Actors/Headscratchers

Everything About Fiction You Never Wanted to Know.
Jump to: navigation, search


The following actors have bugged enough tropers to merit their own Headscratchers pages. Please be sure to place Headscratchers for these actors on the appropriate page.



General Headscratchers for actors are listed below. Please make sure you are not duplicating an existing Headscratchers page before adding a new one. New entries should go on the bottom of the page.


  • The tendency of most older actors to start saying yes to every script that comes across their desk. De Niro is the most obvious example, but he's hardly the most flagrant practicioner. I know that not all movies can be winners; given the number of things that can go wrong, it's amazing we've gotten as many good ones as we have over the years. If they just want to make some easy money in not-too-strenuous roles, that's fine; I begrudge no man his paycheck. But do you remember when De Niro was reeling off classic movies like it was going out of style? When Pacino wasn't just a screaming caricature? When Dustin Hoffman was one of the best character actors alive? I don't want to be mean, I love these guys, one and all. It'd just be nice to see them notch up a few more quality parts in actually worthwhile films before they retire.
    • Sometimes they want to have fun, and sometimes it's hard to get non-stock roles after a certain age.
    • For some actors, it's all about the retirement money by that stage. In his old age, Lawrence Olivier grew neurotically afraid that he was going to die and leave his family penniless. He ended up accepting any role that paid him well, which culminated in Incheon, a movie widely considered to be one of the worst of all time.
    • Plus, the more roles you take, the more acting you get to do, and why be an actor if not for love of doing the job?
    • Actors tend to focus more on what role they will be playing than what the film as a whole will be like. They don't always have time to read the entire script when it is a small enough role to make that unnecessary, and often you can't tell just on paper how bad a film will be when it is on the screen--really, you'd be surprised how misleading a script can be, given that a film is made thrice (in the writing, filming, and editing), and how long some actors go before they end up watching the film they were in. They're busy folks. And if they like the character they're playing (or even think it would be easy and fun to play him/her) and think the money is good, they'll think, why not go for it? The overall quality of the film is quite understandably not going to be their first consideration.
    • I get what you're saying, and this is a true sore point for me w/Pacino, but Meet the Parents was pretty darned good and Insomnia wasn't too half bad.
    • Man, I know what you mean. I see Leslie Nielson in Seltzerberger movies and I throw up a little bit. Not quite on the same tier as your other examples, but still...damn.
    • Two words: Ham and Cheese.
  • Why is it people seem to think Actors don't do any "real" work. That acting is something that A) is something that anybody can do and B) requires less effort than most other jobs. These stereotypes are a load of rubbish and need to be dispensed with. Actors who are worth their salt spend endless hours studying techniques and doing research for roles, devote time to character study and the necessary memorisation of lines (for shows with lines). Not to mention the fact that work days for an actor can be incredibly long and tiring, for certain roles on TV or film you may be needed on set pretty much all day, early morning (7am or earlier) to late evening (whenever), if you're in a complex costume or makeup then even longer (some makeup or prosthetics for more SF shows can take upwards of 4/5 hours to apply and slightly less to remove). And on stage you may be expected to give the same performance with the same level of energy, twice a day for a period of months on end! It's seriously hard work and deserves more respect than it gets.
    • It's partly a backlash against the overblown worship that some actors get (or are perceived to get). But it's also due to the fact that acting doesn't serve any practical purpose beyond entertaining people.
      • Doesn't serve any practical purpose beyond entertaining people? Why not say that medicine doesn't serve any practical purpose apart from healing people or food serves no practical purpose other than feeding people?
      • Without medicine, people will die. Without food, people will die. Without Star Wars, people will be bored.
        • But without the arts, what would make life worth living? Serious question. Without art, all we can really lay claim to being is DNA reproduction devices. Even science has its limits in that field - living longer is a means to produce more and hardier offspring, travelling to other parts of the planet (or the universe) is a means to spreading genetic material... There's a reason, too, that we remember some civilizations more than others, and it has to do with what they left us.
      • Certainly acting is entertaining, and it's part of entertainment (it's not called the Entertainment Industry for nothing) obviously. But what about actors in Agit-Prop pieces, or Theatre for Social Change? Brecht and Artaud certainly weren't writing pieces that are just to entertain. There are actors, directors, writers all over the world who are being jailed because of what they do, what they stand for, and because they are viewed as a threat.
        • And therefore want to die!
    • It's probably also a backlash against the Type Cast actors who seem to be playing themselves / the same character all the time, which looks even lazier and easier. Plus people probably think that they're good actors, from the few times they've ever gotten a chance to do it.
    • It's possibly also backlash against the ginormous salaries celebrity actors tend to have. After all, those are the kinds of actors people see in movies the most and hear about the most in gossipping media.
      • And even that's not necessarily unjustified, when you look at how long an actor has to go on that salary and how much of it goes into taxes. And a lot of actors turn around and become producers for smaller or less-probably-successful productions - see Tom Hanks throwing his money, fame and Hollywood clout behind My Big Fat Greek Wedding, for example.
    • It's probably because of the whole "out of sight, out of mind", thing. We the public see an actor on the stage or screen doing their "actual" job for two, three hours at a time. The other 99% of the time, they're on TV talk shows, in the news, on the covers of magazines, and in the tabloids where we learn about them partying, dating supermodels (or other actors), and we resent that the rest of us peons can't have that glamourous life of constant fun.
