Who are some stars you rarely or never hear gossip about?
I never hear anything in the gossip magazines or on gossip boards about Cate Blanchette. She seems to like a quiet life.
I like her.
Tom Sizemore is coming out with a auto bio and some details made it to NY daily news article (link below).
He was in love w/ Liz Hurley even though she was involved with Hugh Grant.
He did coke the first time at a party w/ RDJ and was hooked.
What I want to know who this is :
Sizemore writes that the professional opportunities blew his mind, including the call from the assistant to the “biggest star in the world at the time,” whom he doesn’t name. She wanted to take a meeting at her home. The superstar walked in and said, “So tell me about yourself.”
By then he’d figured out what was going on and replied, “Um . . . I’m old enough.”
Upstairs, he took a shower — and ended up sleeping with her for three years.
The gossip industry has its own stars while Hollywood has its own set of stars who do not need the gossip PR industry to establish some fake image.
r3 I agree
R1: I think the unnamed star is Sharon Stone.
Streep has a private life on the east coast separate from Hollywood. Same with Cate Blanchett in Australia (as opposed to Nicole Kidman, who has a publicist team working on daily tasks - red flag).
Amy Adams (the only gossip I read about her is that she was obsessed with Jessica Alba, which seemed made up).
While I love Adams and agree that up til now she's avoided the whole using her private life to fuel her professional thing, sadly I believe she's gone the the dark side. Has been doing the pap walk thing since being Oscar-nommed this time, sometimes with her kid and sometimes just with her bf. Very clearly pre-arranged.
I hope this doesn't hold now that awards season is over.
I really respect the stars who we don't know what their kids look like. It takes work but it can be done for the most part.
Ewan McGregor is one.
Aaron Eckhart doesn't have kids but is really private.
It's not that they live the quiet life, it's that most don't care about them. They won't attract tabloid readers.
Didn't Amy Adams brother used to work for TMZ?
Keanu Reeves. The man is teflon. No one believes the truth and he has an army of people on the internet posting disinformation constantly so the truth is constantly buried under mounds of nutjobbery.
There was a blind item a few years ago about the local Starbuck's barrista in CT getting into a fight with a supposed celeb that allegedly flies under the radar and most believe it was Meryl. Basically, the BI was that she hurried into her local Starbucks and didn't know how to order (or where to order) and then was asked to go to the back of the line, which took a while as it usually does, and when they asked for her name, she said, I'm "Meryl Fucking Streep," and the 19 year old kid behind the counter didn't know who she was, and just assumed that the customers were gawking because of how rude she allegedly was (not because she's Meryl Streep) and wrote on her coffee cup, "Meryl Fucking Streep."
But I think for the most part, celebrities that fly under the radar do so because they want to. It seems that the biggest tabloidy stars court it with everything they've got.
Why is he still single?
Many of them have something to hide. Typical of certain closet cases.
There's a difference between gossip & pubicity, even though in Hollywood they are very overlapping. Some actors need publicity to create an image and market themselves to be popular. So they generate gossip deliberately. It's tied to getting work and moving up and making money. Publicity's a necessary evil.
Some actors are well managed by PR firms so when they're marketed it's controlled so you rarely read or see anything negative about them. But that costs money.
Maybe an actor is a coke head and a drunk and he beats women. Unless he draws attention from the police, you'll never know. He spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure. His manager and his PR agency will handle it.
Some celebs aren't as successful as they appear to be. They have a public image, and you see them out all the time in the magazines and gossip blogs, but in real life they are desperate for their next job.
They hold onto the fame so they can get work. Product endorsement deals, fashion, starting their own "business" all of it depends on publicity.
Jessica Alba, Demi Lovato, even Selena Gomez are examples. There are a lot of people out here who are famous for being famous. Their biggest ambition is to get a slot on Dancing With the Stars.
I agree with you.
I've always thought that very little is known about what really happens. The invasion of privacy is pure BS that only some simple minded fraus can believe. And I'm with you when you say that unless something draws attention from the police, you'll never know.
Please, even a great deal of the police force in LA and NY is in PR publicists' pockets. For example the only reason the press found out about Gossip Girl star Chace Crawford being caught with pot in his car was because it happened in Texas (and his publicists still managed to keep Chace's male companion who was with him in his car out of most of the gossip press reports).
