PDA

View Full Version : Child Actors/ Singers/ Stars wildly depress me.



wheelchairman
09-17-2007, 10:58 AM
We can all accept the fact that children are dumb and can easily be convinced into making a decision by adults. This is why kids don't have the right to vote, nor are they considered to be adults. At least I assume we can all agree on this fact.

If we take into the account that a childhood is something you only have once. Then I just find it pathetic that parents have convinced their kids (or their kids have convinced the parents against their better judgement) to allow them to pursue careers as actors or musicians or whatever freak-show talent they might have.

I mean these kids should be kids, allowed to have a happy, healthy childhood like most kids in the Western world. So the fact that some parents drive their kids into the very competitive and very adult worlds of acting, music, beauty pageants etc. is just repulsive from every aspect. I mean what the hell is wrong with these parents?

And on the flipside, if it was the child that was able to convince the parents that this was the right thing. Then why did the parents cave in?

I mean christ, why is our society putting these kids out there in the first place? Why are there reality shows based purely on children (an idea reprehensible from any conceivable viewpoint. Kids on reality shows, used as entertainment, wtf?). Since Jean-Bene Ramseys (sp?)'s disappearance, it's become rather open and clear to the world how disgusting and mentally degrading the child-pageant industry is, yet it still goes on.

I mean fuck. How come this seems to disgust no one? You only have one childhood, and once it's over, it's over forever.

DeAtHsTaR
09-17-2007, 11:00 AM
Michael Jackson turned out just fine without a childhood...

Jakebert
09-17-2007, 11:05 AM
I used to have a problem with child stars, until this
http://www.dreamstarlets.com/features/!bios/jenny_lewis22.jpg
turned into this
http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/2/20652/23_2007/RiloKiley_Rick_6094135_600.jpg

Great Mike
09-17-2007, 12:14 PM
Acting and singing is mildly okay. Not just because we need children in the films, but also because sometimes it's really the kids -without parentís pressure- who have already decided what do they want to do with their life and, if they keep going to school and having some holidays like a normal kid, it's something that doesn't necessary have to hurt them.

Most children do some extra activities after school. Some of them even do artistical (firefox says that this word doesnít exist, but Iíll use it anyway) activities like playing music, painting, acting, etc. So, in my point of view, itís not moral to prevent them to do such things once they start getting social recognition or money.

In the other hand, exploiting child's remote sexuality -like in beauty pageants or some realities- is just another proof of the degeneration of the society. And yes, that should be banned.

Kasavin
09-17-2007, 12:18 PM
You only have one childhood, and once it's over, it's over forever.

Aw, man....When people say that, it really gets me down. Guess I shouldn't get braces.

wheelchairman
09-17-2007, 12:18 PM
Acting and singing is mildly okay. Not just because we need children in the films, but also because sometimes it's really the kids -without parentís pressure- who have already decided what do they want to do with their life and, if they keep going to school and having some holidays like a normal kid, it's something that doesn't necessary have to hurt them.

Most children do some extra activities after school. Some of them even do artistical (firefox says that this word doesnít exist, but Iíll use it anyway) activities like playing music, painting, acting, etc. So, in my point of view, itís not moral to prevent them to do such things once they start getting social recognition or money.



Oh I agree that some kids enjoy acting or singing, this is why they form bands, or join some acting type of free time activity. There is nothing wrong with this and they are having fun. When it turns into a career is where it goes wrong. That is when they are robbed of their childhood and that is when the parents should stop it. They don't need to be in movies, nor should they be.

This is where it is the moral responsibility of the parents to say "no, stop. This is too soon and too fast."

KyleW
09-17-2007, 12:30 PM
We can all accept the fact that children are dumb and can easily be convinced into making a decision by adults. This is why kids don't have the right to vote, nor are they considered to be adults. At least I assume we can all agree on this fact.

If we take into the account that a childhood is something you only have once. Then I just find it pathetic that parents have convinced their kids (or their kids have convinced the parents against their better judgement) to allow them to pursue careers as actors or musicians or whatever freak-show talent they might have.

I mean these kids should be kids, allowed to have a happy, healthy childhood like most kids in the Western world. So the fact that some parents drive their kids into the very competitive and very adult worlds of acting, music, beauty pageants etc. is just repulsive from every aspect. I mean what the hell is wrong with these parents?

And on the flipside, if it was the child that was able to convince the parents that this was the right thing. Then why did the parents cave in?

