Taking a little break from the usual type of posts
From whiteflagwandering.tumblr.com
It was difficult not to swear at my computer scream as I read the NY Times article feature on Emma Watson. I would love to write a thorough and blasting criticism of the utterly pompous and ignorant critic who Emma Watson had to unfortunately breathe next to, but I was supposed to be in bed an hour and a half ago.
So, this’ll have to do. Here are three reasons why Will Self of the New York Times is an idiot.
1. For whatever reason, Self has swallowed the idea that the Harry Potter books are on level with Captain Underpants, even though he has never read them, or bothered to observe that Rowling’s books have been translated into 67 languages, are the best selling books worldwide, and that the last four books of the series are the fastest selling books in all of history. If he was going for the intellectual snob approach, he nearly nailed it- just drop the intellectual part.
2. He seized every possible chance to present Watson as an unordinary
3. He openly admitted that he completely ignored her when she spoke of her film roles. It is his damn job to listen to every word that she says. We do not care what he thinks. We care about what Watson thinks. That’s why her photo was taken multiple times, and why, thankfully, a photo of "a downright cranky half-centenarian" was not.
Echee says: Last year's Vogue interview was way worse. Not because of the writer but because of her whining about having no control of a life. How it was written was even worse. Lines like these:
"It’s the pixie-cut hair and flawless skin that give her away. Emma Watson is dressed unobtrusively in a cotton flower-print French Connection dress and beige sandals, but she is unmistakable"
"Emma ignores the stares and continues to chat animatedly about Miró’s willingness to take risks with his art. An avid painter herself—“I love it and have a need to do it”—she can talk eloquently about every picture on the wall. Her favorite is The Farm, a painting once owned by Ernest Hemingway that brought the artist his first taste of success outside Spain. What she admires, Emma tells me, is that Miró was both a draftsman and a painter, unafraid to combine these talents to create something that was simultaneously surreal and hyperreal."
"As Emma takes me on a tour of her house, the extraordinary depth and breadth to her talents become obvious. Every room is framed around a beautiful artifact—a piece of furniture or fabric picked up at a flea market in Paris or Los Angeles—and her artworks show that she can both paint and draw exquisitely."
Click that link to read about a spoiled little brat as one person who commented had to say. It was not a popular interview for Emma. It was not even put on her official website because of that. It was her first post Potter interview and she tanked it. I used a few websites in my media posts that had people ripping her for sounding like an ungrateful ingrate.
The Vogue article is not as bad as the Sunday Style Times that was also from last year. Check out these lines;
"Suddenly, she’s coming towards me, tiny and superpretty in Azzaro. She could easily pass for 15, even in make-up. She shakes my hand and keeps hold of it sweetly, like an anchor. For someone who’s been doing this for years, the nerves still flicker about her face. Her palm is endearingly clammy. "You’re doing well," I say. "Oh, gosh, I hope so. Look at all this." She marvels at the stage, the cameras, the champagne-rinsed crowd, her name in enormous neon letters. She looks pleased — and ever so slightly scared"
"I immediately understood the sense of responsibility. My brother says I’m an eager beaver. It’s true. I’m very driven Bingo. Watson’s addiction isn’t to celebrity, obviously. It’s to self-betterment, to doing the "right thing". She is the definition of propriety, so when offers flooded in while she was at uni, she realised it would be a mistake not to maximise on her moment."
"No wonder. Still, hearing her natter on, you can’t help thinking she’d make someone a fantastic girlfriend. Loyal, hard-working, polite to a fault — and, let’s not forget, with some serious dough in the bank. She also, rather Britishly, downplays her fame, the reasons it exists and what it means to her"
Her fans would appreciate the Sunday Sttyle Times a lot better. It's written like fan fiction. It's something someone would make up on tumblr, wordpress or blogger. It made me a puke a little. It's something they are accustomed to. There minds work that way when they think about her because those are the types of interviews she normally has. It kisses her ass and makes her out as the most perfect innocent thing you'd ever see.
To get back to this New York Times t-magazine interview. It's a bit long in the tooth so I can't highlight all but there is the begining that struck me. It's different for a Emma Watson interview where the writer kisses her ass the entire time.