'Invasion of Privacy' is probably the most passive agressive term there is when it comes to celebrity culture.
'Oh, we want to share this so obviously fake stuff with our so called fans, please buy/watch my latest release ... you crazy stalkers, stop discussing stuff about me you are not supposed to know!'
There are some EXTREMELY delusional people in this thread.
Our world just gets more and more apathetic.
Yes, those who fly "over the radar" only when they have something to sell are the worst.
[quote]Keanu Reeves. The man is teflon. No one believes the truth and he has an army of people on the internet posting disinformation constantly so the truth is constantly buried under mounds of nutjobbery.
I think it's pretty easy to fly under the radar. 90% of the time you can avoid gossip if you really want to.
Personally, I think the marketplace dictates who gets covered. Justin Beiber, Rihanna, the Kardashians, Taylor Swift, unavoidable, and in most cases the coverage is encouraged if not paid for by the subject themselves.
Then you have the Publicist generated items about Jessica Alba, Reese Witherspoon, Matthew McConnahey,Giselle Bunchen Miranda Kerr, etc.
Come on. Honestly. Gwyneth Paltrow just did an interview and talked about her miscarriage that no one knew she was even pregnant. Then she added that Chris Martin is a great parent and whatever happens to their marriage at least they are good parents together.
Now, if you want to read that Johnny Depp had to be carried out of some bar, or Ryan Phillippe fell on his ass in the parking lot of some club, forget it.
If you really believe that some star had seizures or collapsed from dehydration while performing, etc.bless you.
The so-called gossip that's out here gets out accidentally or it's manufactured. That's why as annoying as TMZ is I kind of like the idea of the traveling guerilla style camera ambushing velebs. And I may be a minority but I like the paparrazzi because we'd have nothing without them. I'm talking real paparrazzi, not the PR flack masquerading as a paparrazzi.
r18 He is not single. He is with the same women(who was a teen when he met her).
I like to keep a low profile, that's why I post here. To keep my true fans abreast of my amazing new projects and my humble life!
[quote]Gwyneth Paltrow just did an interview and talked about her miscarriage that no one knew she was even pregnant.
Of course it was known. Paps were there when she was released from the hospital.
Many years ago gossip was about the big stars -- the Bette Davises, Ingrid Bergmans, etc. Doesn't mean the gossip was true (much of it was publicity fluff), just that the names that kept the gossip field afloat were major movie names.
Then, a generation or two ago, gossip switched to TV stars. The supermarket tabs and People magazine sold better with a Valerie Bertinelli on the cover than they did a Faye Dunaway.
Today the gossip press has realized they can create their own stars. The people who follow gossip now would rather read about a Kardashian than Meryl Streep or Barbra Streisand... which works to the advantage of everyone involved.
Joseph Gordon Levitt. I say this because I WANT some insider info about him but can't ever get it.
Eva Mendes was the bitch in Starbucks, not Meryl Streep. But, whatever.
r33 Good point. In a way the creation of the reality star takes heat off real actors and entertainers. They can keep their anonymity and still work in the business.
Wrong R32. Gwyneth was officially in the hospital for a "digestive problem" 5 yrs or so agao, and she herself did not confirm the miscarriage until this recent interview. Adding the comments about her husband also confirmed the stresses in their marriage.
My basic point is that now celebs are so confessional, they sort of obliterate the whole point of gossiping about them.
R33 I agree. Spot on. The reality show celebs are the dregs, too. But we will never be rid of them because they are so profitable. The whole point of programming reality shows early on was how cheap they were.
Reality shows are much cheaper than trying to mount and maintain a TV series using real actors, etc. But they are now victims of their own success because the new "stars" want to get paid.
My other point is, there's just not a lot of real gossip out here. Another reason might be that when some civilian runs across real gossip, they probably try to sell it and the wall slams down.
Only disgruntled ex employees, ex lovers, and former inner circle members are really willing to share the hot and juicy information (for a price, of course). All the others fear to be cast out of the inner circle when their blabbing gets traced back to them.
Nobody in his or her right mind would share hot and juicy details (or sex tapes) for free when a magazine is willing to pay for it big bucks and then the magazine uses the info for leverage/blackmail for something else in order to bury the hot juicy story.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...