eing largely free of it myself, I find the whole subject of celebrity obsession fascinating. (I say I'm free of it not since celebrities don't interest me, but since I'm mostly annoyed by them and their media coverage, and because I do not now nor have I ever fixated on any particular celebrity.  There's not an actor or actress or author or director or producer alive who makes work I always go see, regardless of what they're doing, and in fact I couldn't actually name a favorite actor or actress.  I just go see movies that I want to go see.  The closest I could say would be Peter Jackson, but that's entirely based on the 3 brilliant Lord of the Rings movies.  I've never seen any of his earlier work, don't really want to, and have very mixed feelings about his upcoming King Kong film.)

How do people fixate on an individual celebrity? What is it about that celeb and person that causes a given person to become obsessed with them?  I'm not talking about the psychotic or mentally ill type of obsession, where a person thinks they're being sent secret messages, or being stalked, or whatever.  I'm talking about just the average person who falls in love with a celebrity, who collects all of their pictures, sees all of their movies/TV appearance, etc, regardless of whether or not the movies are any good, or they're interesting on TV, etc.

In a larger sense, why are people so obsessed with celebrity in our culture today?  Is it somehow tied in to people's lacking self worth or self esteem, when they compare themselves to the beautiful, surgically-perfected faces they see on TV and in the movies? Is it the proliferation of tabloids and glossy magazines and entertainment programs and cable channels, that all need new fodder to keep their sales and ratings high?  Is it the Internet, making everyone able to talk about and read about and write about celebs at all times? Is it reality TV, making everyone feel like a potential celebrity while simultaneously devaluating actual celebrity, which was once based on actual talent and beauty and longevity?

I don't have the answer, but this topic will make for some interesting sociological studies in 5 or 10 or 20 years, when the current fad passes, or at least fades a bit. Assuming it ever does.

This page collects various writings about celebrity, of the unimportant type.  Gossip, photos, public appearances, that sort of thing.  Things that no one cares about if you or I do, but that somehow become worthy of long TV coverage if a "famous" person does them.

Newer additions are added on top of this page.

December 13, 2003

The 16-year-old younger brother of Backstreet Boy Nick Carter announced Wednesday he was firing his mother-slash-comanager, and ordering an audit of his pop-star riches.

"I feel betrayed by own mother," Aaron Carter said in a statement.

The singer has alleged that a "significant" portion of earnings--reportedly more than $100,000--from his recent tour were tapped into, in part, by mom Jane Carter.

"I worked hard for months--10, 11 hours a day, not including school and press appearances--and I come home and owe money!" Aaron Carter said.

December 11, 2003

This is not in any way newsworthy, but here's a new photo of Britney from Korea, showing off her amazing size-changing boobies. Looks like she got herself deflated recently, eh?

U.S. pop singer Britney Spears performs at Seoul Broadcasting System Hall in Seoul, South Korea Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2003. Spears was in Seoul as part of her Asia tour for the promotion of her new album 'In the Zone.' (AP Photo/BMG Korea, HO)

October 1, 2003

There's all sorts of media coverage about P. Diddy's plans to run in the NYC Marathon lately, and it all confuses me.  Why is he still famous post-JLo? Did he shoot someone again or something?

Combs is backed by corporate sponsors like Nike Inc., McDonald's Corp. and MTV Networks, as well as high-profile friends. Anyone is free to donate, but the hip-hop entrepreneur said he needs other forms of support as well.

"It's gonna be a rough one. Probably around the 13th mile, I'll really need your support -- water, Gatorade, whatever," Combs said of the grueling 26.2-mile race.

Combs admitted he has only been training for three weeks but said he plans to complete the Nov. 2 race, even if it means crawling across the finish line. MTV is making a documentary chronicling his training as he readies for the event.

