Selma Blair fired from "Anger Management"

[David]

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/

2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From �Anger Management�
Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
By NELLIE ANDREEVA

UPDATE TUESDAY 5:15 PM: What Charlie Sheen wants, he gets. After
mounting a campaign to get his co-star on the FX comedy series Selma
Blair fired over alleged comments questioning his work ethic, it�s
mission accomplished for Sheen, who reportedly threatened to quit the
show if Blair stayed. Anger Management producer Lionsgate just issued
a statement, making Blair�s dismissal from the show official. �We are
confirming that Selma Blair will not be returning to Anger Management,
and we wish her the very best.�

2ND UPDATE 6:10 PM: I�ve learned more details about Selma Blair�s
shocking dismissal from Anger Management. I hear Charlie Sheen �fired�
her via text, in which he called the actress a �c�t�. And it was not
the only abusive, expletives-filled text she had received from Sheen,
who also serves as an executive producer on Anger Management. I also
hear that Blair was not the only member of the show�s cast and crew
that was frustrated by Sheen�s work habits as I hear they would often
sit and wait for hours for him to show up for work. Although it was
Blair voicing her concerns that got Sheen to flip out and get her
sacked. I hear Blair�s role as Charlie�s therapist will not be recast.
Probably not coincidentally, I hear the series just sent out a notice
about a new female regular who is expected to fill the void left by
Blair. The producers likely will use Blair�s exit for another creative
makeover following the recent tweaking following Anger Management�s
sagging ratings. But, while the show took an unplanned hiatus for the
recent creative retool, it is now expected to stay in production as
scheduled, with the writers making changes prompted by Blair�s
departure on the fly. Anger Management is roughly halfway through its
100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
not for now.

[benjamin]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 00:01:49 UTC-4, David wrote:
> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>

> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From ‘Anger Management’

Too bad. Charlie on AM just didnt have the same spark as 2.5M in
its heyday.

Given that, Selma Blair was what tipped the scales for me to
watch it.

[Rhino]

On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:
> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>

> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From �Anger Management�

> Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>
> UPDATE TUESDAY 5:15 PM: What Charlie Sheen wants, he gets. After
> mounting a campaign to get his co-star on the FX comedy series Selma

> Blair fired over alleged comments questioning his work ethic, it�s

> mission accomplished for Sheen, who reportedly threatened to quit the
> show if Blair stayed. Anger Management producer Lionsgate just issued

> a statement, making Blair�s dismissal from the show official. �We are

> confirming that Selma Blair will not be returning to Anger Management,

> and we wish her the very best.�
>
> 2ND UPDATE 6:10 PM: I�ve learned more details about Selma Blair�s
> shocking dismissal from Anger Management. I hear Charlie Sheen �fired�
> her via text, in which he called the actress a �c�t�. And it was not

> the only abusive, expletives-filled text she had received from Sheen,
> who also serves as an executive producer on Anger Management. I also

> hear that Blair was not the only member of the show�s cast and crew
> that was frustrated by Sheen�s work habits as I hear they would often

> sit and wait for hours for him to show up for work. Although it was
> Blair voicing her concerns that got Sheen to flip out and get her

> sacked. I hear Blair�s role as Charlie�s therapist will not be recast.

> Probably not coincidentally, I hear the series just sent out a notice
> about a new female regular who is expected to fill the void left by

> Blair. The producers likely will use Blair�s exit for another creative
> makeover following the recent tweaking following Anger Management�s

> sagging ratings. But, while the show took an unplanned hiatus for the
> recent creative retool, it is now expected to stay in production as

> scheduled, with the writers making changes prompted by Blair�s

> departure on the fly. Anger Management is roughly halfway through its
> 100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
> paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
> not for now.
>

What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair? After all, they
fired her, she didn't refuse to work.

What happens to salaries in a situation like this? If she basically
contracted to do 100 episodes, got paid for them, then got sacked
halfway through the run, can they sue her to get half the salary back?
Or does she get to keep it all since she didn't quit and is still
willing to work?

I have no idea if a big salary like the one obtained by TV stars is all
paid out at the front or if it comes in chunks during the run of the
show; that may be handled differently from contract to contract.

--
Rhino

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <ea4c3475-0a33-40a1...@googlegroups.com>,

Neither Selma Blair nor Shawnee Smith was enough to get me to even
sample AM - as long as Sheen's there, I won't in any case.

--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kps9qc$vje$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

> On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:
> > http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-bla
> > ir-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/

> > 100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
> > paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
> > not for now.
> >
>
> What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair? After all, they
> fired her, she didn't refuse to work.

Maybe they meant the other way: legal action BY Blair for firing her.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message
news:barmar-DDBE20....@news.eternal-september.org...

============================================

Whatever the case...my regard for Blair has gone up ten fold from all this.
This guy is a creep and I wouldn't watch anything he's involved with at this
point. Even when he's funny...I'm bothered that I even laugh.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 11:07 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Charlie Sheen]

> This guy is a creep and I wouldn't watch anything he's involved with at this
> point.  Even when he's funny...I'm bothered that I even laugh.

Frankly, an actor's private life or actions behind the camera are of
no real interest. We watch a production for the work itself. We're
not gonna watch boring stuff just because an actor doing it happens to
be a saint, and the reverse is just as true.

Actors are like any other person--some are nice and some aren't. Many
actors have very sleazy lives behind the camera but are good at
keeping them quiet.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 8:59 am, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> Neither Selma Blair nor Shawnee Smith was enough to get me to even
> sample AM - as long as Sheen's there, I won't in any case.

Blair and Smith are two good reasons to watch the show. Also, Barry
Corbin is funny, too.

In any event, the show is funny. That's what counts.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:
>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>>

>> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From ‘Anger Management’

>> Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
>> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>>
>> UPDATE TUESDAY 5:15 PM: What Charlie Sheen wants, he gets. After
>> mounting a campaign to get his co-star on the FX comedy series Selma

>> Blair fired over alleged comments questioning his work ethic, it’s

>> mission accomplished for Sheen, who reportedly threatened to quit the
>> show if Blair stayed. Anger Management producer Lionsgate just issued

>> a statement, making Blair’s dismissal from the show official. “We are

>> confirming that Selma Blair will not be returning to Anger Management,

>> and we wish her the very best.”
>>
>> 2ND UPDATE 6:10 PM: I’ve learned more details about Selma Blair‘s
>> shocking dismissal from Anger Management. I hear Charlie Sheen “fired”
>> her via text, in which he called the actress a “c–t”. And it was not

>> the only abusive, expletives-filled text she had received from Sheen,
>> who also serves as an executive producer on Anger Management. I also

>> hear that Blair was not the only member of the show’s cast and crew
>> that was frustrated by Sheen’s work habits as I hear they would often

>> sit and wait for hours for him to show up for work. Although it was
>> Blair voicing her concerns that got Sheen to flip out and get her

>> sacked. I hear Blair’s role as Charlie’s therapist will not be recast.

>> Probably not coincidentally, I hear the series just sent out a notice
>> about a new female regular who is expected to fill the void left by

>> Blair. The producers likely will use Blair’s exit for another creative
>> makeover following the recent tweaking following Anger Management‘s

>> sagging ratings. But, while the show took an unplanned hiatus for the
>> recent creative retool, it is now expected to stay in production as

>> scheduled, with the writers making changes prompted by Blair’s

>> departure on the fly. Anger Management is roughly halfway through its
>> 100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
>> paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
>> not for now.
>>
>
>What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?

Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. As long as they pay
her, she has no legal complaint.

>After all, they
>fired her, she didn't refuse to work.
>
>What happens to salaries in a situation like this?

They have to pay her for the period of her contract. Of course, that
varies sometimes, but not in the case of somebody her size.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<49aa8c3d-33b1-4bd5...@9g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,

It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
(or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
they disagree with?

These types of things are fun to talk about as gossip, but they don't
change the quality of the work. Sometimes they can even make you
appreciate it -- someone like Robert Downey Jr. surprises us with the
quality of his work after we learned of his drug problems.

[benjamin]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 11:59:11 UTC-4, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:59 am, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Neither Selma Blair nor Shawnee Smith was enough to get me to even
> > sample AM - as long as Sheen's there, I won't in any case.
>
> Blair and Smith are two good reasons to watch the show.

Smith never did anything for me. Nice body but the absolute worst, voice,
personality and one weird ass face. Plus her humor was too formulaic even
for a Charlie Sheen vehicle.

[David]

On Jun 19, 2:05 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> they disagree with?

It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.

> These types of things are fun to talk about as gossip, but they don't
> change the quality of the work. Sometimes they can even make you
> appreciate it -- someone like Robert Downey Jr. surprises us with the
> quality of his work after we learned of his drug problems.

Downey was always likable and self-effacing. Sheen acts like a
superhuman rock-star to whom problems that would hurt or kill a mere
mortal only make him ever more awesome. Plus drugs badly damaged
Downey's career and his comeback is a great story. Sheen was allowed
to get away with murder (almost literally) because his show was
successful.

[Ian J. Ball]

On Jun 19, 10:16 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact_ple...@example.com> wrote:
> >On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:

> >>http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-se...

