September 12, 2016
Big divide at that wedding this weekend. If you are team co-star who got married, you showed up. If you are team co-star who was not present, then you followed her lead and weren’t there. All of the cast was invited. This should make for a wonderful continuing working relationship.
Anna Camp/Skylar Astin wedding
Showed up for couple/Rebel Wilson and Elizabeth Banks
Didn't show up for couple/Anna Kendrick
Posted by
ent lawyer
at
3:15 AM
Labels: blind items revealed
Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site. The site publishes rumors, conjecture, and fiction. In addition to accurately reported information, certain situations, characters and events portrayed in the Blog are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Blog’s proprietor does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Crazy Days and Nights.
Cookies & 3rd Party Advertisements Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site. Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet. Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit https://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp.
23 comments:
lmao at the original thread...who takes "Pitch Perfect" so seriously?!? The posts are all freakin novel length...
That explains why there will be a Pitch Perfect 3. I haven't seen even the first, but they need to get it done. They aren't getting any younger. And I think salaries have more to do with the delay than anything. The stars are in demand for other films and it won't work without all of them.
Question:"who takes “Pitch Perfect” so seriously?!? The posts are all freakin novel length…
Answer: Not entirely sure, but I imagine people who are higher up on the evolutionary scale than those who take"nailing it" seriously.
Gay girl Derrick can't help herself being a drama queen.
Actually, if you'd actually read the thread the long posts were two people with inside knowledge of the business (not the blind but show business) who were debating how PR works. It was actually pretty interesting since Rory and JD didn't show up for the thread.
I think Anna Kendrick has jealousy issues
Same on twilight set
I think that for a potential Pitch Perfect 4 will be one of those start fresh with a new cast thing, except hailee might be returning for that one.
Oh? Do tell...that's one I haven't seen on any of the sites
I do. Have both on DVD.
Nothing new about Anna having a problem w/ that couple: all is Pitch P follow each other on twitter etc, not Anna Kendrick.... The Pitch Perfect (1) filming must have been hella interesting: Anna Camp getting a divorce during filming, getting together with Skylar astin (half a yer - yeah right) after filming wrapped, and Anna Kendricj not keeping in touch with them EVER after filming... hmmmmmmmm
a love triangle gone wrong..????
Homophobia is unacceptable.
Am I supposed to know who Anna Camp is? I don't. I presume the Astin she married is one of Patty Duke's kids?
So it's the unknown Ms. Camp plus Elizabeth Banks and Rebel Wilson v. Anna Kendrick. It must make those singing movies so much fun.
Why does Anna Kendrick have to keep with touch with anyone? This is work. Why is there this assumption that if you work on a movie with someone then you must become friends with them and always keep it touch? That is not real life. Do you attend all your co-workers weddings? I sure don't. Do you know the difference between a friend and an acquaintance?
I find it humorous at this assumption that Kendrick is somehow a bad person for not going to the wedding of two people she hasn't worked with in over 2 years. Who cares? Why does she have to if she's not close with them? And why does she have to be close with them in the first place?
And for the record, Anna does follow most of the cast on Instagram. Which makes all this made up drama even funnier.
It is weird that people seem to think you have to be close friends with people you work with for a few weeks or a couple months for the rest of your life. It's not even like they're co-workers who are working together every day for years. They worked on 2 movies & 1 of those movies Camp & Skyler weren't in it for very much. I don't think Kendrick & Camp or Skyler did press together, so it's not like they were hanging out for weeks while they did press. From some of the comments on here it sounds like people think if you're not close friends with people you shoot a movie with it must mean you're a bitch that hates everyone.
To Lola, Anna follows a couple of people from Pitch Perfect on Twitter & follows more of them on Instagram. There were just pics of her out with Kelly Jackle & Brittany Snow at Creep LA & there was a birthday party for a cast member that she was at with a bunch of the cast too. So it's not as if she's not interacting with them at all, just not Anna Camp or Skyler Astin. And I would like to point out that Anna Camp & Skyler weren't at the birthday party for Chrissie Fit & they haven't been at other stuff when some cast members get together.