"Emma Watson, the onetime co-star of the most successful movie franchise ever, is a very grateful and a very lucky person. How do I know that? Because I sat down with the 22-year-old in a gastropub in a trendy neighborhood of North London, and in the course of an hour’s conversation she said "grateful" five times and "lucky" eight. True, of those five "grateful"s two were of the "ungrateful" form — yet these were embedded in clauses like "I felt guilty because I felt like that meant I was ungrateful. . . ." So, as you can see, Watson is a young woman who wants it put firmly on the record that she understands human lives are shaken up in the snow globe of uncertainty, and that simply because she’s ended up being covered in golden flakes, she doesn’t take it as her due, oh, no."
"I can’t say I ever paid that much attention to her acting in the Potter movies, but I’ve looked for many, many hours in the general direction of screens upon which Watson has performed spells, mixed potions, ridden magical beasts and generally cavorted about. With four children of my own, ranged over 11 years, the eldest the same age as the actress, and the youngest just 11, I’ve been exposed to a great deal more of the franchise than I would’ve wished."
"So, Watson will always be, for me, a nice middle-class English girl pretending to be another nice middle-class English girl who’s lucky enough to have magical powers for which she’s extremely grateful. That off-screen those magical powers consist of the ability to transform cavorting about into huge mounds of gold — her personal fortune is estimated at $40 million — only goes to prove that we live in a world at least as strange as J. K. Rowling’s fictions"
"I concede the above has been lightly purged of “like”s (although meanly I left the “just”s and the “really”s), those nonce words so crucial to the speech patterns of any Mid-Atlantean under 30, but it does give a fair flavor of Watson’s earnestness and dedication as an actress."
"Watson did talk to me a little about her roles, but I simply can’t hear actors when they speak about their work — the world around me grows sort of misty, and often I swoon away altogether. A famous Shakespearean actor was once talking to me over lunch about his Lear, and I very nearly put my eye out with the top of the pepper grinder"
"Nowadays Emma Watson is set to make a lot more lemonade, and as I left her I thought: I damn well hope it’s potable — then checked myself. After all, why does it matter to me? Unlike with her earlier screen incarnation, I will not be compelled by my children to witness these ones. No, I can decide to watch her movies or not, as I choose, just as she has chosen to become a real grown-up actress. And that, surely, is what cinematic art should be: an act between consenting adults."
If you read the article in a whole the writer does say some really nice things about her. They correlate a few things to make the reader think about it. The Emma loons are only focusing on these few negative tidbits I highlighted. They are always like that. It's like they have OCD and found one hair out of place. It drives them insane. But to the rest of us we don't even notice there is a hair out of place. They want to read stuff similar to the Sunday Style Times or any other related article or interview that is written like fan fiction. Reading this interview was the equivalent of them drinking out of a cup that had chewing tobacco spit thinking it was tea. It shocked and disgusted them.
Do you feel like the guy (Emma loon) who wrote that critique about this interview on his tumblr? What's your take on her interviews? Do you find them annoying with being over the top and scripted? Do you think her PR team and the writer have a plan on how it will be written? What do you think of the t-magazine interview? Do you think the writer has something against her or are the Emma loons reading too much into it because it's not formatted to praise her like a God? Click all the few magazine interview links I provided and tell me which one is fan fiction and which one is real journalism.
I thought this was interesting when I came across it. Are people finally breaking out from their trance to see the woman behind the mask?
whatdoestheinternetthink.net
Rupert Grint is %90 positive
Daniel Radcliffe is %70 negative
Rob Pattison is %87 positive
Jennifer Lawrence is %97 positive
Emma Stone is %94 positive
Kristen Stewart is %66 negative.
From whiteflagwandering.tumblr.com
It was difficult not to swear at my computer scream as I read the NY Times article feature on Emma Watson. I would love to write a thorough and blasting criticism of the utterly pompous and ignorant critic who Emma Watson had to unfortunately breathe next to, but I was supposed to be in bed an hour and a half ago.
