I guess I have, though it doesn't seem like that at times from the inside.
Where I worked was across from the Enterprise set, and we'd see all the guys from that show sitting around between takes, hanging with the crew, playing cards as I recall sometimes, or just chatting. The women on the show, though, stayed in their trailers. I'd often see David Boreanaz standing around in a trenchcoat smoking (Angel was being filmed there) and sometimes some of the others. One of my co-workers almost ran over Cameron Diaz with a golf cart.
Was there maybe 4 months, it was a short-term contract.
This was the job that on my first day the boss and the long-term staff started drinking at lunch and retreated to the boss's office with 2 liters of vodka and a case of red bull to get a serious, professional-level drunk on for the rest of the afternoon. After which one of them was going round to all the newbie employees and saying, "If you fuck with me ... I'll KILL ya!"
He seemed to find this incredibly entertaining to say.
There's far too much emphasis on the most "presented" parts of showbiz -- namely, the performers.
This includes: * the actors or voice actors, especially the top-billed ones or the ones playing the most prominent characters, at the expense of pretty much everyone in the production of a TV show or movie. strangely, the director role bucks this trend and gets a lot of billing -- though still, often more than the writer, and almost always more than the producer. * the musical performers, especially the soloists, at the expense of everyone from the composer to the backing performers. in classical music, this is especially bad with making the conductor the star of an orchestra. in non-classical music, the composer is rarely even given any billing at all.
If I had my way, I'd go in order of creation steps. For example:
Not as familiar with the production role names for TV/film production so I'll avoid trying that one, but needless to say the actors get mentioned last.
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
People who work in Hollywood and think that this makes them better people than people who do not work in Hollywood.
I'm not going to lie, for a time last year I wanted to be a part of this
It's just that Hollywood seemed like an amazing place where you'd matter. Like, more than you already do. But then I realized that half the people there are one depressive episode away from suicide
I kinda hate "star culture" -- like, the way that famous people are adored and adulated.
Yeah, sure. You directed made [famous movie]. Good for you. I don't particularly care about your personal life. The most I want, maybe, is your autograph on my DVD box. Your snot on a dirty tissue is just as disgusting as everyone else's.
Also, who's [famous actor] and why are people talking about her love life? Why does it even freakin' matter?
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
I wasn't really talking about the stars. I was talking about, like, the sort of culture that leads people like Nikki Finke to believe themselves to be, like, curing cancer.
While i can understand the prizing of creativity, performance is also a talent and one which is sometimes undersold (as in the cult of the singer-songwriter that surrounds much contemporary rock and folk). Taken to extremes, this leads to absurd things like Piero Scaruffi putting down Louis Armstrong for not writing his own material.
Performance shouldn't be neglected either, but I just don't like the "cult of the performer".
Ideally, it would become standard practice to identify a performance/recording by both composer(s) AND performer(s), rather than a single "artist" field.
Comments
if it's the people who brag about calling MCs 'emcees' and DJs 'deejays' then they and i will not be friends
This includes:
* the actors or voice actors, especially the top-billed ones or the ones playing the most prominent characters, at the expense of pretty much everyone in the production of a TV show or movie. strangely, the director role bucks this trend and gets a lot of billing -- though still, often more than the writer, and almost always more than the producer.
* the musical performers, especially the soloists, at the expense of everyone from the composer to the backing performers. in classical music, this is especially bad with making the conductor the star of an orchestra. in non-classical music, the composer is rarely even given any billing at all.
If I had my way, I'd go in order of creation steps. For example:
1. composer
2. arranger
3. performers
4. conductor (if present)
Not as familiar with the production role names for TV/film production so I'll avoid trying that one, but needless to say the actors get mentioned last.
Yeah, sure. You directed made [famous movie]. Good for you. I don't particularly care about your personal life. The most I want, maybe, is your autograph on my DVD box. Your snot on a dirty tissue is just as disgusting as everyone else's.
Also, who's [famous actor] and why are people talking about her love life? Why does it even freakin' matter?
While i can understand the prizing of creativity, performance is also a talent and one which is sometimes undersold (as in the cult of the singer-songwriter that surrounds much contemporary rock and folk). Taken to extremes, this leads to absurd things like Piero Scaruffi putting down Louis Armstrong for not writing his own material.
Ideally, it would become standard practice to identify a performance/recording by both composer(s) AND performer(s), rather than a single "artist" field.