Miley Cyrus - what the heck happened?

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Are Miley's stage decor and dancer costumes a reference to "Furries" (as in fetish)?

What next?.... Bestiality?

:bud:

 

[Softail]

:dunno: I wasn't shocked by it at all. She has been pretty trashy for the past few years. Dressing trashy, smoking weed. Last night just didn't shock me.

 

[popsicle]

I think the girl should just work at a strip club and get it out of her system. At least with a pole there she doesn't have to worry about the fact she can't dance.

My contribution to the tags is a lil diddy from the JA trial. lol

 

[gitana1]

:dunno: I wasn't shocked by it at all. She has been pretty trashy for the past few years. Dressing trashy, smoking weed. Last night just didn't shock me.

I can't say I;m shocked either (but not based on her smoking weed which I don't care about). I've seen her increasingly naked fashion sense. She has been wearing shirts that show her underboob and shorts that show her cheeks and it is clear that Miley believes being super sexual is the same as being an adult and that she is desperate to get naked in front of everyone.

Color me un-surprised and un-appalled. Madonna, anyone? Britney? Janet? I mean, really.

Yeah, it's true. But I think this is part of a continuum that keeps getting less inventive and more pornographic. I mean, at least Madonna wrote her own music (she actually writes a lot, even for other artists which few of these pop entertainers do and which is far more difficult than just singing). Jackson, while not that strong vocally, has a three octave range and can dance. She has also been known for socially conscious messages in some of her songs and you can hear her presence over the years as a co-writer of her music. Britney, who is a pure studio product can at least dance somewhat. All of that is in comparison with Cyrus who is credited as a co-writer on 9 songs with 24 other writers and no signature style, cannot dance (except if compared with women who get dollars stuck in their g-strings) and has less than an octave vocal range.

Also, although all of the women you listed have been needlessly, IMO, sexual, I don't know any that compare in terms of lewdness with the sad and panicked performance of Cyrus at the VMA's. There was nothing to back that performance up except desperation. I don't remember her music, her outfits were uninspiring, I don't remember her voice, her dancing was poor and the choreography was nothing better than what can be found in any run of the mill strip joint. At least with some of those other women mentioned, they had some actual dance moves mixed in with the gyrations. :twocents:

 

[seattlechiquita]

Also, although all of the women you listed have been needlessly, IMO, sexual, I don't know any that compare in terms of lewdness with the sad and panicked performance of Cyrus at the VMA's. There was nothing to back that performance up except desperation. I don't remember her music, her outfits were uninspiring, I don't remember her voice, her dancing was poor and the choreography was nothing better than what can be found in any run of the mill strip joint. At least with some of those other women mentioned, they had some actual dance moves mixed in with the gyrations. :twocents:

Respectfully snipped my yours truly.

I concur gitana. Miley is a sad case. However, I am more bothered by how this Robin dude also on stage is still so adored when his lyrics promote rape and degradation, than whether Miley (or any other performer) shakes the booty a little too much or a little too racy. jmho

 

[gitana1]

Oh, BTW, in the midst of all the attention on Miley, what's up with Robert Thicke, (who I just learned about a couple weeks ago)? Another child of a star. (Alan Thicke). He sang horribly off key during the performance and why is it cool for a married guy to get his crotch publicly rubbed by the behind and foam finger of a 20 year old girl?

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully snipped my yours truly.

I concur gitana. Miley is a sad case. However, I am more bothered by how this Robin dude also on stage is still so adored when his lyrics promote rape and degradation, than whether Miley (or any other performer) shakes the booty a little too much or a little too racy. jmho

Man you just beat me to it!! I was just reacting to that. I had never heard of the guy until a couple weeks ago. Needless to say - not impressed:

I think he is another example of nepotism and he's just gross.

 

[Softail]

I can't say I;m shocked either (but not based on her smoking weed which I don't care about). I've seen her increasingly naked fashion sense. She has been wearing shirts that show her underboob and shorts that show her cheeks and it is clear that Miley believes being super sexual is the same as being an adult and that she is desperate to get naked in front of everyone.