So, this’ll have to do. Here are three reasons why Will Self of the New York Times is an idiot.
1. For whatever reason, Self has swallowed the idea that the Harry Potter books are on level with Captain Underpants, even though he has never read them, or bothered to observe that Rowling’s books have been translated into 67 languages, are the best selling books worldwide, and that the last four books of the series are the fastest selling books in all of history. If he was going for the intellectual snob approach, he nearly nailed it- just drop the intellectual part.
2. He seized every possible chance to present Watson as an unordinary
3. He openly admitted that he completely ignored her when she spoke of her film roles. It is his damn job to listen to every word that she says. We do not care what he thinks. We care about what Watson thinks. That’s why her photo was taken multiple times, and why, thankfully, a photo of "a downright cranky half-centenarian" was not.
Echee says: Last year's Vogue interview was way worse. Not because of the writer but because of her whining about having no control of a life. How it was written was even worse. Lines like these:
"It’s the pixie-cut hair and flawless skin that give her away. Emma Watson is dressed unobtrusively in a cotton flower-print French Connection dress and beige sandals, but she is unmistakable"
"Emma ignores the stares and continues to chat animatedly about Miró’s willingness to take risks with his art. An avid painter herself—“I love it and have a need to do it”—she can talk eloquently about every picture on the wall. Her favorite is The Farm, a painting once owned by Ernest Hemingway that brought the artist his first taste of success outside Spain. What she admires, Emma tells me, is that Miró was both a draftsman and a painter, unafraid to combine these talents to create something that was simultaneously surreal and hyperreal."
"As Emma takes me on a tour of her house, the extraordinary depth and breadth to her talents become obvious. Every room is framed around a beautiful artifact—a piece of furniture or fabric picked up at a flea market in Paris or Los Angeles—and her artworks show that she can both paint and draw exquisitely."
Click that link to read about a spoiled little brat as one person who commented had to say. It was not a popular interview for Emma. It was not even put on her official website because of that. It was her first post Potter interview and she tanked it. I used a few websites in my media posts that had people ripping her for sounding like an ungrateful ingrate.
The Vogue article is not as bad as the Sunday Style Times that was also from last year. Check out these lines;
"Suddenly, she’s coming towards me, tiny and superpretty in Azzaro. She could easily pass for 15, even in make-up. She shakes my hand and keeps hold of it sweetly, like an anchor. For someone who’s been doing this for years, the nerves still flicker about her face. Her palm is endearingly clammy. "You’re doing well," I say. "Oh, gosh, I hope so. Look at all this." She marvels at the stage, the cameras, the champagne-rinsed crowd, her name in enormous neon letters. She looks pleased — and ever so slightly scared"
"I immediately understood the sense of responsibility. My brother says I’m an eager beaver. It’s true. I’m very driven Bingo. Watson’s addiction isn’t to celebrity, obviously. It’s to self-betterment, to doing the "right thing". She is the definition of propriety, so when offers flooded in while she was at uni, she realised it would be a mistake not to maximise on her moment."
"No wonder. Still, hearing her natter on, you can’t help thinking she’d make someone a fantastic girlfriend. Loyal, hard-working, polite to a fault — and, let’s not forget, with some serious dough in the bank. She also, rather Britishly, downplays her fame, the reasons it exists and what it means to her"
Her fans would appreciate the Sunday Sttyle Times a lot better. It's written like fan fiction. It's something someone would make up on tumblr, wordpress or blogger. It made me a puke a little. It's something they are accustomed to. There minds work that way when they think about her because those are the types of interviews she normally has. It kisses her ass and makes her out as the most perfect innocent thing you'd ever see.
To get back to this New York Times t-magazine interview. It's a bit long in the tooth so I can't highlight all but there is the begining that struck me. It's different for a Emma Watson interview where the writer kisses her ass the entire time.