I mean christ, why is our society putting these kids out there in the first place? Why are there reality shows based purely on children (an idea reprehensible from any conceivable viewpoint. Kids on reality shows, used as entertainment, wtf?). Since Jean-Bene Ramseys (sp?)'s disappearance, it's become rather open and clear to the world how disgusting and mentally degrading the child-pageant industry is, yet it still goes on.

I mean fuck. How come this seems to disgust no one? You only have one childhood, and once it's over, it's over forever.

I think that the parents of most child stars are to blame. As you have already mentioned children are very easily persuaded and when parents practically force thier children to compete in competitions or auditions it is completely wrong!

I agree that children should have fun outside of school in clubs, activities etc. but it can get completely out of hand especially when a child has a lot of potential talent. The parents can be persuaded by money, the children persuaded by the parents.

The only problem I could see arise if this was banned, where would the film industry be without child actors. There are a lot of films with child ctors as stars and most films have a child with a speaking role in it somewhere.

wheelchairman
09-17-2007, 12:36 PM
The only problem I could see arise if this was banned, where would the film industry be without child actors. There are a lot of films with child ctors as stars and most films have a child with a speaking role in it somewhere.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest, child actors suck anyways. They'd just have to make do without child actors.

KyleW
09-17-2007, 12:47 PM
This doesn't bother me in the slightest, child actors suck anyways. They'd just have to make do without child actors.

As much as I agree with the comment I think it would be hard for the film industry to do as well without any children in the films. Classic film series' such as Home Alone or Harry Potter would not be possible. Also another question, at what age would consider it acceptable for an actor/actress to choose it as a career?

killer_queen
09-17-2007, 01:08 PM
So, what? You just blame the parents of child actors/singers/whatevers? What about the ones who make their children start studying madly starting from the first day of school? I know people who say "Okay, if you have studied 4 hours today you can play with your toys for an hour. but then you'll go back studying again." Making your kid a famous person isn't the only way to ruin his/her life.

wheelchairman
09-17-2007, 01:10 PM
So, what? You just blame the parents of child actors/singers/whatevers? What about the ones who make their children start studying madly starting from the first day of school? I know people who say "Okay, if you have studied 4 hours today you can play with your toys for an hour. but then you'll go back studying again." Making your kid a famous person isn't the only way to ruin his/her life.
Well duh. I find that repulsive too. It's really the same thing, but the aspect of exploitation is less obvious.

KyleW
09-17-2007, 01:38 PM
Well duh. I find that repulsive too. It's really the same thing, but the aspect of exploitation is less obvious.

Agreed totally.

HornyPope
09-17-2007, 05:21 PM
I agree, but that's also because I was never after success and fame. But I suppose if I had a talent, I'd be really upset if my parents didn't at least try to develop it. But I agree when you say "too much is too much".

leo3375
09-17-2007, 05:56 PM
While many child stars are screwed over by greedy/overzealous parents, there are those who turn out fine in the end. Daniel Radcliffe's parents work in film and they knew he had some talent so they encouraged him to pursue it. Now he's 18 and has access to a trust fund of millions of pounds. And he's getting £25 million to do the last two Harry Potter movies.

Macauley Culkin, however, was screwed over by a crazed "stage dad" who essentially blackmailed studios into using his son in their movies. And Gary Coleman's parents squandered the money he earned back in the 1980s, meaning he never saw any of the money he made once he turned 18.

The best thing for any parent of a child star to do is hire a third-party manager and accountant. This can prevent the parents from living vicariously through their child and can ensure that there will be money for the star once they turn 18.

BREAK
09-17-2007, 07:34 PM
I used to be jealous of child stars before I found out how fucked-up most of them were. But it seems like the cult of celebrity is the true evil. Mega-stardom tends to fuck people up whether they're young or old (not that old people ever become huge stars...). It just seems more monstrous when it happens to children because of their naÔvete.

Jenny Lewis has tittacular knockers. Never noticed that before.

Paint_It_Black
09-17-2007, 09:32 PM
So Per, if you had a kid and that kid turned out to be immensely talented and had the opportunity to make a lot of money doing something he/she really enjoyed, you wouldn't support that? You'd hold them back, make them resent you, and prevent what may be their one chance to avoid working shitty jobs for all of their adult life?