And, as long as they pay her, why would she?! - She's finally free of
Charlie Sheen, she can now go work on any project she wants, *AND*
she's still getting paid if nothing lucrative turns up!!

[benjamin]

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013 14:27:33 UTC-4, David wrote:

> Downey was always likable and self-effacing. Sheen acts like a
> superhuman rock-star to whom problems that would hurt or kill a mere
> mortal only make him ever more awesome.

To be fair he does have Tiger's blood and Adonis DNA. Or is that
Tiger DNA and Adonis blood?

[David Johnston]

Tiger blood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<1fc3863a-713d-4c40...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 10:16�am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino

> > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
> >
> > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. �As long as they pay
> > her, she has no legal complaint.
>
> And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!

Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
labeled as "difficult to work with". Stars like Sheen are not uncommon
in Hollywood, and producers probably prefer to hire costars who can put
up with them.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<5acb3bcc-76f9-4f26...@b9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2:05�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> > they disagree with?
>
> It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
> themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
> Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.

What did Heaton do on Twitter?

--
Dano's just a troll.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 2:27 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:05 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> > they disagree with?
>
> It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
> themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
> Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.

Most people know nothing of the off screen lives of the people you
mention, so there is nothing to compare.

As mentioned by Barry, customers don't care about a chef's politics--
nor his personality back in the kitchen.

We TV viewers have absolutely no contact with actors, so their
personalities are utterly meaningless to us. Charlie Sheen was
entertaining on 2½ Men, and entertaining on Anger Management. That's
all that matters.

Likewise, what goes on behind the scenes of any TV show (or movie or
play) is meaningless to us viewers.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<1fc3863a-713d-4c40...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

No. I bet that if she goes to work on another project, they stop paying
her on the spot. She might be able to do commercials or talk show guest
spots or weekend dinner theater, something she could have done while
still appearing on AD, but there's no way she's going to get to do
another series or movie or something.

Also there's the problem of residuals. They have to pay her what they
would have for the initial appearance, but I bet they don't have to pay
her for reruns, or they'll try not to. That could end up costing her a
*lot* of money.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 3:52 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
> future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
> fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
> labeled as "difficult to work with". Stars like Sheen are not uncommon
> in Hollywood, and producers probably prefer to hire costars who can put
> up with them.

All things being equal, producers do like to hire actors who have good
work habits--show up when they're supposed prepared with their lines,
and not make any trouble.

But in the real world--Hollywood and elsewhere--things are NOT equal.
Very often a difficult actor--or producer--is hired because the
quality (profitability) of their work is so high that management is
willing to overlook their shortcomings. I believe Marlon Brando had a
lousy reputation but he was still hired for The Godfather because of
the quality of his work, and it seems that was a good decision.

In the real world this applies, too. Many times an employee who is
highly productive (profitable) will be kept on despite their frequent
company rule-breaking. For example, a top notch salesman who enjoys
drinking too much. Certain technical specialists who work at odd
hours but are really good at what they do.

There is, of course, always that line in the sand that if someone
makes too much trouble, they're fired. Sometimes new management comes
in who is less tolerant and fires the person.

As to this show, remember that the gossip press is notoriously
inaccurate, so what actually happened behind the scenes is very
debatable.

[Ian J. Ball]

On Jun 19, 12:52 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <1fc3863a-713d-4c40-b4ca-973bc6078...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:16 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
>
> > > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
>
> > > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract.  As long as they pay
> > > her, she has no legal complaint.
>
> > And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!
>
> Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
> future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
> fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
> labeled as "difficult to work with".

I'd say there's *no* chance of that happening in this case.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT), "Ian J. Ball"

<ijb...@mac.com> wrote:

>On Jun 19, 12:52 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1fc3863a-713d-4c40-b4ca-973bc6078...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>  "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 10:16 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
>>
>> > > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
>>
>> > > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract.  As long as they pay
>> > > her, she has no legal complaint.
>>
>> > And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!
>>
>> Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
>> future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
>> fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
>> labeled as "difficult to work with".
>
>I'd say there's *no* chance of that happening in this case.

+1

I think she actually has a reputation of being rather easy to work
with.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>>What sort of legal action could be taken against [Selma] Blair?

>Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. As long as they pay
>her, she has no legal complaint.

>>After all, they fired her, she didn't refuse to work.

>>What happens to salaries in a situation like this?

>They have to pay her for the period of her contract. Of course, that
>varies sometimes, but not in the case of somebody her size.

Does she have to continue to show up at the set during production weeks
in order to get paid, even if they never put her on camera?

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message

news:barmar-C12847....@news.eternal-september.org...

===========================================

I would agree in general with you guys about this...except...this guy's on
screen persona has become so closely aligned with his off screen life as to
be nearly identical. He has reveled in his own bad behavior and and
attitude. Made quite a "career" and millions upon millions from it. I
honestly don't think he's even playing a character any longer. Seriously.
I never cared for Two and a Half Men. I never even gave this current one a
look see just on the basis that I can no longer separate (nor apparently can
Sheen) the man and "myth". I also rarely...if ever even bother to comment
on him or his shows. Probably won't again.

BTW...used to be a fan of his...so to speak. At least I liked him in Major
League and Eight Men Out. He will be easily forgotten when he's done.

Oh...BTW...he couldn't carry Downey's bong.

[Barb May]

It's been a little uneven at times, but certainly up to the same level
as other popular TV comedies. I've enjoyed the guest appearances by
Martin Sheen. Meanwhile Blair's character has been getting a little
stale.

Charlie Sheen is probably a prima donna on set, but it is his show. His
father has been putting up with it, so how bad can it be?

What would you expect Charlie to do "...after she complained to network
executives about his terrible behavior and shoddy work ethic?" If Blair
went to the suits and demanded they do something about Sheen then she
deserved to be fired by Sheen. Bitching on the set is one thing, but
going to the suits? No way. Blair got what she deserved. More than she
deserved, actually since she is still getting paid.


--
Barb

[David]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:53 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Jun 19, 2:27�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2:05�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
>> > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
>> > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
>> > they disagree with?
>>
>> It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
>> themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
>> Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.
>
>Most people know nothing of the off screen lives of the people you
>mention, so there is nothing to compare.

Being unaware of their off-screen lives isn't the same as being aware
and not caring, as you're doing. He's in a commercial medium so part
of his job is to present an amicable persona. Some famous people do
get a longer rope if their work is brilliant, but Sheen was playing
himself on a mediocre sitcom.

>As mentioned by Barry, customers don't care about a chef's politics--
>nor his personality back in the kitchen.

It depends on the politics. Is the chef a conservative or is he a
frothing-at-the-mouth, living-in-a-fantasy-bubble bigot?

Because of Jon Voight I didn't watch "Lone Star" and I won't watch
"Ray Donovan." I'm not boycotting him, I just can't stomach seeing
him.

[David]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:44 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

She went in on the Sandra Fluke slutgate.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <a2d4s89jboatlhce4...@4ax.com>,

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:53 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> >On Jun 19, 2:27�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2:05�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> >> > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> >> > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> >> > they disagree with?
> >>
> >> It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
> >> themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
> >> Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.
> >
> >Most people know nothing of the off screen lives of the people you
> >mention, so there is nothing to compare.
>
> Being unaware of their off-screen lives isn't the same as being aware
> and not caring, as you're doing. He's in a commercial medium so part
> of his job is to present an amicable persona. Some famous people do
> get a longer rope if their work is brilliant, but Sheen was playing
> himself on a mediocre sitcom.
>
> >As mentioned by Barry, customers don't care about a chef's politics--
> >nor his personality back in the kitchen.

Well, Barry would be wrong, and Amy just proved it.

>
> It depends on the politics. Is the chef a conservative or is he a
> frothing-at-the-mouth, living-in-a-fantasy-bubble bigot?
>
> Because of Jon Voight I didn't watch "Lone Star" and I won't watch
> "Ray Donovan." I'm not boycotting him, I just can't stomach seeing
> him.

[shawn]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:16:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
><no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:
>>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>>>

>>> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From īŋŊAnger ManagementīŋŊ

>>> Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
>>> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>>>
>>> UPDATE TUESDAY 5:15 PM: What Charlie Sheen wants, he gets. After
>>> mounting a campaign to get his co-star on the FX comedy series Selma

>>> Blair fired over alleged comments questioning his work ethic, itīŋŊs

>>> mission accomplished for Sheen, who reportedly threatened to quit the
>>> show if Blair stayed. Anger Management producer Lionsgate just issued

>>> a statement, making BlairīŋŊs dismissal from the show official. īŋŊWe are

>>> confirming that Selma Blair will not be returning to Anger Management,

>>> and we wish her the very best.īŋŊ
>>>
>>> 2ND UPDATE 6:10 PM: IīŋŊve learned more details about Selma BlairīŋŊs
>>> shocking dismissal from Anger Management. I hear Charlie Sheen īŋŊfiredīŋŊ
>>> her via text, in which he called the actress a īŋŊcīŋŊtīŋŊ. And it was not

>>> the only abusive, expletives-filled text she had received from Sheen,
>>> who also serves as an executive producer on Anger Management. I also

>>> hear that Blair was not the only member of the showīŋŊs cast and crew
>>> that was frustrated by SheenīŋŊs work habits as I hear they would often

>>> sit and wait for hours for him to show up for work. Although it was
>>> Blair voicing her concerns that got Sheen to flip out and get her

>>> sacked. I hear BlairīŋŊs role as CharlieīŋŊs therapist will not be recast.

