What is the Quibbler? It’s a thread to discuss the current media and pop culture trends, what’s in the news, what's in, what’s not, etc., along with who is in the media, among other things. We’ll (the Inquisitorial Squad) will keep it updated weekly, hopefully, to bring you all something new to discuss, and essentially gossip, as horrible as that may sound.

So, without further ado, here is the first topic of discussion:

Quibbler

1st Edition:

Tom Cruise Apologizes (not Riddle)

After shocking the entertainment world with his antics on the US show Oprah, and making a fool of himself by publicly humiliating, for lack of a better word, Brook Shields because she was on anti-depressants, something he is against because of his Scientological background, Tom Cruise, the star of such movies as "Mission: Impossible 3" and "War of the Worlds" has apologized. Shields describes the event as “heartfelt” and was very impressed by it, showing that he only wanted to give an apology, rather than win her over or manipulate her into feeling guilty. However, despite this even though it was on a personal level shown at the ultimate public level, can he still be forgiven or treated the same pre-Oprah? On the show, he completely lost it while proclaiming his love to Katie Holmes (perhaps its on youtube). Can we all see him the same in the movies? Do we see Cruise or the character he’s trying to portray?

Are you aware that there is already a thread called The Quibbler, and that the scope of contents of that thread is more in line with the name itself?

I wouldn't want our wonderful Quibbler to become yet another Daily Prophet type thing that discusses Muggle stuff. The thread that we already have is dedicated to stories from the wizarding world, Quibbler-style, and it's meant to be humourous.

Perhaps you could rename your media paper something else? Might I suggest Variety?

As an aside, could I pinch your headline for inclusion in The Quibbler? "Tom Apologizes" -- that's so funny when you think of Tom Riddle.

MOD EDIT: Bumblebee, I am not happy with your tone here. If you have concerns of this nature, instead of taking it upon yourself to chastise a staffer in public, you might want to consider using the PM function out of respect for a staff member and someone whom you have worked along side of in the past. To assume he had no idea, is insulting. If you wish to discuss this further with either myself or Chris, feel free to PM us.

Regardless..I'm going to give my two knuts worth here.

I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise. I always liked the films that he was in (Top Gun, Cocktail etc) the early ones, but I've never been a Cruise groupie!

The trouble I find is that Tom Cruise always plays...well Tom Cruise, and since the Oprah episode I can't watch him at all without thinking about what a wally he is.

Good on Brooke Shields for being so accepting of his apology (do they have the same agent?) She's a better person than I am. I wouldn't have accepted an apology from the pope for a personal and very public attack like that. He darn well should have apologised and she should have told him where to stick it!

Your probably getting the distinct feeling that I don't like the man...at all. True... I think he's an opinionated bighead. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, but not when they are so personal.(Even if mine is towards him, but ...well it's different!!!)

The Oprah incident for me, was the icing on the top of his fruit cake, I don't think I'll bother with any of his films in future.....even if he were cast by some miracle in an HP movie.

I have to agree with Elaine here, even though I haven't seen the Oprah interview in question, i saw some thing on Youtube about his feelings on anit-depressents, and counsellors. I admire Brook for accepting his apology. But i don't think i could accept such a thing, having a mental disorder myse;f that requires things that he's against to help me survive, I admit that I don't think I can look at Tom Cruise in the same light again.

However, I can seperate the actor from the films that he she is in and the film itself , so i'll still enjoy the films that he's in and i will continue to wear out the Interview with the Vampire DVD that i have. I love that film.

You know, I used to really enjoy Tom Cruise movies. . .I absolutely love "Legend" and I enjoyed "Top Gun" and "Minority Report," and, um. . .well-the movie guru is drawing a complete blank at the moment. . .drat. I liked MI 1, but didn't bother seeing MI 2 or the War of the Worlds. . .anyways. . .

I think that it was good of him to make his apology. Grown up thing to do after showing the world that he's not a grown up at all. I think that he takes his celebrity a bit too far; using it as a license to say and do anything he wants to do and thinking that it's okay because he is, after all, Tom Cruise. Gah. I had a secret hope that Katie would need anti-depressents after the baby was born. . .but I guess that was a no. Hmph. Anyways, I agree with Elaine-he's very into playing "Tom Cruise" at the moment and we really haven't seen him do a role that stretches his abilites as an actor. . .he's the cool, action guy and the public loves him. . .for some reason. He's not so much the golden boy that he once was, but they still eat and drink him up. Wasn't there something about Paramount breaking with him during the Emmys? I thought I heard something about it, but can't remember now. Doesn't really matter I guess.

I love watching movies, so if he's in one that seems vaguely interesting to me, I wouldn't NOT see it based on his involvement, but I don't really care for his views on things. . .

Even though his apology was very public, i do appreciate an apology however, i do feel that he really didnt mean it. and thats worse than the whole incidence in its self. if he had such an issue he should at least should have said something to her and make it such a political thing. it goes back to pushing your beliefs on someone else. at least she is trying to get some help right. as for his movies i'm not a big fan never have been. i like top gun and a few good men but thats about it. MI 1 was good but i'm not really into sequals unless i know its following a story like harry, star wars, and LotR. but at least he tried.

I did not find his apology very sincere. It felt more to me like damage control. MI-III will be lucky to break even and Paramount dropped him. His career is in a tailspin. Despite what actors or people may say, people do vote with their money based upon the actors lifestyles. Cruise was out of control this past year or two. He has gone from hot at the box office to no one wants to touch him.

His handlers have taken control and started with the apology. If this had come after a MI-III that made a fortune I would believe him at his word. After his career taking a nose dive, it is just an attempt to salvage his job. Brooke showed she has more class by accepting it and letting it go. I am sure she can see the gesture for what it is.

I agree with you Greg! There must be another movie in the pipeline that will need promoting soon and he won't want to be seen as the bad guy. When War of the Worlds premiered in London, he stopped an talked to fans and chatted on mobile phones to fans mums! Everyone thought he was such a good guy...I thought he was being smarmy!

Usually when a big star makes such a huge gaff the whole publicist team comes out of the woodwork and says Mr so and so didn'nt mean it, but there was nothing straight after either incident. They obviously thought that by leaving things a while, his apology would seem more sincere!