I'm totally disgusted by parents who exploit their children. But holding your kids back can be pretty fucking shitty too.

wheelchairman
09-18-2007, 02:08 AM
Yes definitely. The kid would be allowed to act all he wanted in an after-school free time type of context. If he's truly talented then when he's like what, 16 or something, he'll still be able to act. Hell I don't think I'd let my kid be a paper boy either.

JoY
09-18-2007, 03:39 AM
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/olympics/articles/2007/08/28/china_dad_denies_abuse_of_marathon_girl_8/

this story disgusts me majorly.

Richard, you can focus on developing a talent, but in childhood there's more than just a talent you may, or may not be blessed with. kids need to develop themselves in all areas, because, hey, they're kids. undeveloped little human beings, that will be send out in the world some day on their own.

some children don't have a particular talent, still the parents wish they had, because of their own frustrations, missed opportunities &/or lack of talent in a certain area.

often children who are "supported" by their parents to focus on one single thing at an early age, become good at what they do by endless practice, not even necessarily because of their huge talent. you can become good at anything, if you practice day in, day out, 24/7. sure, there has to be a certain ability, a bit of talent there to begin with. but young stars couldn't have been young stars, if they didn't work their asses off for it.

that means it leaves no time to develop other areas, that means those kids have to do without some things that could've enriched their lives, that could've broadened their view & that could've not only have been also a talent, but a true passion. you don't know fully what your full abilities are, unless you've tried to develop yourself in more than one area & tried to learn to know about yourself what you truly can do.

parents are supposed to support their child no matter what. not in one area, in all areas. a passion can present itself at a young age, but you won't truly know if that's your one passion, the one you want to focus on later in life, if you have no clue what else is out there.

F@ BANKZ
09-18-2007, 08:45 AM
We wouldn't have Kurt Russell if it wasn't for child actors. It is for that reason, and maybe the Jackson 5, that I have no problem with the issue.

HornyPope
09-18-2007, 10:19 AM
you can become good at anything, if you practice day in, day out, 24/7. sure, there has to be a certain ability, a bit of talent there to begin with. but young stars couldn't have been young stars, if they didn't work their asses off for it.

that means it leaves no time to develop other areas, that means those kids have to do without some things that could've enriched their lives, that could've broadened their view & that could've not only have been also a talent, but a true passion. you don't know fully what your full abilities are, unless you've tried to develop yourself in more than one area & tried to learn to know about yourself what you truly can do.

Well you sure figured it all out for everyone.

I don't think they lack development because the only difference really is the environment, well and a lot more pressure.

Paint_It_Black
09-19-2007, 03:30 AM
If he's truly talented then when he's like what, 16 or something, he'll still be able to act.

Yeah, but it's got to be easier to get noticed when you're a talented kid. Let's keep going with the example of acting. Once he's 16 he's going to face a lot more competition. Starting earlier is going to give a definite advantage.

It's still possible for a child actor to maintain a fairly normal life. They can even go to a regular school, have a regular experience, and just "work" during the time school's out.

I honestly don't see an intrinsic problem with it. A good parent should be able to pull it off and a bad parent will fuck the kid up somehow anyway.

And to reiterate, I'm only in favor of this if the kid genuinely wants to do it.

Nina
09-19-2007, 06:41 AM
Talent is one thing, experience another.

I agree that parents should not *push* their kids to do anything, whether it's studying like a maniac or appearing on commercials. However the experience a child gains by being a child actor or musician is something that can have a huge impact on their further possible career.

I like to speak in examples, so here we go: I read that Britney Spears didnt want to be on the Micky Mouse Club (at 10). Her mother forced her into it. From this moment on she was surrounded by photographers, interviewers, etc. While shooting Crossroads she was *constantly* under the pressure of fame; between takes, on her breaks, before she went to bed she had to give interviews (this I heard on a british show in which one of her co-stars was interviewed). All of this was arranged my her manager(s), and they had the permission from her mother.
Now look at this train wreck called Britney Spears, who looks for attention everywhere, even when she's in a phase in which she shouldnt.

Elijah Wood, one of the most fascinating people to me (though not the most fascinating actor) appears to be very laid back, though he was also an actor since the age of 4 or 5. On this subject he explained that it's all a matter of how your parents treat you. He said that his mom didnt allow him to be on set when he was done shooting. He was also not allowed to start a new project if he was bad in school (which it turns out he never was). He had long breaks between projects, which he "used" to be a normal child and do things kids do.
The experience he gained as a child actor is of use. He is a solid actor and currently very successful.