"Emma Watson, the onetime co-star of the most successful movie franchise ever, is a very grateful and a very lucky person. How do I know that? Because I sat down with the 22-year-old in a gastropub in a trendy neighborhood of North London, and in the course of an hour’s conversation she said "grateful" five times and "lucky" eight. True, of those five "grateful"s two were of the "ungrateful" form — yet these were embedded in clauses like "I felt guilty because I felt like that meant I was ungrateful. . . ." So, as you can see, Watson is a young woman who wants it put firmly on the record that she understands human lives are shaken up in the snow globe of uncertainty, and that simply because she’s ended up being covered in golden flakes, she doesn’t take it as her due, oh, no."
"I can’t say I ever paid that much attention to her acting in the Potter movies, but I’ve looked for many, many hours in the general direction of screens upon which Watson has performed spells, mixed potions, ridden magical beasts and generally cavorted about. With four children of my own, ranged over 11 years, the eldest the same age as the actress, and the youngest just 11, I’ve been exposed to a great deal more of the franchise than I would’ve wished."
"So, Watson will always be, for me, a nice middle-class English girl pretending to be another nice middle-class English girl who’s lucky enough to have magical powers for which she’s extremely grateful. That off-screen those magical powers consist of the ability to transform cavorting about into huge mounds of gold — her personal fortune is estimated at $40 million — only goes to prove that we live in a world at least as strange as J. K. Rowling’s fictions"
"I concede the above has been lightly purged of “like”s (although meanly I left the “just”s and the “really”s), those nonce words so crucial to the speech patterns of any Mid-Atlantean under 30, but it does give a fair flavor of Watson’s earnestness and dedication as an actress."
"Watson did talk to me a little about her roles, but I simply can’t hear actors when they speak about their work — the world around me grows sort of misty, and often I swoon away altogether. A famous Shakespearean actor was once talking to me over lunch about his Lear, and I very nearly put my eye out with the top of the pepper grinder"
"Nowadays Emma Watson is set to make a lot more lemonade, and as I left her I thought: I damn well hope it’s potable — then checked myself. After all, why does it matter to me? Unlike with her earlier screen incarnation, I will not be compelled by my children to witness these ones. No, I can decide to watch her movies or not, as I choose, just as she has chosen to become a real grown-up actress. And that, surely, is what cinematic art should be: an act between consenting adults."
If you read the article in a whole the writer does say some really nice things about her. They correlate a few things to make the reader think about it. The Emma loons are only focusing on these few negative tidbits I highlighted. They are always like that. It's like they have OCD and found one hair out of place. It drives them insane. But to the rest of us we don't even notice there is a hair out of place. They want to read stuff similar to the Sunday Style Times or any other related article or interview that is written like fan fiction. Reading this interview was the equivalent of them drinking out of a cup that had chewing tobacco spit thinking it was tea. It shocked and disgusted them.
Do you feel like the guy (Emma loon) who wrote that critique about this interview on his tumblr? What's your take on her interviews? Do you find them annoying with being over the top and scripted? Do you think her PR team and the writer have a plan on how it will be written? What do you think of the t-magazine interview? Do you think the writer has something against her or are the Emma loons reading too much into it because it's not formatted to praise her like a God? Click all the few magazine interview links I provided and tell me which one is fan fiction and which one is real journalism.
I thought this was interesting when I came across it. Are people finally breaking out from their trance to see the woman behind the mask?
whatdoestheinternetthink.net
Rupert Grint is %90 positive
Daniel Radcliffe is %70 negative
Rob Pattison is %87 positive
Jennifer Lawrence is %97 positive
Emma Stone is %94 positive
Kristen Stewart is %66 negative.
19 comments:
It´s "70 % POSITIVE" for Daniel Radcliffe...
I couldn´t understand why it was 70 % Negative...LOL
Results for 'natalie portman'
Negative
67.3%
Positive
32.7%
that site sucks, i love natalie portman.
How does the author belittle the Potter series? From what I recall, he makes it known that it was his children who were into the series, not him. Most parents, I believe, didn't really care for the series, it was more of the actor's generation/their kids. I know my parents didn't care about the series overall, book or movie, and that's not because they're belittling it, but it's something that defines a large chunk of our generation, not theirs. Plus, HP is a children's book series. To be honest, if we [general] didn't grow up with this series, I'm sure we wouldn't be as interested in it right now at our ages (though I've moved on from HP after finishing the final book). Kind of like how this movie adaptation of Perks is VERY late in the game. That book isn't even on school reading lists anymore because others have replaced it.