      • Except it's not a glamorous life of constant fun. Actors who can do their job often suffer from what this troper terms an "emotional hangover" - aka feeling the aftershocks of their character's emotions - for hours or days after finishing a role - and let's not even get into a months-long shooting schedule or eight-shows-a-week play run. Not to mention they get to live in a fishbowl and are held to standards that would make a priest reach for alcohol.
      • Yes, but most people don't realize that.
      • Point is acting is something people love to do, it's their dream job. The actors we dislike get wildly overpaid for something that really isn't that important or artistic (like transformers) and everybody wants to sleep with them. They get to travel the world, sleep with whoever they want, and get paid wild sums for talking, walking and hanging out with cool people. I'm sorry but I would LOVE to have a job where I can be creative, artistic, make tons of money, but oops I'm short and overweight so I can't get to be overpaid for basically being thin and pretty. Even really great actors LOVE what they do, it's a dream come through for them. I respect doctors and teachers that earn their pay (and more). But do actors deserve 20 million for making a main-stream popcorn movie? Is their work worth 20 million?
        • The market says yes. If people started protesting the salary of "overpaid" actors in a tangible way (i.e. not going to see a movie where the salaries are too high) then the salaries would drop and drop quickly.
      • The thing is, you don't think about it. You don't think of all the prep, effort, pressure, etc. It may be very difficult, but it often just looks like walking and talking, so people think it's easy.
        • But the counter to that is that those of us who aren't actors but are good at our jobs do the same amount of prep, put in the same amount of effort, and often have the same amount of pressure on us - and we make in a year what some of these actors make in a day. (Let's not get into athletes, some of whom make this troper's yearly salary in a single minute of court time.)
      • Here's a simple and blunt answer to the question:Would you rather be acting or prepping to act for 12 hours straight, or be digging a hole, cleaning toilets, collecting garbage, exterminating vermin, or even working in a movie theater for 12 hours straight?Is acting as profoundly mind numbing as 99 percent of any and all jobs out there?
          • The reason why top actors, athletes and entertainers in general make so much is because of the revenue they produce. A successful movie fills theatres, people fill out stadiums to watch athletes and some entertainers sell out arenas. And if the money didn't go to the entertainers it would go to middle men who weren't part of the creative process . And notice I said "top" entertainers. Most people who are actors aren't making 20 million per movie, most athletes never get even a sniff of professional athletics and those things are common through all forms of entertainment. That is where we get the term struggling artist. Most fight for the dream for a while to giving up and getting a normal job like everyone else.
    • Because as hard and grueling as an actor's job can be at times, it has nothing on what the greater majority of Americans have to put up with. Few big screen stars will ever again have to put up with living paycheck to paycheck, with worrying about getting bills paid, with performing a job every day that gets them little to no respect or recognition and will never have the problems that regular people have. And as bad as an actor's career can be, for all the strain it has on their personal lives, it is, at the end of the day, a choice they made where millions of Americans have to work just as hard, if not harder, to barely stay above water.
  • Why are actors seen as the be all and end all of the film process? I'm not doubting an actor's job requires talent, skill, and hard work, and I realize most audiences are concerned with who they see on the screen, but it just bugs me that the actors are the ones who always get interviewed about the film they're in, how they're the ones who discuss the direction the movies are taking, etc. As an aspiring film editor, I probably have a fairly large bias, but you never really hear any insight from the writers or the editors, just the people who are on the screen and occasionally the director.
    • Hearing from the director is a good thing, if your logic is to be followed. The director is the guy whose job requires the most talent, skill, and hard work out of everyone involved. It's like being the conductor of a thousand-piece symphony orchestra that has to record several hours of music. Not that the editor isn't important, of course, and I imagine the job must be stressful.
    • Actors get all the attention because it is part of their job to go out and attract attention to promote movies. moreover, the media likes interviewing actors better, because the actors are trained to do interviews and they can put on a better show for the public. plus, maybe it is because the general population consider actors, directors and (sometimes) writers to be "artists" and so give them greater respect by default.
    • Also probably because while acting, directing, and to a (much) lesser extent writing is fun to watch, editing is really fucking boring. You'd get about five, maybe ten minutes of interesting insight before your audience just wants to move on to something else. Though I'm an aspiring screenwriter who spent about 75-90% of his Work Experience sitting next to a commercial editor, so I also have a fairly large bias.
      • No one said anything about watching them edit; there's quite a bit of creative process that goes into editing I wouldn't mind hearing about.
    • Not to mention that without the actors a movie would be an hour or so of nothing but pretty scenery.
      • But without writers, a movie would be an hour or so of nothing but... improv.
      • And without editors, a movie would be a bunch of outtakes strung together complete with the director shouting "cut" every five minutes, and no soundtrack.
        • And without the guy at the lab who develops the negative, there's no film to show! One can play this game endlessly. Everybody's important.
    • The actor being the be all and end all bugs me on the viewing end. If a movie is bad, it's because of the star. Ignoring the final script could be crap and the director could have phoned it in. Yes, the actor could be made of wood, but it is not a one man show. There is a 3 minute list at the end of the movie that shows everyone who is at fault.
      • The ultimate responsibility for the movie has to rest with the director. But in the public's mind, it doesn't seem to. The director, as his name suggests, is the one directing the process. He chooses the actors, gives them focus, tends to their (professional) needs, tells the set designer what he wants and where, chooses camera angles, chooses cuts for the editors, and occasionally makes adjustments to the script or to the writers' ideas. Short of Executive Meddling - which was prominent in years gone by (in which the producer was the man with the vision, and the director was his instrument) - the director has almost no excuse to turn in a bad movie.
