Mean-Spirited Celebrity Gossip

[isadora]

I'm on the fence about this.

I mean, tons of celebrity kids very rarely get their pictures taken. There are outliers--namely Suri and the Brangelina brood--BUT they also marketed their kids. Tom and Katie did a little publication called Vanity Fair to introduce Suri to the world. Brangelina did a full photo shoot with the kids for People. And Brad himself took the pics for their second team-up with W magazine.

[ophy]

Tom and Katie did a little publication called Vanity Fair to introduce Suri to the world.

Katie might not have had a whole lot to say about that one.

Also, how you feel about your kids being hounded by paps could change and evolve over time, especially if you see how they react and are affected about it. A decision made seven yrs ago when they were a baby holds no weight once your kids can tell you how *they* feel about it.


If Suri is now telling her mom, "Make it stop", I can totally respect that. You can't hold decisions made by the parents in the past against the kids forever.

[roly]

From what I heard on the radio this morning, they're making a distinction between pictures that are staged and taken with parental consent (new baby spreads, red carpet events) and nonconsensual pictures taken by stalking paparazzi. So: Pics of Suri at the premiere of Frozen 2? Yay. Pics of Suri leaving school? Nay.

It's still a fine line to walk and there will probably some fights and lawsuits, but good on KBell and Dax for getting a publication as big as People to acknowledge that it's not cool.

[ophy]

E! has conceded.

http://www.eonline.com/news/515235/l...h-kristen-bell





As a mom, I've decided that I'm pretty much YAY about this. I'm cool with not getting to see pics of people's kids, no matter how cute.

. . . which I suppose means I should stop using the gif of The J holding January Jone's kid in the swimming pool even though it's so wonderfully ovary busting.

beekdamnit.

[emmaleigh]

From what I heard on the radio this morning, they're making a distinction between pictures that are staged and taken with parental consent (new baby spreads, red carpet events) and nonconsensual pictures taken by stalking paparazzi. So: Pics of Suri at the premiere of Frozen 2? Yay. Pics of Suri leaving school? Nay.

This is where the celebs' argument falls apart for me. I am generally anti-paps because yes, they're scum but they're also a part of the whole celeb ecosystem and celebs know this. I don't have patience for KStew telling paps to "freeze to death" or that they "don't deserve to breathe the same air as [her]" because that is bullshit privilege talking but I can also acknowledge that she doesn't consistently court the attention or appear in staged "sightings".

Celebs like KBell, Jennifer Garner, and KH who have made their careers by courting public media attention are so disingenuous to me to be pulling this. Especially if the idea is that they still want to pick and choose when they (and their children) are exposed. There are many, many ways to avoid exposing your child to your celeb lifestyle but if you want the lifestyle and *have actively cultivated the lifestyle*, you take all of it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Maybe if JG didn't go grocery shopping with her kids in fucking Brentwood or bank her entire public persona on Hollywood MOM, people wouldn't give a shit about seeing her children.

There's also not a small part of me that doesn't think KBell and Dax are doing this (and JG does too) for attention because every impression I have of them is that they really, really, reaeeeeeally like attention. Which they're actors so, duh.

I def think all the pubs are going along with it for attention; it's faux-magnanimous and might get them exclusives in the future. The same pubs have zero standards or moral compass regarding ~reporting so it's not like they've seen the light.
And the really cynical part of me knows these celebs know that but that's not why they're doing this anyway so wevs.

ophy, I love you hard but you can't compare yourself as a parent to KBell as a parent. KBell, (and others of her ilk, I don't mean to continue to call her out individually) by choosing to live so very publicly, has already compromised more of herself than I think you, as a substantive, loving, ethical person and parent, would be capable of.

I don't mean to be all cunt-y about this but I feel like I hear all the time recently what these people demand financially and otherwise and how hard they make the lives of those working with them just because of their special snowflake actor-ness that when they pull this kind of stuff on top of all that?

[ophy]

Fuck the actors, it's not about them!

I think I'm looking at this more in terms of not visiting the sins of the father/mother upon the children, you know? The kids did not choose a life in the limelight. They are not the ones that make douchebag demands or who court the press one day and then shut them out the next. The kids don't deserve to have paps chasing them down the street or hiding behind the swingsets because of their parents' debatably poor decision-making. So any stance that takes some of the pressure of the little people who can't speak up for themselves is okay by me, even if it only buys them a few days of relief here and there . . . and even if the parents are crusading more for their own ends than for the good of the children, or whatever.


Just kind of erring on the side of thinking less pap attention is better for children, no matter who their parents are, or what their parents do.

[isadora]

I do think they want it both ways. They want to exploit the kids when THEY want to exploit and that's not really how celebrity works.

Y'all know I am actually against children being celebrities at all. I'm also against the papparazzi stalking that goes on--it's one things to snap people shopping in Brentwood through the glass but getting in people's faces and acting like a violent stalker? Should be illegal. You should actually have to keep your distance if you're a photographer. That's reasonable IMO.

[emmaleigh]

I hear you, o. I don't think kids should be punished for their parents' decisions. I guess my feeling who is worse person, the parent who uses their kid to garner attention for themselves or the dude who is just doing it for a paycheck? But I think your point is that's neither here nor there so long as children get a little more protection and I can see that.

But you also raise an interesting point that I saw someone bring up with the E! thing, does this apply to child actors too? Are they capable of consent or are their parents ultimately making decisions on their behalf? Also, what defines a child? Anyone under 18? Is Elle Fanning given the same consideration as Lincoln Bell-Shepherd? I kinda feel like "it's all for the children" noise made by participating media is like basically just cute 10 and under offspring of fairly well-known actors.