Damn you and your rational thought out here on the interwebs. This is why we can't have nice flamey flame wars. ;)
Oh, I meant to ask you to ask your brother something: Do PR/agent teams usually review a story/interview before it's printed or posted online?
I was paying some attention to the people involved in this via Google news just for kicks and there was an interview by one of them that came out and within an hour had been edited to omit a personal detail or two that ended up in the first release of the story.
He said it's the PR side that usually handles that. He said most of the time if there's something they don't want in the story they will let that be known to the interviewer & usually the people doing the interview know not to push to far on a subject that the celeb wants to avoid. Some do & they're the ones where the PR, agent, manager & lawyers might get involved if there's something really bad in the interview. That would really only happen for something like doing an interview with John Travolta & insinuating he's gay, that's when it really gets bad.
My brother did say there's a lot of places to do interviews with & so they can't always keep up with all the interviews. If their client calls them up about it or if an intern sees something they will tell the PR & they will contact to get a correction.
Now I have to ask, what story did you notice stuff changed? If you mean the Anna 1 from early today I just looked at it again & see that a whole part about what they learned from the interview was that she moved in with her boyfriend & I could definitely see that being a problem if she wants to keep her private life private. The odd thing is that they listed a few of her favorite British shows & I don't see that listen in the article anymore. Did you notice anything else about it?
That's the interview, if you click the original links they posted on Twitter then you get the section about moved in with boyfriend, used to be a dog walker, etc. If you go to their website and then click the front page link to the interview that paragraph is gone
The interview is going to be in their print magazine too. I'm wondering if they're making changes to that or if it's too late & that paragraph will appear in the magazine. I can understand wanting the mention of her boyfriend out of there, but why the dog sitting job? Why ask them to delete the British TV shows that she's a fan of? That's why I went back on there & saw the changes originally. There was 1 TV show listed that I didn't know anything about & I wanted to see what the name was to look it up. There was Coronation Street & the Eastenders, but I can't remember the 3rd show.
Based on what Rory had said else-thread I would imagine the conversation was:
pr: "Um yeah, all that personal info when your interviewer was chit chatting with Anna?"
IS: "Yeah?"
PR: "It's gone or none of your sites and magazines get to talk to her again. The boyfriend is off limits, so now you have to get rid of ALL of it"
That's what I'd do if my client was as private as she seems to be
She's a big enough star that her people could do that. The problem that I see is that a lot of people that work in the business know that the celebrity probably doesn't even know that kind of conversation is happening, it's just the PR person doing their job. But even though they know that, they still kind of blame the celebrity & talk about it with a few people, then that spreads & it becomes "Anna's a bitch that makes crazy demands & makes threats." It's really unfair. My brother has a client that had that happen to them. My brother had to make calls, have his client make calls, & had to smooth everything over to make sure the actor could still get work. At first he didn't know why he was having all these deals fall through & then someone finally said they heard about him making crazy demands. It turned out it was an assistant that was making demands & making it sound like they were making the demands because it was what the actor wanted.
Sometimes she mentions a boyfriend, but it's never been something like she moved in with them. That really shocked me that it was in the article in the 1st place. I'm sure she wasn't happy, but if the magazines are already printed it might be too late for them to fix it in print. You know, I think that 1st part of the article was probably something the editor of the magazine wrote. It talks about the interviewer in the 3rd person, so it might not have been Anna or her PR that made a call, it could have been the person that wrote the article. Could be something the writer said to the editor, but didn't put in the article she wrote & the editor included it in the introduction without the writer knowing.
Someone posted scans of the article in print and the stuff removed was not in it. I bet this was a case of the wrong version of the article being sent to the web team and then quickly corrected.
Ah, ok that makes sense!
Post a Comment