Digging in the Dirt: Gossip Columns

I think their "fans" think their relationship is fake and for publicity?  Which is kind of stupid because they've been together for so long at this point.

Like, people have spotted them on Thailand.

Aside from that people on ONTD eventually hate everybody. They all seem to think Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield's careers are dying so...that post about why they skipped was a mess though. A lot of people acting like they are nobodies and the worst people in the world.

I think their "fans" think their relationship is fake and for publicity? Which is kind of stupid because they've been together for so long at this point.

That and I also think that a lot of the haters were people that shipped Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg together and became incredibly bitter about them never happening. They are similar to the J2 shippers.

They were really popular on ONTD for quite awhile though. I remember people getting really mad when others suggested that perhaps the daily romantic stroll photos weren't COMPLETELY unplanned. Hee.

Sarah's column on ScarJo is a special kind of stupid. I mean, I'm all for calling out misogyny in the workplace, but Marvel scrambling to try and accommodate Scarlett's pregnancy isn't really an example of this. Nor do I get the point of somehow making it unfair that RDJ and Hemsworth got to have babies without having it affect their work. I mean...yes, life's not fair. But that's not so much systemic sexism in this instance so much as...human anatomy. Hollywood can't really fight for the equality of who has to be pregnant.

ETA-Calm down, Lainey. Katy was clearly joking. I didn't even take her Miley comment to be about sex, but about the fact that Miley sticks it out non-fucking-stop.

It looks like the. LaineyGossip word of the week is "Steeze." I've seen in at least 3 times this week from both Lainey and Duana. I'm irrationally annoyed by this.

I think their "fans" think their relationship is fake and for publicity?

They DO seem to think that, and I've never understood it -- if it were, wouldn't we see photos of them everywhere famewhoring it up? I haven't seen hide nor hair of them together or apart in AGES.

Heather wrote:

I think their "fans" think their relationship is fake and for publicity?

They DO seem to think that, and I've never understood it -- if it were, wouldn't we see photos of them everywhere famewhoring it up? I haven't seen hide nor hair of them together or apart in AGES.

There was a point where there were pictures of them out and about in NYC in suspiciously well-coordinated outfits, like, every week. But they've been doing a shit job for the past year or so if they're in it for publicity. (And I'd forgotten all about the Garfield/Eisenberg shippers. That could definitely be the origin of the vitriol.)

ActonBell wrote:

I think their "fans" think their relationship is fake and for publicity?  Which is kind of stupid because they've been together for so long at this point.

That and I also think that a lot of the haters were people that shipped Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg together and became incredibly bitter about them never happening. They are similar to the J2 shippers.

Bwuh? How is that even a thing?

Just search "jewnicorn" on tumblr. Don't say I didn't warn you!

I need to form a band so Jewnicorn can be its name. Also, there is no way in hell I will ever search that phrase on tumblr.

Its not like Sarah's Marvel or comic related commentary has ever been good (for a "expert" she seems to not understand comic book characters at all) but...like is Tom Hiddleston the main face of Marvel? I mean...REALLY? He was well received and enjoyed him, but I certainly wouldn't say he is outside of tumblr or the interwebs. Putting him and Robert Downey Jr on the same level as the faces kind of made me side eye. I know that neither her nor Lainey seem to enjoy Chris Evans or Hemsworth but I'd say the general public would consider them the faces.

Also like...damn way to bag on Sebastian Stan before his movie even came out.

I don't think he's complaining, really? He's been saying for 2 solid years that he wants to move away from acting. And he's done a shit-ton of publicity for Marvel. Like, he did ALL the CA: TFS press and did the entire song and dance for The Avengers as well. He did the set visit interviews for Winter Soldier as well, and there's no reason to believe he's trying to ditch the coming press run.

I mean, yes, I am ride-or-die for the guy, but "I don't give a shit about the peons who work for Marvel; it's all about me, me, ME" Is A LOT to extrapolate from one sentence. But that's the angle of every Lainey article about him--that he's a flake and a douchebag. Because god forbid someone be honest about their mental health issues and NOT be a horrible person.

ANYWAY. She's probably right about Sebastian Stan. I LOVE him, I think he's a good actor and a thoughtful guy, but oh my god is he inarticulate. Like, it's pretty clear that English is not his first language and maybe he never bothered to learn that much.

I mean this is Lainey and Sarah and Duana who had no problem basically saying Catherine Zeta-Jones was embarrassing for being bipolar.

I have still never gotten over Duana bagging on CZJ for having no filter. Five year olds hyped up on Jolt and pop rocks make more linear sense than you Duana.