    • Most actors are A, pretty, and B, pretty eloquent. This may or may not be the case for editors, writers, etc. They're just easier and more entertaining to watch.
    • Film is a hugely collaborative medium, far more so than any (only opera comes close), so it's foolhardy to elect any one participant as the "most important factor." This is even true of the director, whom the studios often treat as a wholly substitutable functionary of the process of filmmaking. There is this need on the part of many people to exalt the director into a figure of absolute authorship, but this is based on a false analogy with literature (and even literary authors are less "authors" than people generally think, as any editor can tell you) and ignores much about how filmmaking actually works (barring, perhaps, certain traditions of amateur and avant-garde filmmaking).
    • Let me suggest, too, that you are confusing "actors" and "stars." Nobody thinks actors are that important, but -- within Hollywood and other mainstream cinemas worldwide -- the star is indeed extremely important much of the time. Stars are known quantities with built-in box office appeal. For a slightly offbeat project, the presence of a star is often the only thing that will convince a studio to finance it. Attach a star and a screenplay must be tailored to his or her screen image (to a way of thinking, this fact does indeed cement the star as the single most important element of the system). Let's face it: it's the stars' world. We're merely living in it.
  • Why do people feel the need to be so nasty about actors' partners? I'm an admin for an Alan Rickman fan forum, and I've actually gotten really unnerved by just how mean-spirited some of his fans are towards his girlfriend; name-calling is actually one of the kinder offenses. In Rickman's case, it bugs me because (1) it's glaringly obvious that he loves her dearly, and (2) he and Miss Horton have been in a stable, committed relationship since 1965, well before a lot of his fans were even thought of. Although, when I found out just how long they'd been together, Snape's line about Sirius and Lupin "bickering like an old married couple" in Prisoner of Azkaban got about six thousand times funnier.
    • Although such vitriol against the specific actor you speak of is irrational and intolerable, MOST actors have very short-lived, shallow, or even STAGED relationships lasting three years at the most and a few months on average. Such relationships truly bother the fans of the actors involved. It's as though the true purpose of marriage--the sacred union of two people's lives--is worthless in the eyes of the actors involved. Yes, divorce happens in real life. Yes, a lot of the time it's a good idea. But if you've been married seven times in four years, half of them to the same person, then you obviously do not view marriage with the sobriety you ought to. And that PISSES PEOPLE OFF.
      • But why is it anybody's business what they do with their lives? I can understand if it was their friend talking to them, but most of these people don't even personally know these actors.
      • How can you be married to one person three-and-a-half times?
      • The 'half' is just having an affair and saying you'll get back together, but then not actually going through with it.
      • What's wrong with a casual marriage so long as both parties are consenting adults? Plus let's face it - the amount that people care whether you're "taking marriage seriously" tends to increase proportionate to the amount of fans who think you're sexy (and god forbid if you're a male heartthrob whose wife is actually, gasp, Hollywood Homely). No one seems to care about the sexual lives and morals of ugly or unsexy actors.
      • What's wrong with casual marriage?! It's marriage! It's not supposed to be casual! I can understand casual sex. That's fine. I can even understand open relationships and marriages. I don't approve, but I understand. But casual marriage? Marriage is supposed to be a big deal, and a permanent thing, unless stringent circumstances change that. You don't get married with the idea that you'll get divorced less than a year later--there's no point to that. Don't bother getting married if you're not planning for the long haul. And that applies to everyone, not just "sexy actors".
        • But who cares what motivates a pair of total strangers to get married? Besides, it's not as if traditional ideas of marriage are all they're cracked up to be. I applaud a long-lasting marriage as much as the next person, but it's also true that the "get married and stay married" attitude has historically trapped a lot of spouses in abusive marriages and children in fight-filled homes.
          • Did you miss the "stringent circumstances" part?
        • I should point out to the person incensed at the idea of casual marriage that at least one salient point can be financial. It may not have the drama of romance, but shaving tens of thousands of a tax-bill because you're married can be a motivator. Incidentally, not everyone believes marriage is sacred, your anger seems to stem from the fact that you do.
          • Why yes, my anger does stem from the fact that I believe marriage to be sacred. I would actually like to apologize for my anger, and rantiness. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the sense that, every person that treats marriage casually cheapens and degrades marriage. Life-long commitment is what marriage is for. A clothes washer is for washing clothes, that is what it was invented for and that is its purpose. Marriage is for joining two people for the rest of their lives, that is what it was invented for and that is its purpose. For the record, I don't like romance. Marriages based on love alone don't last, IMO. Financial motivations are a valid reason, as long as they aren't the only reason. Friendship and trust are the two most important things in a marriage, to my way of thinking.
    • All celebrities seem to get crap about their partners.
      • Similar to the Alan Rickman example, lots of Cillian Murphy fans seem to take fire at his wife Yvonne. It's really common to see her referred to as "ugly" (she's actually quite pretty, just not a knockout) or see fangirls plotting to steal him from her and thinking they could do it because she is "so ugly." Never mind that they were together for ten years before they got married, that they have two kids together and most of the fangirls, despite their inflated egos, probably aren't any better looking than her, and even if they were that doesn't mean Cillian's that shallow. To the credit of the fandom as a whole though, the ones who start this up generally get rightfully griped at by other fans.