>>> Probably not coincidentally, I hear the series just sent out a notice
>>> about a new female regular who is expected to fill the void left by

>>> Blair. The producers likely will use BlairīŋŊs exit for another creative
>>> makeover following the recent tweaking following Anger ManagementīŋŊs

>>> sagging ratings. But, while the show took an unplanned hiatus for the
>>> recent creative retool, it is now expected to stay in production as

>>> scheduled, with the writers making changes prompted by BlairīŋŊs

>>> departure on the fly. Anger Management is roughly halfway through its
>>> 100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
>>> paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
>>> not for now.
>>>
>>
>>What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
>
>Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. As long as they pay
>her, she has no legal complaint.
>
>>After all, they
>>fired her, she didn't refuse to work.
>>
>>What happens to salaries in a situation like this?
>
>They have to pay her for the period of her contract. Of course, that
>varies sometimes, but not in the case of somebody her size.

But does that mean she can't take on new work? I know that happens
some times when someone is let go and paid for a time. I don't know if
that applies to an actress in this situation. It's nice to get paid
for nothing but I'm sure she will want to get back in front of the
cameras. After all time spent away from the screen (small or big)
means more time for people to forget her.

[shawn]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:47 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT), "Ian J. Ball"
><ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 19, 12:52�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <1fc3863a-713d-4c40-b4ca-973bc6078...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> �"Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> > On Jun 19, 10:16�am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
>>>
>>> > > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
>>>
>>> > > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. �As long as they pay
>>> > > her, she has no legal complaint.
>>>
>>> > And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!
>>>
>>> Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
>>> future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
>>> fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
>>> labeled as "difficult to work with".
>>
>>I'd say there's *no* chance of that happening in this case.
>
>+1
>
>I think she actually has a reputation of being rather easy to work
>with.

Plus this is Charlie Sheen. Everyone in Hollywood knows who the
difficult person is. The fact that she lasted this long without saying
anything says a lot about her work ethic. Also note that no one is
saying she said anything bad about him. Just that his work ethic is
causing issues. Not unlike what other people have said concerning
other people that cause problems like Mark Harmon's comments on "NCIS"
and the constant late delivery and rewrites of scripts.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 6:57 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Being unaware of their off-screen lives isn't the same as being aware
> and not caring, as you're doing. He's in a commercial medium so part
> of his job is to present an amicable persona.

Actually, I--and most viewers--am NOT aware of the off-screen lives,
beyond some cursory headlines.

It is absolutely NOT part of his job* to present an amicable persona.
Geez, all of Hollywood would be out of work for failing to be
"amicable", based on the headlines.

Once again, folks are making assumptions and conducting analysis on
what they think happened based on gossip reports. But no one here
really knows what conversations actually transpired.


* Subject of course to any provisions in a contract. However, none of
us know what is actually in a specific actor's contract.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 19, 8:07 pm, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> But does that mean she can't take on new work?

1) None of us know the _actual_ terms of her contract, which would
determine what, if any, compensation, she is entitled to; and what
obligations she may have.

2) None of us know the _real_ story of what actually transpired behind
the scenes; and those unkown details are significant in terms of the
contract provisions.

3) In situations like this there is often a private negotiated
settlement to resolve contract issues, and such settlements may not
necessarily conform to the contract terms.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<7a7e36b6-7750-49f9...@s9g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2:27�pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2:05�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> > > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> > > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> > > they disagree with?
> >
> > It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
> > themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
> > Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.
>
> Most people know nothing of the off screen lives of the people you
> mention, so there is nothing to compare.
>
> As mentioned by Barry, customers don't care about a chef's politics--
> nor his personality back in the kitchen.
>
> We TV viewers have absolutely no contact with actors, so their
> personalities are utterly meaningless to us.

To be fair, that's not entirely true, either. The chef doesn't have a
frequent soapbox where he gets to expose his views to the general
public. Stars go on talk shows, so we see them outside their
performances. And paparazzi are following them, so their private lives
are on display as well.

So even if someone might care about the politics of the chef, they don't
know them. Stars take advantage of their well-knownness.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<629461c4-07c5-4a1a...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jun 19, 3:52�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
> > future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
> > fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
> > labeled as "difficult to work with". Stars like Sheen are not uncommon
> > in Hollywood, and producers probably prefer to hire costars who can put
> > up with them.
>
> All things being equal, producers do like to hire actors who have good
> work habits--show up when they're supposed prepared with their lines,
> and not make any trouble.
>
> But in the real world--Hollywood and elsewhere--things are NOT equal.
> Very often a difficult actor--or producer--is hired because the
> quality (profitability) of their work is so high that management is
> willing to overlook their shortcomings. I believe Marlon Brando had a
> lousy reputation but he was still hired for The Godfather because of
> the quality of his work, and it seems that was a good decision.

This is obviously true, or Sheen wouldn't even have this new show in the
first place. He was known to be difficult to work with, but he also has
a body of work that made him bankable.

Blair, on the other hand, is a B-list actress. She can't open a movie,
her name on a TV show won't make it a hit (even by cable TV standards).
They were willing to fire her to keep their troubled star happy.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<9c82a2dd-ddcc-49c4...@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jun 19, 8:07�pm, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But does that mean she can't take on new work?
>
> 1) None of us know the _actual_ terms of her contract, which would
> determine what, if any, compensation, she is entitled to; and what
> obligations she may have.

True. On the other hand, she's not Conan O'Brian -- it seems unlikely
they would be concerned about competition from her.

[David]

On Jun 20, 10:14 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:57 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Being unaware of their off-screen lives isn't the same as being aware
> > and not caring, as you're doing. He's in a commercial medium so part
> > of his job is to present an amicable persona.
>
> Actually, I--and most viewers--am NOT aware of the off-screen lives,
> beyond some cursory headlines.

Paparazzi didn't have to dig through the trash to uncover Grammer and
Voight's political leanings. It's something they proclaim openly and
use to their advantage. Grammer has been trying to start his own
conservative network. Voight writes editorials and speaks at Tea Party
events. If you aren't aware of their views, fine. But people who are
don't have to seek these things out in tawdry tabloids.

What you want is for them to have it both ways: Use their stature to
dabble in politics or start new business ventures but at the same time
not turn off anyone who disagrees. Taking a stance means there might
be people who won't like it.

> It is absolutely NOT part of his job* to present an amicable persona.
> Geez, all of Hollywood would be out of work for failing to be
> "amicable", based on the headlines.

It's their job to appear on talk-shows and talk to reporters and
appear personable. To have all fan interactions go without incident.
To not be caught doing anything criminal or socially unacceptable.
There's millions of dollars at stake. That's why behavior clauses
exist.

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message

news:barmar-5AE763....@news.eternal-september.org...

==============================================

What I find most amusing is that were it NOT for Charlie's own bizarre
behavior, I have little doubt that he would have a far smaller following.
And earn a lot less money.

Something for everyone...

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 20, 10:14 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>On Jun 19, 6:57 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>Being unaware of their off-screen lives isn't the same as being aware
>>>and not caring, as you're doing. He's in a commercial medium so part
>>>of his job is to present an amicable persona.

>>Actually, I--and most viewers--am NOT aware of the off-screen lives,
>>beyond some cursory headlines.

>Paparazzi didn't have to dig through the trash to uncover Grammer and
>Voight's political leanings. It's something they proclaim openly and
>use to their advantage. Grammer has been trying to start his own
>conservative network. Voight writes editorials and speaks at Tea Party
>events. If you aren't aware of their views, fine. But people who are
>don't have to seek these things out in tawdry tabloids.

>What you want is for them to have it both ways: Use their stature to
>dabble in politics or start new business ventures but at the same time
>not turn off anyone who disagrees. Taking a stance means there might
>be people who won't like it.

But David, there are people that would refuse to take a stance who would
be disliked by those who do. It's two sides of the same coin.

For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.

You've got to assume that taking a stance or not taking a stance is part
of a celebrity cultivating the marketability of his public personality,
and that true sincerity has been monetized.

You might as well attempt to ignore their behavior when not playing a
character on television or in the movies, 'cuz they're very likely to be
playing their "marketable public persona character" at any other time.
I'll agree with you that it may be impossible to do so.

Of course, you get celebrities like Dustin Hoffman who suck at it, whose
public persona is the most unappealing character he plays.

>>It is absolutely NOT part of his job* to present an amicable persona.
>>Geez, all of Hollywood would be out of work for failing to be
>>"amicable", based on the headlines.

>It's their job to appear on talk-shows and talk to reporters and
>appear personable. To have all fan interactions go without incident.
>To not be caught doing anything criminal or socially unacceptable.
>There's millions of dollars at stake. That's why behavior clauses
>exist.

