Archive for the ‘katie holmes’ Category

there's no such thing as overexposure in the music industry but it sure exists in the film industry

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

here’s part 2.

so currently who are the most overexposed actors in hollywood? well, tom cruise and katie holmes were at the top of that list, but now it seems they’ve gone into hiding. or they’re careers have taken a u-turn of ben affleck proportions.

when tom cruise was with his boyhood publicist pat kingsley, she kept him on a tight leash and forbad journalists from asking him about his, um ‘religion.’ or so the story goes. his image was carefully managed. then he tossed his p.r. person under the bus and hired his sister, whose also a member of his, um ‘church.’ that’s when we got the image of tom cruise jumping on oprah’s couch declaring his ‘love’ for katie holmes as he did a michael jackson and found a ‘host’ –um , surrogate mother for his alien love child.

now this brings us to robert pattinson. can you not enter a supermarket or pass by a kiosk without seeing his fangs and uni-brow? this goes to show actors– be careful with those tween films. and prior to agreeing to be in an adaptation of a novel, do your frickin’ homework. tom cruise didn’t prior to bullying his way onto another vampire film, ‘interview with a vampire,’ and this most likely left lasting damage on his career.

but anne rice fans are far less intense than ‘twilight’ ones. perhaps because after 10 or 15 years of having read her books they had come to the realisation that well, vampires just don’t exist.

or perhaps this is due to the writing style. any tom dick or harry –or basically, tina, doreen or hermione can pick up a 500 page stephenie meyer novel and read it on a flight between london and berlin, except perhaps for dakota fanning. this in turn leads to perhaps a form of rabid fandome and screaming hormonal teens not seen since duran duran and wham (before george michael came out of the closet).

in part 3 we’ll discuss how to reverse overexposure without going MIA, which leads to underexposure of jared leto and colin farrell proportion –which is basically career ending. would this entail avoiding all publicity for your films except for junkets? should robert pattinson turn down the looming ‘vanity fair’ cover? should his publicist actively lobby for him to NOT be declared people’s ‘sexist man alive.’ should he avoid the teen choice awards and all comic book related conventions let alone the ‘twilight’ fan conventions and the upcoming ‘twilight’ cruise? we say pattinson should let someone else play edward cullen in the third ‘twilight’ film, ‘eclipse.’ like that’s ever gonna happen.

bella swan –we mean kristen stewart, is a tad overexposed too. but since she’s been acting since at least ‘panic room,’ and guys tend not to chase girls down the street seeking autographs and she hasn’t got big boobs (so the male contingency of the paparazzi aren’t interested), she’s probably okay for the moment.

washington post has a word with katie holmes, just don't ask about scientology

Sunday, January 20th, 2008

katie holmes turns down the washington post’s request for an interview for the style section.