    • I hate to use the "ur jus' jellus" excuse, but it quite a few cases it really does apply. The fangirl wants him, the SO has him, so therefore the SO is hated. HOWEVER, there are plenty of cases where the SO (or her fans) just rubs the fan base the wrong way for some reason that has nothing to do with who she's dating/married to. I don't know anything about Alan Rickman's girlfriend so I can't comment on that, but I've fangirled performers whose SOs I liked or who didn't register on my radar and I've fangirled performers whose SOs annoyed me to no end.
  • Sometimes, when a military (or cop or astronaut or whatever) movie is made, they send some of the actors to a familiarization course, like a kind of boot camp for the actors so they can familiarize themselves with the equipment, weapons, terminology, clothing, or whatever. This is understood and probably makes for a better movie. What bugs me about this is when the actors are interviewed, either in the "making of..." special features or for a TV show, the actors act like this gives them some kind of additional credibility, as if two weeks of hanging out with soldiers makes you an expert on the military.
    • I would imagine that if you trained for years to turn your entire persona into that of whomever and whatever as the script requires, you'd start believing your own acting for a while. Besides, we'd all like to believe the actors got a least a little bit of insight from their crash course (like sending Charlie Sheen through boot camp in the Philippines to film Platoon) because it makes for an easier suspension of disbelief for the audience.
    • I don't disagree with the process and I think it makes a lot of sense to send an actor to some kind of training for his role. A few non-military examples come to mind, like having Ralph Macchio learn a little about playing guitar for Crossroads or Tom Hanks learning some violin for The Man With One Red Shoe. It's just annoying to hear an actor talk about his two or three weeks of training (whether it's with NASA or the military or whatever) and act like that's some kind of significant experience that compares to people who actually do that sort of thing for a living.
    • It takes 6-8 weeks to train 50 military recruits who have little or no physical fitness to begin with. Take a handful of actors who previously spent months with personal trainers and 2-3 weeks is very reasonable. Plus you can skip the psychological aspects.
      • That's just basic training, though. Officer's courses can run the length of a college course - and the Cole's Notes version of such a course is only really applicable to the Cole's Notes version of someone's life.
  • Why can't the paparazzi stay out of people's business? I can understand them hounding someone who is being charged with criminal offenses and I can understand that there are certain freedoms the press are allowed, but if someone's trying to take a Sunday drive or eat icecream then it's not vital that the public know it. George Clooney almost got into an accident because someone just had to have a picture of him on his motorcycle. Not to mention that most celebrities have assaulted paparazzi who got too close to their families. Are celebrities not granted a right a privacy just like most citizens? Our culture should stop putting these people on a pedestal and sticking their noses in their lives. So what if someone gained *GASP* a pound, or is having a little romp with their sweetheart in a private hotel, celebrities are human too. They behave like the rest of us, they want things like the rest of us, and their bodies function similarly to ours. They just happen to have exceptional acting talent and enormous salaries. Maybe the paparazzi would tone down their antics once there is a drop in demand. Please correct me if any of the information I have posted is wrong.
    • Wow, I just came on to this page to write a rant likes this, and someone has already done it for me. Bravo, above Troper, for having two brain cells to rub together!
      • The problem is that most paparazzis (and some peoples) thoughts on the matter is "why become famous if not for the attention", which they feel justifies the whole sometimes stalker-like actions made by fans and paparazzis. Of course one could also say that they should know by now that it is like that, and that they are thereby okay with it. Both of these, of course, makes no sense.
    • Although this doesn't entirely excuse their behavior, the paparazzi are like vampires - you make yourself truly vulnerable by inviting them into your home. Most of the 'hounded by paparazzi' celebs are ones who initially basked in the attention, and then suddenly decided they didn't want it anymore. Lots of actors and musicians are absent from the tabloids because they rejected the excess fame from the beginning. The ones that are featured mostly engage in attention-seeking behavior. The lesson is that if you become famous, don't invite vampires into your house.
      • There are even celebrities who call the paps before they leave the house in the morning. Britney Spears used to do this a lot. She even dated a pap for a while.
    • Because they get paid by their editors to take pictures, ask questions and whatnot? Having a paycheck is a very strong motivator. After all, why else do most of the crap jobs in this country?
    • I don't think the paparazzi would be half as irritating (or psychotically terrifying) if they had even a modicum of decency. Why do they need to get RIGHTUPINSOMEONESFACE to take a picture of them? Am I supposed to believe that a paparazzo, who has spent at least $500 or $600 (and like I said, at least that much) on their camera and equipment, can't afford a zoom lens that would allow them to get a good face-shot while standing well out of someone else's personal space? Because I don't. And seriously, if I was famous and someone tried to get all up in my grill for a picture (or my friends', or my partner's, or my kids'), I'd hand their ass to them on a platinum-plated sandwich platter, and to hell with the consequences.
      • Part of the problem is that these expensive cameras don't penetrate other photographers who are closer to the subject than you are.
      • I'm taking a stab here, but are you familiar with what decent telephoto lenses cost, let alone the cost of prosumer equipment? $500-600 won't even let a papo compete with other papos who do much of their work long range (I got the "at least" part about the expense).
    • Celebrities beating up people taking pictures sounds more like a problem with celebrities than the paparazzi.
      • If you're exhausted and want to take your children out and some stranger with a camera shoves himself in your child's face without even so much as a "hello" and refuse to leave after you ask them nicely to go away, you might feel the need to get physical. You'll notice that most of these altercations involve the paparazzis invading the privacy of children.
    • There's also the question of how many celebs have the paparazzi on speed dial?