As I said in the prior post, I still find it interesting/humorous how much "grateful" was used, in comparison to her post-Potter interviews.
I still don't honestly sense much of a mocking or sarcastic tone in this guy's piece, but I think he worked with what he could work with considering he was obviously swayed to write about certain things, and not being an automatic Watson-fan may have come across, too. If someone's a fan, they're obviously going to write about their interviewee a tad differently.
I don't think this is much of a piece for fans to get worked up over unless it's about how they don't believe she's going to graduate in Spring 2013 or if it's about how she's still whining.
xxS
lol, that whiteflag dude is pretty funny. An interviewer who doesn't kiss her ass and he's all in a tizzy about it.
By points:
1) I love how he claims how great the books are based on their popularity. He might want to look into the 50 Shades of Grey books. They're breaking records all over the damn place, including some of HP's and no one is claiming they are great literature. I think the NYT writer got the intellectual snob thing, including the intellectual part, correct.
2) I had to click through to the tumblr post cause it got cut off but this point is interesting. He's clearly upset that the writer isn't worshipping Emma and instead is presenting her as "unordinary" ( I think he means ordinary) and "untalented" who is "extremely lucky." Hate to break it to him but Emma IS ordinary, not that talented and extremely lucky.
I think the next part though is what the loons see in her in a nutshell:
"...I have yet to read of many actresses of her caliber that have studied at Oxford and are graduating from Brown University in a year. At 22 years old, with ten movies under her belt and two more on the way, an estimated wealth of 40 million, and an ivy league degree in near completion, ..."
First, actress of her caliber? Sorry but she's a poor actress. Second, 8 of those 10 movies were a franchise that most actors would kill for. A steady 10 year gig, making millions and not having to scratch and claw and fight for roles? Shit, what actor wouldn't love that? And somehow she gets praised for being extremely lucky. I also like how having $40 million from acting in a blockbuster franchise is seen as a positive character trait.
Third, no mention of how she got to Oxford, how she's getting special treatment, how she's bailed twice now after claiming how important her education was, and on and on.
3) Perfect example of how the loons think shit only happens to Emma. Emma is the only celeb who gets papped, Emma is the only celeb who has her privacy invaded, Emma is the only celeb who gets criticized, etc.
The writer said he can't listen to actors when they talk about their roles and wanted to poke his eye out listening to some Shakespearean actor talking about Lear. It's not just Emma, this writer can't listen to ANY actor talk about their roles. And yet how dare he ignore Emma when she's talking! It's his job to listen to every word she says! Poor Emma having to deal with this crap!
And then he says he doesn't care what the writer thinks. Interesting, since it's the writer and what he thinks that allows us to get an idea of what Emma is like. We aren't there, we haven't met her. So we, the readers, have to rely on what the writer is telling us and what his impressions and thoughts are about her. whiteflag dude just didn't like what he was hearing. I bet he loved the other interviews Echee posted.
And this part, although unintentional, I thought was pretty funny:
"We care about what Watson thinks. That’s why her photo was taken multiple times,..."
lol. He cares about what she thinks so lets look at her pretty pictures.
emma already back in london. i guess her small role in noah is over. that was quick
Holy shit ALBS you went to town, lol. And Gilbert commented in my last post under after hour tech guy. You can add that to his list of different names he's used on this blog. I remember that blogger ID.
I can see why Emma loons dislike this interview:
1)The writer seems pretty indifferent about her.She's just one of many actresses he/she had to write about. Other interviewers always sounded like the most important article in their careers would be interview with Emma.Well, except VOGUE.
2) The writer also openly admits that he never really paid attention to her. So it's not another writing that praises her "extraordinary" talent. Author actually seems cautious about her future films.
3) The most important thing - he made her look ordinary and a bit boring.I think that's what irritates Emma loons so much. According to them Emma is superhuman who lives the most captivating life and never, ever whines.
