I've lost all respect for Jamie Foxx

[Scarpozzi]

Every actor or celebrity is on a time limit of value. What they are worth right now doesn't mean a whole lot, because that well can instantly dry up at a moment's notice. You think they have control over their perceived value in the market, but they really don't. If the studios start souring on you--say the take at the box office for your work starts dropping consistently, despite profiting and for any reason, you could get dumped for the new hotness.

There isn't an actor that doesn't promote stuff. All of them do it. It's actually their job. They've always been gig workers.

Also, the hilarious bickering in this thread could have been resolved if OP replaced "promote" with "support." He meant to say promote--two words with specifically different meanings that sounds similar. You can promote something without supporting it. (that isn't very typical of celebrity promoters, though--some do take that seriously--but is typical of famous scumbags, like Donald Trump)

Good points. Many actors start with commercials.

 

[pmv]

Every actor or celebrity is on a time limit of value. What they are worth right now doesn't mean a whole lot, because that well can instantly dry up at a moment's notice. You think they have control over their perceived value in the market, but they really don't. If the studios start souring on you--say the take at the box office for your work starts dropping consistently, despite profiting and for any reason, you could get dumped for the new hotness.

There isn't an actor that doesn't promote stuff. All of them do it. It's actually their job. They've always been gig workers.

Well, yes-and-no. As with sports stars and their endorsement deals, one can think it's fair enough if they are scared of destitution in old age (and some celebs were/are famously insecure about that, to the point of almost a psychological problem, so are known for taking any job going), but how much money does one person need? And if you do fear poverty once the work dries up, then demand decent state-funded pensions and socialised health-care, which will take away that fear for you and for everyone else, rather than becoming a mercenary for morally-questionable businesses.

Plus there are always limits - plenty of actors and other celebs are selective about what sorts of adverts and endorsements they will do.

Mostly, though, it seems more a question of dignity than morals - some endorsements and adverts are just tacky and make the celeb look low-rent.

Also, the hilarious bickering in this thread could have been resolved if OP replaced "promote" with "support." He meant to say promote--two words with specifically different meanings that sounds similar. You can promote something without supporting it. (that isn't very typical of celebrity promoters, though--some do take that seriously--but is typical of famous scumbags, like Donald Trump)

I honestly don't understand the point being made here. If you promote something you are supporting it. Very few businesses consider being promoted to be damaging to them.

 

[zinfamous]

I honestly don't understand the point being made here. If you promote something you are supporting it. Very few businesses consider being promoted to be damaging to them.

No. Supporters pay. Promoters get paid. You can definitely promote something without supporting it. Long, long history of US celebrities doing their promoting gigs overseas, because they don't want to be seen as "Selling out" or doing "cheap" ad work. That has changed a lot in recent years, though. But in a lot of cases, they have no idea what these products or services are. Or very little, anyway.

That's a different thing here; of course Foxx knows what sports betting is, but there is no reason to assume from his ad that he uses the service.

 

[pmv]

No. Supporters pay. Promoters get paid. You can definitely promote something without supporting it. Long, long history of US celebrities doing their promoting gigs overseas, because they don't want to be seen as "Selling out" or doing "cheap" ad work. That has changed a lot in recent years, though. But in a lot of cases, they have no idea what these products or services are. Or very little, anyway.

That's a different thing here; of course Foxx knows what sports betting is, but there is no reason to assume from his ad that he uses the service.

Promoters get paid because they are doing something that is beneficial to what they are promoting. If you do something to benefit a business or a cause, you are supporting it, whether you get paid for it or not. If you go work as a political advisor to Trump, you are supporting him, even if he pays you (though you should probably demand it in cash, and count it carefully).

Edit - I can see the objection coming - what if you work as a janitor for a Trump hotel, or in some other menial capacity, are you therefore supporting Trump? I'd say it depends how much of your very identity you are selling in return for the paycheck. It applies far more strongly with high-paid work like product endorsements or creative work like being a political strategist, than, say, working on a factory production line.