These huge movie stars need to remember their place in the world, yes they do influence peoples lives, but they shouldn't try to do it away from the movie theatres!

Okay...I needed to come back to this after reading the other posts. There are some movies of his that I do like *sigh*. I will just have to watch them without thinking they are Tom Cruise movies...I do so like Interview with a Vampire. But I won't go out of my way to watch anything new with him in it...unless it's really good!!

Just a brief note - this thread will remain 'The Quibbler', as per discussions that took place quite a while ago in the 'Hogsmeade' suggestions thread, I believe.

Bumblebee, please don't air grievances so publicly in the future, particularly when you're questioning a staff member. This sort of thing should be dealt with via owl in the future.

Back to the topic then please.

Oh my goodness, I cannot believe what I just read - I have had my head in the clouds recently and missed anything concerning that interview, so I was completely shocked when I read it.

Whilst I admit that I do not know the 'ins-and-outs' of scientology, and do acknowledge that everyone has their own beliefs that such beliefs even if they do differ from my own must be respected, I can't help but think that Tom missed that latter half of that statement - that peoples beliefs should be respected! It is fine and dandy for him to believe that but to ridicule someone on the basis of it it preposterous in my opinion -

furthermore, in my humble view, making fun of someone for taking anti-depressants is equivalent to making fun of someone for requiring a new heart! - it is the general consensus that depression is largely biological (of course social factors come into play etc too , but I'm biased) - additionally, surely making fun of someone who is already in such a delicate state as to require such pharamcological treatment would worsen the disorder itself, after all you don't take them because you are feeling overly happy and confident so I hope that when he made his 'sincere' apology that he considered that actual effects that his words could have had

*climbs down off high horse*, it just riles me sometimes that some people try to 'bully' (yes I used the 'b' word) people based on their own assumptions and judgements some people make about such disorders.

Ok so he doesn't agree with it, and perhaps many all things progress can only be made through trying to educate people about what you believe to be true (hey global warming isn't going to cure itself - oh wait maybe ....anyway), but he certainly didn't go about it the right way - indeed, I believe that it had the opposite effect in making more people sympathize with her and close their ears to anything that he may have to say in the future.

I will freely admit that I hold prejudices concerning mental health, specifically affective disorders (hey I'm specializing in the neurology/biology of it) but I am open to other opinions, I actually think that too much emphasis is placed on purely pharamcological solutions without other mediating treatments such a counselling (when I went through the list of pills that are being thrown down my mums' throat I was shocked that noone seemed to have checked what she is already on before shoving another one down, or the length of time taken etc)- but his manner has certainly shed his opinions in a bad light



very good point, she has shown real strength (I wouldn't have been able to accept it without at least a little dig at him in response), and I too wonder about the agents - good point

However, she didn't really hav much of a choice in accepting the appology did she? (I'm guessing), if she declined it, then she would have looked small despite how insincere it seemed. Poor Brooke, if she wasn't famous she may have been allowed an appropriate amount of 'grieving' time before being forced to accept the appology

I stop now as I can only see a vague dot that was my high horse running off into the distance, no getting back on it then

Oh, I totally agree with you here. She didn't have a choice in the matter if she didn't want to harm her professional career. I'm reading a book called "There and Back Again: An Actor's Tale" by Sean Astin. . .it delves into the nitty-gritty dirt and grime of the film industry. At least his experience with it. . . and I must say that I am really enjoying the book! I love his honesty and his integrity in the business. I love that he is open in admitting when he was a complete jerk and that he has faults and insecurities. . .and I love that he is truthful about Hollywood. Anyways, one of the lessons he had to learn (and often) was when to take the high ground. When to just nod and do your job, even if you may not agree with things that might be happening around a circumstance; you have an integrity to do the job you signed on for. And you have to know when to smile and accept things from others in the business and when to play your hand because you know your worth. Anyways, to tie it all in: I think Brooke did a fabulous job of taking the higher ground here; of accepting the apology even if she knew it wasn't all it appeared to be, and remaining professional. I applaud her for that.

And, anyone even thinking about delving into the Hollywood Machine should DEFINATELY read this wonderful memoir.

That is so true, people always say that celebrities have it easy (despite 4am filming etc) but being on public show all the time and having to constantly check yourself must be very difficult, at least with normal jobs you get to 'turn-off' after clocking out. I agree with you wholeheartedly that she showed real strength on accepting the appology and has (hopefully) already recieved the reward for doing so - respect

My mum (prior to disbaility) ran a hotel and things could be chaos in the background but she would always walk into the guests area with a smile placed firmly on her face and had to take all sorts of rubbish from them - she said the same thing that you said, that that is what she was being paid for (not entirely the same), but she was 'on show' in a respect - so from watching her I realise just how strong you have to be in order to do that, I couldn't do it - I would be more tempted to tamer with their breakfast

That books sound awfully interesting, I might wander over to Amazon after payday

That's another thing Sean makes clear in his book. He is genuinely grateful (or so he seems to be) for having the job that he has. . .for being able to work for four to six months and rake in 250,000 bucks (in general. . .figure varies greatly). But I enjoy the fact that in the book he doesn't whine about being "a poor pitiful actor" who has life rough. He's generally open that many of his troubles have been brought on by himself. I also enjoy that his book breaks down the Hollywood Machine, and I do have a greater respect for him as a person. . .in his profession. It is work, of varying kinds. . .the least of which is putting himself in front of a camera and delving into another persona for my entertainment. He's got a very realistic view of his life, even if it's taken him a "while" (hey, he's still a young guy!) to figure it out. I'm only about half through. Perhaps I should save my accolades until I'm finished, no?

Oh, and Velvet. . .I think that coorelation of your mom's old job is quite good. She did have to present herself to her patrons in a way that is different than perhaps she was actually feeling. True, perhaps not quite in the same way as an actor/actress, but she probably had plenty of instances where she had to just accept things and move on when it was the best decision for her business to do so.

Janet, thanks for giving me the title of that book -- it seems definitely worth reading. Sean Astin struck me as an intelligent person, the way he relativated things in his commentaries on the extended LoTR DVD, and that was something he did as a job! The book is more personally his so I'm quite interested.