I don't really care about the weed either. BBM - Exactly. Sadly, she has been a spoiled brat for much of her life, with too much money and not enough "real life". Now that she is of age, she just doesn't understand what being an adult means.

I don't mean to bring politics into it, but I recall that she was able to vote for Obama the first time. She was on Ellen, and talking about how "cool" it was to vote for him, cuz it was just, well, "cool". The girl doesn't have a clue about life. :sigh:

She is the reason that people need real role models in their lives, and not celebrities or sports figures. :twocents:

 

[seattlechiquita]

Oh, BTW, in the midst of all the attention on Miley, what's up with Robert Thicke, (who I just learned about a couple weeks ago)? Another child of a star. (Alan Thicke). He sang horribly off key during the performance and why is it cool for a married guy to get his crotch publicly rubbed by the behind and foam finger of a 20 year old girl?

Have you seen the video of his latest hit, "Blurred Lines"? He LOVES degrading women. The guy is a pig.

 

[ArianeEmory]

You know people throw that phrase around a lot but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of companies who went under ads a result of bad publicity and plenty of celebs who fell from heights as a result of bad publicity. That's a phrase taken from Oscar Wilde and kind of twisted a bit. Here's some celebs who suffered from bad publicity:

1. Amanda Bynes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/amanda-bynes-dropped-by-management-team_n_1903111.html

2. Dixie Chicks

3. Sinead O'Connor

4. Billy Squier

5. Shannon Dougherty

6. Paula Deen

7. Almost every washed up child star not otherwise mentioned. (Lohan, et. al).

The thing is, celebs hire handlers and public image reps for a reason. The public can turn on a person and companies or producers or agents will stop working with a celeb if the publicity is bad enough.

ETA: That's also the reason we get so many celebs issuing "apologies" for various things or entering "rehab" after groping someone or acting racist. Bad publicity can indeed hurt.

Well, we can take three of those off because they were shunned for political reasons. Shannon Dougherty was apparently just obnoxious. Amanda Bynes appears to be actually mentally ill. The only one that really relates is Billy Squier (public wasn't ready, yet, to see a "rocker" dancing around like an idiot), and he didn't exactly have a multi bazillion dollar empire at the time. I think Madonna and Britney are better comparisons--the times they've gone over the top trying to be controversial and been mocked for it. They both still have careers.

 

[Softail]

On a good note for the VMA's, I still think Bruno Mars is absolutely adorable, and I like his music. He is very original! :twocents:

:hot:

 

[STANDREID]

Females were twerking 50 years ago except we called it dry humping.

 

[gitana1]

Well, we can take three of those off because they were shunned for political reasons. Shannon Dougherty was apparently just obnoxious. Amanda Bynes appears to be actually mentally ill. The only one that really relates is Billy Squier (public wasn't ready, yet, to see a "rocker" dancing around like an idiot), and he didn't exactly have a multi bazillion dollar empire at the time. I think Madonna and Britney are better comparisons--the times they've gone over the top trying to be controversial and been mocked for it. They both still have careers.

I disagree. What is bad publicity? It is publication of a fact or facts or attitudes that are either negative or that are spun negative or that cause a negative reaction. Paula Deen lost sponsors due to the publication of what what many felt was a racist attitude. The Dixie Chicks lost fans due to the publication of a speech her fan base abhorred. Sinead O-Connor lost fans due to the publication of various things including statements Catholics were offended by and also just bizarre behavior that turned many people off: http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2012/01/23/sinead_oconnor_blasts_irish_media_for_

If not for the publicity surrounding these events, few fans or sponsors would have deserted them. (And BTW, I am not judging their various statements or beliefs by listing them. I'm simply pointing out what bad publicity can do).

As far as Amanda Bynes and other child celebs, what does it matter if they are mentally ill or on drugs or whatever? How does that excuse them from being affected by bad publicity? You stated that no publicity is bad publicity and I'm showing that's untrue. When celebs receive bad press, for whatever reason, they can and do suffer from it.

Shannon Doughtery's antics were publicized and caused her to lose fans. The studios reacted to that.