Yes, people who are truely gifted will find their way to hollywood, but they will have adventages if they have been in the business before.

As Paint_It_Black says: Parents either fuck it up, or they dont. But I wouldnt say parents should never let their kids be in this business.

Trek
09-19-2007, 06:44 AM
Big deal, the world is full of idiots :rolleyes: .

HeadAroundU
09-19-2007, 06:51 AM
And you are a great example. :rolleyes:

Kasavin
09-19-2007, 04:33 PM
And to reiterate, I'm only in favor of this if the kid genuinely wants to do it.

But that's the problem: the kid probably isn't smart or deep enough to know the consequences of taking that big a step. Of course, to a young kid, lots of fame, popularity, and money would sound great on paper. And the kid may be pressured by the parents.

Paint_It_Black
09-19-2007, 10:12 PM
But that's the problem: the kid probably isn't smart or deep enough to know the consequences of taking that big a step.

And that doesn't change once we magically hit the number 18, or even 21. Maybe not ever. You can waste half your life waiting until you feel ready to take a big step, and the other half regretting the things you never did.

Thanks to Nina for essentially making my argument better than I was doing.

One little side point since Britney Spears was mentioned. I have a strong suspicion that she would have turned out the way she has regardless of her past. She just wouldn't have had so much money to blow and her troubles wouldn't be a media spectacle. My evidence? I see so many young women just like her all the damn time. The only difference is they're poor and their fame is limited to bathroom walls.

Look at people like Corey Feldman too. He had a really rough time, and the early stardom fucked him up. But was it simply because of his fame and money? No, it was because of his family life. And now he's come out the other side with a pretty damn nice life and he seems to be a pretty cool guy because of it all.

Sunny
09-20-2007, 10:32 AM
eh. i disagree.


I mean these kids should be kids, allowed to have a happy, healthy childhood like most kids in the Western world.

lol. sorry, but lol to the max.
if we're talking about childhood being associated with innocence, then that is lost very quickly - and no, it has little to do with the child being famous.
i babysat a bunch of kids when i was in college, and seeing the way they acted and what they were exposed to was literally terrifying.
kids - not just the famous ones - are sexualized at an unbelievably early age, and become aware - and involved in - adult things very early on. elementary school kids talking about sex, diets, designer fashions, blowjobs, being "hot", getting "trashed"... yeah. disturbing.

i'm not talking about kids with unfit parents, either. these all were "nice" Western upper class families.

blame it on the tv or on the bratz dolls, but the mythical, happy, healthy Western childhood you speak of seems to be merely a fantasy at this point.

there are, certainly, difficult issues child stars are likely to encounter, but a large part of it can be avoided if the child's handlers are responsible people.
i think some parents are trying to make up for their own lack of success by pushing the child too far; some become so obsessed with the idea of fame and money that they drive themselves and the kid nuts.

however, the mere idea of a child acting in a movie, or singing, or doing whatever - i don't see a damn thing wrong with it. as long as the parents are sensible people and don't take it too far or treat the kid like a money-making machine. for some children, performing IS what they want to do and what makes them happy; staying home and playing with toys - your "traditional" childhood - isn't.

in my book, the major problem with child stars is the early sexualization of the kid's image. that's why i AM immensely bothered by child pageants, where little girls dress up like grown women (er, hookers) and strut their stuff in front of the judges. it IS too early for that. someone who hasn't hit puberty should not be sexualized and put on display in such a way.

Oromis
09-20-2007, 07:22 PM
eh. i disagree.



lol. sorry, but lol to the max.
if we're talking about childhood being associated with innocence, then that is lost very quickly - and no, it has little to do with the child being famous.
i babysat a bunch of kids when i was in college, and seeing the way they acted and what they were exposed to was literally terrifying.
kids - not just the famous ones - are sexualized at an unbelievably early age, and become aware - and involved in - adult things very early on. elementary school kids talking about sex, diets, designer fashions, blowjobs, being "hot", getting "trashed"... yeah. disturbing.

i'm not talking about kids with unfit parents, either. these all were "nice" Western upper class families.

blame it on the tv or on the bratz dolls, but the mythical, happy, healthy Western childhood you speak of seems to be merely a fantasy at this point.


So true. I started 9th grade a couple weeks and I've been hearing/participation in conversations about sex and whos hot and etc since like 4th grade.