As for scientology -- a friend of mine was caught up in the scientology sect in The Netherlands and was financially enslaved by it. She was encouraged to rise high in the organisation by following expensive courses. Paying all that stuff off and getting out took every penny she had for more than a decade. So I guess I'm not a scientologist's friend. I was frankly amazed when Tom Cruise proclaimed his involvement.
Everyone is free to have their own beliefs, of course, but I hope that Mr Cruise stays away from the side of the business that ruined my friend.
Tabloids thrive on celebrities airing their dirty linen in public, but it's sad to see a public figure using it to humiliate a partner. Things like that are malicious -- not at all the kind of thing expected of a supposedly spiritually enlightened person.

Mmm... yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. Frankly, there is no basis behind the religion. The premis is "Give us money, and you will find salvation." How can that be even remotely enlightening? Honestly, the entire thing seems like one big celebrity club. The new celebrities are all clamouring around it going "Ooo! Ooo! We wanna join, too! We want to be hip and trendy like Tom Cruise"! Rubbish.

Hey, I agree that everyone is completely entitled to their own beliefs. I just don't see what on earth there is to believe in with that "religion".

Everyone should have his or her own belief, however you don't have to tell everyone that youre belief/religion is the best and if you don't follow that you're a bad person, etc. My best friend is Roman Catholic and grew up in this Swiss mountain village where everyone is strictly catholic. Now every few weeks she has to tell me that I'm not a true christian because I'm not catholic but a protestant (Zwingli) and that only catholics are true christians. This hurts a lot and is annoying. I am not a very religious person but I think it's really insulting when someone calls the church my parents married in, my sisters and I were christened, where we all had our confirmation, not a real christian church.

I just think that you should accept and tolerate the belief of others. Especially when you're a celebrity. And not go all crazy over it, like Tom Cruise does.

Frequently we hear that we should respect other peoples beliefs. I personally do not think we need to respect another person's beliefs. Respect is a feeling of esteem or differential regard. I have no respect for Scientology as a religion.

However, if a person decides to follow Scientology, I have no right to tell that that they are wrong because of it. For that person, Scientology may be good and be the answer to whatever issues they are facing. The key issue is that no one can possibly fully understand all the issues faced by a person every day. My perception of Tom Cruise's life would be very different from his perception of his life. How could I possibly say that Scientology does not work for him?

Similarly, how can he possibly say that Brooke Shields is wrong for taking anti-depressants? He does not and could not fully understand her life. To tell her that she is wrong is presumptuous. He does not need to respect her actions, but he should respect that it is not his place to condemn her for them.

Okay, hopefully I'm allowed to switch gears in here for a bit. (David, let me know if you'd rather I didn't!) What do you guys think of the movies coming out now on royal families. Marie Antionette is one and "The Queen", a tell-all about the royal family. For some reason, I can handle period pieces covering a royal family, or even a royal scandal. . .or something, as a period film. I have some trouble with the current events ones, for some reason. I guess because they're "based on a true story" or "based on a real life." I feel that it's going to be a little disrespectful. I probably will go see "Marie Antionette" which just looks beautifully done-and I love most Coppola pieces for some reason. Talk about the who's who of Hollywood directors. Anyways, I think I might have been tempted by "The Queen" if they'd gone far enough to base their story on the royal family, but use different characters. I don't know. What do you guys think?

I do want to make it clear that I don't have a problem with public officials being in the media. I don't want the public to be out of touch with what goes on in their various governments. What I don't like is the fictionalizing of a life, in as much as they still have to live it. Hope that made sense. (I'm feel that I'm being hypocritical a bit since I also like war films like "Saving Private Ryan." In these I feel that it's exploring the past; not having much of a real-time impact, if that makes sense. This is another reason why I didn't want to go see Flight 93, or the other 9/11 movie. I'm not saying they're bad movies . . .

I'm stopping here because I could talk around in a circle all night if left to my own devices! What do you guys think on this kind movie portrayal?

The thing is that even when historians write an academic about something / someone, it is always some kind of fiction. It is always a story that is told. Now we may tell our story with written facts (like a war or a birth or something in a letter) but it is always an interpretation of it. Now with films the whole thing is stretched even further. With books you, as a reader, can always read in a critical way. You can always look at the notes or at the bibliography and check something. With films you can't do that. They 'sell' one truth and one truth only. And you have to be careful not to take that all in as the complete truth. Because the truth, the one and only, can never be told and never be shown.

Now to Marie Antoinette. I was actually really looking forward to that film, but I saw the trailer and I'm not so sure about that anymore. It's all clothes and colours and fun, and I don't know if that can match with the expectations I have for that film, for that 'character' Marie Antoinette.

I'm not sure if I made myself understood. I know that books, films, etc. are all fictionalized tellings of a story ( well, the fictional accounts, anyways). I think what I don't really like in these "real-time, real-life" fictionalized movies is that the public, already so swayed by the media, may confuse some of the fictional elements in the film to the accurate elements of the story. They know the Queen, they knew Diana, they know Charles: When they take these elements, make them characters, make the happenings of their real lives into a plot-line and introduce what can be purely hypothetical and fictional elements of their lives into the plot-people are bound to be confused. Instead of a retrospective study of a historical moment, it becomes more of a mockery to the family. Does that make any more sense?

I'm all for making a movie out of real events, based on real people and real historical events; but I don't like making a movie on a present time, much viewed public figure and treating it like a documentary . . . when it's not.

I want to agree with you, Janet, but I'm not sure why.

I think it has a lot to do with in what light it's done. Historians, real historians, seek the truth. Anyway, if that means making something less sensational, or more sensational, then that's how it's supposed to be. But the bottom line is always to be as objective and fair as possible. Of course, the whole truth will never exist in a coherent form, but I think it's safe to say that you'll get as close as you can by simply listening to all points of view, and trying to weave some form of an explanation from all of them. (Not having a go at you, Olivia! I agree with you that there will always be an emotional element, because human nature is involved. There's no escaping that).

It's difficult this. Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and the protection of the truth, in a way. One can argue that by not allowing certain films to show, one is actually working against the truth being told, instead of for it. And then one has to ask oneself whether it makes any difference if someone is a public figure. What if a film company wanted to make a film about my life without caring two hoots about accuracy? Would that be violating my human rights? (Lovely idea - human rights. Could mean just about anything...)

