I've often wondered how it felt to be so famous that you couldn't even go out in public. It's probably awesome and bad at the same time. After much thought, I think I prefer staying anonymous.
I'd enjoy being rich but not famous
Yes, I wnat to be more fabulous than Liberace and Harvey Fartstein(sic) put together.
+1 with r1.
Most people want to be famous for the sake of being famous. They don't care how or why. This is truly a tragic sign of the times.
The under 25 crowd seems to have this need at a near 100% rate.
Do you want to be famous?
Isn't this is always the opening statement of each Tom Cruise search for a wife.
I am and it's not what it's cracked up to be.
Another + for r1. The worst combination would be to be famous but not rich. You couldn't hire lawyers, publicists or security.
Famous? No, thanks.
R6, Who are you and why isn't it "what it's cracked up to be?"
r1 has it. Who would want that shit? Especially in this day and age of smart phones, nasty and nightmarish.
If it was someone who wasn't a high profile in your face media type, yet famous, like a writer or behind the scenes, sure. They get the best of both worlds. Nevertheless I imagine you still could get stalkers regardless. That is the dark side.
It's pretty much a given that everyone wants to be rich, so we can leave that out of the equation. I would never want to be famous because I wouldn't want family members to see x rated pics I've posed for or know I was a stripper.
The adulation of crowds feels incredibly good, but it sucks when you just want to roll to the supermarket for some Chunky Monkey.
Yes, and rich.
Only as the result of a game-changing talent, like Jimi Hendrix. But the famous people of today are actually really, really useless and overall pretty ugly to look at, so...
Yes, both. It depends upon WHY one wants fame, though. I am an actor and being able to entertain the largest range of people is appealing to me. I love to make people laugh and to give them an escape for a few hours. If fame allows me to make the kind of movies I want to make, then yes. But being rich would serve the same purpose, I guess.
Fame for fame's sake is not a goal, it's stupid and vapid.
As a kid I'd look at famous celebs on the cover of magazines (this predated the internet) and think how cool it would be to have their glamour, looks, money and popularity.
Today - no way. Like the prior poster I wouldn't mind the money but the fame, ugh. It's a totally different deal today then it was even a decade ago. Most of these people are nuts in some way, if they weren't that way pre-fame then they got there quickly. You'd have to be mentally ill to want that.
No. I like my privacy to the point of it being almost pathological. I don't even like having my picture taken.
I would like to be someone who used to be famous, that would be interesting, especially if it were for something real, like walking on the moon or writing a great novel.
Someone who used to be famous would still command respect, even if that respect is confined to a small circle, but you would be free to move about without the headaches. Be a bitch getting to that point though.
I know a fellow who was famous for about 3 weeks back in the 60's when his band had a few monster hits. No one recognizes him, but it's fun to watch people snap to attention when they learn the name of his band and the songs he wrote.
As a kid, I pretended I was Julia Childs. As I grew older, I pretended I was Martha Stewart.
As I clean, sew, cook, and do manly manly projects I converse with my ever-attentive pretend audience.
They silently swoon over my artistic flair and I humbly mouth, "Thank you, Thank you!"
Fuck fame; schizophrenia is better. Money helps.
I had this conversation with a friend once, and we concluded that, if we had to be famous, the best level of fame to be is "John Madden famous."
Think about it.
He's famous enough that everyone recognizes him when it's worth it to be recognized, like a restaurants or what have you. But no one's going to stalk John Madden, and paparazzi's not going to storm a place because he's there.
The era of smartphones must completely ruin fame. You must loath it.
I wonder what it's like to be, say, Joey Fatone, or Chris Kirkpatrick, or Lance Bass.
There was a time they literally couldn't go out in public without being attacked by hordes of screaming fans.
That time has gone.
I wonder what the process is like by which it fades. Is there ...anyone left who would scream at the presence of a former N*Sync member at Whole Foods.
I do wonder how Bieber will adjust.
What a stupid question.
That was one of the problems Kenneth Williams had, R7.
I had to google John Madden, so he's not that famous. Did he have lots of bad plastic surgery?
I remember an article about a company called something like Star for a Day, which gave you the Star! experience; they'd hire actors to play papparazzi.
The writer of the article did it and apparently the thrill wore off within about half an hour and it just got creepy and intrusive.