Sorry - it's so long. I just could't stop writing.
Sorry about that. That is work related. It is not another persona of mine.
Gilbert
@ALBS: "Second, 8 of those 10 movies were a franchise that most actors would kill for. A steady 10 year gig, making millions and not having to scratch and claw and fight for roles?"
Don't forget, she COMPLAINED about it several times. Oh wait, I'm sorry. Apparently now she's GRATEFUL.
"And this part, although unintentional, I thought was pretty funny:
"We care about what Watson thinks. That’s why her photo was taken multiple times,..."
lol. He cares about what she thinks so lets look at her pretty pictures.
I read it as: The fan cares about her, which ends up having her photos taken, and then leads to her ultimately complaining about those photos simply because the fans care.
whiteflag added more. its now a sexist piece of commentary
----------
My 150 word rebuttal to the NY Times Emma Watson interview.
I’ve shortened my rebuttal to the NY Times’ recently published interview with Emma Watson so I can send it as a letter to the editor. Perhaps it’ll get published. But I’m more interested in satisfying my yearning for justice.
Here it is:
In his article "The Graduate", Will Self appeared hellbent on presenting Watson as nothing more than "a nice middle-class English girl" who’s run into an unusual amount of luck. But at 22 years old, with ten movies under her belt and two more on the way, an estimated wealth of 40 million, a world renowned model, and an ivy league degree in near completion, I find it difficult to solely credit luck concerning Watson’s blooming career. Even though Self’s experience with the Potter series is lacking, he concluded Watson’s performances ordinary and flavorless. And to openly admit that he ignored Watson as she discussed her film roles is appalling. What exactly is Will Self being paid for? To denounce actresses as dull without witnessing their performances? To waste our time with sexist and snippy commentary? If this is Self’s vocation, then you’ve got the right snob on the job.
Is this the writer Will Self? Who used to present those culture shows on Channel 4 and wrote Great Apes?
Lol, do none of these Emma fans know what he is like? He's always haughty and never buys into celeb nonsense. I'm surprised Emma didn't run a mile when she had to be interviewed by him. She's too used to an easy ride from her interviews. And to be honest, she never has anything to say.
Maybe she has so many scripted interviews because she lacks any real depth or interesting personality qualities? She's so dull. She's like a mannequin.
"an estimated wealth of 40 million, a world renowned model, and an ivy league degree in near completion, I find it difficult to solely credit luck concerning Watson’s blooming career."
40Million? I thought it was around 20-30 million.
Everything else he said sounds bogus. I don't think we can really say her career is booming just yet. There was nothing sexist about what the guy said and whiners need to stop complaining about this article just because they weren't kissing her else.
"Lol, do none of these Emma fans know what he is like? He's always haughty and never buys into celeb nonsense. I'm surprised Emma didn't run a mile when she had to be interviewed by him. She's too used to an easy ride from her interviews. And to be honest, she never has anything to say."
I researched this guy and now the interview makes more sense. If he was told to include specific things in this interview (like "grateful" and compliments of physical appearance) by her PR team, then it's interesting how he chose to write this if he doesn't buy into Watson's celebrity image. Actually, if you think about it through the type of writer he is, he actually may have been somewhat mocking her conceited celebrity persona. And to write that she has said "grateful" and "lucky" x number of times could be a double meaning - one, that she may actually feel this way, or two, that she's trying to emphasize this way too much rather than actually sound sincere about it.
I agree with others here, it sounds as though her "loons" don't like reading what a non-biased person would write about a celebrity such as Watson. I don't think the interviewer hated her, I just think the interviewer wasn't buying the Watson image.
New post on ontd:
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/71441790.html#comments#comments
xxS
Yeah. I'm thoroughly sick of Emma Watson too. I can see why she's gotten such negativity surrounding her. She's basically slapping her fans in her face and over-sexualizing herself, and lying to everyone about what she does. Now she's just like everyone else, a promiscuous girl, trying to get attention by being really loose. Well, I for one, hate it. It was a bad move on her part. She should have stayed honest, and not tried to distance herself from her nice girl image. She is more or less heading down the path of Lindsay Lohan or Elizabeth Berkley.
