June 16th, 2007, 06:30 AM
Book Depository Junkie
Another Nietzsche quote, relevant to Paris Hilton's continued existence:
Originally Posted by Gary Wassner
"God is dead."
June 18th, 2007, 01:02 PM
Well, first off, it's a debatable point as to how much everywhere Paris Hilton is known outside of North America. But:
Originally Posted by Gary Wassner
1. Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor
2. Puck from The Real World: San Francisco
3. Jack and Kelly Osborne
4. the Princesses of Monaco (a template for Paris)
5. Christina Onassis
6. Princess Diana
7. every VJ who has ever appeared on MTV, and I'm tempted to throw in both Carson Daly and Ryan Seacrest
8. every supermodel, including Ms. Moss who is making more (non-inherited) money than Paris at the moment. However, my favorite of these would have to be Cindy Crawford who I could not escape there for quite some time due to the excessive media coverage, posters, etc., and who was famous chiefly for having a mole on her face.
And again, Princess Diana and the supermodels have arguably had a bigger social impact than Paris has had. At the moment:
1. Older teens -- okay, older teen girls as the boys are horny -- have very little interest in Paris.
2. Younger teens and tweens do know Paris, but for them she is one of the many actress/singers that get regularly photographed and talked about. (Did you know that all of the lead actors in High School Musical have or are making their own CD albums?)
3. Adults are very aware of Paris Hilton, but seem to regard her as either a funny joke or something disgusting. When the remake of the horror movie "The Wax Musuem" came out in which Paris had a part, the filmmakers capitalized on this by telling folks to come see Paris Hilton get killed.
4. Paris has started absolutely no fashion trends that I am aware of. Small dogs, sex tapes and going commando all existed among the celeb set well before her arrival.
So she's famous, and yes for pretty much nothing, but she's hardly the first, nor will she probably be the last. And now I hear she has a new t.v. series possibly going into development. On the other hand, while in the pharmacy and taking a glance at the tabloid magazines the other day, I saw Paris' photo only on one cover and then as a small one up at the top, not the main picture, which surprised me given the jail fodder available. But apparently, Angelina Jolie still trumps her.
June 18th, 2007, 02:24 PM
Well Angelina's another story totally.....
All true. But it's still impossible to discount the extraordinay amount of air time the travails of Paris have received. Her image has to be imbedded in the minds of many and even the name Paris cannot easily be spoken without thinking of her. Now when someone says Paris they don't think of the Eifel Tower.
June 18th, 2007, 02:31 PM
I see a good and bad situitation about this Paris fascination and that give it a generation to pass and she'll be regulated to the Zsa Zsa Gabors of the world , a wealthy socialite. That's the good. The bad is that there will be another "Paris" to replace Paris, if not soon, probably within 4 or 5 years from now.
June 19th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, again. You being in the fashion world, I think you get hit with a lot more of this than most of us do. Interestingly enough, I encountered the Forbes Celebrity 100 list, where they rank celebrities -- actors, tv chefs, sports figures, etc. on the basis of their power by some complicated formula of earnings, merchandising and endorsements, media coverage, and so on. And so, given our conversation, I naturally looked to see if Paris was on the list. She wasn't. But the following, regarding our discussion, were:
Originally Posted by Gary Wassner
Madonna -- 3
Rolling Stones -- 4
Angelina Jolie -- 14
Jennifer Anniston -- 44
Gisele Bundchen (supermodel) -- 53
Jessica Simpson -- 60
Tyra Banks (supermodel) -- 61
Kiera Knightley -- 71
Hilary Duff -- 72
Kate Moss (supermodel) -- 74
Ryan Seacrest -- 76
Scarlett Johansson -- 77
Jessica Alba -- 78
Reese Witherspoon -- 80
Heidi Klum (supermodel) -- 84
Dakota Fanning -- 94
Emma Watson -- 97
Hayden Panettiere -- 98
Oprah was #1 of course.
June 19th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Because they are all celebrities, not celebutantes.
June 19th, 2007, 04:16 PM
I'm with Gary, that list involves some modicum of talent and success not just infamy
June 20th, 2007, 10:29 AM
It's a list of what celebrities -- including inspirational speakers like Anthony Robbins and athletes like Tiger Woods -- have financial and social power. It's measuring the impact of these celebrities on the media and the public and the level of attention paid to them, and their ability to make money from that attention. So Paris, anti-christ, celebutante, omnipresent media presence, entrepreneur, continually photographed, scourge to young girls everywhere -- shouldn't she be on the list of the 100 Most Powerful Celebrities?
And maybe she was in previous years. But she isn't now. She doesn't beat out Keira Knightley or Dakota Fanning. She doesn't even beat Jessica Simpson, whose recent album tanked, or young actress Hayden Panettiere, whose celebrity status is only a few months old (and who has a CD coming out, natch.)