      • And the answer to that would be "more than you think." Really, people like Rachel Bilson and Kate Bosworth aren't anywhere close to be being in demand enough or well-known enough to warrant being stalked 24/7 by the paps, yet we're constantly seeing "candid" photos of them doing things no one cares about (shopping, getting coffee, going to the salon, etc.). I think the relationship between celebrities/pseudocelebrities and the paparazzi is a lot more symbiotic than the people being photographed are willing to admit.
    • Also, in all fairness, not all paparazzi are thugs causing car accidents and verbally abusing celebrities so they can photograph the reactions. Many of them are just working photographers who camp out at red carpet events where their presence is more than welcome and many have personal standards regarding what they will and will not do to get the money shot. Also, as mentioned directly above, there are celebrities who work with the paparazzi to get themselves exposure that they aren't getting simply by working. These paps might make less money than the creep who is willing to stick his camera in someone's bedroom window and sell the results to the National Enquirer for six figures, but they behave like professionals. Simple rule of thumb: if the picture shows up on the site of an agency like Getty Images, they were taken by a legitimate pro. If they show up on TMZ, they were more often than not taken by a thug with a camera and a very relaxed sense of decency.
    • It's not just the paparazzi - the general public can be like this too, when they see or meet a celebrity.
    • Bottom line: there is a public demand for gossip, so there is money to be made (both by paparazzi and by the celebrities who are collaborating with them).
  • The fakeness of today's actors gets to me. Now, before you go thinking I'm one of those people, let me explain. I've just been noticing for quite some time that practically every actor, in every interview/press conference saying that their current role is "an inspiration" or "a dream come true" etc. Singing the highest of praises, usually without the slightest hint of any actual enthusiasm. You can only say that kind of stuff so many times about so many roles before people's bullshit detectors start to go off, Hollywood.
    • Well, most of them probably are being sincere. It's just that they have about 20,000 other interviews to get to and it's a lot easier to vomit up a stock line that more-or-less expresses your feelings than it is to come up with new, original, and insightful things to say every time you make a new movie.
    • I think it's partly due to giving their fans what they want to hear and good marketing. It may not be entirely sincere, but it's better than hearing the person say, "I didn't care for it, but I think it turned out okay."
    • The opposite trend bothers me, when actors come across like they're so BORED and ANNOYED by their own fame and success and acting jobs (unless they can make it work via the Rule of Funny, such as Robert Pattinson referring to his Twilight character as "a 108-year-old virgin"). Ninety-eight percent of actors are unemployed at any given time; female/openly gay/actors of color have even more barriers. If you hate your job and your fame so much, give it to someone who will appreciate it.
    • I always get a kick out of the actors who show zero appreciation to the folks that pay the 11 bucks to go see the flicks.
    • I sort of see it as a Coconut Effect; when I get excited it's not always obvious on the outside. Surely they could act more excited than they do if they wanted to, being that their jobs are acting, but they might ironically feel "phony" in doing so.
  • Why are some actors like Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in his interview with Lawson about Robin Rood, allowed to be so incredibly rude and childish without being called out on it? I know that the interviewer just needs the interview so he tries to be as neutral as possible. But REALLY. Why do people accept that actors behave like spoiled brats and never gain a backbone and says "You cannot speak to me that way?" Russell Crowe DID sound Irish. And he probably KNEW it. Still he threw a hissyfit when the interviewer made a completely valid point in regards to his movie. It wasn't like he he pried into his personal life, he asked a legitimate question. I do not care how attached you are to your role, you cannot act like that.
    • Billybob Thornton had a similar blow-up on a radio interview. It had something to do with the DJ agreeing before-hand not to talk about Billybob's acting/directing career, but to focus on his band's music and tour instead. As soon as the DJ mentions Billybob's acting/directing, Billybob blows up.
      • Of course, then the interviewer asked the band about musical influences, and Billy Bob instead talked about his favorite monster movie magazine. Way to focus on your band's music, dude.
      • First of all, they don't completely get away with it. Christian Bale's rant can still be heard all over the internet. Russel Crowe has also been in the media due to his nasty temper. The media will call them out on it but possibly not directly to their faces. That brings me to my second point: professionalism. Have you ever worked in customer service? Ever have a rude customer? I bet you stood there and smiled, apologized for a wrong you didn't commit, and then tried your best to make sure the customer was happy. It's part of the job. An interviewer will usually sit there and take whatever cranky actors throw at them because the cameras are rolling and they don't want to stoop to their levels.
      • For what it's worth, Matt Lauer doesn't put up with it. He doesn't yell back or anything, but when Kanye, well, pitched a Kanye, while being interviewed for the Today Show, Lauer's tone of voice was hilarious - not hostile but very calm. It was like he was dealing with a naughty child.
  • What irritates me about actresses: can someone point out the actresses who look like Pam Anderson or a blowup doll that get the roles? We always hear (reality tv gal Heidi for example) about how there's pressure to look like that...yet where's the proof (in mainstream acting)? It just comes off like an excuse when the average working actress does not remotely resemble that.
    • Since you brought it up... The thing that bothers me about actresses like Pam Anderson is that they start out pretty, then go through all these modifications that make them look completely different, and not necessarily better. Pam Anderson was a knock-out. Now, she looks like a puppet.
      • Exactly. I can't think of any actresses (or actors for that matter) whose looks improve after surgery. What's the point of transforming yourself into a Playboy Bunny-type when someone like Kate Winslet (who is quite pretty) is gonna get the role anyway...you know...because she can act.
        • Basically, looking like that is what those kind of people are paid to do, and America loves apple bottoms and big breasts. Honestly, I haven't heard many claim Pam Anderson is an "actress", at least in any professional sense.