 

[pmv]

Good points. Many actors start with commercials.

Yeah, but when they start they are just playing an anonymous role, they aren't selling their established identities in the form of endorsements.

 

[LikeLinus]

Every actor or celebrity is on a time limit of value. What they are worth right now doesn't mean a whole lot, because that well can instantly dry up at a moment's notice. You think they have control over their perceived value in the market, but they really don't. If the studios start souring on you--say the take at the box office for your work starts dropping consistently, despite profiting and for any reason, you could get dumped for the new hotness.

There isn't an actor that doesn't promote stuff. All of them do it. It's actually their job. They've always been gig workers.

Also, the hilarious bickering in this thread could have been resolved if OP replaced "promote" with "support." He meant to say promote--two words with specifically different meanings that sounds similar. You can promote something without supporting it. (that isn't very typical of celebrity promoters, though--some do take that seriously--but is typical of famous scumbags, like Donald Trump)

No, wait, really? The post was a bit of a joke and just to show his current net worth is $100M+. Yes, anyone can lose their job at any time. You can hypothesize and have all these "what ifs", but the reality is he has $100M+ worth of cushion depending on how he is invested and what some of his money is tied up in. You're not mentioning that he also sings (multiple grammy awards), produces, done stand-up, and is a director. He currently has plenty of revenue streams and residuals. Jamie didn't have to do MGM commercials. But we all know they threw a shitload of money at him for a day or two of work to record 15-30sec spots and VO. Jamie at this point is probably working as much as he is because most people don't actually like to sit around bored. Additionally, his TV show get his daughter into the business and promote her. It's a win-win.

He's been in the business since the 80's and it doesn't seem he has any problem staying relevant or finding a gig.

Sorry for the bickering. You've just got several people in here who seem to have the reading comprehension of 5 year old.

 

[Muse]

Ever since he started plugging Bet
MGM, I've totally lost respect for him. I think gambling is fine, but don't support the house. I live in a state that only recently legalized gambling. Now all we see are these sports books commercials. I think anyone associated with it is dirty...

I'm really curious how much money they paid him and what their contingency list look like if he didn't sign on.

I don't know about this, but Foxx's portrayal of Ray Charles blew me away. He was Ray Charles, blind too. Long time ago, though.

I remember when gambling in America meant one thing and one thing only: Nevada. At least that's the way it appeared to me and it was the only place I knew legal gambling to occur in the US. Maybe it was. But the proliferation of gambling through American culture has always struck me as venal, nasty, a bad precedent, unconscionable, unwise, reprehensible... should I go on?

I have never bought a lottery ticket of any kind, never been tempted to. There are now casinos all over California. Never been in one. IIRC, I've never bet so much as a nickel publicly. I played poker with some friends in high school with chips, real money, but it was chump change. I loved that.

Now, you hear about the high stakes lotteries on the news when the jackpots get large, and the anchors talk about it, laugh, joke. Everybody's supposed to be excited to reach for the golden ring. It's fucked up.

 

[MrSquished]

One of the main characters in lost in translation is an American actor whose career is mostly behind him doing a commercial in Japan.

 

[sdifox]

But he's MC Hammer! The music he wrote for "Can't Touch This" was amazing and catchy...he's got tons of talent. I'm sure he'll be "back on top" on a reality tv show with Vanilla Ice and Flava Flav as soon as the pandemic is over.

I remember Vanilla Ice's home reno show.

 

[zinfamous]

Promoters get paid because they are doing something that is beneficial to what they are promoting. If you do something to benefit a business or a cause, you are supporting it, whether you get paid for it or not. If you go work as a political advisor to Trump, you are supporting him, even if he pays you (though you should probably demand it in cash, and count it carefully).

Edit - I can see the objection coming - what if you work as a janitor for a Trump hotel, or in some other menial capacity, are you therefore supporting Trump? I'd say it depends how much of your very identity you are selling in return for the paycheck. It applies far more strongly with high-paid work like product endorsements or creative work like being a political strategist, than, say, working on a factory production line.

sure, but I guess from OP's specific point and how I think he misspoke, is that he isn't complaining about the existence of gambling or people going out to do it, just that a celebrity with what seems to be a public persona that is established against such vices, is promoting the activity, and without really endorsing the service.