I agree with you, here, but how have celebrities been punished since the
demise of the studio system? I'm not sure how an anti-asshole-in-public
clause would be enforced.

I've read plenty of articles about "the famously prickly Harrison Ford"
by feature writers commenting on how he typically behaves in interviews.
He had to do any number of them after playing Branch Rickey in the recent
movie. Actually, a few reporters noted that his disdain for entertainment
reporters worked for the character.

[David]

On Jun 20, 12:05 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> But David, there are people that would refuse to take a stance who would
> be disliked by those who do. It's two sides of the same coin.
>
> For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
> all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
> necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
> of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
> Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.

I'm not sure if everyone wears a ribbon at these events or if it's
controversial if someone doesn't. Has there ever been an article
written outing someone?

> You've got to assume that taking a stance or not taking a stance is part
> of a celebrity cultivating the marketability of his public personality,
> and that true sincerity has been monetized.
>
> You might as well attempt to ignore their behavior when not playing a
> character on television or in the movies, 'cuz they're very likely to be
> playing their "marketable public persona character" at any other time.
> I'll agree with you that it may be impossible to do so.

True, the nice personality doesn't have to be their real personality.
Sometimes it's preferable that way. Lots of talk-show guests are more
entertaining when playing a character.

> >It's their job to appear on talk-shows and talk to reporters and
> >appear personable. To have all fan interactions go without incident.
> >To not be caught doing anything criminal or socially unacceptable.
> >There's millions of dollars at stake. That's why behavior clauses
> >exist.
>
> I agree with you, here, but how have celebrities been punished since the
> demise of the studio system? I'm not sure how an anti-asshole-in-public
> clause would be enforced.

I'd guess it's affected celebrities of less than A stature. But it
isn't something that gets reported on.

> I've read plenty of articles about "the famously prickly Harrison Ford"
> by feature writers commenting on how he typically behaves in interviews.
> He had to do any number of them after playing Branch Rickey in the recent
> movie. Actually, a few reporters noted that his disdain for entertainment
> reporters worked for the character.

Ford is likable in his own grumpy way, and he still comes off like a
common working man even after everything he's been in. I don't think
he's turned the audience against him. I find his talk-show appearances
entertaining, in a Charles Grodin/Bill Murray type of way, even if
he's not playing a character.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>On Jun 19, 8:07 pm, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

>>>But does that mean she can't take on new work?

>>1) None of us know the _actual_ terms of her contract, which would
>>determine what, if any, compensation, she is entitled to; and what
>>obligations she may have.

>True. On the other hand, she's not Conan O'Brian -- it seems unlikely
>they would be concerned about competition from her.

I surely don't agree with you. Producers assume every role is a potential
breakout role, and they don't want to be in a position in which a rival
producer might exploit "their actor".

I think it's safe to assume that, yeah, she's exclusive to that production
by contract for a specified period, because no one's ever heard of a
regular cast member not being exclusive.

Even supporting actors, who may play one-off characters, might be assumed
to become import recurring actors, for which producers demand exclusivity,
even if it's not contractual. There's the famous incident of Robert Foxworth's
character getting killed off screen on Babylon 5 after Foxworth played him
twice as punishment for playing a similar character on Deep Space Nine.

Joan Rivers never substituted for Johnny Carson again after getting her
own late-night talk show, which was a career setback for her as her show
was so short lived.

But the most famous of all was Arthur Godfrey firing popular singer Julius
LaRosa on Godfrey's radio program for releasing a record. Less well know:
Godfrey fired his bandleader, Archie Bleyer, who produced the LaRosa record
and, worse, produced a spoken record of Don McNeill, host of the much less
popular The Breakfast Club, a competing talk show host on another network.

[Mason Barge]

Agreed, but you have to be a real power-hitter to get away with it.

I read a great book about the filming of "Bonfire of the Vanities" --
one of the great production disasters of the 20th century -- called
"The Devil's Candy". Apparently Bruce Willis decided he wanted to be
in it (when he was a big name), they felt like they had to hire him,
and once he was there -- already completely inappropriate in the role
of the British journalist -- he started suggesting changes. One of
the 20 or so reason the movie was a horrendous expensive flop.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 20, 12:05 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>But David, there are people that would refuse to take a stance who would
>>be disliked by those who do. It's two sides of the same coin.

>>For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
>>all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
>>necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
>>of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
>>Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.

>I'm not sure if everyone wears a ribbon at these events or if it's
>controversial if someone doesn't. Has there ever been an article
>written outing someone?

Why does there have to be a negative article? No one can afford to piss off
an important producer, especially if the cause is favored by his wife.

As wearing a stupid ribbon is no kind of demonstration of commitment, then
they're all worn out of compliance.

>>You've got to assume that taking a stance or not taking a stance is part
>>of a celebrity cultivating the marketability of his public personality,
>>and that true sincerity has been monetized.

>>You might as well attempt to ignore their behavior when not playing a
>>character on television or in the movies, 'cuz they're very likely to be
>>playing their "marketable public persona character" at any other time.
>>I'll agree with you that it may be impossible to do so.

>True, the nice personality doesn't have to be their real personality.
>Sometimes it's preferable that way. Lots of talk-show guests are more
>entertaining when playing a character.

My theory is that actors utterly lack an interesting personality.

>>I've read plenty of articles about "the famously prickly Harrison Ford"
>>by feature writers commenting on how he typically behaves in interviews.
>>He had to do any number of them after playing Branch Rickey in the recent
>>movie. Actually, a few reporters noted that his disdain for entertainment
>>reporters worked for the character.

>Ford is likable in his own grumpy way, and he still comes off like a
>common working man even after everything he's been in. I don't think
>he's turned the audience against him. I find his talk-show appearances
>entertaining, in a Charles Grodin/Bill Murray type of way, even if
>he's not playing a character.

That was the point the various writers made about Ford (all probably
copying off each other), but it's highly doubtful that a studio flack
would want Ford to behave like that, despite that it's marketable for Ford.
He may have an unenforceable "enthusiasm" clause in his contract, heh.

Grodin was a fantastic talk show guest. I suppose it's not really something
you can make a living at.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I read a great book about the filming of "Bonfire of the Vanities" --
>one of the great production disasters of the 20th century -- called
>"The Devil's Candy". Apparently Bruce Willis decided he wanted to be
>in it (when he was a big name), they felt like they had to hire him,
>and once he was there -- already completely inappropriate in the role
>of the British journalist -- he started suggesting changes. One of
>the 20 or so reason the movie was a horrendous expensive flop.

On the other hand, I once saw Willis interviewed. The interviewer brought
up 12 Monkeys. Willis said the director gave him a list of 12 or so
Bruce Willis personality quirks relies upon when performing, that Willis
claimed he wasn't aware of, that the director wouldn't allow Willis to
do in the movie.

He's not a shithead all the time.

[Ed Stasiak]

> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com
>
> Charlie Sheen was entertaining on 2½ Men, and entertaining
> on Anger Management. That's all that matters.

I've never watched either show and I personally have nothing
against Charlie Sheen but someone's politics or behavior can
have a bearing on viewers and they're not wrong for feeling
that way.

To make an extreme example; one wouldn't expect Blacks
to watch a show with a comedian who is a Klu Klux Klan
member on his off time, no matter how funny he may be
otherwise.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kpvanl$4mk$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >>On Jun 19, 8:07 pm, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>But does that mean she can't take on new work?
>
> >>1) None of us know the _actual_ terms of her contract, which would
> >>determine what, if any, compensation, she is entitled to; and what
> >>obligations she may have.
>
> >True. On the other hand, she's not Conan O'Brian -- it seems unlikely
> >they would be concerned about competition from her.
>
> I surely don't agree with you. Producers assume every role is a potential
> breakout role, and they don't want to be in a position in which a rival
> producer might exploit "their actor".
>
> I think it's safe to assume that, yeah, she's exclusive to that production
> by contract for a specified period, because no one's ever heard of a
> regular cast member not being exclusive.

On the other hand, regulars sometimes do guest roles on other shows (I
just saw Danny Pudi from "Community" last night on "Hot in Cleveland"),
and frequently do movies during their show's hiatus. They probably have
to get permission from the producers of their main show, but it seems
like they can usually get it unless there's some specific issue (most of
the examples you gave were the actor doing something too similar to the
role on the main show).

So I wouldn't expect to see Blair playing the role of a sexy therapist
right away, but she could probably play a wife or mother, or do a drama.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<b6485daf-7d09-4384...@x14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

And when I think about it some more, I realize that it's hard not to
allow your opinions about a performer to affect your feelings when
watching their work. We're all subject to lots of unconscious biases. If
the actor bugs you, you're going into it with negative feelings, and
they'll color your impressions of the performance, the show, etc.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<66a83b26-70a8-4e36...@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 12:05 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > But David, there are people that would refuse to take a stance who would
> > be disliked by those who do. It's two sides of the same coin.
> >
> > For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
> > all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
> > necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
> > of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
> > Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.
>
> I'm not sure if everyone wears a ribbon at these events or if it's
> controversial if someone doesn't. Has there ever been an article
> written outing someone?

