No, but it doesn’t exactly mean anything about whether she’s an accomplished actress either. Getting a SAG card simply means you’ve acted in a film or television production at some point, even if it’s just a cameo appearance. She’s basically famous for being famous.
Once again, feel free to point out where I, or anyone else, called her an “accomplished actress”. The question was wondering with incredulity at the notion she had a SAG card. She clearly does. Why you insist on twisting the argument to make it seem like she is being canonized is beyond me.
Furthermore, the phrase, “famous for being famous” is nonsensical. I get why people say it, but the tautology makes little sense, and rests in his idea that you can “earn” fame when you really can’t, and that you can remain famous largely by doing nothing. Kim Kardashian is clearly famous because she is on TV, is a model, marrying a superstar, etc. The idea that she is well known for no reason is not logical.
brickbacon, it seems like it would be better to save this sort of passion for people who are actually against the cover. Most of us posting in this thread don’t really care. Your passion is making you come off as a rabid fan rather than having a reasonable position, as I assume you want.
I mean, if this is how the conversation started, then I do understand the furor. It would just be an equal but opposite reaction.
And, yes, maintaining fame is easier than achieving it. Becoming famous requires doing something that people would notice from a complete stranger. Staying famous requires just doing something that you’d notice from somebody who is famous. I’m not saying it’s easy, just easier. I really can’t figure out how you disagree with that.
But, let’s say you are right, and Kardashian has to be a hard working genius to stay popular. Do you not realize that that alone would be reason for people’s derision? She’d be working really hard to make herself the center of attention, not to actually accomplish anything. People don’t tend to respect just for working hard.
In fact, this whole furor seems to be about how she actively campaigned to be on the cover of Vogue, and was told no, and then suddenly gets on anyways. It’s something perfectly reasonable for someone whose primary goal is to remain famous–but that’s exactly what people don’t like about her.
If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be here posting in this thread.
I am hardly a rabid fan. I am a fan of Kanye’s music, and not really a fan of her work. As several people have linked to, Kanye West is generally considered a musical genius. That’s not only my opinion, it’s the general consensus of people who critique music for a living. That said, I don’t think the above is particularly controversial except to the willfully ignorant.
The sum total of my assertions thus far are as follows:
- Kanye West is considered one of the best musicians working today.
- Kim Kardashian is generally very talented and hard working, marketable, and famous for a variety of reasons not including her sex tape.
- Kim Kardashian is a marginally talented actress no less worthy of a vogue cover than a number of other people recently given covers
I don’t think any of those things are discounted by most fair observers. You needn’t be a rabid fan or even a regular fan to admit any or all of the above.
There is someone made famous off YouTube and a handful of other sites multiple times a day. Whether it’s someone who said something dumb to a news reporter, or someone who created a meme that is trending that day. It’s not hard to attract attention temporarily. There is a reason they say everyone gets 15 minutes of fame. With so many outlets vying for online eyeballs, being “famous” is easier than ever.
But that requires a lot of effort, money, etc. There is a reason many famous people have agents, PR people, etc. Yes, it seems easy when you read in some magazine that Jennifer Aniston went and got coffee, but they are not reporting those mundane things because they are in and of themselves important, it’s because the person is already famous and had parlayed that fame into other things that keep them in the spotlight.
First, I never said she was a genius. Second, I never said she works hard solely to stay popular because I don’t think she does. She presumably does it because she is marketable, and wants the money- just like most other famous people. How does that makes her any different from the vast majority of famous people or even people in general? She is certainly not uniquely worthy of derision because she chooses to be in the public eye in order to further her career interests.
By all accounts I have seen, it was never her trying to campaign for the cover, it was Kanye who supposedly did that.
Why do you think her primary goal is to remain famous rather than to make money?
Hard to work with or easy to sleep with?
Yeah, I’m more interested in the SMG side comment than on defending Kanye. Please dish it out, LibrarySpy… enquiring minds want to know!
I don’t know what LibrarySpy is thinking of, but I do know that some people think she doesn’t care about the fanbase of Buffy. Apparently she doesn’t do the convention circuit and she’s been a missing presence on DVD extras and stuff. I dunno.
Apparently when she heard Kim and Kanye were moving into her neighborhood, she moved.
I’ve got to get out more. I’ve never before seen anyone seriously declare that Kim Kardashian is very talented.
And after reading this thread, you still haven’t.