Yes, I know what you'll say and what you're saying--monetary value can be gained from promotion, so that is support. I get it--but from the OP's example, this isn't a case of Jamie Foxx actually losing his money doing it (in this case, the narrow form of support that I read everyone else arguing against him), but that he is simply getting paid to promote something that he doesn't seem to engage in.

Anyway, I've also noticed how this stuff exploded the day that sports betting passed here in MD. I don't personally have much against it, either, even though I don't bet on sports because I think it is stupid, but I actually did vote against that bill (despite money ostensibly going towards education), simply to spite Dan Snyder because he was a huge sponsor of that bill, lol.

Fuck that guy.

 

[zinfamous]

No, wait, really? The post was a bit of a joke and just to show his current net worth is $100M+. Yes, anyone can lose their job at any time. You can hypothesize and have all these "what ifs", but the reality is he has $100M+ worth of cushion depending on how he is invested and what some of his money is tied up in. You're not mentioning that he also sings (multiple grammy awards), produces, done stand-up, and is a director. He currently has plenty of revenue streams and residuals. Jamie didn't have to do MGM commercials. But we all know they threw a shitload of money at him for a day or two of work to record 15-30sec spots and VO. Jamie at this point is probably working as much as he is because most people don't actually like to sit around bored. Additionally, his TV show get his daughter into the business and promote her. It's a win-win.

He's been in the business since the 80's and it doesn't seem he has any problem staying relevant or finding a gig.

Sorry for the bickering. You've just got several people in here who seem to have the reading comprehension of 5 year old.

Now apply your thinking to female celebrities and ask yourself why, historically, the vast majority of them completely disappear around the age of 30. (No, and it absolutely isn't "But they are women and want babies and prefer to start a family!")

Males aren't the only celebrities but yes, they have a much, much longer shelf life.....unless you Mickey Rourke your way out of existence. I mean, there's a guy who managed to sort of claw himself back out of nowhere, but then he Rourked himself out again. I can't think of any female actor that has or would have ever been given such a chance.

None of them also just "become celebrities" because it's the first time you've heard of them or they land a big role. That first big roll is usually after a decade or more of working their asses off in all sorts of gigs, often poor as hell and generally having no idea where the next paycheck is coming from....and this is many years of very small paychecks, that allows them to live on friend's couches and not much more.

I know that a lot of people have this weird perception of how these people do what they do, and don't understand the actual hours they put in every day to get where they are. Also, people like Jamie Foxx are less than 1% of all the people that think "I want to be an actor!"

That kind of life is conditioning. They work to work and get paid. Bitching about them picking up gig work whenever they can is effing stupid.

Would you take an ad gig with a contract that paid you 10 million on a 5 year campaign, which for one of those campaigns, probably requires about 3-10 hours of work per year?" The value of their image is what the market determines, because companies will pay them for it. Anyone would take that money as long as it is available.

 

[LikeLinus]

Now apply your thinking to female celebrities and ask yourself why, historically, the vast majority of them completely disappear around the age of 30. (No, and it absolutely isn't "But they are women and want babies and prefer to start a family!")

Males aren't the only celebrities but yes, they have a much, much longer shelf life.....unless you Mickey Rourke your way out of existence. I mean, there's a guy who managed to sort of claw himself back out of nowhere, but then he Rourked himself out again. I can't think of any female actor that has or would have ever been given such a chance.

Yeah, you've gone so far off-topic, I'm not sure what the hell you are getting at. Jamie Foxx is rich and he's still active in his career. WTF that has anything to do with female celebrities and their career length, I don't even know. You're trying to prove a point to something that has nothing to do with a comment about his net worth and the fact he still makes money.

This isn't commentary about all actors, it's a statement about a single celebrity.

