I’d also sniff the tire tracks of the truck which takes her panties to the cleaners, Doug!;)
Q
I think we’re used to having famous people who are famous for doing nothing, but they used to be famous for doing a* different kind *of nothing. Kim is kind of the turning point. Paris Hilton was mildly famous for being an heiress - that’s nothing new to us. I recall an article on her and her sister in Vanity Fair about ten years ago, even at the ages of 16 and 20 or so their wholes lives were going to night clubs and working on fashion lines that presumably never existed and calling themselves “American Royalty”. But she leaked a sex tape and attached her name to lots of things and then she was famous famous, magazine covers, the like. Kind of a new things - how many porn stars get Vanity Fair covers? - but okay, sure, an heiress behaving badly, nothing new there. Kim was just somebody that knew Paris when the two were growing up, and just wanted to be famous, apparently no matter what. If they included filming a dude peeing on her and incredibly staged sex, then that’s what she would do. If she had to go around crying about the sex tape being leaked when no one actually believed it was made for anything other purpose, then sure. And it worked, though I can’t imagine what Bruce Jenner would have said during his heyday if you had told him to just wait awhile and he’d find himself married to a famewhore with daughters who are really really close to actual whores. Also, his face would look like it had been through a blender.
So that went on longer than I meant it to. What I mean to say is, there was a time when you were either born to be famous, or had to work hard at becoming so with a talent for something. And we understood that, somehow. Maybe we were jealous that we weren’t born to a newspaper magnate or something, or jealous that we weren’t statuesque and perfectly sculpted, but we kind of just accepted our lot (with obvious exceptions of of course, there were precursors to Paris). Now you can be born a nobody, and all it takes is a video camera and a complete lack of shame or dignity to be a tabloid fixture! Yay American Dream! It’s sort of mind blowing how prescient Warhol was.
I mean, look at Lewinsky. Imagine that whole scenario going down now, in a reality show world, and how it might have turned out. She was cute. She’d go on a crash (read: cocaine) diet, she’d get some work done on her face, she’d show up to the best parties. She’d end up with an MTV or E! show, she’d be endorsing expensive hair products or makeup or cigars or something, she’d be booked for nightclub appearances, she’d have a clothing line with a bunch of blue dresses. She’d be very very rich, possibly Kardashian rich.
I don’t think Jessica Simpson earned a billion dollars, at least not yet. I believe her clothing line has sold a billion dollars of stuff so far. How much of that $1 bil she gets is debatable but I’m sure she made at least $10 mil off the clothing.
edit, $1 bil is total sales, not her profit
http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2011/02/14/jessica-simpson-fashion-mogul/?xid=rss-topheadlines
First, you implied that Jessica Simpson had performed in a sex tape as a way to fame and fortune. I realize now I read it wrong, but it still doesn’t make any sense becase…
Every moderately famous female celebrity (and several male ones) have a clothing line nowadays. While it’s likely not chump change, I can’t imagine she’s becoming a billionaire off clothing.
Thirdly, while you may not like Simpson’s singing style (because I know I don’t), she wasn’t a B-list singer. She’s wasn’t Britney Spears big, but all of her albums sold a ton of copies and she went on several very big tours. Then came the TV show and her acting career, both well before the clothing line.
So I guess what I’m saying is that she’s legitimately famous. So I didn’t really understand your point.
Im just here to ditto the title.
I’m not a hater, they are kind of funny and I think typical of wealthy SOuthern Californians, with their relaxed attitudes on sex, nudity & drug use. And Chris Jenner knows what she is doing, even her two youngest girls are on their way to making a name in modeling. Of them all, Robert K is the least marketable, dopey, emasculated and a total pawn. Chris thinks getting him naked in playgirl will boost his ratings?
Kim seems a little stiff and plastic, like all she can do is pose and look beautiful, not very exciting all in all.
The Kardashians are fauxlebrities. And you’re right about people dismissing her singing because with rare exception you don’t just ‘decide’ to start a singing career, and it’s widely accepted that those who do rely on studio magic to help them out.
I’m fairly certain it won’t be Prince producing her record.