All this is of course assuming that finding the truth is important. There is a difference between historical truth and emotional truth. I would even say that the two can neither exist with or without each other. Truth can be absolute or relative too. There are just so many angles with which to look at this that in the end, the easiest and most practical answer is to follow your gut feel. Nice and fluffy, I know.

I don't know. I think the idea of such a movie is silly and insensitive, because they've obviously not done enough to ensure that it's an objective representation, but I can't think of a way to get people to stop making and seeing such films. Some people just couldn't care less about historical accuracy, and it also feels wrong to try to make them. From a diplomatic point of view, there isn't much that the queen can do to stop it either. That'll just make people wonder what she's got to hide.

Janet, this certainly is a circular kind of topic!

I've only seen trailers of Marie Antoinette, and although the film looks to be lavish and is made by one of my favourites, I cannot stand Kirsten Dunst's accent. She has the same one in every film (to me she does anyway) and that is Kirsten Dunst. I don't think I'll be going to see it, I love costume Drama's and adaptations of historical events, but this one just doesn't tick the right boxes for me.

Now then, The Queen. Before I say anything, I want you all to know that I don't consider myself to be a royalist. I was however, a fan of Princess Diana. I think she tried to play a different set of rules to the 'establishment' and lost the game. I had a lot of empathy for what she was going through at the time of her death. I remember the mood here when she died as if it were yesterday. It was so intense, we were all in such shock that this beautiful young mother had died in such tragic circumstances. I'm just not comfortable with this movie, particularly because the main characters are still alive and have had no input on the content. I know that it is just someone's idea of the royal families mood at the time, someone reading between the lines so to speak, but some things are just best left unsaid.
Saying this I will probably watch it when it comes to TV, but not before, as there are some fantastic british actors in the cast.

I think this hits at the heart of it for me. They weren't consulted. If they had been, and denied the information to the film makers, then I feel that's just rude beyond measure for not respecting people's wishes. Which is not what the film industry is about, obviously. It, for me, seems to border on paparazzi propaganda.

I know what you mean about Kirsten Dunst. I think the character of Marie Antionette is vastly different from her other roles, and it will probably be a good stretch for her acting skills. But you're right. . .she has the same accent! So, perhaps not so much of a stretch than I thought. Did she even try for an accent, or was Sofia fine with the Americanization of the French (in language). I wonder just how far her career will take her when she keeps doing the same things. I guess there's a niche for it. But, the pretty colors of the film! I can't stay away from that stylized glory!

I do not mind movies based upon history. I like the concept of making a movie about Marie Antoinette. I like movies about World War II. But many of the movies they are making now are not about history to me.

For me, both The Queen and Flight 93 are based on events that are too recent to be called history. I think this is what you were trying to say passerby.

Whoa, so is she actually trying to use French for this film? I thought it would be like "The Count of Monte Cristo" where all the French characters had British accents (that was an awesome movie, by the way! ) If she's going with the French, it may be considered an increase in range for Kirsten. If she goes with her sad attempt at British, I don't think I'll be able to sit through it. I mean just hearing her pretend to fake a British accent in "Spiderman 2" (the scene where she's performing on stage) was enough to make me shudder. I'm not British but I've lived there with other Americans who think that because they've been on the island for six months they've become "Anglocized" enough to take on an accent that drives both Americans and Brits crazy! Anyway, I digress. My point (I'm pretty sure I had one) was that if she sticks with the fake British then I doubt I'll even watch it unless I hear raves about it. *shrugs*

I agree with ATB, Janet and Elaine when it comes to the movie "The Queen;" especially with what ATB said about it being too soon to be called history. The same goes with "Flight 93." These wounds haven't quite closed yet as they pertain to their respective peoples. It's hard for us to be certain whether the families of the respective parties were consulted in these matters, but judging by Hollywood's record in that department I'd lean toward the Negative. That in itself is reason enough for me not to see either of them. If they didn't take these families' feelings into consideration before making the films then why should I pay for the producer/director's next sports car, summer home, private plane, etc.? And besides, that they didn't get on the same page as the families means that the accuracy of the events will be inaccurate to the point where I won't want to see it so I don't get the wrong idea about what really happened. This touches on what Laurette and Janet were talking about, and how people take what they see on the silver screen as a documentary when it's more like 20% fact, 80% entertainment (and that's being generous).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should all just not watch movies anymore, EVER.... (cue the crickets) No, actually what I'm saying is that I won't be seeing these 3 films, at least not anytime soon, out of respect for the families of those portrayed in "The Queen" and "Flight 93" and lack of respect for the lead actress in "Marie Antoinette." I've got better things to do, like post in the Great Hall and SPELL.

Later on then.

Ben (Z)

P.S. Hi, Laurette! Good to you see you!

The Quibbler

2nd Edition:

Angelina Jolie...A Saint?



On March 15, Angelina Jolie adopted a three-year-old Vietnamese boy. For those of you who are counting, that would tally up to her third adopted child (behind Cambodian-born Maddox and Ethiopian-born Zahara), not to mention baby Shiloh, who was born last May, to Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Pax Thien Jolie, as the newest member of the family is named, was born in November of 2003, and was abandoned at birth at the local hospital. In Vietnam, he was named Pham Quang Sang. His new name is a combination of the Pax, Latin word for "peace", and Thien, Vietnamese for "sky" or "heaven". Jolie collected Pax from the Tam Binh orphanage in Ho Chi Minh City.

To me, this story sounded very strange. Here we have Angelina Jolie, a famous American movie star, take a Vietnamese boy away, throw him in the middle of a new country with a completely different culture than his old one, and change his name. Pax is three years old. By that age, most children are already speaking in full sentences. Pax does not know a single word of English, and it will probably be much more difficult to learn it now as opposed to learning it from birth. And what's up with the name-changing? I've never heard of somebody changing the name of a three-year-old, simply because they want it to be something in Latin.

We also have to look at the other side. . .Pax was abandoned at birth, and probably did not have a good life in a Vietnamese orphanage. Living as the son of one of the best-known actress in the country is definitely bound to give him a whole world of new opportunities that he never would have had back in Vietnam.


What is your take on this? Is Jolie a saint for adopting children who otherwise might be brought up underprivileged? Is bringing a three-year old into a completely different environment a bit too extreme? If you have any more information about this, feel free to post!