I suppose it's cool that he's using the publicity to raise money for some charity, though it's pretty clear he mostly just wants publicity.  But let's be real, but does anyone seriously think he'll make it more than about 5 miles?  Are his big fat bodyguards going to be allowed to accompany him on scooters or something?

June 4, 2003

Here's the one news item I very gleefully wrote something about yesterday. It's an article from UK Yahoo that I enjoyed a great deal.

Victoria and David Beckham were refused Hollywood star treatment when a shoe shop owner told Posh: "I have no idea who you are." The former Spice Girl and her football star husband were snubbed when they asked a Los Angeles store to close its doors so they could shop in private. The couple made the request after turning up at the trainers shop with an entourage of bodyguards.

But the owner told a fuming Victoria he did not have a clue who she was, The Sun reported.

When told by minders the couple were famous in Britain, he snapped: "They might be in Britain - but they're not here.

"I'm not closing for anyone! We get Britney Spears here all the time and she never asks for me to close.

"We get other stars all the time, they just get on with it."

The owner eventually agreed to the request and closed the doors for 30 minutes.

When Victoria emerged with several carrier bags "she had a face like thunder", an onlooker told the paper.

And that differs from her usual shovel-face in what way?

I love when self-important celebrities get their comeuppance. Even if it's just for a little bit, before they go back to their coddled yes-man surrounded life. I mean Jesus, you've got your husband and about 10 body guards, and you need the store closed too?  Fuck off, go wait in line at Wal-Mart, you delusional has-been harpy.

Here we see the happy couple presenting something on the recent Mtv Movie Awards.  What I wonder is how they knew Vikki here had a "face like thunder" when she came out of the shoe store.  I mean look at her, how could you tell? Yikes. She's the proverbial "fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down."

I suppose she was cute 10 years ago when the Spice Girls had their brief run of trendy fame, but the years have not been kind. Must suck to have a husband who is 5x prettier than you are. Fortunately, it's nothing any hypothetical future wife of mine will have to worry about.

April 25, 2003

Madonna has a new album coming out entitled The American Life. Possibly as part of the marketing and publicity for the album, she's apparently developed a political conscience, and is busy making headlines.

Madonna told the Radio Times that Americans had opportunities people in other countries did not have but got caught up in superficial dreams.

"We as Americans are completely obsessed and wrapped up in a lot of the wrong values -- looking good, having cash in the bank, being perceived as rich, famous and successful or just being famous," Madonna told the television listings magazine.

"It's the most superficial part of the American dream and who would know better than me? The only thing that's going to bring you happiness is love and how you treat your fellow man and having compassion for one another."

At first this is laughable, I mean it's Madonna, criticizing someone for being obsessed with looks and fame?  However you'll note that she's not delusional; she did say, "who would know better than me?"  So I guess I'll give her credit, I mean she's vain and foolish, but at least she realizes it.

And she's absolutely right; Americans are ridiculously pampered and spoiled and most of us waste the opportunities we have.  This goes for most everyone in modern Western Civilization as well, when you get right down to it. For about the first time in human history, a majority of people in various countries can live comfortably without working every waking hour.  What do we do with our "free" time?  Write great literature?  Volunteer in hospitals?  Learn foreign languages? Of course not.  We watch reality TV and overeat and play computer games and Internet surf too much and take drugs.

Humans, as a rule, don't do well with free time.  Most people can't amuse themselves with anything productive, and need diversion, or else they get into trouble.  This is especially true of young adults, but plenty of adults and mature humans are just as prone to fuckery when they have the time to get into it.

Shame it takes Madonna to point this out.  And you know she'll get 11 flavors of shit for it, from various "America is the best country every." types.  Which may be true, but it doesn't mean there isn't vast room for improvement amongst individual Americans.

In other wacky celebrity news, Angelina Jolie continues her quest to find some way to make herself less than gorgeous, with another giant and hideous tattoo. 

Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie (L) has her shoulder blade tattooed with ancient Khmer script by Thai tattoo master Noo Kampai at Pathumthani province north of Bangkok. The black tattoo featured five vertical rows of ancient Khmer script, which Noo reportedly said would ward off bad luck and help her avoid accidents. (AFP/Str)

This one looks sort of like an infected road rash.  And when you see her beautiful face and perfect bone structure, long eye lashes, shining hair, etc, next to the tattoo, it's like graffiti on the Mona Lisa.

Assuming that "bad luck" doesn't include "getting horrible tattoos" it may work. Still, would you get a tattoo from a guy whose arm looks like the end result of a boring hour in junior high school detention?

Showing the benefits of air-brushing, the three Dixie Chicks pose in the nude on the current issue of Entertainment Weekly.  The lettering has obviously been added in with Photoshop.  At first I wondered why the lower right one was unlettered on her butt and thigh, but then I realized that's where the address label goes for subscribers.

The photo is interesting in a number of ways.  For one thing, why aren't any of them pretty?  I'm sure their bodies have been improved with air-brushing and such, I was told that the middle one just recently had a baby, and that there's no way her abs are looking this good.  But I thought these ladies were hot?  I wouldn't say that any of them are even pretty, just going by the faces.

Also, does this look like they were actually posing together?  The one in the middle looks way too small, in scale, to the other two.  Either that or the blonde on the right is about 7 feet tall.  She's longer from butt to head than the middle one is standing up.

And as I wrote about a month ago, when their remarks were first news, what exactly was so upsetting about what they actually said anyway?

The Dixie Chicks pose nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly magazine released on April 24, 2003. Emily Robison, Natalie Maines and Marti Seidel (L-R) said they posed nude in response to the controversy created by pro-war advocates over Maines' remark at a concert in London on March 10 that they were 'ashamed' President Bush was from their home state of Texas. (Entertainment Weekly via Reuters)

The other misleading thing is that most articles talk about them ruining their careers with their outspokenness.  Um, you might want to check the sales charts before you come to that conclusion, Mr. Journalist.  Their latest album has been out 34 weeks, it's certified 6x platinum, it was #1 last week, over a month since their "career-killing" remarks.  It's #3 this week, behind two brand new albums, will probably be back at #1 next week once the debut sales surge ends for the other two. So for all the "Dixie Chicks suck" talk, they are still the #1 selling band.  Why aren't there articles examining that and trying to explain it?

Perhaps all the album sales are from "patriotic" Americans buying them to burn at Clear Channel "Support Our Troops" rallies?

January 15, 2003

Talking to a friend tonight, she mentioned that Nicole Kidman was going to be on the Tonight Show.  I never watch Leno, and almost never watch Letterman, but since I'm known to obsess over Nicole, and I haven't seen her in moving form in recent memory (just still pictures), I remembered to turn it on around 11:45.  Nicole wasn't on yet and instead they were interviewing some wacky brunette who was like a skinnier, more manic Fran Dresher, and there was some sort of montage of her doing wacky stuff.  I had to mute it.

Anyway, eventually Nicole was trotted out, and I was somewhat appalled.  Horrible poofy bright red top, and non-tight jeans that should have been. In order: the red top was bad since that's not at all her color. I've seen her wear red in other photos, but she shouldn't. I have a similar complexion and hair color to Nicole, though her hair is redder, and I will not wear anything red, for any reason.  I look terrible in it, like I'm sunburned. It brings out the pink in my skin and makes me look flushed.  It did much the same for her.

So going by that quick look at her ass when she turned around to sit down, I was initially disinterested.  However once she started talking and the camera focused in on her face, I was leaning forwards, somewhat enraptured.  She had nothing to say (no actress/actor ever does), and her voice was weird, it seemed like her accent would come and go from one sentence to the next.  But her face is amazing.  Gorgeous, yes.  But lots of women are gorgeous and don't entrap me with their look.  She does, and it's in her eyes.

Other than that, the interview was pretty much a zero.