Not sure about ribbons, but I'm pretty sure there have been
controversies over trivial things like politicians wearing or not
wearing flag lapel pins.

[David Johnston]

Not unlike the way some people end up hating a character because the
actor played a previous character they hated.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Blair, on the other hand, is a B-list actress. She can't open a movie,
> her name on a TV show won't make it a hit (even by cable TV standards).
> They were willing to fire her to keep their troubled star happy.

I disagree on Selma Blair. She has an excellent performance record on
TV and in movies.

I think her presence on Anger Mgmt attracted viewers.

[Jim G.]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com sent the following on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:58:24
-0700 (PDT):
> On Jun 19, 11:07 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [Charlie Sheen]
> > This guy is a creep and I wouldn't watch anything he's involved with at this
> > point.  Even when he's funny...I'm bothered that I even laugh.
>
> Frankly, an actor's private life or actions behind the camera are of
> no real interest. We watch a production for the work itself.

That's true in general, but as with most things, there are exceptions.
And for me, Sheen is my one and only exception at the moment. I won't do
anything that might even remotely and indirectly put a penny in his
pocket and support his lifestyle. Other than him, I'll watch anyone--
regardless of their private lives or political leanings, or what have
you--if they're in something that appeals to me.

> We're
> not gonna watch boring stuff just because an actor doing it happens to
> be a saint, and the reverse is just as true.

There's enough good entertainment out there for me that I don't feel
remotely compelled to look the other way when it comes to all of the
crap that Sheen had done and continues to do.

> Actors are like any other person--some are nice and some aren't. Many
> actors have very sleazy lives behind the camera but are good at
> keeping them quiet.

Some keep them quiet. Others get outed. And still others, like Sheen, go
out of their way to out themselves and to revel in their scumminess.
Again, we're talking here about someone who, among other things, hires
hookers so that he can beat them up. To call him pond scum would be an
insult to actual pond scum. And the only reason I even noticed this
thread in the first place is because it doesn't have "Sheen" in the
subject line, or else my filters would have trapped it.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:27:33 -0700 (PDT):

> On Jun 19, 2:05�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's always bugged me as well when people make a big deal of an actor's
> > (or director's, producer's, etc.) politics. Would they stop going to a
> > restaurant if they learned that one of the chefs has political opinions
> > they disagree with?
>
> It isn't their problems or opinions, it's how those manifest
> themselves in their personalities. Compare Kelsey Grammer to Jon
> Voight, or Patricia Heaton before and after she got on twitter.
>

> > These types of things are fun to talk about as gossip, but they don't
> > change the quality of the work. Sometimes they can even make you
> > appreciate it -- someone like Robert Downey Jr. surprises us with the
> > quality of his work after we learned of his drug problems.
>
> Downey was always likable and self-effacing. Sheen acts like a
> superhuman rock-star to whom problems that would hurt or kill a mere
> mortal only make him ever more awesome. Plus drugs badly damaged
> Downey's career and his comeback is a great story. Sheen was allowed
> to get away with murder (almost literally) because his show was
> successful.

Not much to add, other than well said!

[Jim G.]

Ian J. Ball sent the following on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT):

> On Jun 19, 12:52 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1fc3863a-713d-4c40-b4ca-973bc6078...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 10:16 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
> >
> > > > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
> >
> > > > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract.  As long as they pay
> > > > her, she has no legal complaint.
> >
> > > And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!
> >

> > Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
> > future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
> > fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
> > labeled as "difficult to work with".
>

> I'd say there's *no* chance of that happening in this case.

Heh. No kidding. Just say "Charlie Sheen" and pretty much anyone outside
of Sheen's own small camp of suck-ups is gonna reply with "Say no more."

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 11:31 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Paparazzi didn't have to dig through the trash to uncover Grammer and
> Voight's political leanings. It's something they proclaim openly and
> use to their advantage. Grammer has been trying to start his own
> conservative network. Voight writes editorials and speaks at Tea Party
> events. If you aren't aware of their views, fine. But people who are
> don't have to seek these things out in tawdry tabloids.

Is Charlie Sheen into politics?

> > It is absolutely NOT part of his job* to present an amicable persona.
> > Geez, all of Hollywood would be out of work for failing to be
> > "amicable", based on the headlines.
>
> It's their job to appear on talk-shows and talk to reporters and
> appear personable. To have all fan interactions go without incident.
> To not be caught doing anything criminal or socially unacceptable.

Your paragraph is contradictory. It's one thing to be nice on
arranged talk shows or interviews.

But "not to be caught" is a completely different matter. Gossip rags
LOVE 'catching" celebrities doing whatever.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 12:23 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:05 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> > For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
> > all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
> > necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
> > of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
> > Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.
>
> I'm not sure if everyone wears a ribbon at these events or if it's
> controversial if someone doesn't. Has there ever been an article
> written outing someone?

There is a lot of internal and external social pressure to conform to
the mood of the moment. In the above example, actors who would fail
to wear the ribbon would get criticized by their peers and in the
press; whatever the 'cause of the day' is.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 12:30 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> I think it's safe to assume that, yeah, she's exclusive to that production
> by contract for a specified period, because no one's ever heard of a
> regular cast member not being exclusive.

Let's see, Robert Reed, a regular on the B/B, guest starred on Mannix
many times.

The regulars on Modern Family often do commercials, like Sofia doing
Pepsi, and others doing voiceovers.

Often times regular cast members do a movie; they either do it on
break, or even take a week off from their show.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> And when I think about it some more, I realize that it's hard not to
> allow your opinions about a performer to affect your feelings when
> watching their work. We're all subject to lots of unconscious biases. If
> the actor bugs you, you're going into it with negative feelings, and
> they'll color your impressions of the performance, the show, etc.

Most people don't know about an actor's politics or personal life.
These days, unless behavior is so extreme and socially unacceptable,
it won't interfere with their work.

When people watch a performance, they're thinking about the
performance, not the actor's own personality or lifestyle.

The media loves to report crap, and then loves to elevate its own
importance by claiming the crap they reported is hurting an actor's
future chances. A few viwers get off on the crap because belittling
an actor makes them feel better about themselves.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 20, 3:04 pm, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> That's true in general, but as with most things, there are exceptions.
> And for me, Sheen is my one and only exception at the moment. I won't do
> anything that might even remotely and indirectly put a penny in his
> pocket and support his lifestyle. Other than him, I'll watch anyone--
> regardless of their private lives or political leanings, or what have
> you--if they're in something that appeals to me.

Really?

What do you personally know--with total accuracy--about Sheen's
"lifestyle"?

Not a damn thing.

You don't know him personally. You don't know anyone who does know
him personally.

Then, what about all the actors that you do watch--but who do far
worse in their private lives?

So, if you want to deprive yourself of good entertainment, that's
certainly your choice.

Meanwhile, it appears you don't mind putting lots of pennies into the
pockets of the gossip rags and paparazzi.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<d02591b0-2551-4f61...@x7g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Blair, on the other hand, is a B-list actress. She can't open a movie,
> > her name on a TV show won't make it a hit (even by cable TV standards).
> > They were willing to fire her to keep their troubled star happy.
>
> I disagree on Selma Blair. She has an excellent performance record on
> TV and in movies.

Yes, she's an excellent B-list actor. She's had lots of great supporting
roles. She was the lead in a WB sitcom that lasted two short seasons.
But she's not a star, and I think few outside fans of indie films and
Hellboy would recognize her name. For mainstream moviegoers, her most
recognizable roles are probably in "Cruel Intentions" as the target of
Sarah Michell Gellar and Ryan Gosling's manipulations, and as a law
student opposite Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde". I consider
myself pretty knowledgeable about recent movies, but I didn't recognize
at least a quarter of the movies listed in her Wikipedia bio.

To the general public, she's "the girl who SMG seduced in CI".

>
> I think her presence on Anger Mgmt attracted viewers.

It was definitely the reason I checked it out. I've liked all her past
performances that I've seen. But I still can tell that she's not a name
actress.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <6bk6s81fm1dot0cdp...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Ian J. Ball sent the following on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT):
> > On Jun 19, 12:52 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1fc3863a-713d-4c40-b4ca-973bc6078...@jr6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  "Ian J. Ball" <ijb...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 10:16 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino
> > >
> > > > > >What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
> > >
> > > > > Not against her - by her, for breach of contract.  As long as they pay
> > > > > her, she has no legal complaint.
> > >
> > > > And, as long as they pay her, why would she?!
> > >
> > > Being fired can have an impact on her reputation, which could affect her
> > > future prospects and salaries. Even if the actions that caused her to be
> > > fired were justified, as they probably were in this case, she could get
> > > labeled as "difficult to work with".
> >
> > I'd say there's *no* chance of that happening in this case.
>
> Heh. No kidding. Just say "Charlie Sheen" and pretty much anyone outside
> of Sheen's own small camp of suck-ups is gonna reply with "Say no more."

But there are lots of Charlie Sheens in Hollywood, and part of playing
the game is dealing with them. For all we know, Tom Hanks is just as
bad, he's just done a good job of covering it up.