I was wondering where she came from. First she was on Reggie Bush’s arm, then talking about her father, one of OJ’s lawyers, having esophoegal cancer, she and her family get an Osborne-like show and then, suddenly, Beiber lovers are threatning to murder her.
Pop culture can be so confusing.
I really don’t think that’s what anu-la1979 was implying, I think it was just really poorly written. Sub in (e.g., a sex tape) for (the sex tape) and you can see what anu-la1979 is getting at.
Second, Simpson is pretty firmly on the B-list. Now, that is impressive: she became famous for singing and acting, but her last few albums were commercial failures and her last few movies either flopped or went straight to DVD. The fact she’s still around getting magazine covers and the like is a testament to how well she’s done at turning herself into a brand - one billion dollars in sales (NOT in profit for Simpson as mentioned above) on shoddily made clothing and shoe lines ain’t half bad. The idea that shilling for anything and showing up to the opening of an envelope could keep you a household name is pretty crazy. But she’s definitely a B-list celebrity, never was or will be any higher.
She’s more legitimately famous than Kardashian, I suppose, in the way that she became famous for doing something that we recognize as needing some natural talent.
And man, the title of this thread is kind of creepy to me, but that may be because the associated between Kardashian and urine is pretty strong to me.
Kim is aiiight, Kourtney is prettier and more natural looking, and Khloe looks like a Frankenstein.
This is what I was going to say. If we cast our minds back 10 years or so there were the four main female teen pop singers: Britney and Christina Aguilera on the A-list, Jessica and Mandy Moore far underneath them on the B-list (whether Moore was even that is arguable). Jessica only ever had one top ten single in America and her sales have seen a sharp decline over the years - she went from selling 3 million to 300,000 in the space of one album.
I’m going to have to defend Mandy Moore. She does have genuine talent - not as much as Christina Aguilera, but one hell of a lot more than Britney Spears. Her voice work in Tangled was excellent, her 2009 album Amanda Leigh is genuinely good and her roles in Saved and American Dreamz showed that she is willing to play unlikable characters and do it well.
Her father was well known for being part of O.J. Simpson’s defense team (Robert Kardashian). I guess that plus a sex tape is enough to translate into insta fame.
Oh I quite like her - one of her songs, ‘In My Pocket’, is among my favourite pop songs of the last decade - and she was great in Saved!, I agree. I was just commenting on where she stood in the scheme of teen pop singers back when she started. And even though Jessica got through it with more money, Mandy certainly got through it with more credibility.
She’s quite adorable and even though I don’t like that style of music, I like her. Plus she’s married to Ryan Adams. I feel like she’s managed to get away from that pop tart nonsense relatively unscathed.
Some of the others, though… it’s interesting to look now at the major female pop stars who emerged over the last 12 or 13 years. Most with terrifyingly ambitious stage parents who were more than happy to sell their kids into this lifestyle for a big cut of the profits. Britney, Christina, Jessica are unlikely to even be well-known for their singing again - they get most press coverage now for divorces, how much weight they’ve gained (a fairly obvious consequence of becoming famous as a teenager) and messing up lyrics and, sadly, obvious mental issues.
It goes in cycles - the press attacked Jessica when she had weight issues, then it was Britney for her breakdown, and now Jessica and Britney are getting relatively good press while they’ve focused on Christina’s weight/divorce/whatever. They could be making groundbreaking music and it would always take a backseat to their personal issues. Mandy was very lucky to escape.
The fact that Bruce Jenner is their stepfather likely helped them get that TV show too. He is a minor sports celeb from way back when he won the Olympic decathalon gold medal. He tried to get into acting but I don’t think that lasted very long.
Suppose she farts in the tub?
He’d still drink her carbonated soda.
I know I’ll get called a perv and all, but hey they’re all on TV.
While I think Kim, Kourtney, and even Khloe are all reasonably attractive (in that order descending) I’ve never thought even Kim was amazingly hot. Pretty face, but a fat ass. However, their two half sisters, the Jenners, although they’re what 14 and 12, are disturbingly beautiful. The older one Kendall just signed with a modeling agency and her younger sister Kylie is even prettier! She reminds me of Natalie Portman at that age.
Glad those two seem to at least have a lot of common sense (and a decent father figure) so that they won’t follow any of their big sisters leads. On anything!