I have also heard from various sources, ( don't know if true obviously) that there are some major attitudes running around on the show now. Seems all of this sudden fame is going to their heads.
I think that that is one way of looking at it. However, these folks both are insanely talented and now have the name-recognition commensurate with substantially higher-paid and more creatively challenged talent. They have, practically-speaking, far out-grown where they are now. In my job, I'd have gotten a big promotion and a big bonus already, if my employer had gleaned such success from my efforts. In their business, a normal way to get what I would have gotten - what they have earned - is to play the game, the way they're playing it, including up-and-leaving the show.
Yes, even though they're under contract: Remember, this may not be the industry you work in, so the standard and normal practices are probably different from what you're used to and perhaps different from what you like. It is okay to not be happy about how that industry works. It is not okay to fault people in that industry, people who can't change the industry single-handedly, from operating in accordance with the industry's standards and normal practices, even when you don't like them.
For at least three of the actors, it seems possible that they'd personally be better off leaving the show in a huff (unless they're offered an incredible bump-up), rather than staying with the show, and so the longer they stay with the show, the more you can chalk that up to altruistic attitude on their part, even if you personally wouldn't feel that that would be altruistic if it was you in their position.
I think they better pull their heads down, I mean Glee is good, but no where near as good as the first season and I have a feeling it won't last that long.
Which is a matter of major concern for the producers - not necessarily the lead actors. Think of John Travolta and George Clooney. Both left the television series they were featured in, even before those shows ended, and in doing so did much better for themselves in their own estimation (which is all that should matter to them).
But, I am really looking forward to tonight and the Rocky Horror Picture Show theme.
Me too.
Nope pretty much trashy and there was no need for them to do it, I would rate it as something "B" list stars would do.
You're surely entitled to your opinion. Different people have different perceptions regarding such things and different perspectives on this are not right or wrong objectively. They're just different.
However, your comment about "B" list stars is simply misinformed. Rihanna, Jessica Alba, Hayden Panettiere, and Charlize Theron are among the stars who have done GQ pictorials, and all four of them are
much bigger stars than anyone associated with Glee.
I don't care if they did it, it just lowers my opinion of them, makes them look skanky.
The only one who has been lowered in my estimation is Dianna Agron. Her equivocations after-the-fact (on Twitter, no less - what a stupid thing to do) were immature and unprofessional. I wouldn't say that severely damaged her career with how she failed to stand behind her work on the pictorial, but I wouldn't object to someone else making that guess.
I don't think it is for any board or parent review committee to denounce them or approve them, they are adults,
I'm glad we can agree on something!
but really do we need to see a pic of Lea Michelle sitting in her undies with her legs spread. Um No.
Then why do you purchase GQ?
Patient: "Doctor doctor it hurts when I do
this."
Doctor: "Then don't do
that!"
Even my DH who is a die hard Gleek and lover of all things Rachel said she looked nasty and has had a change of heart towards her.
With respect, I think that's ridiculous. If you didn't realize what GQ was all about, then why did you look at the pictures? I think it is important to remember that we're talking about people in the entertainment industry. They aren't high school kids singing together after school. They are professionals working in an industry. Judging them by criteria other than the criteria that industry sets forth is like condemning a Hindu for not going to synagogue on Saturday morning. Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with making a decision about
your own subscription to the entertainment industry, but if you don't like the entertainment industry then avoid it. Problem solved.
It was well within their rights to do it and it is within my rights to think SKANK.
No one can deprive you of the right to think anything you'd like. Surely. However, by expressing it here, what we have to infer is that your standards simply are different from that of the entertainment industry, today. And that's perfectly okay.
I missed it because of the contract dispute!.......D*MN YOU, Cablevision!!