They always do.

Re runs of Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse were dropped by CBS after he was arrested for masturbating in a theatre.

AFLAC cancelled Gilbert Gottfried's contract after he made horrible jokes about the tsunami victims.

Remember Michael Richards? No one else does either at the moment.

Lance Armstrong???

Again, it doesn;t matter what the behavior is. The fact is that there is such a thing as bad publicity and it can hurt a person's career. And again, that's why celebs hire publicists. It's also why the studios totally controlled the stars' lives in the 30-s through 50's. They owned their stars but they controlled publicity as a result.

Mile Cyrus got mad bad publicity as a result of her antics last night. And it could actually harm her career. So yeah, we're talking about it but that's not necessarily always a good thing, which is the while point.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I guess I'll just say that I think her career will be fine and leave it at that. It doesn't mean I have an opinion on her talent or the VMAs--I don't. I've just seen this trajectory before and it's more akin to Madonna or Britney than any of your examples. Anyone who thinks Miley is going to suddenly become D-listed is kidding themselves.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yeah, I remember an article about Miley some years back in which someone was quoted saying they recalled her as a little kid running around on the Cyrus family farm, just totally bratty and spoiled.

And who can forget the photo shoot Miley did at age 15, draped seductively on top of her father while wearing skin tight jeans and then naked, covered with only a revealing sheet on a bed? Ick.

Also, her dad tweeted something today about how we should all just let Mikey grow the way she wants to. Yeah, I think he did a bit too much "allowing". The problem with that is society can tend to be a bit less generous. Don't give your kid consequences? Society will, eventually.

It looks like Billie Ray Cyrus would at least "act" embarrassed, FGS.

 

[Steely Dan]

Gitana, apparently she thinks being "grown up" means public sex displays and ecstasy parties. Sounds like a failure of parenting to me.

Christina Ricci seemed to make the the jump from child star to mature actress fairly well. I think she had better parenting. Of course Ron Howard is the poster boy for being raised well in the hollywood environment. JMO

:floorlaugh:

I think she think she's Hannah Madonna :biggrin:

:floorlaugh:

I know people hate to hear this, but...

Everyone's talking about it today.

No publicity is bad publicity.

Agreed, everyone is talking about her now.

Man you just beat me to it!! I was just reacting to that. I had never heard of the guy until a couple weeks ago. Needless to say - not impressed:

I think he is another example of nepotism and he's just gross.

I don't watch the VMA's. I wasn't aware they still made music videos.

Remember, Paris Hilton's "career" was started by a "leaked" sex tape.

 

[gitana1]

I guess I'll just say that I think her career will be fine and leave it at that. It doesn't mean I have an opinion on her talent or the VMAs--I don't. I've just seen this trajectory before and it's more akin to Madonna or Britney than any of your examples. Anyone who thinks Miley is going to suddenly become D-listed is kidding themselves.

Oh no, I totally get what you're saying. And I agree with some of the sense of your argument. But first of all, we're not talking about a total fall from A-list to D-list necessarily. We are talking about whether any publicity is good publicity or whether some can hurt.

And second, I don't think Miley compares in any way to Madonna or even Britney when it comes to stardom. And you know, I think that has something to do with whether or not a celeb can be negatively affected by bad press or to what degree.

Madonna and Britney are mega, mega stars. Britney has a net worth almost twice that of Miley and Madonna has a net worth 10 times that of her (1 billion compared to 120 million).

Madonna actually has talent. I've never been a fan but it is certain that she has talent as a pop-song writer. And she can dance. She actually turned down a dance scholarship before becoming famous.

Britney? She was groomed by the studio and is a total studio product. Every professional move she has made has been done with a slavish devotion to studio or label or producer dictates. Thus, even a very public nervous breakdown didn't hurt her too badly - she just fell right back into doing what she was told to do, and is like a puppet on a string. And apparently that works when it comes to rehabbing one's image.

Miley, on the other hand, her performance last night smacks of total narcissistic panic and doesn't have a hint of studio or label control.