We don't know the details, maybe there was sexual harassment involved
and she was really justified in complaining. But if it was just Sheen's
overblown star ego, he's not alone, although he may be an extreme case.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<94dc3176-46c1-4d30...@v17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jun 20, 3:04 pm, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > That's true in general, but as with most things, there are exceptions.
> > And for me, Sheen is my one and only exception at the moment. I won't do
> > anything that might even remotely and indirectly put a penny in his
> > pocket and support his lifestyle. Other than him, I'll watch anyone--
> > regardless of their private lives or political leanings, or what have
> > you--if they're in something that appeals to me.
>
> Really?
>
> What do you personally know--with total accuracy--about Sheen's
> "lifestyle"?

What he's really like at home is irrelevant, what matters to viewers is
the face he shows to the public. That's what colors opinions.

[Mason Barge]

I love Selma Blair, but she just isn't a heavyweight in terms of
Hollywood power and, really, she can't open a movie. She might be
able to carry a t.v. series, I dunno'.

There are lots of great actors and actresses on the B-List.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:07:33 -0400, shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:16:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:45 -0400, Rhino

>><no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 19/06/2013 12:01 AM, David wrote:
>>>> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>>>>
>>>> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From ‘Anger Management’
>>>> Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
>>>> By NELLIE ANDREEVA
>>>>
>>>> UPDATE TUESDAY 5:15 PM: What Charlie Sheen wants, he gets. After
>>>> mounting a campaign to get his co-star on the FX comedy series Selma
>>>> Blair fired over alleged comments questioning his work ethic, it’s
>>>> mission accomplished for Sheen, who reportedly threatened to quit the
>>>> show if Blair stayed. Anger Management producer Lionsgate just issued
>>>> a statement, making Blair’s dismissal from the show official. “We are
>>>> confirming that Selma Blair will not be returning to Anger Management,
>>>> and we wish her the very best.”
>>>>
>>>> 2ND UPDATE 6:10 PM: I’ve learned more details about Selma Blair‘s
>>>> shocking dismissal from Anger Management. I hear Charlie Sheen “fired”
>>>> her via text, in which he called the actress a “c–t”. And it was not
>>>> the only abusive, expletives-filled text she had received from Sheen,
>>>> who also serves as an executive producer on Anger Management. I also
>>>> hear that Blair was not the only member of the show’s cast and crew
>>>> that was frustrated by Sheen’s work habits as I hear they would often
>>>> sit and wait for hours for him to show up for work. Although it was
>>>> Blair voicing her concerns that got Sheen to flip out and get her
>>>> sacked. I hear Blair’s role as Charlie’s therapist will not be recast.
>>>> Probably not coincidentally, I hear the series just sent out a notice
>>>> about a new female regular who is expected to fill the void left by
>>>> Blair. The producers likely will use Blair’s exit for another creative
>>>> makeover following the recent tweaking following Anger Management‘s
>>>> sagging ratings. But, while the show took an unplanned hiatus for the
>>>> recent creative retool, it is now expected to stay in production as
>>>> scheduled, with the writers making changes prompted by Blair’s
>>>> departure on the fly. Anger Management is roughly halfway through its
>>>> 100-episode order from FX. As for Blair, word is that she is being
>>>> paid per her contract and no legal action is in the cards, at least
>>>> not for now.

>>>>
>>>
>>>What sort of legal action could be taken against Blair?
>>
>>Not against her - by her, for breach of contract. As long as they pay
>>her, she has no legal complaint.
>>

>>>After all, they
>>>fired her, she didn't refuse to work.
>>>
>>>What happens to salaries in a situation like this?
>>
>>They have to pay her for the period of her contract. Of course, that
>>varies sometimes, but not in the case of somebody her size.
>
>But does that mean she can't take on new work? I know that happens
>some times when someone is let go and paid for a time. I don't know if
>that applies to an actress in this situation. It's nice to get paid
>for nothing but I'm sure she will want to get back in front of the
>cameras. After all time spent away from the screen (small or big)
>means more time for people to forget her.

Again, it depends on her contract. There's probably a long and very
specific stipulation about that.

In general, if there was no clause, she actually has a duty to
mitigate her damages by seeking other work and offsetting it against
payments from the employer.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:47:08 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:

> "lifestyle"? What he's really like at home is irrelevant, what matters to viewers is the face he shows to the public. That's what colors opinions.

The problem is that the "public face" is often greatly distorted by the entertainment media. It's extremely hard for a celebrity to develop a libel case against the media, so the media has few safeguards. Instead, many times they like to distort or slant reporting since it makes for better copy. An actor's press conference or official statement will be disorted by many publications.

People claim "to know" the public face (or all sorts of stuff) about actors when in fact they do not.

Look at the New York Daily News reports on celebrities:
wwww.nydailynews.com

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>On Jun 19, 8:07 pm, shawn <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>But does that mean she can't take on new work?

>>>>1) None of us know the _actual_ terms of her contract, which would
>>>>determine what, if any, compensation, she is entitled to; and what
>>>>obligations she may have.

>>>True. On the other hand, she's not Conan O'Brian -- it seems unlikely
>>>they would be concerned about competition from her.

>>I surely don't agree with you. Producers assume every role is a potential
>>breakout role, and they don't want to be in a position in which a rival
>>producer might exploit "their actor".

>>I think it's safe to assume that, yeah, she's exclusive to that production
>>by contract for a specified period, because no one's ever heard of a
>>regular cast member not being exclusive.

>On the other hand, regulars sometimes do guest roles on other shows (I
>just saw Danny Pudi from "Community" last night on "Hot in Cleveland"),
>and frequently do movies during their show's hiatus. They probably have
>to get permission from the producers of their main show, but it seems
>like they can usually get it unless there's some specific issue (most of
>the examples you gave were the actor doing something too similar to the
>role on the main show).

Really, Barry, you really think they "probably have to get permission",
and you don't think they definitely must get permission?

>So I wouldn't expect to see Blair playing the role of a sexy therapist
>right away, but she could probably play a wife or mother, or do a drama.

Not as long as she has an exclusive contract and her producer isn't giving
her leave to take other work, she can't. The purpose of these contracts
is to guarantee availability during the production week.

[Adam H. Kerman]

If it's during the same production week as the production they're tied to,
you really think they can just take the time off, do you?

[Mark F]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:01:49 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/future-of-anger-management-co-star-selma-blair-in-limbo-over-falling-out-with-charlie-sheen/
>
> 2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From ‘Anger Management’
> Via Text, Show To Continue Production As Scheduled
> By NELLIE ANDREEVA

Oh no!!! No more of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RycrETRhwL8#t=6s

[tinydancer]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:

>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com
>>
>> Charlie Sheen was entertaining on 2� Men, and entertaining
>> on Anger Management. That's all that matters.
>
>I've never watched either show and I personally have nothing
>against Charlie Sheen but someone's politics or behavior can
>have a bearing on viewers and they're not wrong for feeling
>that way.

Absolutely. Some viewers take it further by putting their money where
their mouth is eg. not buying tickets to movies headlined by those
actors, or not eating at restaurants helmed by those chefs.

[tinydancer]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:23:11 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Jun 20, 2:17�pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> And when I think about it some more, I realize that it's hard not to
>> allow your opinions about a performer to affect your feelings when
>> watching their work. We're all subject to lots of unconscious biases. If
>> the actor bugs you, you're going into it with negative feelings, and
>> they'll color your impressions of the performance, the show, etc.
>
>Most people don't know about an actor's politics or personal life.

On the contrary, the pervasiveness of media, especially the internet,
often makes it difficult for most people to *avoid* knowing anything
about an actor's politics or personal life. And most people already
know to take sensationalist or trashy news with a pinch of salt.

>When people watch a performance, they're thinking about the
>performance, not the actor's own personality or lifestyle.

You've said this a few times already, what I don't understand is why
you keep speaking for everyone i.e. "people". When people watch a
performance, I have no idea what they're thinking -- it could be as
you say, or they could be filled with bias and let unrelated things
color their opinions, which is typical of human nature. Or are you
trying to tell us what you think we *should* do?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <6bp6s8dv09v6sh5s1...@4ax.com>,

In fact, many B-listers are better actors than than some A-listers.
Getting on the A list is often due to good looks, or starring in
blockbusters that don't require great acting skills. Sometimes it's just
the luck of getting the right part at the right time, like when Charlie
Sheen took over for Michael J. Fox on Spin City, which then earned him
the role on 2.5 Men.

Consider: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis are A-list actors.
Steve Buscemi is a B-list actor (maybe he's moved up to B+ or A- since
Boardwalk Empire).

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kpvs68$b96$2...@news.albasani.net>,

I try to avoid absolutes in discussions like this, since I'm not an
industry insider and I'm mostly speculating. I'm sure every contract is
different. Some actors are probably able to get clauses in their
contracts that specifically allow extracurricular activity.

>
> >So I wouldn't expect to see Blair playing the role of a sexy therapist
> >right away, but she could probably play a wife or mother, or do a drama.
>
> Not as long as she has an exclusive contract and her producer isn't giving
> her leave to take other work, she can't. The purpose of these contracts
> is to guarantee availability during the production week.