Sadly, only three authors made the list: J.K. Rowling 48, Dan Brown 86, and Mitch Albom 96. Stephen King must be annoyed. (Or not, as that doesn't seem to be his thing, but he did complain several years ago, before the last Gunslinger books went all out, that his hardcovers weren't selling as well as before.)
June 26th, 2007, 02:43 PM
Today is 'P' Day according to Ryan Seacrest.
Front page of every paper. Mention made on every news report.
'P' Day. How sad.
July 9th, 2007, 03:55 PM
enslaved to my writing
I ignore the news, because all they talk about is Paris Hilton. To me, the coverage of Paris and her ilk (Britney Spears, Princess Di, etc.) is just tabloid fodder.
I agree with what KatG said about most adults feeling contempt towards her, rather than idolization. Every person I know in my office--all males age 20 to 40--hates Paris. I'm sure that some of them watch the news to see her crying in jail, or to make fun of her.
Which is kind of sad in and of itself, because she's made herself infamous, and probably did it just to get attention.
March 13th, 2008, 07:19 AM
ehy guys... let's say it simply--- she doesn't know what is 'earning the everyday bread' as we use to say...
just for a reality, some pics...etc..does not make her worthy of her granda's heritage... I agree with the elder Hilton!!!
I am simply bored with these spoilt blondies...
April 4th, 2008, 02:03 PM
I didn't do it!
You know, I'm not interested the slightest bit about Paris Hilton. What interests me however is to understand how a society have come to give to individuals such as her the importance they now gained. How come a person becomes important because he/she is famous while it should be the other way around? A person should become famous because he/she is somehow important or has done something of importance. The phenomenon applies especially to reality-shows. Why those people who do nothing behond ridiculing themselves on TV are instantly idolized?
The issue is not about Paris Hilton or the like of her. The problem lays in the fact that, as a society, we ask for this, we consume it.
April 10th, 2008, 06:27 AM
Exactly. I often see apparently rational and capable women (and it IS women, never men) on the bus to/from work reading Heat, Now, or one of those other garbage magazines which are full of nothing but "celeb" stories. What on Earth do they get out of reading this stuff? I'm entirely with Stephen Fry, who once memorably described Paris Hilton as "a worthless piece of ordure" - but is it her fault that the world is full of idiots who will buy magazines containing stories about her and her kind? I read one once (and only once), and I think it was the foulest thing I've ever read. From cover to cover, it was nothing but mean-spirited and catty remarks about celebrities, deliberately unflattering photographs of beautiful women, and wildly speculative pieces of "journalism" about what the stars had been up to. The high point would have to be a photo-story headlined something like "BRITNEY SENSATION - she sues her own mother!!" The story below said that they had exclusive stunning (why are these things always "stunning"?) pictures of Britney Spears serving legal papers upon her mother. This was followed by a photo of Britney walking towards some other woman, Britney handing her something, and Britney walking away again. It could have been a shopping list, or a photograph in an envelope, or any damn thing. And would a multi-millionaire pop star really serve legal papers on anyone personally? Utter drivel - and it would have sold by the truckload. So yes, as repellant as the likes of Ms Hilton are, the leeches who live off them are far worse - and the cretins who lap up the gossip mags may be worse still.
April 11th, 2008, 10:48 AM
To be fair, the constant recycling and churning of drivel isn't only the fault of celebrity magazines. When was the last time Wired wrote something new and interesting? Sci-Am? Ad-busters? If your answer is "well, the latest issue had such and such which is so relevant..." then I feel I should point out that you just happen to be of their demographic. Some of the people who read celebrity gossip rags are genuinely interested in this stuff, and many more read it simply because it's a form of comedy for them. In a culture where the consumption of bullshit is not only rampant but expected, reinforced, and repeated ad nauseum in virtually every single form and content, the extent to which gossip rags have embraced the ludicrousness of their own existence is actually somewhat refreshing.
Yes, TMZ.com absolutely hurts me in my core. I hate it. But when you watch the TV show (if you're forced to by, say, a sister or your gay friends ), everything about it is a self-referential joke. From the mocked up spit-ball session standing in as the actual "news" to the comments made by the actual "journalists" who "pitch" their stories -- the entire thing is poking fun at itself. That's probably why celebrity kitsch is so ingrained into all the other forms of social kitsch like drag queens and camp cinema. But at least the celeb "news" is usually honest that it's bullshit. CNN, FoxNews, Al Jazeera, the BBC, Wired, Sci-Am, National Geographic, and whoever else that takes what they do too seriously can make no such claim to honesty.
Actually I might take FoxNews out of that list. They do sometimes poke fun at themselves, and they are honest that they have an agenda.