Nicole had some very odd body language during it also.  The friend who tipped me off to Nicole's imminent appearance said that Nicole looked nervous or anxious, and was feeling defensive and wanting armor and protection.  Hence her sitting back and wrapping her arms around herself.  But she wasn't really wrapping them around herself, she was squeezing her crotch with them.

Initially she sat down with her legs crossed at the thigh, both hands down between her legs, and the right hand pressed into her crotch.  I don't mean near it, I mean Braille camel toe time. She eventually fidgeted around some and sat with her thighs parted a bit, so one leg was at the arm rest of the chair, and bent at the knee, so that ankle was behind her other knee.  She then clasped her hands together, interlocking fingers, and pushed them down against the seat of the chair, rubbing against her crotch.

I don't mean to imply that she was masturbating or even aware of pushing against her labia, but it seemed odd that she did it in two positions in a row, and neither time for just a moment; they were both good long poses.  Feeling a need to hug herself, I suppose, and the female genitalia being the permanently numb and sensation-less organ it is, she probably wasn't even aware of the pressure.   Though I obviously was.

And I don't mean to imply that the female genitals are always insensitive to sensation.  Just during sex.  Just my ex-wife's.  After all, when you give a girl a healthy pinch, they certainly seem to notice it.

Well, that's about enough tacky puddy-jokes for the day.

Anyway, I was somewhat disillusioned by Nicole's Tonight Show appearance.  Pun intended.

I've long thought her breath-taking, but I don't think I've ever seen her in a movie.  I saw parts of Dead Calm, and she was gorgeous and very good in that, but it was years ago.  I also saw parts of To Die For, but that's about it.  It's better this way; I can imagine her as perfect all the time as she is in the best images, and the cruel realities of imperfections and blemishes need not intrude in my fantasy idealism.

In photos, she's the perfect girlfriend.  Aside from the whole "actually meeting in person" aspect, but that part is overrated anyway.

January 9, 2003

In semi-movie news, I was looking at reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and the ad on the main page was for movie posters, with one of the three pictured this one, of Pamela Anderson.  I clicked to see if that was actually a poster, and no, it's some sort of paparazzi shot, which they are selling in 8x10.  Seems weird to buy a tabloid photograph, but more to the point, what the hell would you do with a giant photograph of her giant plastic boobies pushing a sparkly top to the breaking point?

Well, I guess I know what some guys would do with it, or perhaps do on it, but it seems a weird purchase.  It's not as if there aren't a plethora of other photos of her available.  She's done Playboy about eleven times, she's available in one very famous home made porno, and that's not even mentioning countless lad mag photo shoots where she's wearing a lot sexier clothing than what looks like a Raiders cheerleader's top.

On top of that, it's not even a good picture!  She's halfway cut off on one side, there is a big blank space to the far right, the lighting is bad, and even one boobie is halfway cropped off the bottom, almost interfering with the cleavage.  Plus there's some big blurry black thing on the far left, almost like some sort of plant frond between the camera and Pam.  All yours for just $5!

Even assuming you own this photo, what then?  It's 8x10, which isn't big enough to tape up on a wall like a poster. Are you supposed to put it on your desk in a picture frame, next to the one of your wife and kids and Irish Setter?  Anywhere you display this, wouldn't it be bizarre to have a guest see it?  A woman would wonder WTF, and any other guys would too, since it's not art, and it's certainly not pornography.

I checked for other Pamela Anderson shots there, and they have 21 of her, with a couple of other paparazzi shots, and the rest all official press release type photos.  This one is the funniest.  Could she look more machine-made? I can't see how, short of having actual visible rivets.  She does do a good job with the baby oil or whatever, that makes her skin so shiny, especially in the cleavage.  The girl knows what sells, and she's famous and rich despite looking like a weather-beaten Iowa farm wife without make up, and having no discernable talent. You gotta at least give her some credit for that.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.