Sources: USAToday
BBC News
MSN

I dont have a very strong opinion on this, so someone can possibly sway me on the matter. The main thought I have with this is that the children will have a better life. If they are abandoned and living in orphanages, then being adopted by Angelina Jolie would be a much more suitable life. Yes, she probably sends them with nannies and the like, but atleast they are being taken care of and will have a better chance at life in America.

The one thing I do have a slight problem with is the special treatment that celebrities get. They get the rushed version of adoption it seems and can do things MUCH quicker than normal people. While this is not a huge deal, it would just be nice for a kid being adopted into a suburb of some major city and a kid being adopted into Jolie's care would get the same speedy departure.

~Albus

Hhmmm... at first, I think Albus is right, this is a theme we do not think about very often. At least I do not.
In principle, I would agree, that it is good for the kids, who are adopted (no matter by whom) to get out of the poverty of a country like Vietnam or Korea or Cambodia or whereever. They have way more possibilities in life than they would have when left back in their countries.
Yet I doubt that it is a good idea to adopt a child who is already three years old, because of what Felix already said: it has to learn a new language and in this special case it gets a new name.

Maybe it would have been better, if the kid was adopted by a "normal" family, a family which is not filmed and watched 24 hours a day, a family which has some privacy and peace. I don't know, how old Maddox is, but not older than five years, I think. When I saw him in some newspapers he wore designer-jeans, hair-spray and maybe make-up and stuff I didn't use before I was about ten years older than him.

I'd never say that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt don't love their children, but I think it's not good for the kids to get so much attention at that age. Isn't that one reason why Harry Potter didn't grow up with a wizard-family, but with the Dursleys?
Maybe their parents don't have much time for them because of their jobs, or they divorce (and we know that this happens very often to celebrities) or whatever..

And to the mystery that celebrities can adopt a child much fatser than a "normal" family: does that really surprise anyone? Of course it gives prestige to the countries from which they adopt the children and I can imagine that they also make some inofficial presents to the director of the orphanage or whoever has something to say to that progress.

Maybe it would have been better, if Angelina and Brad just founded a fund where they collect money (including some of their own) to give poor orphans in Vietnam or somewhere else the possibility to get some beter education than spending it all on three (or more) children they adopt themselves.
What do you guys think?

The Quibbler

3rd Edition:

Don Imus Who?

Keeping in tradition of media themes in the Quibbler, what does the Duelling Club think of the Don Imus mess? Is this playing anywhere but the US? For those who have no idea who he is or what is going on, here is a recent article from CBS News.

Should Don Imus have been fired for making the racial slur? What does the Duelling Club think? Personally I do not think he should have been fired for it. I do not like Imus and have never cared for his radio show. Him being gone means nothing to me. He has been making statements like this for as long as I can remember so it is nothing new. (I have listened to him some in the past. That is why I know I did not care for his show) CBS fired him for doing what they have been paying him to do all these years, shock his audience. So CBS firing him for doing what he has been paid to do is not right.

On the other hand, sponsors of the program were dropping off quickly. No company wanted to be associated with Imus right now. CBS was not airing his radio program as a goodwill gesture to the country. They were airing it to make a profit. That will not happen if there are no sponsors paying for advertising. CBS was right to fire him over that but their statements only refer to the racial slur as why they fired him. CBS either needs to be truthful that he was fired over loss of revenue or give him back his job since he was being paid to shock his audiences and keep ratings high.

Anyone else here have opinions on this?

It's really weird, isn't it, Greg?

Imus is certainly not the first radio/TV personality to make racist comments. There are at least two prominent radio/TV personalities who have said some incredibly rude things about people of races not their own, and they don't even get a slap on the wrist!

I'm not trying to 'get political,' but do people think this might BE political? I mean, Imus is known for being anti-establishment, liberal. And anti-establishment liberals do not smile on statements containing racist or misogynistic themes! Whereas the other two radio/TV hosts I've heard of making similar statements are conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly).

In the end, I don't feel what he said was any more or less offensive than what these two other men have said. The difference is that he has offended his core audience, and the other two did not.

I have read some blogs and such lately about this issue--many people are applauding the strong message that was sent by Imus losing his job. Others are saying what he said is only indicative of the decaying of tolerance in our society. They say that he is being made a scapegoat for a much larger problem. He too is trying to paint himself as a victim, because, he says, black men say such things about black women all the time. He says he's being pointed at because he's white.

Whatever excuses he makes, what he said sucked, and what those other men said sucks, too. Calling anyone a name like that is demeaning, mean-hearted, and WRONG. Imus, as a man living in a country where free speech is for the most part tolerated (and protected by law), still overstepped his bounds. He needed to respect his sponsors, he needed to respect his audience. He did neither. So out he goes.

EDIT--That said, I do not like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. To me they are just vultures, flitting around to create a mess wherever they can. They just loooove seeing their names in the media. What do these guys actually do for a job?

There is not free speech in America. It is a wonderful ideal, but in practice it does not work. The Imus situation was another case in point. If there is truly fee speech, then I can make all the anti-semitic, racist, sexist and prejudiced comments I want and there would be no repercussions. Legally, every American is supposed to have the right to say anthing they want. The problem is that Americans don't think so. Most Americans feel that you can say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bother anybody.

The true test of a person's belief in free speech what he or she does when they despise what someone else is saying. Are you willing to stand up and defend Imus's right to call someone a ___________. Since there are minors on this site, I don't want to use the words I am thinking, but you understand my meaning.

The KKK does have a right to say anything they want about other people. They may say stupid, ignorant and flat-out incorrect things, but they still have that right. I find many things morally reprehensible, but that does not give me the legal right to stop another person from saying them.

Should Imus have been fired? I really could not care less that he was. He is the voice of a radio station. Whether he realized it or not, his words were going to be recognized by his audience as the words of the station. If he wants to be a racist, he has that legal right. But he should have been smart enough to realize that racism is not generally accepted culturally so openly. He was stupid. That's it.

gaburdette, your comments about why the station fired him are absolutely correct.

The Quibbler

4th Edition

Star Wars TV Spot??



This article is relatively short, but I was pretty astounded to say the least! Lucas is planning a Star Wars TV Series? The article says that the series will not focus on the Skywalker family, but it will be about the minor characters. Then he jokesthat it's about the "life of robots". This project would be independent of his current project, the computer animated "Star Wars: The Clone Wars."