Did you forget that she's been fired? She doesn't have to be there
during the production week.

So unless the producers are total assholes, they'll probably let her do
other work. Luckily, Sheen isn't one of the producers.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kpvs8f$b96$3...@news.albasani.net>,

Well, duh, of course it has to fit into the schedule. They can't just
walk off the set whenever they feel like it.

But I remember that while both Friends and Mad About You were on,
occasionally Lisa Kudrow would reprise her waitress character on MAY.
They're obviously able to accomodate when they want to.

[David]

Yeah that popped into my head too. Also whether the flag lapel was big
enough. And which candidate's was bigger. But I'm not sure there's
ever been a big deal made out of a celebrity not wearing one.

[David]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:39:53 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 20, 12:05 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>But David, there are people that would refuse to take a stance who would
>>>be disliked by those who do. It's two sides of the same coin.
>
>>>For instance, suppose there's a televised event like the Oscars in which
>>>all the beautiful people are expected to wear a pink ribbon (which may not
>>>necessarily be about breast cancer as there's no international registration
>>>of symbolic meaning for shallow showings of support at televised events).
>>>Plenty of celebrities wear them to avoid appearing not to conform.
>
>>I'm not sure if everyone wears a ribbon at these events or if it's
>>controversial if someone doesn't. Has there ever been an article
>>written outing someone?
>

>Why does there have to be a negative article? No one can afford to piss off
>an important producer, especially if the cause is favored by his wife.
>
>As wearing a stupid ribbon is no kind of demonstration of commitment, then
>they're all worn out of compliance.

OTOH why would someone refuse to wear one, simply to be contrarian? It
sounds like a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode. Now I'm honestly
wondering if there actually was one like that.

[David]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:47:08 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> "lifestyle"? What he's really like at home is irrelevant, what matters to viewers is the face he shows to the public. That's what colors opinions.
>
>The problem is that the "public face" is often greatly distorted by the entertainment media.

It's nice that celebrities have you in their corner defending them
from the scuzzy media. But, really, which specific reports do you
doubt as accurate? The drugs-and-partying lifestyle Sheen bragged
about in interviews and his stage carnival? The crazy 9/11
conspiracies he freely shares? The court records about him holding a
knife to his wife's throat and threatening to kill her? The police
record about the prostiture who was scared for her life?

[Adam H. Kerman]

"It doesn't go with my outfit."

[anim8rFSK]

In article <7357s8ldbdtqnuf9o...@4ax.com>,

I read an interview with an actress who was catching a lot of flack
because there was somebody standing backstage pinning ribbons on people
as they went out, and she didn't even know what it was for and refused.

--
Dano's just a troll.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I didn't really see how she could be fired, not unless it was for cause,
like not showing up for production. I think she should keep showing up
to establish that she's not in breach of contract, until there's a
settlement.

>So unless the producers are total assholes, they'll probably let her do
>other work. Luckily, Sheen isn't one of the producers.

Huh, producers that aren't total assholes? Not familiar with any.

[BTR1701]

In article <7357s8ldbdtqnuf9o...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There was a SEINFELD where Kramer was pursued by the gay mafia for
refusing to wear the AIDS ribbon.

[trotsky]

It was two (presumably) gay men. And they hassle Kramer in multiple
episodes. The first time was with an armoire he was watching for Elaine.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>In fact, many B-listers are better actors than than some A-listers.
>Getting on the A list is often due to good looks, or starring in
>blockbusters that don't require great acting skills. Sometimes it's just
>the luck of getting the right part at the right time, like when Charlie
>Sheen took over for Michael J. Fox on Spin City, which then earned him
>the role on 2.5 Men.

>Consider: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis are A-list actors.
>Steve Buscemi is a B-list actor (maybe he's moved up to B+ or A- since
>Boardwalk Empire).

Ah-nold isn't even a B-list governator.

[Mason Barge]

Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of
affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your
jacket or dress?

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:09:51 -0400, Barry Margolin
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>In article <6bp6s8dv09v6sh5s1...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 20, 10:24 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Blair, on the other hand, is a B-list actress. She can't open a movie,
>> >> her name on a TV show won't make it a hit (even by cable TV standards).
>> >> They were willing to fire her to keep their troubled star happy.
>> >
>> >I disagree on Selma Blair. She has an excellent performance record on
>> >TV and in movies.
>> >
>> >I think her presence on Anger Mgmt attracted viewers.
>>
>> I love Selma Blair, but she just isn't a heavyweight in terms of
>> Hollywood power and, really, she can't open a movie. She might be
>> able to carry a t.v. series, I dunno'.
>>
>> There are lots of great actors and actresses on the B-List.
>
>In fact, many B-listers are better actors than than some A-listers.
>Getting on the A list is often due to good looks, or starring in
>blockbusters that don't require great acting skills.

You're underestimating an innate talent of even "bad" A-List actors.
They definitely have something special. I've heard it called "the
ability to hold the screen".

[anim8rFSK]

In article <5ht8s8ds3frg25bs9...@4ax.com>,

None whatsoever.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:51:25 AM UTC-4, Mason Barge wrote:

> Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your jacket or dress?

The reality is that people get really passionate about their causes. Not cooperating (refusing to wear a ribbon/pin, not signing a petition, etc) is not appreciated. In Hollywoodo this gets magnified.

There was a lot of flack when Elia Kaza got an award. Some of Hollywood does not know the actual story of his past and find him objectionable for naming names during McCarthyism. It got nasty.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:56:19 PM UTC-4, David wrote:

> It's nice that celebrities have you in their corner defending them from the scuzzy media. But, really, which specific reports do you doubt as accurate? The drugs-and-partying lifestyle Sheen bragged about in interviews and his stage carnival? The crazy 9/11 conspiracies he freely shares? The court records about him holding a knife to his wife's throat and threatening to kill her? The police record about the prostiture who was scared for her life?

What "specific reports"?

As mentioned in detail, news about celebrities tends to be grossly inaccurate even in mainstream news media, let alone other media. A close read of news reports about a particular incident will quickly show many contradictions.

For instance, there were headlines an actress was driving drunk. But much later it was revealed the actress was never tested and it was just a simple accident. Another example--people have claimed to have "court records" of various incidents and those turned out to be fake.

During the McCarthyism era, accusing public figures of communism was taken to a high art by doctoring photographs and taking statements grossly out of context. But today's media is even worse, juxtapositioning images to look like their all current and relevant when in fact they're not.

If someone wants to take entertainment news from the following as gospel truth, that's their business.
www.nydailynews.com

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:29:51 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >Often times regular cast members do a movie; they either do it on break, or even take a week off from their show.

>If it's during the same production week as the production they're tied to, you really think they can just take the time off, do you?

Well, obviously they're not gonna phone in off Monday morning. But regular actors in a series do work out arrnagements to schedule take time off to do other productions. Sometimes it's in the same studio and even on the same day. (I think that's what Robert Reed did with B/B and Mannix; both at Paramount). Other times an actor might be assigned only a few lines that week so they can work elsewhere.

As mentioned, cast members of "Modern Family" do all sorts of other stuff. Jeez, even Al Bundy is doing voice overs.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:51:25 AM UTC-4, Mason Barge wrote:

>>Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of
>>affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your
>>jacket or dress?

>The reality is that people get really passionate about their causes.
>Not cooperating (refusing to wear a ribbon/pin, not signing a petition,
>etc) is not appreciated. In Hollywoodo this gets magnified.

Passionate people aren't obliged to be polite? Mason's right. When an
offered ribbon is declined with a polite "No, thank you," you haven't
rejected either the cause or its promoter, you've just declined the offer.
Don't get drawn into an argument, and don't explain. Just decline politely,
"no, thank you," as many times as necessary.

Perhaps if the correct line, "No, thank you," is unknown to the actor,
someone could write a script so the actor might memorize the line.

>There was a lot of flack when Elia Kaza got an award. Some of Hollywood
>does not know the actual story of his past and find him objectionable
>for naming names during McCarthyism. It got nasty.

Elia Kazan did name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
He actually named the names. What the fuck, hancock?

What does Kazan have to do with wearing a ribbon for someone else's cause
on one's lapel?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <41719640-08e8-4861...@googlegroups.com>,

Practically everyone who's anyone does voiceovers and/or acting in
commercials. You can hear or see most of the MF cast during commercial
breaks dozens of times a day. I'll bet the right to do this is a
standard clause in most contracts, with only the proviso that it not
conflict with scheduling the actor in their main role.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kq25nv$gq7$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:51:25 AM UTC-4, Mason Barge wrote:
>
> >>Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of
> >>affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your
> >>jacket or dress?
>
> >The reality is that people get really passionate about their causes.
> >Not cooperating (refusing to wear a ribbon/pin, not signing a petition,
> >etc) is not appreciated. In Hollywoodo this gets magnified.
>
> Passionate people aren't obliged to be polite? Mason's right. When an
> offered ribbon is declined with a polite "No, thank you," you haven't
> rejected either the cause or its promoter, you've just declined the offer.
> Don't get drawn into an argument, and don't explain. Just decline politely,
> "no, thank you," as many times as necessary.
>
> Perhaps if the correct line, "No, thank you," is unknown to the actor,
> someone could write a script so the actor might memorize the line.

