We often complain and ridicule attention whores but in this age of viral media success is measured in page views and hits. For example Miley Cyrus is being almost universally panned yet I have seen more pics of her in the last two days than I have the last year. Lindsey Lohan was blasted yet still gets roles and is relevant in pop culture. So when it comes at least to pop culture is there really such a thing as bad publicity? For that matter is being an attention w**** actually rewarded?
Depends on what you consider rewarded. Monetarily? Yeah. Seems to be rewarded. A good life with healthy relationships and good health? Most of the time, no. Is anyone going to be surprised if she ends up in rehab, estranged from her parents?
Yes I am looking at a very narrow set of rewards here mainly popularity. For example Charlie Sheen has a host of problems with producers, family, relationships and probably healthwise but the height of his popularity was when he acted out.
Except Paul Reubens still got a lot of roles after his incident and Pee Wee's playhouse even made a comeback.
I would say Sheen's 'popularity' during that time was more notoriety. People waiting for the train wreck to happen. It's the same reason why World Star Hip Hop is so popular. It's a disgusting side of human kind but sometimes you can't help but watch it like animal planet.
I was thinking that at first in the business aspect there is. But, then I read and he stated he is refering to in pop-culture.
It took a whole decade, and he lost an entire media franchise in the process. Considering the explosion in kid's video and television in the last twenty years, whatever nostalgic appeal "Herman" has is trivial compared to the potential projects he could have had over the last generation.
I'm still wondering how Sheen didn't become and remain an A-list actor in the late '80s; the guy had name recognition and both big-budget and critically acclaimed roles, but then pulled a Burt Reynolds and started making screwball crap.
It depends more on what your getting the publicity for, rather than if it's good or bad... "Publicity can be terrible. But only if you don't have any"..... Jane Russell ....... ....... .......
He probably wouldn't have had much more work as Pee Wee anyway. Very few kids shows last for more than a few years.
Yes and Yes. Yes being an attention w**** is rewarded. And Yes there still is such a thing as bad publicity, BUT its lessening. Ex: Chris Brown's career woulda been ruined 3 decades ago. These days, now he's stronger than ever. I do think he'd have an even more respected career if he didnt do his bad things but it hasnt been as much deathblow as it should (and we fairly see how Rihanna is equally dysfunctional herself. Anyway) - This might seem too serious, but I put a good amount on blame on females for that. There's lots of variance of women but - For years they've claimed moral superiority on things. While at the same time partaking in all the salacious things and "laddism" they've chided men about. Women NEED histrionics and drama for RELEVANCE. Also women generally get easy sympathy and affection almost as an entitlement. As long as their pouty pretty face gets enough attention is all that matters. All women need is a "makeover", or supporting some vegan/yoga "holistic" cause to absolve themselves of bad choices. They've freely cheapened credibility. (And I do blame guys for encouraging that along as well). Like these teacher-student scandals. No one cares, people don't bash the women enough because bottom line sluttish sexual appeal is more favorable than bad. Basically, I don't think vices like drugs, crappy personalities and sexual suggestiveness are considered that damaging anymore. You can be a trainwreck "ratchet" person top to bottom and get away with that. Higher tolerance/apathy level for that now. But BAD things like violent crimes, rape, child abuse, domestic violence still damage image. (And though they're still elusive, should still put the white collar corporate thievery into that more.)
even bad publicity is good publicity in that sphere, i mean miley's album will probably top the charts once it comes out. the catch is, there IS such thing as overexposure and the eventual inability for a performer/celebrity to "top" themselves. that's where careers crash and burn and some people never recover. miley is still young but if she doesn't start toning down her (fake) image people will tire quickly of her. but i wouldn't be surprised if her management team helps her "evolve"...i.e. she becomes a country singer by her late twenties.
I don't remember it taking a whole decade for Paul Reubens to get roles again. It seemed like it was only a year or so. According to Wikipedia he did keep a low profile for much of the 1990's but did appear as Pee Wee on the 1991 MTV awards following his arrest and also did to roles such as in the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer in 1992.
