Celebrity Sci entol ogists have no idea of the twisted reality of the inner workings of their "religion". These celebrities are pampered, catered to, and given perks like Misc cavi ge enjoys. They are clueless as to how families are torn apart or people are thrown out the door (thereby losing their salvation) when their funds are sucked dry, or how guilt and threats are used to control.

I see too much in the way of glazed over eyes, hyperactivity, lies, manipulation and broken promises from these people on a daily basis. The bottom tiers, the grunts, the "public", the staff and the incredibly neglected children of the above...they are my neighbors, my children's friends, my landlords, my grocers, the steady stream of zombies marching up and down the sidewalks near my home.

They don't know any better (aren't allowed to know any better). I speak to them when I can...you DO have the right to question, and you DO have the right to have doubts and you DO have the right to make your own choices.

And I go to their businesses, rent houses from them, watch their movies, listen to their music and invite them into my home. They're all victims of an enormous, ugly con :mad2:

Mel Gibson is an abusive asshole. I will never be able to enjoy anything he is in again.

Like the Waltons. ;)

most artists are assholes.

The whole I am not going to watch that movie because so-and-so is in it and he is an asshat is stupid. I go to be entertained. I could give a rats ass what they think about in their personal life. Sports figures are as much entertainers as are actors. And they are as screwed up as any collection of actors in the entertainment business or for musicians. And this supports what I said earlier, what you think you may know about a person from a news report or some repeated screw up they made the news about is hardly "knowing" who that person is and what they stand for in the rest of their life.

I guess it depends on what kind of actor they are. Some actors, like Jack Nicholson or Chris Walken, are always themselves with a different name in movies. Others are the character they portray. If they can become the character, it's easier to ignore their asshattery.

Like Tom Cruise. He's just NOT a good actor. So, it's easy to not like his movies for a variety of reasons: personal and professional. :bolt:

Turning it around a bit...
I think my opinion of the actor is heavily colored by the scripts/films they elect to do.
Sure, there are times someone has to take a role just for the $,
but over a career it is their own personal choices they make.

My example is Dan Aykroyd and Steve Martin.
They were both comics and enjoyable in their youth,
but to me Aykroyd is still making the same films over and over, while Martin has "matured"
in many ways and has no longer the same public personality.
So now, I'll pass on an Aykroyd, but expect to enjoy anythingdone by Martin.

Maybe not the same idea as in the OP,
but I think such decisions play a part in how I spend my $

Exactly. Asshats often choose asshat mainstream roles that make them lots o' money because of appeal to the unwashed masses. I have no respect for that: it's not acting, it's not art. Their personality is dim, so picking enlightened or brilliant roles doesn't enter into it (and often they would suck at it anyway.)

But I don't like a lot of the crap movies out there.

:lol2:

So you love Jane Fonda? Admit it....

I think Mel Gibson is a pretty good actor - or can be. Two of his more entertaining roles were in "Conspiracy Theory," with Julia Roberts and Patrick Stewart, and in "The Million Dollar Hotel," with a lot of interesting actors, including Bono.

The more I know about an actor (good or bad) the harder it is to suspend disbelief when I walk into a theater.