Because god forbid someone be honest about their mental health issues and NOT be a horrible person.

This. His anxiety issues seem very real and he seems very uncomfortable in public -- so a transition to less visible work is probably a great idea for him. I really don't get you get raging egomania out of that, but everybody at Lainey Gossip seems so entitled to celebrities and their personal lives. Lainey's bitterness about it now becoming uncool for children to get papped seems like the biggest sign of that. Yes, there are some celebrities that tip of the press about being out with their kids, but it doesn't make it okay to do it to everyone.

Its especially weird because while I did kind of not love the "pedorazzi" comments she was making, Kristen Bell is not one I've ever seen pimp out her children. I honestly have never seen her child.

I don't read Lainey, but I was curious about her arguments against KBell and Dax, and wow did she miss the point. It's actually kind of funny reading her posts about it in chronological order because she's so confident she's right, and she turns out to be so wrong. They have nothing against photos of celebrities' children if the parents have consented. So her questioning whether we should boycott People if Drew Barrymore decides to sell them photos of her baby is willfully misrepresenting their goals, for example. And I really enjoyed how she was like, "Uh, no one will care if Kristen and Dax refuse to work with a few media outlets." Yeah...that's why they got all the other celebrities on board? And when she tried to act like People's Editor's Letter was somehow a Fuck You to Kristen and Dax. Yeah, "Fuck you we're totally going to do exactly what you asked of us."

Eh, I'm with Lainey for the most part on this stupid crusade. I see a lot of B/C-listers getting to feel righteous for supporting this cause while probably shaking in their boots about what they'll do the next time they need a quick photo op. I'm not going to defend paps staking out schools or day cares, but nor am I going to act like they or the blogs/celeb rags are working out there AGAINST the celebs. Because in the vast majority of cases, they're working with them.

Yeah, "Fuck you we're totally going to do exactly what you asked of us."

No actually that's not what People magazine said. They said they'll continue to run newsworthy kid photos, and they definitely called out celebrities for contributing to the market. "...there's always the tough balancing act we face when dealing with stars who exploit their children one day, and complain about loss of privacy the next."

It's neither a fuck you, nor the capitulation Shepherd claimed to win. I don't think it's difficult to misrepresent the couples goals when they are poorly articulated and shifting as needed. Their initial and still primary argument was that people should stop buying magazines that run kid paparazzi photos, and magazines should not run them because it creates the market to "hunt" celeb kids, but now as long as the photos are "sanctioned" it's totes okay, which is convenient since C listers like KBell need People magazine more than People magazine needs them.

I think critiquing the insipidness and grossness of selling celebrity procreation is a good thing, as is thinking about ways to better protect kids from intrusive/aggressive photogs, but I'm not buying into the moral crusade.

OK, I think there are three different arguments here:
1) "I'm not going to defend paps staking out schools or day cares, but nor am I going to act like they or the blogs/celeb rags are working out there AGAINST the celebs. Because in the vast majority of cases, they're working with them."
I don't think anyone's arguing that the media are working against the celebs (although I believe they only work "for" them as far as it helps them to increase views/sales, and the papparazzi work for whoever pays them for the photos, and that's it.) This issue is only about the first part--stopping them from taking unauthorized photos of children. I absolutely do not agree that a "majority" of celebrity parents are glad to see those photos taken. So aside from the people who really do call the papparazzi to schedule photo ops, I don't see any instance in which unauthorized photos of a celebrity's child would be "working with them." Maybe I'm just an idealist. But I think the majority, even the ones who love to see themselves in the magazines, would rather the coverage not include their kids.

2) Kristen and Dax hoped to eliminate all photos of children in the media.
I didn't read or watch every interview or article, so I didn't know they changed their tune, but it must have been fairly early on, because I always thought their stance was that they were against photos published that were taken without parental knowledge or consent. But I think they personally would be happy to have no kid photos/videos at all, so I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they initially phrased it that way.

3) True feelings of the supporters of their movement matter when it comes to the bottom-line morality.
Obviously the celeb supporters and the media partners don't all have the same feelings or motivations, and I don't see why that matters. I'm sure there are some celebrities who secretly like photos of their kids published, but have been shamed into pretending they're on board with this movement. I know it's probably annoying for the sites and magazines who risk losing pageviews/sales over what they see as a hypocritical stance from certain celebrities, and they are also being shamed into taking this stance. They should feel that shame, so I don't think it matters.