What do you duelers think of the possibility of Star Wars for the small screen? My first thought is, "please! NO JAR JAR! PLEASE!" Then he jokes about the robots, and I can't help feeling like that would be exactly what it would be about! GAH! Lets just say that I wasn't at all impress with episodes 1-3, though three was monumentally better than 1 and 2, it was nowhere near touching 4 and 5. (Yes, I know there's a six. I like the ewoks, really. . . .)

Unfortunately for me, I'd love to see a Star Wars series, but only if Lucas wasn't involved.

Hi there!

Well, I'm not a big Star Wars fan myself, but I've seen all the movies and really enjoyed them.

What worries me the most is: what if something like what happened to Joey (the Friends's spinoff TV series) happens to Star Wars? (Of course there's no way we can compare Friends to Star Wars, but I'm sorry, that's the only spinoff I could think about at the time! -plus, it's something I can't help to remember...-)

Most of the times sequels aren't as good as the originals (of course we have our beloved HP series to prove that wrong, but also exceptions confirm the rules...), and the second three movies (1,2 and 3) were never as good as the original trylogy...

The spinoff might let us know some details that we've been wondering around (I'm a big fan of the ewoks myself, probably because they're cute warriors... mmm...), and surely true fans will enjoy the comeback of their favorite saga into the small screen, but how good can this project be?

I guess at least I'll only have a good saying when I get to know which caracters will be involved in the series for sure. (I totally agree with Janet: Please no more Jar Jar!!! Please!!! We've had plenty!!!)

Well, I can say I'm not particularly excited towards the series as I was for finding out how Anakin met Padme...

Not a fan of Star Wars either. I've seen episodes 1-3 (only cause my brother made me see them) and i have to see 4-6. As a movie series they were ok i guess. Especially 4-6 which were made in a period where computers had no similarity to the ones we use now. Actually, I have been told that as far as special effects are considered, movies 1-3 are no greater than 4-6. Which means that good screenplay can deal with *minor* obstacles.
The idea of a tv series doesn't impress me though. I think that Star Wars is pretty much a "dead" idea. It's like what Kaitlyn said: Joey failed alone. We enjoyed seeing him only with the rest of the gang. And it's like all these other series trying to imitate Friends. They were a total failure. Only the original idea can be successful; the rest are doomed to failure. Only real fans would watch this series. But still...robots? Doesn't this sound so 80s??
In general, i'm against the whole idea. It may be a success though I highly doubt it. I "hate" people who instead of coming up with another original idea, try to make the most out of an old idea. Get over it and think of something new, people! Not that hard...

I am actually the only person I know that has NOT seen ANY of the Star Wars movies. Ever.

I'd be hard-pressed to watch a TV series spinoff from the movies. I know I am probably one of those people that missed the boat on Star Wars, in the same fashion as those that have not partaken of HP, but I never had any interest in the movies at all.

I have a place in my heart for the original Star Wars because of my first encounter with them. We were living in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba when they came out. GTMO has nothing but outdoor theaters. I saw the first Star Wars movie at one of these outdoor theaters, and let me tell you, there was nothing like it. During those nightly star scenes, the screen just melted into the actual night sky. It was quite a sight to behold. It was like watching the action going on in the very sky in front of us. Whenever I think of Star Wars, I think of that moment. So, I can't help but enjoy the Star Wars series.

However, I'm not sure that a Star Wars TV series would be such a good idea. Honestly, I don't think it would make it out of the first season. Personally, I don't think I would watch it if it came on. Call me crazy, there's just something unappealing to the idea. Maybe it's like what others have mentioned and it's just the TV series can never hold a candle to the original movies. Kind of like how movies have a hard time capturing the spirit of the books they portray. I don't see a Star Wars TV series being able to catch the spirit of the movies. That's just my opinion, though.

Hmm im not crazy about Star Wars at all. I mean yah i watched all of the movies which i must say some of them were very painfull to watch a snoze fest if you ask me....and then there were the toys....then the items with star wars on them....and then the games.....and now this tv show.....im not all for it

It seems as if Luke was like hey everyone is digging Star War lets keep dragging on with the theme cause people will want to see it....it like come on think of some new movies, ideas, that dont involve Star War people. Its just the same thing over and over again! booooring

I was extremely excited when episode 1 came out . . . until I saw it. There were a few things I just really couldn't get past that hampered my enjoyment of the latest three. Probably because I couldn't stand half of the actors. The third one, of course, the best. . .but nothing quite captured the spirit of the originals. Those were just a part of cinema history. Not saying that I think everyone should watch them and like them - heck, they appeal to a genre audience which is mostly male, I believe. . .but anyways.

The idea of getting some back story on some of the characters is not all that abhorrent really, but I do not trust Lucas to deliver us anything worth watching, really. He had a big opportunity to impress with 1, 2, and 3 but fell way short of expectations. I can't stand the CGI robots, I can't stand Anakin as a kid, I can't stand the relationship of the twins parents, I can't stand much. . .I know. We love Han Solo, but we're only interested in him, mostly, as you guys have said, as he relates to the other characters we know and love - Luke, Leia, Chewie. . .etc.

I doubt a TV series would capture what I loved about Empire Strikes Back (which I think is really the movie that revealed me as sympathetic to the villains. It's my favorite of all of them and the one in which the villains really broke away. YAY!)

I'd probably watch it out of curiosity, and base my judgment on it. Can't help but already think that it will not live up to my expectations.

There's a pretty big following for all things Star Wars, though. And I have no doubt that fans would watch, whether they like it or not. There were some comics several years ago that I read which were really quite good. And the novels that have come out weren't all bad either.

I think that the universe of Star Wars is just so vast that they won't have much success in focusing on the characters we know on such a small scale, and I don't think they'll have much success focusing on characters we've never heard of - because we just won't care.

Sorry for the strange post. It's past my dinner time! Who's cooking it, anyways? OH! ME!

Everyone is aware of the crazy demands celebrities often have. From a thousand roses in their hotel room, to three limos following them around, to a special champagne offered as a gift to their guards. Some of them seem reasonable while others are exaggerated and have nothing to do with their real needs.