I am famous but under a pseudonym and without public appearances, which is perfect for having the best of both worlds.
I'm also very famous. Definitely more of a plus but at the height of my fame I have to admit I became a little paranoid and extremely self conscious. Life in a fish bowl is not fun. So I took a few steps back and didn't accept so much work. As I am not reliant -- nor buzzed -- by fame I am much happier now that the recognition level is lower. Having had the experience all I can say is this: if fame is your goal, as opposed to excellence in a chosen field which may lead to fame, then you have nothing but misery ahead of you.
"Do you want to be famous?"
Absolutely yes we do. But it will cost you extra if you want us to have any dignity with that.
No, I just want the fortune, not the fame.
The idea of fame truly seems like a living hell to me. Especially the way it is today.
I wanted it when I was young, but now I see the advantages of not having achieved the level of status that I wanted. I have enough trouble coping with the level of crap involved in an ordinary career with ordinary-level assholes. I'm simply not the sort of person who's equipped to swim with the sharks.
Being famous as a movie star in the studio system would've been awesome, as well when the record companies still had power before mp3s and people regularly sold 10 million records. Now? Definitely not. Having obese fraus in the midwest criticizing everything about you or being embarrassing fan girls.
[quote]I do wonder how Bieber will adjust.
Sadly I don't think Bieber will be going away any time soon. He wasn't the ugly making up the numbers member of a boyband. He is just too famous, about the most famous in the world just now, at least for younger people. He has bought time for at least another 5 years and has permanent name recognition. If nothing else, he will be looked at as the big star of the early 10s.
He'd have to spectacularly fuck it up and have bad enabling advisors a la Whitney/Lohan to disappear. The kid must have a work ethic, even if things are starting to crumble. His fans will grow up soon though, so he has to do a Timberlake.
Because he's so big now, it's forgotten that Bieber was one of the first stars of the new type of fame that wasn't reality based: he came from web 2.0 social media and was "spotted" on YouTube. He illustrates the difference between now and then.
I grew up wanting, more than anything, to be famous. I am not at all famous. As I have grown older I value my privacy very much so I am not at all sure that I would have enjoyed the experience of being famous. Perhaps I would have very much. But perhaps it would have come at too much of a cost to my personal liberty and ability to be myself without extreme scrutiny. The more I read online, including on DL, of how people denigrate celebrities, the more I think I would not enjoy the experience.
I think Colbie Caillat is an example of a "happy medium" level of fame. It seems she can go wherever and not get bothered too much, but still makes a good living selling her music. Maybe people don't recognize her in person because of that mole on her forehead that always gets photoshopped. ;) "Hey, is that Colbie Caillat? Nahhh...it looks like her except for that big ugly ass mole..."
R34 and as if on queue, there I went, denigrating a celebrity.
Well I certainly wouldn't google myself and read forums such as these were I a celeb. Gwynnie does though. :) She must be playing up to it.
I think google alerts is what they all use and they're are all cunts and narcissists. Twitter is their new drug that gives them even more attention - especially the reality/D lister hasbeens.
A few years ago, I was a guest on some TV and radio talk shows in Australia and my photo was in the papers. After that, I couldn't go anywhere in Sydney, Perth, Hobart, etc., without being recognized. That's when I discovered how nice it is just to blend in with everyone else and not be noticed.
A woman who heard me on radio, phoned the station to ask me out to dinner. I told her I was busy but every time I had another event to attend, there was a message from her. She even phoned the U.S. embassy to get a message to me. It's just unreal that she was first approaching me as a voice on radio. She didn't even know my age or what I looked like. One afternoon, seated at a desk in my temporary office in Sydney, I was told she was waiting outside for me.
I've never had a desire for attention. That being said, some of the stuff that I'd like to do would probably bring some notoriety. I always feel bad for being who need to be famous. They obviously didn't get enough attention in their childhoods. I don't need approval. It's sort of weird too. I wasn't praised much as a child. I didn't result as an adult that was dying for approval or attention. A lot of people do though.
Not to quibble, but I think John Madden is very famous amongst the sporting set. Anyone who follows NFL football knows him, and his name is on one of the best selling computer games of all time.
Granted, the paparazzi won't bother chasing him, but his type of fame might be even worse. I suspect fans would approach him much and try to engage with him to an extent that they would never consider with a true A List celebrity.