        • Not so much claiming her as an actress, but feeling the need to have "that" look. It just seems to me that if you poll men about who in Hollywood is the most beautiful woman you've ever seen, you'll get names like Eva Mendes, Marion Cotillard, Halle Berry, Beyonce, Mila Kunis, Victoria's Secret models, etc etc. They never look like Pam.
        • Being different from one another is a good quality. Trying to look the same is not. I think Demi Moore made a mistake in getting her breasts done. She may have been on her way to being a serious actress after rolls in movies like Ghost and A Few Good Men, but that's my opinion. Instead, she went for things like Striptease.
        • This is a very interesting topic that really goes much deeper and is concerned with the paradox of contemporary female beauty ideals: you should be skinny like a supermodel (in order to show that you have control over your own weight and be admired by your female peers), yet have big breasts like Pam Anderson (in order to be sexually attractive to men). And still, most guys I know will fancy women with quite healthy bodies, somewhere in the middle of the scale but actually closer to, yes - the skinny ideal as illustrated by the list of names above.
  • Why do skeletal actresses all insist that they just have a superfast metabolism, never excercise and do nothing but eat, eat, eat all the live long day? We're not stupid ladies, especially when you had a perfectly normal looking body when you first started out but now your bones are poking through your skin.
    • Of course, there are those who admit that it's damn hard to maintain a certain weight. Eva Mendes talks about having to exercise four hours a day every day. Julianne Moore admits that she barely eats and is in a constant state of self-deprivation. Michelle Pfeiffer has said that there have been times when she cried herself to sleep because she was so damn hungry. All of them have either implied or come right out and said that living this way makes them miserable. Is acting and being famous really so important to some people that they're willing to live in misery? Obviously the answer to that is yes, but I just can't comprehend having to live a life of extreme denial in order to avoid being denied my right to earn a living because I'm not a size negative ten.
      • Our "right to earn a living" keeps us well fed and puts a roof over our heads. Their "right to earn a living" gives them more money than most people will earn in a lifetime and luxuries beyond imagining for a few months work. You don't need to be a negative ten to work as an office manager. I dare you to say that you wouldn't go through ten times that if someone offered you 5 million dollars for the trouble. Misery my ass.
      • Dare away, hon, because some people value happiness over money and I'm one of them. If having that five million dollars meant living out the rest of my life in terror of gaining weight, aging or not being beautiful and losing my earning power because of those things, it just wouldn't be worth it to me. I'd rather work in an average job making an average salary and be able to eat a decent meal or not spend every moment of my free time exercising. But obviously everyone's priorities are different.
        • It's not the rest of your life though, is it? A film takes, on average, 6 months to shoot. Watching your weight for 6 months in exchange for millions of dollars? You'd never have to do another if it was too much trouble. Or you could be Hollywood Pudgy and flawed and do voicework or direct or produce or simply do independent films. So many choices that Joe Blow just doesn't have. The whining reminds me of a quote from a Friends episode:

Chandler (to Ross) - Oh it's so hard deciding between these two beautiful charming smart women who are madly in love with me...My wallet's too small for all these $50s and my diamond shoes are too tight!

          • That's the thing, though. It's not just for that six months. The self-denial is ongoing because after the movie is done shooting there's promotion, photo shoots, public appearances and things like that. When there's nothing to promote, that spartan lifestyle has to be maintained so that they can have the same look for the next meeting with a producer who could easily deny them work because they weigh more than the 20-year-old former model that wants to break into acting. And then there's the paparazzi photos that end up on gossip blogs where the bloggers and their commenters absolutely savage them if they have even a hint of cellulite or a few wrinkles. Having to live like that temporarily in order to win a huge payoff might be doable, but having to live like that day in and day out with no end in sight just wouldn't be worth it to me. But then again, the women who do this probably have enough money that if they said "fuck it" and quit tomorrow, they would still have enough money to live out their remaining years in luxury, so it's baffling why they keep it up. Like you said, if they age out of the ideal or gain weight they can still work if they really love it, they just wouldn't be the exalted MOVIE STARS. I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone is willing to punish themselves so they can be famous, win an Oscar, etc.
        • It's not even like that, though. It's not like someone says, "You're perfect for the part. Lose x pounds and keep it off and you have the part." Many of these people adopt a lifestyle early on and keep with it, fanatically driven by their goals. And, if they do make it and get a good role in a film or on TV, they're still looking for the next thing.
    • The "I have a fast metabolism" explanation sounds like a red herring for a drug user or a person with an eating disorder.
      • Though it can happen. This Troper only weighs 95 lbs. tops (she's 5'6" and 18) on a large part due to her metabolism. It runs in my family, and my own mother barely pushed 100 lbs. until she got pregnant. So I could believe maybe one or two actresses saying that it's because of their metabolism and that they don't exercise, because the same goes for me. But when a lot of people start claiming it...It gets suspicious.