Who said they did it in an impolite manner? Has it been caught on
camera? Maybe you're thinking of the scene in "Airplane" where Robert
Hays got increasingly annoyed and violent as he kept encountering
religious proselytizers in the airport. I think it's unlikely that any
celebrity has ever punched someone trying to pin a ribbon on them at an
awards show -- probably not even Charlie Sheen.

As far as anyone who cares is concerned, it's just the fact that they're
not wearing the ribbon that matters. The ribbon is viewed as a positive
statement, so choosing NOT to wear it is negative. The thought is
something like "What kind of asshole could be against breast cancer
research?" (replace "breast cancer research" with the cause du jour).

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:30:10 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:51:25 AM UTC-4, Mason Barge wrote:
>
>> Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your jacket or dress?
>
>The reality is that people get really passionate about their causes. Not cooperating (refusing to wear a ribbon/pin, not signing a petition, etc) is not appreciated.

I don't agree that that is any excuse at all. Now, not only do I have
to let people pin things on me, but I have to acquiesce in their
infantile narcissism?

[Michael Black]

It's a group mind. At some point things tip, so you're expected to wear
the ribbon if you want to be part of the group. And people wear the
ribbone rather than be excluded.

There was that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer "wouldn't wear the ribbon"
and he got chased by some angry people.

I once had a letter in the local alt weekly about the notion of "you must
wear the ribbon", though I can't remember what I wrote.

One problem is that many people aren't good at conveying a message. So
instead of trying to convince you, they hope to sway you by unrelated
actions, "come on, be part of the group". It's also complicated when
people spend too much time with people like themselves, because then they
think the world thinks the same way. Worse, they then think any criticism
is "the enemy".

Michael

[Michael Black]

"Because I think people should be deeper than just taking on the trappings
of something. Wearing the ribbon is easy, doing other things is harder.
ANd wearing the ribbon doesn't actually mean you know anything about the
cause, just that you easily follow along".

Michael

[Barry Margolin]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> "Because I think people should be deeper than just taking on the trappings
> of something. Wearing the ribbon is easy, doing other things is harder.
> ANd wearing the ribbon doesn't actually mean you know anything about the
> cause, just that you easily follow along".

But NOT wearing the ribbon requires implies that you DID think about it.
And you decided NOT to go along, which suggests that you're against
whatever good thing the ribbon represents.

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:

Actually, it means I won't follow the pack.

The second demonstration I went to, when I was 16, I wrote a critique
later, and a key point was that holding signs that say "honk for the
teachers" doesn't do anything, it gives a boost to the sign holder when
someone honks, but likely doesnt' get the honger to do anything but honk.
My understanding of demonstratins dates from that letter.

Then a few years later, when everyone had "Question Authority" buttons and
tshirts, I decided it should be "Question Assumptions" because people
often were unable to question what they were doing. Not The Big Cause,
which I agreed with, but how to go about it.

When they first tried to set up a PIRG here, it was at McGill University,
and so they named it "McPirg". I mentioned that to someone involved and
she said "plenty of the PIRGs are named after universities". Which is
partially true, there are universities named after the state, so MPIRG
might be named after Michigan U, or it might be named after the state.

That is the issue I consider most important, it's not about hitting people
over the heads with signs, it's about changing minds, and you can't do
that if you aren't thinking deep.

Michael

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> "Because I think people should be deeper than just taking on the trappings
> >> of something. Wearing the ribbon is easy, doing other things is harder.
> >> ANd wearing the ribbon doesn't actually mean you know anything about the
> >> cause, just that you easily follow along".
> >
> > But NOT wearing the ribbon requires implies that you DID think about it.

Nonsense.

> > And you decided NOT to go along, which suggests that you're against
> > whatever good thing the ribbon represents.

Again, nonsense. It means you don't want some stranger pinning
something on you. And there's absolutely no reason to assume that the
pinee even knows what the ribbon represents, much less that the cause is
automatically a good thing. Just wrong all the way across the spectrum.

> Actually, it means I won't follow the pack.
>
> The second demonstration I went to, when I was 16, I wrote a critique
> later, and a key point was that holding signs that say "honk for the
> teachers" doesn't do anything, it gives a boost to the sign holder when
> someone honks, but likely doesnt' get the honger to do anything but honk.
> My understanding of demonstratins dates from that letter.
>
> Then a few years later, when everyone had "Question Authority" buttons and
> tshirts, I decided it should be "Question Assumptions" because people
> often were unable to question what they were doing. Not The Big Cause,
> which I agreed with, but how to go about it.
>
> When they first tried to set up a PIRG here, it was at McGill University,
> and so they named it "McPirg". I mentioned that to someone involved and
> she said "plenty of the PIRGs are named after universities". Which is
> partially true, there are universities named after the state, so MPIRG
> might be named after Michigan U, or it might be named after the state.
>
> That is the issue I consider most important, it's not about hitting people
> over the heads with signs, it's about changing minds, and you can't do
> that if you aren't thinking deep.
>
> Michael

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:51:25 AM UTC-4, Mason Barge wrote:

>>>>Why do you have to "refuse" and people consider it some sort of
>>>>affirmative act? What right does someone have to pin a ribbon on your
>>>>jacket or dress?

>>>The reality is that people get really passionate about their causes.
>>>Not cooperating (refusing to wear a ribbon/pin, not signing a petition,
>>>etc) is not appreciated. In Hollywoodo this gets magnified.

>>Passionate people aren't obliged to be polite? Mason's right. When an
>>offered ribbon is declined with a polite "No, thank you," you haven't
>>rejected either the cause or its promoter, you've just declined the offer.
>>Don't get drawn into an argument, and don't explain. Just decline politely,
>>"no, thank you," as many times as necessary.

>>Perhaps if the correct line, "No, thank you," is unknown to the actor,
>>someone could write a script so the actor might memorize the line.

>Who said they did it in an impolite manner?

hancock is quoted above saying the promoters of the cause were rude,
with passion as their excuse. All I'm saying is that no matter how rudely
the person promoting the cause behaves, just keep declining with
"No, thank you."

>Has it been caught on camera? . . .

It's Hollywood, so I'm sure someone's taped someone else's bad behavior.

>As far as anyone who cares is concerned, it's just the fact that they're
>not wearing the ribbon that matters. The ribbon is viewed as a positive
>statement, so choosing NOT to wear it is negative. The thought is
>something like "What kind of asshole could be against breast cancer
>research?" (replace "breast cancer research" with the cause du jour).

Yes, Barry, we know. It's rude.

[shawn]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:18:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>

wrote:

>In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>> > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
>> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Because I think people should be deeper than just taking on the trappings
>> >> of something. Wearing the ribbon is easy, doing other things is harder.
>> >> ANd wearing the ribbon doesn't actually mean you know anything about the
>> >> cause, just that you easily follow along".
>> >
>> > But NOT wearing the ribbon requires implies that you DID think about it.
>
>Nonsense.

It implys that you thought enough to turn down something being pinned
to you. Not that you gave any real thought to what was being offered.
I would turn down anything that someone wants to pin on me regardless
of whether I agree with what's being supported or not.

>
>> > And you decided NOT to go along, which suggests that you're against
>> > whatever good thing the ribbon represents.
>
>Again, nonsense. It means you don't want some stranger pinning
>something on you. And there's absolutely no reason to assume that the
>pinee even knows what the ribbon represents, much less that the cause is
>automatically a good thing. Just wrong all the way across the spectrum.

Exactly. I would think this might be more of an issue with actors that
sometimes are wearing expensive clothes (loaned sometimes) and someone
sticking pins in it.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kqebs8t99m4qen8hc...@4ax.com>,

shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:18:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> >> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Because I think people should be deeper than just taking on the
> >> >> trappings
> >> >> of something. Wearing the ribbon is easy, doing other things is
> >> >> harder.
> >> >> ANd wearing the ribbon doesn't actually mean you know anything about
> >> >> the
> >> >> cause, just that you easily follow along".
> >> >
> >> > But NOT wearing the ribbon requires implies that you DID think about it.
> >
> >Nonsense.
> It implys that you thought enough to turn down something being pinned
> to you. Not that you gave any real thought to what was being offered.
> I would turn down anything that someone wants to pin on me regardless
> of whether I agree with what's being supported or not.

Right

>
> >
> >> > And you decided NOT to go along, which suggests that you're against
> >> > whatever good thing the ribbon represents.
> >
> >Again, nonsense. It means you don't want some stranger pinning
> >something on you. And there's absolutely no reason to assume that the
> >pinee even knows what the ribbon represents, much less that the cause is
> >automatically a good thing. Just wrong all the way across the spectrum.
>
> Exactly. I would think this might be more of an issue with actors that
> sometimes are wearing expensive clothes (loaned sometimes) and someone
> sticking pins in it.

Yep. And a stranger trying to stick something on you as you're walking
out on stage before millions of people. You'd be dumb NOT to say no.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Or at least recorded and then edited to look like bad behavior....


--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.