"Rolemodels" - do we have higher expectations?

[blas87]

I'll have to be a yes-woman and agree with you, BJ.

There are celebrities who are just dying to be left alone so that they can take a crap, and then there's celebutantes who practically beg the paparazzi to follow them into the bathroom.

[AFPheonix]

The Christian Bale thing actually pissed off a lot of my friends. The guy he was yelling at so unprofessionally was the director of photography, in my world that's the equivalent of the lighting designer = some of the hardest working folks in the business. Besides, he's the one making sure the actors look good. You really want to bitch him out because he 'distracted' you? What the fuck ever man, get over yourself, you're not that good. Anyway.

To be fair, the guy WAS being a completely unprofessional dipshit, and if you listen to the tape, if he'd stop freaking whining like a little kid and apologized for said dipshittedness, then the tirade would have been a helluva lot shorter.

[Flyndaran]

...
While I have openly mocked celebs losing their cool, like Christian Bale throwing a huge mantrum, at the same time....how many average joes and janes, every day, lose it and go fricken bananas in their own home or even out in public or at work? Everyone does it.

I have to disagree. Not everyone is a royal dick every day.
I suffer from severe anxiety, yet have never lost my temper at people for no reason. Heck as an adult, I've never lost my temper. I may becom irate, but never to the point of temper tantrums or profanity strewn nuts.

[BroomJockey]

I have to disagree. Not everyone is a royal dick every day.

I believe what was meant was, "every day, how many average joe and janes lose it and go bananas." Thus, the statement is not "everyone goes bananas," but "there are many people who are royal dicks, and there is no great hue and cry from society." If it hadn't been Christian Bale, but instead some random B-list actor in a off-season movie, do you really think anyone ever would have seen this?

[blas87]

Precisely. If it wasn't Britney Spears wearing a filthy men's size wife beater and grimey cut off shorts snarlfing down Cheetos and chugging Jager at the same time, while walking barefoot into a porta potty, no one would really care.

[Flyndaran]

I believe what was meant was, "every day, how many average joe and janes lose it and go bananas." Thus, the statement is not "everyone goes bananas," but "there are many people who are royal dicks, and there is no great hue and cry from society." If it hadn't been Christian Bale, but instead some random B-list actor in a off-season movie, do you really think anyone ever would have seen this?

Oh! As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say, "Never mind."
Remember that american news is really american Entertainment news.

[Rapscallion]

The ones who make a big deal out of their humanitarian efforts aren't really to be lauded either. It's possible to do the work and not have a big deal made of it. When it's played up, it just feels like a PR move. Right thing for the wrong reason.

I'm with you on all you said apart from the above. I don't follow celebrities, so I don't know if any do help out at soup kitchens once a week instead of when the cameras are on them, but I used to be of the mind that I had no time for celebs who turned up to help out when the cameras were there at christmas.

Something turned me around, though - Penny Arcade. They run their childsplay campaign every year and get millions of dollars worth of games for children in hospitals. Someone on their forum said that it wasn't such a big deal as they weren't doing it all year around.

The newspost on the front pages after that mentioned this, and the response was pretty much that they didn't have to do anything at all, so something was better than nothing.

That also got me thinking more. Why should someone successful help out those in need? There's no law saying that they have to, save for noblesse oblige, or however the accents are on the letters in that. Even so, by helping out once a year and getting the cameras that are always on their tails to see what's going on, they do provide a huge level of publicity and awareness for the places they're helping.

I'm not 100% behind celebs who are on camera doing 'good things', but I'm not against them as I used to be.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Something turned me around, though - Penny Arcade. They run their childsplay campaign every year and get millions of dollars worth of games for children in hospitals.

Low blow, pulling out Penny Arcade on me. I'd submit, however, that they aren't celebrities. They're well known only in the circles of gamers and webcomics, and while those circles may be expanding, they're still not the power of even print comics or TV shows.

What's more, they specifically started it up as a big ol' "Fuck you" to the media who were constantly reporting negative news stories about gamers. It was a way to show that gamers weren't all school-shooters.

I think the final nail in that example is that really, the power of the Child's Play Charity drive comes from the community, not from them. They simply said "Hey, we're organizing this thing, if anyone wants to kick in, it's a positive press opportunity, in addition to making some kids incredibly happy." If they were to disappear tomorrow, Child's Play would very likely be picked up by someone else. The effort quickly grew beyond "Those guys from Penny Arcade."

So it was a PR move by people looking to cast a more favourable light on their hobby, but is community-focused, rather than on the individual.

To me, that makes it different from when Angelina Jolie adopts her 37th kid from another country, and makes sure the entire world knows she did it. And to qualify my posts, and maybe nullify them completely I do think "something is better than nothing," in terms of helping others, but if you're doing it for selfish reasons, I tend not to give someone any credit for it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I do think "something is better than nothing," in terms of helping others, but if you're doing it for selfish reasons, I tend not to give someone any credit for it.

Like Christopher Reeve giving to charities for paralysis research only after he was himself afflicted, or Farrah Fawcett giving to colon cancer charities after she was diagnosed?

[BroomJockey]

Like Christopher Reeve giving to charities for paralysis research only after he was himself afflicted, or Farrah Fawcett giving to colon cancer charities after she was diagnosed?

Or Michael J. Fox and Parkinsons? Wayne Gretzkey and arthritis? Yep. Standard human self-interest. They've got the issue, they'd personally like a cure, so they use their celebrity status to try and sway people in their direction.

[Boozy]

Meh. Non-celebrities do that too. Why hold them to higher standards than we do ourselves?

[AdminAssistant]

Meh. Non-celebrities do that too. Why hold them to higher standards than we do ourselves?

Exactly. I mean, I didn't pay much attention to breast cancer until my Mom was diagnosed. Now I do, since I'm at an elevated risk for it. And in some cases celebrities have helped causes by putting a face on it, like Michael J. Fox. Most people thought of Parkinson's as an "old person's disease", and then you see this very young, vibrant guy full of life, struggling to hold still in a chair.

[BroomJockey]

Meh. Non-celebrities do that too. Why hold them to higher standards than we do ourselves?

I don't. When I donate to a charity, it's not because I know someone with that disease, it's because I have enough money available to be comfortable, and I can spare some to help an effort for other people to be comfortable. I don't pick based on personal criteria. My grandfather died of cancer when I was 10. I don't focus just on cancer charities. I go for what I think will have the greatest impact.

I don't begrudge those who focus on what affects them, but they shouldn't be expecting any "attaboy" points from me for it.

[Rapscallion]

So it was a PR move by people looking to cast a more favourable light on their hobby, but is community-focused, rather than on the individual.

My point was more about the results of them doing it - some limited good in the world instead of none - rather than their reasons. If someone does some good for society, does it really matter their reasons as long as others aren't harmed?

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

My point was more about the results of them doing it - some limited good in the world instead of none - rather than their reasons. If someone does some good for society, does it really matter their reasons as long as others aren't harmed?

Rapscallion

All it takes for evil, or in this case disease, to prosper is for good people to do nothing.