole thing is over.  I mean, She could be like Marshawn Lynch who is hilariously passive aggressive and answers non-sensically (hey, they say you have to do media, they don't say you have to actually give answers that make sense).

My favorite of his is when he answered every question with just : 'Thank you for asking."  Super polite but that was the only thing he said.  Until one journalist asked him about his stomach issue earlier in the game and his answer was 'I appreciate you asking about my stomach, thank you".  LOL.

I had to Google as I was unfamiliar w/Lynch, and one of the first things to pop up was this video. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 The press conference you mention here starts at around 26 seconds in.

 

  • Laugh 11

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Please do not post only links to celebrity news stories, some context should be provided for your fellow members. Context may be as simple as a quote from an article. Thanks. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size