I agree that there should be laws against acting like thugs as many of them do, Is. But I also kind of think you lie down with dogs... So many of these actors have arrangements with TMZ and Pop Sugar and career paps and then get pissy when they can no longer control the situation.

[IssieCol]

I'm annoyed by this entire crusade and I've said that before. I love KBell, but she and Dax went at this like preachy assholes and their moral victory feels skeezy and disingenuous as hell to me. Ever since they started using the #pedorazzi hashtag which, whether it was intentional or not, likened their cause to that of child molestation, I've rolled my eyes at them every single day.

Obvs, I don't like it when Suri Cruise is getting called a bitch by some douche canoe pap so I'm glad for the kids that they might not get harassed as much, but all the hypocrite parents can GTFO with this sanctimony, for realsies.

[LaaLaa]

MASHTON IS ENGAGED!

[ophy]

But you also raise an interesting point that I saw someone bring up with the E! thing, does this apply to child actors too? Are they capable of consent or are their parents ultimately making decisions on their behalf?

Well, I'm skeeved about the whole child actor thing, too. If the choice is between someone's artistic vision and whether or not a kid should grow up on movie sets, I'm going to say fuck the artistic vision every time.

As long as we are describing utopian worlds, I'd personally be fine with never seeing anyone under 18 on screen. I know that's seriously unrealistic, but given how victimized so many kids have been by industry machinations and industry pervs over the years, it's a trade-off I'd make happily.

(*Definitely* no more kids allowed on reality tv shows. 'Kate And Jon Plus Eight' nonsense shouldn't even be legal. Nobody in that family benefitted except Kate, who was an egomaniacal monster.)

I don't care how much a ten year old begs to be taken on auditions, the truth is that they cannot possibly understand what they are signing up for given that stage in their brain development. It's up to the parents to say no, I'm not letting you make a decision that could radically alter your life forever, in a multitude of complex ways, when your thinking process is impaired by biology. I will always side-eye parents who make that decision for their child, but claim it's because the child 'thinks it would be a fun thing to do'. Well, your child probably also thinks it would be a fun thing to ride a skateboard down a flight of stairs, so good luck using that as your decision making criteria.

Leaving aside the pitfalls of fame, can you imagine what Corey Haim and Corey Feldmen would have grown into if they'd had decent parents who hadn't exposed them to Hollywood? All of those predators out there! Taking that kind of risk just because your child expresses an interest in auditions and whatnot is so strange to me. Perhaps there are parents who can personally be there 24/7 and take all kinds of precautions, and that's great. But it doesn't change the fact that the child doesn't actually know all of the implications of 'their' choice.

And teenagers are basically just idiot people, who should never be allowed to do any thinking for themselves regardless. Have you *seen* what the pre-frontal cortex of the teenage brain looks like? It ain't pretty.

So yeah, my over protectedness can't be overstated.

MASHTON IS ENGAGED!

SQUEEEEE.

The People article: http://www.people.com/people/article...731748,00.html

They started off as costars on That '70s Show, and now Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis are set to become husband and wife – they're engaged, a source confirms to PEOPLE.

Following widespread speculation that the actors could soon walk down the aisle, Kunis, 30, stepped out with a diamond sparkler on her ring finger while shopping with her mother on Thursday.

"Ashton and Mila have talked about getting married for quite a while," a business source close to Kutcher told PEOPLE in December. Adds another Kutcher pal: "They're incredibly happy together."

Kutcher, 36, and Kunis were first rumored to be dating in April 2012, and from then on, the former costars appeared to be inseparable, enjoying some well-documented PDA and lavish vacations together.


"Ashton loves to travel and so does Mila, so they have seen a lot of new places and both are charged at the idea of doing it more, even living part-time abroad," an insider says. "They seem to have a lot in common, and that helps keep a relationship strong."

It's not the first time the couple has prepared for a wedding: In December the couple attended the marriage of Kunis's brother Michael in St. Petersburg, Fla. Later that month, the two traveled to Kutcher's home state of Iowa to spend time with his family for the holidays, then celebrated his own brother's nuptials earlier this month.

The engagement news comes after it was revealed in November that Kutcher's divorce from Demi Moore had been finalized, nearly two years after the ex-couple separated.

Last year, Moore sought spousal support and legal fees from Kutcher, as the two were reportedly at odds over how to split up their estimated fortune of more than $300 million.

Back in July, another source told PEOPLE that Kutcher was "set on proposing [to Mila]" and added that the actor "really wants to marry her and is so annoyed that there [was] still the hold-up with the divorce" from Moore.

What does it say about his psychology that he basically went from one major commitment to another major commitment? He didn't even take a year off to date models. I kinda like that about him. He chooses partners that are most definitely his superior in every way, instead of going the Clooney/DiCaprio route.

Hmmm. If it wasn't for the fact that minors are allowed to act in Hollywood, Mila would never have met Ashton, and MASHTON would never have happened.

NOW I'M CONFLICTED.

[isadora]

I have a mixed bag theory for my child actor utopia:

1. Children should only be allowed to work in media in the summer months, when they are off from school. Sorry, TV shows. You gotta get all the kids in during Easter break or something.
2. Child actors should not be photographed by papparazzi.
3. Kids 16 and over may get regular work, only after they get a GED.
4. A casework/adult who is deeply jaded about money and fame (this is a prereq) should be assigned to every set where minors are present in order to ensure there are NO shenanigans.

[ophy]

Those are not bad rules, actually, but my ideal is still that all child actors be replaced by automatons, cgi, or large dogs wearing baby masks.





UTOPIA.

[LaaLaa]

I cannot unsee that and I will never forgive you!

[ophy]

You're just lucky that I wasn't able to find a gif of a large dog wearing a baby mask.