Have you read the thread? Because that is what brickbacon just said.
If she wasn’t popular she wouldn’t be making money. She famous for being famouse. One of the ways she makes money is that companies pay her to go on twitter and say, “OMG! This perfume is totes amaze!” because those companies know that if she says that people will go and buy that perfume like the sheep that they are.
Ok. My bad. I missed that. I wouldn’t call her very talented* but brickbacon was arguing against the sex tape being her main claim to fame. She doesn’t go on Twitter to sell companies’ perfumes though. She has her own. Part of the Kardashian Kollection.
*Not in the way most famous people are talented, like singing, acting and dancing.
Let’s look at what the word talent means:
- a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude
- a capacity for achievement or success; ability
- The ability to do something quite naturally that is hard
How do any of those definitions not apply to her. Given the sheer number of who fail attempting to do what she does, and her success in what is by most accounts a very tough, competitive business, her unique capacity for achieving success is not really in question. It doesn’t make her a genius or worthy of being followed, but denying something so obvious seems strange to me. Plenty of people think what she does has value. Her ability to exploit that in and of itself makes her talented. I just don’t get why admitting as much personally pains some people.
[QUOTE=Drunky Smurf]
If she wasn’t popular she wouldn’t be making money.
[/QUOTE]
You could say that about nearly every famous person. The paycheck of every person in the spotlight is directly tied to their popularity and marketability.
[QUOTE=Drunky Smurf]
She famous for being famouse.
[/QUOTE]
What does this nonsensical phrase mean to you? Why is Tom Hanks not famous for being famous? I would guess you would say he is famous for being an actor, right? Fine, but why isn’t Kim Kardashian famous for having multiple businesses, tv shows, products, etc.? People just use that phrase to discount people whose work they think has no value or merit. It doesn’t really mean anything given it applies to everyone who is famous. It’s saying a person is known by many for being well known. That is obvious when you said they were famous.
The problem is that you are attaching some importance or significance to fame that doesn’t apply. All being famous means is that you have lots of people interested in you. Just like being rich means you have lots of money. It doesn’t matter how you got your money or your fame because the terms by themselves are not value statements, they are facts. Fame is not an accomplishment, and it’s not something you earn or deserve; it’s just having lots of people more interested in you than you can reciprocate.
The whole thing really boils down to the fact that people don’t think she deserves to be famous, that she doesn’t deserve our collective attention. That’s fine I guess, but that is more an argument about the choices we make rather than the ones she does. No need to hate on her, or call her fat, or untalented, or a nigger lover, or threaten to kill her because other people find her interesting.
Kim *must *be really smart and talented and important because Kanye West picked her, and why would a godlike super-genius like him pick a loser?
Tits?
Well that and other things.
I think we can safely call a skank a skank.
If only I knew how to cash in on my lack of talent . . .
Apparently the previous 4 posters think brickbacon will not be back. I believe he will, as the only apparent explanation for his vociferousness
is that he thinks Kimmie reads this Board and he is intent on working (nearly said “worming” there!) his way into her … ugh, ugh, ugh … I thought it!
Brain bleach, brain bleach!!!
Why exactly did you think I’d abandoned the thread?
I also don’t get why you think my commentary is based on more than combating ignorance and stupidity. I could not care less if either portion of Kimye reads this.
But feel free to keep calling them names, denying reality, and thinking your lame ass jokes are both funny and worthy of response.
Well, you responded. My jokes are funny to me. That is all I require of them. What names have I called either of them? Seems like nearly everybody else in this thread has called them names except me. In fact, you skipped over 4 other posters, 2 of whom actually did call them names, in order to get to me.
Also, you abandoned the thread? Your last post was 6 posters and a little over 12 hours ago. It was one of your typical long screeds, addressing anyone who has an opinion different than yours who has posted since you last did that. Nowhere in it is there any indication that you are “abandoning the thread”.
My jokes may be lame-ass, I’m almost certainly “Mr. Reality-Denier Deluxe” and unworthy of anything from the likes of you, but you know what? Their appearance on the cover of Vogue has caused a furor. Nothing you post here will change that.
Should I not address people who directly or indirectly comment on what I wrote?
Furor? Hardly. Get out of your bubble. That vast, vast majority of people couldn’t care less even if they were familiar with what happened, and the people involved. Again, my response isn’t to quash whatever debate there is, it’s to response to blatantly stupid comments from people too biased or ignorant to realize it.