So as far as the People quote, again: I don't see why it matters. If certain celebrities wanted their kids covered in the media, but are now pretending they don't, oh well! Now the kids don't have to be in the media and their shitty parents can find some other way to get attention. Or they can authorize photos and it will become even more obvious who the attention-whores are out there. I didn't see that as a dig at Kristen/Dax, because they acknowledged the truth of that while denying any personal knowledge of it (i.e., they don't know people who do that). It felt to me like they were being polite about the people who do that, pretending not to notice, basically.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because there is absolutely no way I believe paparazzi are staking out Sarah Michelle Gellar's daughter's ballet classes without her or her publicist wanting them there. And that's why I honestly can't even care about this fight until some of these celebs start either being honest or stopping their own part of the cycle. If this crusade shames celebs about pimping out their kids and they really do stop? Hey, good for them and I'll applaud the fact that they're taking responsibility. But if it continues to be this totally fake outrage only so they can have plausible deniability of their own role in it when their kid gets them in the "Stars Just Like Us!" section in US Weekly? Yeah, I'll keep rolling my eyes over it.

I actually DO believe that Kristen and Dax are genuine and hate the idea of their child being splashed all over gossip blogs. But I also think they are well aware of how many celebs feel differently, and how MANY of those celebs are way more powerful than they are. And so for that reason they're just sort of pretending that part of the problem doesn't exist. Because what C-lister truly wants to call out their peers like that? Or worse, call out people like Brangelina or Bennifer for the opportunistic ways they've used their children at times?

We'll have to agree to disagree, because there is absolutely no way I believe paparazzi are staking out Sarah Michelle Gellar's daughter's ballet classes without her or her publicist wanting them there.

IDK, maybe there's sort of a trickle down effect, that if a pic of Blue Ivy is worth 50K (hypothetical example) then paps figure they could get five grand for Kristen Bell or Sarah Michelle Gellar's kids. Back when I read the weekly rags, I would always see Alyson Hannigan's daughter a lot, almost at Suri levels, mom cheesing away while the kid was captured being cute, and I know she was Willow and How I Met Your Mother has been on forever, but she's really not this superstar you'd imagine being followed by the paps constantly, or at all, really.  And it was pretty much the only way Alyson Hannigan was ever making it into a celebrity magazine, so I always wondered about that.

It will be interesting to see how long this lasts, the more respectable media being good, and which stars run to People for a mommy blog to get the image of their good mothering out there, now that those casual shots of them at the playground and pumpkin patch are being frowned upon. The celebrity baby money hit its zenith with Brangelina's twins, then the economy tanked, which hit publishing hard, and with the rise of social media, celebrity parents not interested in that game could just debut their kid on Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Too, the trashier celebrity rags/blogs could just take pap photos and run with whatever narrative they wanted, like Katie's a bad mother because she lets Suri wear heels but never makes her wear a coat, Brangie let their kids eat junk food, Angie's making Shiloh dress like a boy, who wore it better: celebrity kid edition, and so on.

Cynically, I think a side effect of reducing the market for pap photos of celebrity children is that it will end up giving a boost to authorized photos. So PEOPLE will run its "Jessica Alba's amazing new life!" story where she plugs her line of eco kid products, modeled by her daughters, and that way, the celebrity baby fans get to see adorable kids, while the star cuts out the paparazzi out of the equation and gets a much fatter check straight from the magazine.  I am not saying that was Kristen Bell and Dax Shepherd's motivation because they really don't seem like the type, but I can see Entertainment Tonight and the more soft-focus outlets capitulating for reasons along those lines.

I remember George Clooney's outrage about the paparazzi post-Diana's death, and railing about Hard Copy a lot, but it kind of faded away after a while (his outrage, though Hard Copy went away, too). So I wonder if this issue will be the same way or if America will become like the UK and other European countries where the faces of celebrity children are blurred.

Lainey's feelings about celebrity motherhood in general make her maybe a not great person to discuss the issue in a way that's not obnoxious and bizarre.

Unless SMG/her publicists are paying the photographers directly, the paparazzi are there because they know they will make enough money from the media to make it worth their time. So I do believe that they would stake out that school if they knew celeb kids go there and what general time classes are, etc., or they would follow their cars from their neighborhoods. Whether Celebrity X colludes with them or not--I don't think it's always that easy to distinguish between willing and unwilling.

I love how angry Lainey is that Robert Pattinson got mentioned on an Oscar long list. Girl, your ass was acting like Kristen Stewart was going to get in for On the Road, lets not.

And the actual article, he was basically lumped in at the very end with like a dozen other people AFTER the real contenders. Like she would never have even known he was one of MANY listed unless she's basically in his fandom and made aware of every single media mention he gets. Which...explains a lot, really.