Page 1 of 1
How often is fame based on tallent?
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 3:30 am
by DollarBill
How often does fame come out of connections?
How often do people become famous just by gritty hard work?
How much of it is luck?
Is there a skill level or a commitment level that is needed?
Is there a level of mass appeal? A certain "je ne sais qua"?
Hm, how famous can you get posting to a local forum at 3:30 in the morning?
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 3:50 am
by TexasImprovMassacre
will you autograph my life?
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 7:21 am
by Jules
I think it depends on what kind of fame.....Kevin Federline? I'm sure he worked hard at his dancing and such, but it might have been connections that got him to Ms. Spears and then his "je ne sais" did the rest. Now is he famous or ridiculous. He's probably got more cash than me.
My dad was a composer and conductor primarily with the bulk of his work produced during the 40'-70's. He did a great deal of band music, some orchestral works and produced radio at NBC for Toscaninii.
I doubt any of you know or have heard of Don Gillis.
He worked like a beast and his collection of music is impressive. National Fame? Probably not. But he was extremely respected and loved in his field and still is played.
Fame is an odd thing.
It certainly doesn't seem to be doing Lindsey Lohan any favors. Most of hollywood fame seems pornographic to me....the BAD kind of pornographic.
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 9:11 am
by Mo Daviau
Quoi.
Je ne sais quoi.
--Grumpy French Lady
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 11:17 am
by ratliff
Mo, copyediting forum posts is a slippery slope. Don't go there.
My current belief is that talent and fame are almost completely unrelated. I do think that in a market economy it's almost impossible to get famous without deciding you really want it and pursuing it independently of your artistic goals, but I feel like a lot of really talented people have made that choice and still manage to do good work.
I think the pitfalls of this are exemplified by what I think of as the Tom Hanks/Michael Keaton problem. I think they're both good actors, but Hanks, who is possibly the most bankable star in Hollywood, takes absolutely no risks in his roles. When he's an AIDS patient, he's the saintliest AIDS patient ever. When he's a hitman, he's a humorous loving father with a heart of gold. BORING. I think he had the potential to be a great actor, but we'll never know because he never stretches.
Michael Keaton stretched, and played bad guys, and showed the ugly sides of his personality, and where is he now? The market sucks.
I respect people who can pursue artistic and popular success simultaneously. However, I long ago realized that I'm not one of them, so I have to choose. And I guess if I'm going to be honest about it, one of the things that draws me to improv is how hard it is to commodify. It's like, I don't read a lot of poetry, but I have a sneaking affection for poets, if only because they can't possibly be in it for the money. I feel the same way about improv.
Posted: December 11th, 2006, 11:33 am
by Wesley
22.786% of the time.
(29.32% on being in the right place at the right time and dumb luck,
30.003% on having the right connections and knowing the right people,
8.6% of the time on pure looks,
6.54% on manipulation,
and 2.754% of the time on pure intelligence.)
Posted: December 12th, 2006, 2:31 am
by DollarBill
Mo Daviau wrote:Quoi.
Je ne sais quoi.
--Grumpy French Lady
Yes, quoi. But listen, I took french in highschool from the grumpiest french lady in the land. If I didn't learn it from her... actually, come to think of it, If she'd been less grumpy I might have actually learned it.
DO YOUR 'OMEWOOK BEEL!
I most certainly will not.
Posted: December 17th, 2006, 1:12 am
by LuBu McJohnson
I figure it helps to be talented, but that's only like 20% of it. The other 80% comes from either your incredible luck, or it comes from the hustle. Stick to the hustle.
Posted: December 17th, 2006, 12:00 pm
by The Frightful Turpentine
It helps if you're in step with the zeitgeist. Since we're all comedy fans here, consider Larry David. He toiled in obscurity as a "comedian's comedian" for something like 20 years before the great masses were ready for his particular brand of dark social comedy, and then...
If you look at just about any field- art, entertainment, science, engineering, business, whatever- you'll find examples of people who had great ideas but never made it because the time wasn't right, and others a generation later who became huge successes by rediscovering the exact same ideas.
Posted: January 8th, 2007, 8:18 am
by JimiLaRue
Short fame is based on connections, long term fame is based on talent.
With the exception of James Belushi of course.