      • Twiggy was the same way as your mom. Once she had a couple of kids and got older, she filled out a bit. She's still thin, just not as coltish as she was when she was modelling. I guess the difference between someone who is naturally tiny and someone who is not is that someone who is that small by artificial means just looks ill. Jutting bones, straw-like hair, dull skin, things like that. A naturally super-skinny person usually doesn't look like they're going to keel over any minute now. People like Miranda Kerr I can buy as being naturally super-thin. She has great skin and hair and just looks really healthy. Plus, she recently delivered a 10-pound baby, and if that isn't a testament to a strong body I don't know what is. Lara Flynn Boyle and Portia De Rossi when they were at the peak of their eating problems (and De Rossi recently revealed in her book that she did have a problem) looked like they were near death. I just wish Hollywood and the fashion industry would realize that the people they're trying to sell their products to have a wide range of things they find attractive and that we are aware that there is not just one acceptable body type instead of trying to shoehorn everyone into the same look even when it ends up ruining a perfectly lovely face and figure and screwing up someone's health. To see how dangerous these rigid standards are, especially when it comes to someone who is already vulnerable, Google the name Isabelle Caro (which is also a good example of someone who attempted to fight back at these standards).
      • I would like to add that I (unrelated Troper barging in on the conversation) am 5'6" and weigh 100 lbs, I don't exercise, spend most of my time on the computer, and eat pretty much whatever I want, which usually includes lots of junk food, and I don't particularly like salad. So it bothers me when people say that actresses with this body type must have an eating disorder or only eat a piece of lettuce for a meal and be miserable all the time. I know that many do, but it doesn't mean that everyone does.
  • Why does Lindsay Lohan get so much hate? Ok so she made some bad decisions but it seems ridiculous that she's a constant punching bag in seemingly every article (seriously jokes about Lilo weren't even that funny the first time, and they get even LESS funny everytime someone uses one in an article otherwise unrelated to her, that's just lazy writing IMO) while people who have done FAR worse things then she EVER did-like Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn (I don't care how much relief work you do Sean! It doesn't give you carte blanche to slap around women and act like a total dick all the time!) and Mel Gibson-all three of them physically assaulted they're wives and/or girlfriends on numerous occasions, and they don't get NEARLY as much hate as Lindsay does and they're hardly ever mentioned or joked about in the same manner as she is, that's a prime example of both Double Standard and The Unfair Sex if I ever saw one, especially considering the numerous comments you see from people who are actually wishing her dead, if you don't like her that's understandable, but jeez it's not like she killed your dog or anything so get a life already! Oh and that "she did drugs" excuse is pretty lame as well, there's plenty of famous MALES who have abused drugs MUCH worse then her, like everyone in Motley Crue, Vince Neil's substance abuse led to him actually KILLING someone, but people seem to be all-too-willing to overlook that, (Neil in fact just got busted for ANOTHER DUI last week! But nobody seems to care much about that, have they forgotten that he KILLED someone the last time he drove drunk? I don't care how talented of a singer he is, I have NO respect for him whatsoever) I for one hope and pray that Lindsay will be able to make a comeback, and I have FAR more respect for her then I EVER will for assholes like Sheen, Penn and Gibson.
    • I think this is a YMMV. I don't like Penn, Gibson, Sheen, Crowe, or any of those celebrities who have gotten away with things or at least have been mostly forgiven because of their fame. I lump them all together with Lindsey Lohan and others: Halle Berry (hit and run), OJ Simpson (double murderer and other crimes), Jane Fonda (her stupid actions in Vietnam), and a variety of others.
      • There's also Kate Moss (who STILL got on a magazine cover even after her cocaine use became known) and Amy Locane (like Neil she killed someone in a car collision, yet hardly anyone is talking about her, probably cause alot of people don't even know who she is).
        • I would say it's safe to assume that people will not talk about someone if they don't know who she is.
      • I don't think I would classify Kate Moss as an actor, but she did lose a lot of her contracts after the cocaine scandal. I don't think you can expect a big media backlash for a celebrity to the point that she would be shunned and kept off of magazine covers, especially in a field known for regular drug use. Being a cocaine addict isn't exactly the same thing as punching someone or killing someone, or purchasing a prostitute.
    • I don't know about the others, but Gibson, Penn and Sheen get excoriated by the public, at least on the sites I visit. Unfortunately, Hollywood is run by very, very misogynistic men who don't really care if some guy is beating up women or worse as long as his projects make money. If they can forgive and continue to heap praise on Roman Polanski, who raped a child, they'll easily forgive a drunk, druggie wife-beater. I hate that it's that way, but there's nothing I can do about it, at least not by myself. As for Lohan, a lot of the flack she gets from the public is probably because they're sick of her (or her mother) blaming everybody but the obvious for her problems and because they're sick to death of her toxic, grasping family using any and every excuse in the book to get their names in the media. Hollywood turned their back on her because she hasn't made them a dime in years and she's rumored to be very difficult to work with.
      • In all fairness Lindsay seems to have gotten considerably better since getting out of rehab, since then she's kept mostly to herself and hasn't been attention-seeking like she was in recent years. I agree that in the past she shouldn't have blamed seemingly everyone but herself, but she's not doing that anymore (I'm not even going to into the "alleged" assault of Dawn Holland, it's all too obvious that Holland is lying about that in a desperate attempt to get paid, it would explain why she's changed her story several times) but I'm not going to hold that against her as I genuinely want her to get her career back (which isn't as crazy or unrealistic as it sounds, she is supposedly looking at scripts now) As for her being difficult to work with, while I don't doubt that's true, there's plenty of other actors/actresses who are just as if not more difficult (I've heard Michelle Pfeiffer is a real pain-in-the-ass to work with), that's just the nature of the business (though the cast and crew of "Machete" certainly seemed to like working with her) I also agree about her family exploiting her, but that's not really her fault, she's mentioned how she hates her parents talking about her to the media.