This is off topic, but I do not know where to put it, so I will stick it here. I guess Emma did an interview for ET Canada to promote Perks and there was a snippet of the article online and one sentence caught my eye: Emma takes a cue from Sam, who she calls “the world’s best flirt” and “very fun,” buy relishing in her college experience at Brown University: “I have played Beer Pong, I have been to a frat party. It’s been an adventure!”
I am not sure, but I thought Emma mentioned in one of her many interviews that she did not go to frat parties or played beer pong while attending Brown because she felt it was disrespectful to drink alcohol while underage. If I am correct, then Emma really contradicts herself here. I thought maybe Echee could tell me if I am right or not.
Update on new posts: havent even started, lol. Sorry. Maybe tomorrow before thweekend is over. I might hold onto the new Perks stuff until the reviews come out. then again maybe not. I am just being lazy.
@last anon, yep, she did say that and she also said she lvoed drinkign win and eating pizxza in her dorm. I dont care about underage drinking. we've all done it and tis different in europe but its her mying about it that gets me. I am guessing these new quotes are out on the net or soemthing? i have not been on line other than to approve one or two comments.
@xxs that ontd has some comments you would not find anyrwhere but her or there and a few other places. These ones stand out.
I agree with everything you said, except for the "I love you" part. I don't love her. LOL. I used to adore her, but she's increasingly becoming blaaahnd to me. Not to mention, her subtle slutshaming comments put me off. But yep, actresses should just stop it with the ~exploring their musical side~ already. It's tiring and frankly embarassing. Stick to what you know best, Ems! Just because you're a pop culture sweetheart in cinema does not give you any authority in other showbiz industries. With that said, I'm sure her fans and the mainstream media will gobble this shit up and praise her as usual... no one ever critiques "the wonderful girl who played Hermione."
this movie is going to be so bad, i just know it
please fuck off emma, NO. your acting is already torturing all of us.
Not just you tho,basically everyone who replied to you, it's just sad
that's cos she's utterly talentless.
ugh, no. celebs should just stick to one industry. this whole double/triple threat thing is tortuous. most of them are barely decent at their original job in the first place.
She sang a bit in Ballet Shoes. Not good. But I'll love her no matter what <3
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone critiquing Emma Watson and the projects she's attached to. She's like the holy grail of contemporary pop culture.
this is painful, I fucking cannot"I am here, and I am looking at her, and she is so beautiful" get the fuck outttt with your hipster background music and monotone this is like the embodiment of those retarded photos of bland things and somber looking girls with the shitty vague melancholic quotes written over them
Emma's accent was a mess but the movie was quite good, if not pretentious at times. Plus ezra and logan are AMAZING in it
ilu Emma, but why????? don't be that movie star. please.
i've never heard her sing, so i can't judge. emma is not at all how i pictured sam. but then again, none of the actors match up to what i had going on in my head when i read the book. i'm happy with the casting, though. i'm so excited for perks, it's unreal.
I'm already so over that stupid movie, the book was so pretentious it hurt, iirc. also emma, please don't try and get into music. please
really slow with comments lately
what gives
You know how you can tell someone is boring? When the media has to go back 7 years to find something to write.
There's a story in the Sun today about people sending Emma bibles.
"Emma said: “Finding our Harry Potter films un-Christian, people think I need to be guided and send me The Bible. I now have a collection of 20.”"
A quick search of "emma watson bibles" shows the story is being picked up by a bunch of websites.
The thing is, I've read this before. The earliest date I could find was Nov 22, 2005.
"The screen beauty, who plays the boy wizard's best friend Hermione Granger in the series, is building up a collection of the holy books from religious viewers who think she needs "guidance". The 15-year-old confessed: "I have a collection of about 20 in my room. People think I need to be guided.""
Are they seriously having that much trouble coming up with things to write about?
Yea thats old. Like five years ago. The entertainment media is able to rehash old meaningless quotes but they cant do it when she says things like I would never wear a mini dress or dont wear big sunglasses or carry a designer handbag, etc, etc..
Post a Comment