And going back to what would happen to the film industry without child stars... I know i've never liked cartoons since I was like 7... I would want to watch a movie with a kid about my age playing the main role. Or a kid like 7-12.

Endymion
09-22-2007, 01:44 AM
i'm a big supporter of the "without child actors there'd be no Home Alone" argument.

also:
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061005/244.fanning.dakota.100406.jpg

Nina
09-24-2007, 01:53 AM
She weirds the shit out of me.

wheelchairman
09-24-2007, 10:09 AM
Sunny, naturally kids interest these things. But unless you are suggesting that it's common for 10 year olds to give blowjobs and get trashed, then I don't really see anything unusual about it. Or at least unusually disturbing.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to act at all, I'm saying that there should be made a clear line between professional and free time. As in they can act as a free time interest to their hearts content. But otherwise Southern California will destroy them, metaphorically speaking. I'm not just talking about having a traditional childhood, I'm talking about having a childhood at all. They'll have a lifetime to do that kind of work if they're cut out for it and are old enough to make that decision themselves (and that's the crux of the issue, kids are idiots. 18 is the age where they become responsible for their own idiocy.)

PiB, naturally bad parents are bad. Largely my feelings rely on the fact that this is a kid signing away his childhood to be an adult. Entering a professional world simply because the urge to grow up and be respected is so strong. Which kid didn't day dream about being famous at some point? (and who ever stops?). Britney could've turned bad either way, but there are certainly different degrees of badness. Hypothetical situations will lead us nowhere, but I do believe that damage control can simply prevent the worst aspects of bad parenting. But I'm really tired so I'm not entirely sure what I'm thinking or what my general point was, but it's in there somewhere.

JoY
09-25-2007, 07:03 AM
Vlad, I posted an example of a child supported by her father to run a marathon, despite specialists' advice not to. I would hate to be her orthopedist by the time she's 30.

I typed my post partly with my own development in mind. not that mine is special in any way, but it's the easiest for me to think of my own naturally.

I wanted to play the violin when I was 2. probably because my brother played the violin & I loved the instrument. you don't get ideas like that at such a young age out of nowhere. my parents thought it might be unhealthy & told me to wait & if I was so sure that I wanted to play the violin, I would still want it in a couple of years.
(Richard! they held me back! & yes, I whined about it & found it horrible at the time)
this was the case, so they finally sent me to violin lessons when I was 4. I was mega thrilled & went as far as thinking it would be my future. my parents encouraged my interest in playing the violin, but they encouraged me overal. also in school, in sports, in drawing... you name it. in developing.

later on I learned there's so much more I can do fairly well, or at least okay, that draws my interest & that I can be even very passionate about. even something I'd much rather spend my future doing, than playing the violin. I probably wouldn't have known some of those things - maybe I would've missed even the most important thing, that I want to study medicine - if I wasn't stimulated at all to broaden my vision & explore my own interests & capabilities. I wouldn't have known a whole part of myself, if I'd directed all my focus just on playing the violin. & I probably would have, if that was the only thing that I felt encouraged to do.

like I said before, you, let alone young children, don't get ideas out of nowhere, so when a very young child suddenly shows special interest in one particular activity, there must be some kind of source that has fed that interest (having seen/done it once, whatever), no matter how much it's a part of their own personality & how talented they are. & would you feed only that interest, or would you create the opportunity for your child to find out more about himself & let other interests, maybe hidden talents & passions, be fed aswell?

I was pretty much sketching a scene... where parents keep encouraging only a single area in the development of their child & focus on it, aswell as making their child focus on it. not necessarily by pressure, but I suppose it'd automatically go like that with most children, if they'd only feel supported & encouraged in one area. like sports, or music, or acting.. so sure, I'm not saying it can't be the child's own choice. hell, playing the violin for the rest of my life would've been my own choice, too. but if you've never explored the other options, then how much of a choice is it, really?


edit: this is very muchly tl;dr, but apparently I explained myself poorly, which is often the feeling I get, which is why many of my posts turn out to be so long.

HornyPope
09-26-2007, 09:34 PM
Did you see the part that I quoted? I thought your assumption that kids who practice one discipline will necessarily lack development time in other disciplines was hanging on nothing except some conclusion you made for yourself. I mean, thanks for sharing and all, but that's crap thinking. I do that when i'm high, too.

JoY
09-28-2007, 07:14 AM
yeah, but turns out it wasn't like that. but okay, obviously I explained myself poorly & I hope I was able to make it right.