They'll ask Tom Cruise for an autograph, but they'll try to bore the shit out of Madden by asking him about the end of the Rams/Packers game back in 1979 and whether they should have gone for it on 4th and 1.
I think you're right R40.
I used to and then I realized I don't even like people I know knowing anything about me that I haven't personally told them. You can find out way more about me on the internet because of work I've done than I would prefer any stranger have access to. It makes me very uncomfortable when knew people I get to know ask about things they could have only found out about me through Googling. Also, because that information is out there I'm often just waiting for new friends to bring it up because so many have done searches which then creates this weird dynamic from the go because of my anticipation that my privacy has already been "violated". For the record, my work is meant for public consumption so it's ridiculous that any of this bothers me in a way as greater recognition means success in one way, but I would still rather be able to not be searchable. Should have used a fake name, I guess. Too late now.
Money way better than fame
I hate being famous and worry about my half breed baby being under the scope.
To paraphrase Beverly Hoffstadter - people who want to be famous suffer from an external locus of identity.
If I were famous due to real talent and my income wasn't contigent on whoring myself out, I wouldn't mind. Kim Kardashian/Tom Cruise/any A list movie star famous? Hellll no.
I read an article a few years ago by a man from the UK who came to Wash. DC to curate an exhibit. His last name was Romanov. His grandfather had been a grand duke, his great grandfather a Tsar. He wrote that his father was raised among émigrés who lived in the past and thought them all rather sad, so he was raised to think of himself as an Englishman who just happened to have an interesting family history. Since WWI England does not allow their citizens to have foreign royal titles, otherwise he woud be Prince Romanov. As it is, he thought of himself as just an ordinary guy. Well, while in DC he gets invited to this big reception at the Soviet embassy. He was kinda freaked by the invit, but couldn't resist. The soviets went ape shit over him. Treated him as a. Imperial highness, they all wanted to meet him, did the head bob, women courts eyed to him, the Russians hung on every word he said, and they all wore the same stupid grin trying to ingratiate himself. He wrote that he had a blast playing Prince for a night, and said that this must be what it's like for Prince Charles every day of his life, but while it was fun to be a royalty for a few hours, he would not want to live this way for real. He much preferred life as a private citizen.
Look in on any DataLounge thread about lottery winnings and most of the respondents are obsessed with trying to maintain anonymity in collecting their winnings. It all seems misplaced for anyone who doesn't maintain close ties to a large and trashy family. Lottery winners are famous not even for fifteen seconds, and only resurface in the news if they fuck up royally.
Collecting a giant FoamCore blow-up of a lottery check, though, is hardly fame; it's the fleetingest of fleeting media attention.
The downside of fame is the constancy of the attention: being recognized regularly; becoming accosted by strangers; being seen like a bug caught in amber -- as that guy from that show, or that woman who used to be somebody (the way distant relatives remember you always for that one thing you did that one time when you were three years old. It's the disadvantage of always being seen first as a stranger's memory of you, and rarely having the opportunity to make an impression otherwise or the luxury of making a first impression or no impression at all.
[quote]women courts eyed to him,
This is more than just an "oh, dear," r48, it's an omigod!
I teach in a small town in fly over country. I cannot, CANNOT, go anywhere without everyone knowing who and what I'm up to. I can't imagine it being that way nationally or world wide. I'll pass on fame.
[quote]I teach in a small town in fly over country. I cannot, CANNOT, go anywhere without everyone knowing who and what I'm up to.
Interesting, I had the same thought. I work with a woman who taught for 30 years, and I made the mistake of going to a Wal-Mart with her at Christmas. She literally couldn't go 50 feet without being stopped by some former student or their parents. I realize it's localized, but it is a form of fame any way you look at it.
Carrie Fisher said, "Fame is just obscurity biding its time."
No. Not famous in a celebrity way, but I would want to be recognition in my profession amongst my peers.
R50, I am r48, I am typing on an iPad and the auto spell check keeps changing my words, capitalization and punctuation.
My uncle Andrew wanted to be famous. Guess he made it.
What about relative s of the famous who want their own slice of fame. I understand that Joel Katz was a bit of the family joke, until he changed his name to Grey and after years of learning his craft became a big star, then other Katzs wanted to bask in the glow of his tony and Oscar and changed their last names to Grey too.
"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...