So will she fall to a D-list celeb? Probably unlikely. And she has made enough money that she can survive financially quite well if she never worked again. But can she be hurt by negative press? Can it harm her financially? Can it lessen record/song sales, job opportunities, etc.? IMO? Oh yeah. And that's why so many fellow "artists" have had no problem speaking out about it and criticizing the performance.

Yeah, we're talking but it is just not true that no publicity is bad publicity, which is what our conversation has been about. :moo:

 

[gitana1]

Christina Ricci seemed to make the the jump from child star to mature actress fairly well. I think she had better parenting. Of course Ron Howard is the poster boy for being raised well in the hollywood environment. JMO


:floorlaugh:


Agreed, everyone is talking about her now.


I don't watch the VMA's. I wasn't aware they still made music videos.

Remember, Paris Hilton's "career" was started by a "leaked" sex tape.

Yeah, so was the Kardahsian person's. And Miley has had tons of press consistently, so I'm not sure how this stunt helps her out. It's not like she needed buzz.

But the question isn't whether an overtly sexual performance can kill a career or not. All Hilton and Kardashian have is sex. They are relegated to reality shows and selling perfume. Miley aspired to more. Her image was not wrought from a sex tape. But there is the possibility that she can become the same. She appears to lack much talent for anything else except gyrating. Her vocal range is very, very limited. She obviously cannot dance. Her wholesome Disney girl next door, school girl character can never be resurrected. Her acting chops are apparently pretty poor. She doesn't really write her own songs and she clearly is not allowing a label or studio to control her profession.

So just promoting gross sexuality with no substance behind it can certainly harm her career aspirations unless those aspirations are to go backwards to what Hilton and Kardashian have.

 

[Steely Dan]

Oh no, I totally get what you're saying. And I agree with some of the sense of your argument. But first of all, we're not talking about a total fall from A-list to D-list necessarily. We are talking about whether any publicity is good publicity or whether some can hurt.

And second, I don't think Miley compares in any way to Madonna or even Britney when it comes to stardom. And you know, I think that has something to do with whether or not a celeb can be negatively affected by bad press or to what degree.

Madonna and Britney are mega, mega stars. Britney has a net worth almost twice that of Miley and Madonna has a net worth 10 times that of her (1 billion compared to 120 million).

Madonna actually has talent. I've never been a fan but it is certain that she has talent as a pop-song writer. And she can dance. She actually turned down a dance scholarship before becoming famous.

Britney? She was groomed by the studio and is a total studio product. Every professional move she has made has been done with a slavish devotion to studio or label or producer dictates. Thus, even a very public nervous breakdown didn't hurt her too badly - she just fell right back into doing what she was told to do, and is like a puppet on a string. And apparently that works when it comes to rehabbing one's image.

Miley, on the other hand, her performance last night smacks of total narcissistic panic and doesn't have a hint of studio or label control.

So will she fall to a D-list celeb? Probably unlikely. And she has made enough money that she can survive financially quite well if she never worked again. But can she be hurt by negative press? Can it harm her financially? Can it lessen record/song sales, job opportunities, etc.? IMO? Oh yeah. And that's why so many fellow "artists" have had no problem speaking out about it and criticizing the performance.

Yeah, we're talking but it is just not true that no publicity is bad publicity, which is what our conversation has been about. :moo:

BBM

I think times have changed with the electronic media we have now. Maybe bad publicity is bad publicity. However, a lot of people have gone back to rooting for Michael Vick, Tiger Woods, Kristen Stewart, Martha Stewart and if Lindsay cleans up her act finally, I'll be rooting for her to make it back. The Pee Wee thing also had a lot to do with child *advertiser censored* being discovered in his place too.

Back in the day The newspapers and magazines would jump on a story and beat it to death and move on to the next story. If you wanted to find out the facts of the case a couple of years later, you'd have to go to a library and look it up. Today things are there forever, and easy to find again.JMO

 

[Schuby]

I didn't think it was that big of a deal. It was a funny take on Thicke's video for Blurred Lines. (Singing was bad but that's not a Miley thing, it's a pop star thing.)