Comments | hollywoodgot2be: First Brad and Angelina...Now Eva?

hollywoodgot2be

First Brad and Angelina...Now Eva?

Jun 22, 2005 07:15

According to a post in downlowchick's journal, Eva stated that she did not wish to be asked any questions during her interview at the Spur's/Piston's NBA Finals Game 2. I was actually watching the game when the interview happened and I remember Michelle Tafoya stating that she was given explicit instructions not to ask Eva about Tony Parker. The interview ( Read more... )

Comments 17

mimmy June 22 2005, 14:30:37 UTC

In regards to Eva...it's hard to say, because at first she was all about being an open book. I'm guessing they told her to pull in the reins?

I do think that we "know" too much most times about celebrities personal lives, be it their own fault, or the medias. Is it a certain "callibar" of celebrity that this seems to be a problem with? It sometimes seems that way. I think of ones like Tom and Rita Hanks, who are class acts, and seem to be respected by the media somewhat.

morethanimagine June 22 2005, 16:03:04 UTC

I think of ones like Tom and Rita Hanks, who are class acts, and seem to be respected by the media somewhat.

I think this may be because they're of a certain caliber, and because they're a solid couple (as far as the public sees). They've been married awhile, never publicly show their problems, Tom Hanks is seen as a "serious" actor and last but not least they're both older.

I do think a certain type of celebrity attracts the most personal attention:
1. Scandalous (Brad and Angelina)
2. Two major, "hot" (attractive and popular) stars (Brad and Jen, Ben and Jen I & II, Cameron and Justin).
3. Publicly conducted relationships (Tom and Katie)
4. Serial high-profile daters (Ben Affleck)
5. Public, high-profile partiers (Lindsay)
6. Attention hounds (Paris Hilton)
7. Publicly dramatic relationships - PDA, fights, "dance-offs" (ha ha ha) etc. (generally "young" Hollywood who party in Hollywood and big NYC clubs)

kare June 22 2005, 15:44:32 UTC

I think it's because there's a very big public backlash against stars who reveal too much. Eva's a good case in point. Previously folks would have eaten that up, but now you see people making fun of her for being so open and thinking we all care so much about every tidbit of her life. (and I don't mean just us here)

As a journalist, I guess I see things differently. Too many celebs want their cake and eat it to when it comes to publicity. They want to use their private lives to get in the mags and on tv, but then cry "OMG I HAVE NO PRIVACY" when the press reports the very things they've led them to report. It irritates the crap out of me, quite frankly.

Tom Cruise makes a freakin fool of himself jumping on a couch when he's dated someona a month and then runs to drag her out, but then in Australian interview I see him become downright RUDE with the interviewer when asked about Nicole! WTF is that?

morethanimagine June 22 2005, 16:17:27 UTC

Too many celebs want their cake and eat it to when it comes to publicity. They want to use their private lives to get in the mags and on tv, but then cry "OMG I HAVE NO PRIVACY" when the press reports the very things they've led them to report. It irritates the crap out of me, quite frankly.

Exactly.

I hate when celebrities use their relationships to benefit themselves and then expect the attention to magically go away because they no longer want or need it. Case in point (and this isn't because I dislike her). Cameron Diaz called US Weekly to refute Justin's cheating rumours and they very publicly made out around the same time to exhibit I'm assuming the solidity of their relationship. I don't know, they could have been constantly hounded by the paparazzi before then, but at that point they invited media/paparazzi coverage. You don't get to turn that off ( ... )

kare June 22 2005, 20:10:40 UTC

see? before Jennifer Garner I thought Ben really understood it all. He acted like he did, even said what we're saying in interviews.

morethanimagine June 22 2005, 15:52:02 UTC

I do think that we "know" too much most times about celebrities personal lives, be it their own fault, or the mediasI have no problem with celebrities restricting questions on specific topics and I think that's probably the healthier route for them. I think it's always happened. I've read many interviews (in VF and other magazines) in which the journalist has stated that s/he'd been requested/forbidden from asking about controversial issues. We've all heard about publicists disseminating lists of do and do not ask lists. Many celebrities who may not issue such formal orders, state in interviews that they won't discuss their private lives. I think the difference now is that journalists are openly reporting about the exact nature of the restrictions ( ... )

chastin_ June 22 2005, 18:05:36 UTC

I've read interviews too in which the celeb's restrictions were so strict that the journalist really had nothing left to ask at all.

I'm sure it depends on who the celebrity is and what magazine is doing the interviewing. It's all about who has the most leverage. Someone like Tom Hanks doesn't get much coverage, unless he's got a movie to promote. He's in a position not to need it, however, and even when promoting, he can get away with answering only acting-related questions. Someone like JC? If he has the chance to do RS, he'd better be prepared to answer the Eva question. And not with 'no comment'.

downlowchick June 22 2005, 16:33:56 UTC

Everyone uses everybody else. The media uses stars for interesting stories that they think the public wants to hear and the celebrities use the media to stay on the public's radar. At first Miss Longoria was all about using the media, everything could be discussed with her and she didn't hold back, much. Now that DH and esp. she are over-exposed she is pulling back and getting quieter about her private life. That's a complete turn around from before. But there isn't any DH either so again it harkens back to what I said before: When I need you I'll use you, when I don't I won't.

hollywoodgot2be June 23 2005, 03:46:39 UTC

True. True. Once you are no longer useful they will forget about you and move on to the next useful thing.

caitinlv June 22 2005, 16:49:55 UTC

This kind of thing has always been a part of what we could generally label 'Hollywood': manufactured relationships, press told not to ask certain kinds of questions, celebs who want their privacy respected when it's convenient for them. There have always been celebs who's gone as far as getting married and having kids just to enhance their image. None of this is new. I think the general public attitude is just more cynical ( ... )

morethanimagine June 23 2005, 05:59:39 UTC

What seems to be happening now is there's gulf forming between celebrities and performers

I completely agree. There are those who live a "celebrity" lifestyle and get the press for it, and those who do their jobs and may be followed by some paps but for the most part keep out of the public eye. People who for example have stores closed for them tend to attract more attention than those who just try to go about their daily business and keep away from trendy, hotspot type places.

Then when they can't hit an 'off' switch we're supposed to feel bad for them because it's sooooooooo unfair

That's a pet peeve of mine. Hearing Paris Hilton talk about how "weird" it is to have so many paparazzi following her pisses me off. And the thing is, while some celebrities can never totally escape their self-created hype, there is a sort of off-switch. If they don't want the attention they should stop attending parties and celebrity VIP clubs and premieres with which they have no connection and which all attract paparazzi. I've said it before, but ( ... )