This article refers to Jennifer Lopez's crazy demands which seem to have angered her label. The journalist claims that JLO is spending a small fortune to support her appearances, while her album sales are not as high as they should be. Overall, her company seems to lose money instead of gaining. Thus, there are rumors that JLO might be looking for another company soon. All these, along with her recent pregnancy (because of the probable exaggerated demands she might have) seem to jeopardize her future in the world of music.

What do you Duellers think? What would you do if you were Epic records? Which is the defining line between what's accepted and what's crazy? Should JLO feel threatened? And a what if question: if you were famous, do you think you would develop such a behavior?

Hollywood stars, movie stars, music stars, the whole lot of them irritate me to no end.

I don't much go to the threatre for movies, I prefer to watch them in the privacy of my own home. Yet, I still contribute monetarily to the exhorborant salaries movie stars receive by watching movies at all.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to have people swoon over your every need, no matter how trivial. I am a mom, I do the work! It is inconceivable to me that one day of makeup could cost $8000. Is it made of gold?! First, why? Second, why pay it?

The media takes stars and glorifies them almost as though they are living examples of human perfection. I neither approve of this, nor find it a positive trend. So much of our youth feels pressured to be what they see on magazine covers. Look at the problems created by seeking to be that which is phony in the first place!

If the labels wouldn't pay for this ridiculous behaviour, surely it would quit. Would stars, such as JLO, pay for such frivalry themselves to work? I find that doubtful. Give someone an inch, they'll take a mile. I believe if the funding were stopped, there might be a bit more normalacy seeping into the diva lifestyles.

Music is where JLO made her mark, if her records no longer sell, why should her label support her? It is a business afterall.

This sort of shenanigans is nothing new to JLo. I remember reading that when she was filming the forgettable movie "The Cell" in Canada, she decided her $3,000 per night hotel suite wasn't good enough for her, and demanded to be moved into something better (at the studio's expense, of course). How many homeless on the streets of Toronto could have been sheltered for what JLo rejected?

This is a typical "rider" for Lopez--what she requires backstage at every appearance. Amazingly, this tw-page list was for a charity appearance!

And then there are the 'baskets,' that stars get when they appear on the Oscars or other awards shows as presenters. The value of the gifts inside them runs into the thousands of dollars. I wish I could remember which young actor said it, but he was remarking on how famous celebrities get so much stuff for free--they get paid to go to nightclubs instead of paying to go in, free gowns for events, free drinks, people giving them things all the time. He was amazed, because when someone becomes rich and famous is when they no longer need to get things for free!

One thing celebs like JLo and Britney Spears need to remember is that fame is more fickle than most things. Those who last and have fame all their lives are very rare. They should be investing their money instead of squandering it, developing their characters instead of acting like divas, making ridiculous demands. A recent look at Britney's monthly expenses revealed that she spends almost $5,000 a month just on eating out! She has NO long-term financial investments, she just spends the money like it will never stop coming in. She's going to end up like Michael Jackson--he has constant lawsuits and threats against his property to fight because he still spends like he's a viable commodity, even though he hasn't done any work in years.

Maybe it's easy to lose one's focus when one becomes famous? To think it will last forever? I don't know, I've never been famous.

EDIT--Oh, and the way celebs are treated as though they are perfect--well, it only works as long as they can maintain the illusion. And I can't help but feel that many want to appear that way! One need only look to how Britney Spears is now to see what happens when you stop fooling people. She's a mess! Bitten down fingernails, clothes with food spilled all over them, shaved head with horrid extensions, acne, and no panties! Blech!

Oh my God! Are you kidding me? People are starving, but no, JLO needs her room temperature Evian water and if she sees any tomato juice some 10 meters far from her, she will pass out. Are we reasonable? For goodness sakes! I am so against this. We, "common people", get by our normal food, our small rooms and our nice, but not that expensive clothes. I get it that celebrities need to maintain their looks and seemingly "perfect" life, but spending 8000 dollars or so, just for make-up, is ridiculous! And appearing somewhere, is her JOB! She can't expect people begging her or falling on their knees, to get her perform one of her cheap songs. I get so frustrated with these people.

Partly it is our fault. We all want the fancy, glamorous life, being rich and beautiful, but this is life, and if everyone was rich and beautiful, it would get boring. Plus, there are other things in life, far more important, like having a family, helping people and most important, make your dreams come true. And I am quite sure that no one's dreams involve room temperature Evian water. But you know what? It's bad for them. Because one day, they will be too old to fit in the world of famous people, and they will be unable to adjust to their new "common" life.

And as Darcy said, Britney Spears is a clear example. She has totally messed up with her life. She used to be somewhat my idol, when I was younger I mean. But now I see that nothing is really as it seems. And behind all the make-up, all the fancy clothes and the glamorous houses, there is yet another sad story waiting to be revealed...

Ooh! Yes!

I totally agree with you guys! What is going on with these "stars"? They all seem so airheaded! There was once a time when I, like alkisti, looked up at famous people, maybe even wishing I had a life like theirs... Now, older, I wish my life never becomes like Britney's. She spends all this money eating out, but she can't even manage to see her own children without supervision from a federal employee. Some kind of accomplishment...

While growing up, I started seeing "stars" as what they are: just reagular people idolatrized by regular people. Without fans, they wouldn't have a career, and with all these demands, they just manage to be disliked by the regular people who like them... Sounds dumb to me...
Anyway, what else to ask than a chair, water and a restroom nearby if you've got to work? Why need only one-colored M&M's or this or that brand water, or flowers in your table? It's their work! They are paid to do it!

And like Aethonon said, there are people dying and starving in the world because of inhumane conditions, and yet they manage to wear a $200 000 dress only once, and pay $8 000 for an only day of makeup! That money would do great in a fund to help children, or to feed the needy! It's just insane!

Somehow, small children look up to them, what kind of role models are they? Spending like there's no tomorrow and doing tantrums if their water is not at an exact temperature? What kind of people are these? Not only JLo, but so many others!

And sure, just like Aethonon said, I can't understand why they are given freebies... Aren't they supposed to be able to afford them now? It's pretty dumb.

They should be grateful that there are people in the world who actually like them, and be carefull with their image to keep being on their good side, instead of behaving so ridiculously and exposing themselves into not selling whatever their work is (being it records like JLo or movies like some others).

Gawd, I didn't even mention Britney's lack of parenting skills, thanks for doing that, Kaitlyn!