      • Time will tell if Lohan can turn herself around. Her recent reticence is a good sign. As long as she can distance herself from her toxic parents, she might have a chance. Unlike Sheen, she's young enough that any lessons learned in rehab might stick. As for her career, Hollywood is willing to forgive a lot if an actor generates lots of revenue. Tom Cruise didn't get thrown under the bus because they were so appalled by his behavior, it happened because his movies started flopping. TPTB wouldn't care if she was eating babies if her movies got butts in the seats and turned a profit.
    • Maybe that's why Lohan is the punching bag you pointed out that she is. If she hasn't made a movie in a while, there don't appear to be any positive stories to contrast against the negative stories. It's like Michael Jackson or Liz Taylor. People seemed to care about them whether they were doing anything or not. If there was no good news to report, they would report the bad news by itself. I think you're right about people looking the other way if there's a buck to be made. That's not just in Hollywood, either. Personally, I'd rather not hear about Lohan or the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton, or any of those attention-seeking people, good or bad. Some people do ignore the bad that these people do, but not everyone. When I know an actor is a complete ass-hat, I can't help but think about that when I'm picking out a movie to watch. When the actor's personal history is prominent in my mind, I can't always ignore it long enough to make it through a movie. It's for that reason that I haven't watched any of Lohan's stuff (that and it's not appealing to me anyway), and I don't really care to see Mel Gibson or Sean Penn in anything or even phone-throwing Russel Crowe. Even tantrum-throwing Christian Bale, who was really good in Rescue Dawn gets on my nerves.
  • How come actors are starting to look so alike these days? Emily Blunt/Zooey Deschanel/Marion Cotillard all get compared to each other and Katy Perry. Then there's Jeff Bridges/Kurt Russell heck they have whole lists of actors who look ridiculously alike.
    • Because there are a lot of them? Seems like the more actors there are, the higher the chances of finding look-alikes.
    • To what "these days" are you referring? Bridges and Russell have been working since the 70s. Never mind the fact that in the 50s, Paul Newman and Marlon Brando looked somewhat similar... this is not a new phenomenon.
  • About the general hostility to actors making music or singers becoming actors. This troper recently listened to Hugh Laurie's album of New Orleans jazz and, once he got past the fact that this was Bertie Wooster singing, found it excellent. But of course he's had to face (as has any singer turned musician or musician turned singer) cries of 'what is this person doing something they're not already famous for'. My question is, apart from the obvious problem of pigeon-holing, if actors in general aren't supposed to sing or singers in general aren't supposed to act, how the hell do musicals ever get made?
    • Probably b/c for every talented one, there's another one that sucks, and gets a lot of attention. Also, I think a part of it is that it ends up being overexposure (not speaking of Laurie). If the actor is not on your tv/movie screen, they want to be on your iPod, your bookshelf, your closet, and your perfume rack. I do think people are easier on those who go from musician->successful actor->back to musician again.
      • Big fat word to the first sentence of this paragraph. The people running music companies and deciding who gets a record deal and who doesn't share the blame for thinking that notoriety is all it takes to sell albums. Really, you can tell the music industry has hit rock bottom when even Real Housewives are cutting albums these days. Sure, the albums are god awful and don't sell enough copies to cover the recording and promotion expenses, but the news that making an ass of yourself in front of millions is not a substitute for real musical talent hasn't made its way up to the executive suites of music companies. They're still stuck in 2008 and think that hey, Paris Hilton had a moderate hit, so let's pass out contracts to every obnoxious famewhore with musical pretentions and see if lightning will strike twice. However this is balanced out by folks like the aforementioned Hugh Laurie as well as Scarlett Johannssen, who are legitimately talented musical performers and even Gavin Rossdale, who has proven to be a somewhat decent actor and David Bowie, who is REALLY good.
    • It also has a lot to do with the fact that things like 'too much self esteem' that come into play when you're rich and famous. Laurie IS a talented musician in addition to being a talented actor. But it's not like he just showed up in a studio one day and said "I think making an album is easy, and I can do whatever I want because I'm famous!" The guy is not only a musician, he's also a working musician (see Band from TV, or YouTube old clips of A Bit of Fry and Laurie). Not a lot of wanna-bes from either direction (singer/actor) come off as interested in working at an art and taking bit-parts or playing small clubs to get their sound right, they'd rather jump in feet-first and be the star in some other media because they've been surrounded by so many yes-men that tell them they can do whatever they want and that they'd be spectacular at it. Hard-working people tend to resent it when you see someone achieve unearned successes that were funded by money more than actual talent and see the 'ego' more than the 'person'.
      • This is especially evident with Willow and Jaden Smith. They both lack the talent to perform, but their father is rich enough to give them their dreams anyway.
      • We could also lump Mama Jada in this bunch. A few years back she was lead singer of a band. Not a good look.
      • While I agree with you about Willow Jaden is actually a pretty good actor for someone his age which is admittedly a low bar but good child actors are hard to find.
      • I would argue that a lot of hate also stems from the fact that the name and face sells for more than the talent. This also blocks the door for a lot of upcoming actors/singers/writers. If Jay-Z releases another CD, that prevents production money for dozens of aspiring talent. If Brad Pitt decides to audition for a role, then Jonny No-Name who could have delivered a talented performance gets the axe and may or may not receive future work. Celebrities that have even less talent (Hilton, Kardasian, etc.) are essentially stealing various avenues of success from people that work much harder without being born on third base. How many talented actors, singers, perfume makers, clothing designers, etc. have been shunted due to the influences of "stars"? Couple this with the fact that these celebrities don't even produce the work but simply attach their name to someone elses work.