Both of you have brought up a really good point. Most of us work pretty hard for what we have, and it angers us when we hear of so-called 'stars' spending so lavishly for such frivolous things, or acting like they are doing the world a favor by simply showing up to perform!

But there are so many stars out there who are really famous, and we don't hear about them acting like divas at all! Sweet Josh Hartnett is one. He took some good advice and avoided spending long periods of time in Hollywood. He owns a house in Minneapolis, too, where he grew up. Matt Damon is another who says he's not all that into the fame thing, and his life is pretty dull. He has an apartment in New York, where he lives with his wife and their kids. Reese Witherspoon is an Oscar-winning actress, but she puts her kids first, and unlike Britney, takes excellent care of them.

And then there's our own Dan Radcliffe. I read an interview with him that said his cell phone is held together with tape, but he won't replace it because it 'still works.' Not materialistic about phones, that's for sure! I doubt if his 'rider' would be very long either.

Just for fun, I found the page on the Smoking Gun that has a long list of 'riders' for many popular 'artists.' It's kind of fun to see how greedy they are compared to others, or what their weird habits are.

Riders

I really enjoyed this one, Darcy. I might bookmark it as well! These people are crazy. And just like you said, I admire those who do not let their fame make them become arrogant.

One more person I would like to add, is Johny Depp. I really admire the fact that he lives far away from Hollywood, that he may not be married but he has a family, and that he is still making nice movies, and especially movies his kids might like. He is a total weirdo but he is low-profile when it comes to his personal life.

Why can't everyone be like that? I know that crazy demands can be a part of their "charm" but there is a defining line between accepted and exaggerated. JLO, Britney and other so-called "stars" have crossed it. But like it has been said already (I think), we made them stars. Maybe we should...make them real people again?...

It's official, the Writers Guild of American has gone on strike. Coverage can be found here.

The writers want more money, the producers don't want to pay more. Seems simple enough, right? Television generates an enormous revenue. Considering people are finding alternate methods of viewing shows, which used to be exclusively on television and now can be found on DVDs and the internet, the writers want compensation for these alternate entertainment formats. The producers do not feel this is a fair request, and complain to pay them more would hurt their opportunity for experimentation in alternate formats.

Considering the ridiculous amount of money generated from the television industry, where should the line of compensation be drawn? Without the writers, surely there would be no television shows. The writers are phase one in the long process that concludes in our amusement. Who should receive the lion's share of the profits?

What do the Duelers think? Will this strike put your favourite talk show into reruns? Do you side with the writers or the producers? Does this even affect you? Post your comments!

Wow, this is the first I have heard of this. It's hard to take a solid side without knowing what kind of money all parties involve make. Personally, I think they are ALL overpaid, but oh well. That's not the question at this time.

First, do the producers make extra money off these other forms of movies? If so, by all means, the writer's should make money off of them, as well. After all, without writers, there wouldn't be anything for producers and actors to do. If the producers don't, then no. I don't think the writers should receive more.

How much does the average writer make? I think they should get a fair percent of the profit. Maybe a percentage on overall sales because, like I said, there wouldn't be programs/movies without them.

Are the producers against the writers getting more money because it will come out of their profits or is it really put towards research? If it's put towards research, I can see them being upset and against the pay raise. However, I personally think the producers are being quite greedy and selfish because they don't want to lose any of their precious money. I think the writers getting more money will mean the producers will get a little less. Oh, what a shame! You mean they might go from making 100 million to 95 million (just figures I made up)? Boo hoo.

So much money is generated by TV programs and movies. I'm sure there is plenty enough to share without it making a dent in anyone's wallet. They just need to resolve this fairly and reasonably.

I don't think it will have much affect on us here in the Uk. We are so far behind the US with most/all of your home grown shows that by the time they come to some sort of agreement we still won't have caught up. But then as the article states, the studios have hundreds of scripts stockpiled, so it will be a long time before it has any affect on the US either.

As to reason for the strike, a cut of the profits basically, especially where the DVD market is concerned. DVD is an ever growing part of the market. Why do these big company executives think that the little man ie, the writers, will be ok without benefiting in some way from sales?

I agree that everyone is this particular industry is grossly overpaid, with the exception of some...hem hem home grown talent (UK) not mentioning any names but (AR,GO,DT,DR,RG,EW hee hee). But that's besides the point, without these script writers there would be no shows for the fat cats to get fat on, so for that reason alone, they deserve a cut of the profits it's only fair. But then when has money and sharing the wealth ever had anything to do with fair?

I read about this on the internet the other day, and I have to say I laughed. People go on strikes to get more paid or to get a health insurance when they hardly go by. These people do not need more money! I don't know how much they get, but I am pretty sure that when it comes to an industry as big as the american one, every person involved in the film making process gets a lot of money.

I know this is not relevant to authors, but last semester I had this class about cinema and all. When I learned the exact process people follow to make a movie, I felt that actors are way too over-paid. I know that the credibility, or at least the reputation a movie will get is partly based on "big" names, but this doesn't justify the money they take. It is ridiculous. If you see how much work technicians do, you will feel it is unfair. Doing the montage, adjusting the sound, organizing a schedule according to the scenes that have to be turned, it is all too hard and thus, not paid as well as it should be.

I know that no authors means no scenario, no movies, no series...But why should anyone feel threatened? They have numerous unused scripts, as Elaine said, so they don't need to worry. And I am sure that they will always find someone willing to sell their script in a reasonable price. I think this will just end and writers will get a little bit more money and then after twenty more years, they will go on a strike again to ask for more etc etc... People...

This article refers to the great comeback of Spice Girls, the famous pop group of the 90's.

The first success of the Spice Girls came around 1997, during the golden era of pop music. Their songs became popular all over the world in a short period of time, and fame came knocking on their doors out of blue. Concerts, Spice Girls products, a movie, the famous girl's band had made its way to the top.

Ten years after their first success, they are re-united, planning a tour and recording an album with their best hits. Their up-and-coming concert on London has been sold off in less than a day, and their fans are enthusiastic with their comeback.

So, what do they Duellers think? Do we really need them to come back? Do we need an old girls' band when we have numerous other "fresh" singers? Can they ever be again the Girls they once were? And which are the motives hidden behind this comeback? Last but not least, if you were once their fans, would you go to their concert?