 

[pmv]

Now apply your thinking to female celebrities and ask yourself why, historically, the vast majority of them completely disappear around the age of 30. (No, and it absolutely isn't "But they are women and want babies and prefer to start a family!")

Males aren't the only celebrities but yes, they have a much, much longer shelf life.....unless you Mickey Rourke your way out of existence. I mean, there's a guy who managed to sort of claw himself back out of nowhere, but then he Rourked himself out again. I can't think of any female actor that has or would have ever been given such a chance.

None of them also just "become celebrities" because it's the first time you've heard of them or they land a big role. That first big roll is usually after a decade or more of working their asses off in all sorts of gigs, often poor as hell and generally having no idea where the next paycheck is coming from....and this is many years of very small paychecks, that allows them to live on friend's couches and not much more.

I know that a lot of people have this weird perception of how these people do what they do, and don't understand the actual hours they put in every day to get where they are. Also, people like Jamie Foxx are less than 1% of all the people that think "I want to be an actor!"

That kind of life is conditioning. They work to work and get paid. Bitching about them picking up gig work whenever they can is effing stupid.

Would you take an ad gig with a contract that paid you 10 million on a 5 year campaign, which for one of those campaigns, probably requires about 3-10 hours of work per year?" The value of their image is what the market determines, because companies will pay them for it. Anyone would take that money as long as it is available.

I'm really having a hard time working out what is really being argued about here. It seems like more a vague dispute over 'values' than anything specific. Everyone has their price, I guess, and any of us could be 'corrupted' in the very unlikely event we are in Foxx's position. But I reserve the right to judge celebs who chose to endorse or support or promote things I consider damaging or just plain undignified. They can take the cash and I can think less of them for it - that's the bargain they struck, I guess.

 

[pmv]

I'm still trying to get my head around Johnny Rotten doing ads for butter.

 

[LikeLinus]

I'm really having a hard time working out what is really being argued about here.

I don't even think he knows what he is arguing about, lol.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Now apply your thinking to female celebrities and ask yourself why, historically, the vast majority of them completely disappear around the age of 30. (No, and it absolutely isn't "But they are women and want babies and prefer to start a family!")

Males aren't the only celebrities but yes, they have a much, much longer shelf life.....unless you Mickey Rourke your way out of existence. I mean, there's a guy who managed to sort of claw himself back out of nowhere, but then he Rourked himself out again. I can't think of any female actor that has or would have ever been given such a chance.

None of them also just "become celebrities" because it's the first time you've heard of them or they land a big role. That first big roll is usually after a decade or more of working their asses off in all sorts of gigs, often poor as hell and generally having no idea where the next paycheck is coming from....and this is many years of very small paychecks, that allows them to live on friend's couches and not much more.

I know that a lot of people have this weird perception of how these people do what they do, and don't understand the actual hours they put in every day to get where they are. Also, people like Jamie Foxx are less than 1% of all the people that think "I want to be an actor!"

That kind of life is conditioning. They work to work and get paid. Bitching about them picking up gig work whenever they can is effing stupid.

Would you take an ad gig with a contract that paid you 10 million on a 5 year campaign, which for one of those campaigns, probably requires about 3-10 hours of work per year?" The value of their image is what the market determines, because companies will pay them for it. Anyone would take that money as long as it is available.

Yeah, I mean - it's not like there aren't successful females past age 30....

Beyonce
Betty White
Britney Spears
Gwen Stefani
Lady Gaga
Madonna
Jennifer Lopez


I'm sure the list goes on and on and on but I also just generally don't care or pay attention to hollywood in the last 15 years since I started going to college and working.

Regardless, you're full o' shit on this one. You act as if there aren't males also clamoring in hollywood for any and all roles and desperate to do a shitty 30 second commercial for chump change?

 

[Svnla]

As I said above, ads with celebrities/actors/etc.not available in US. Some of them could be funny/interesting.

30 Celebrities With Surprising Overseas Endorsement Deals (bestlifeonline.com)


WATCH: 20 Celebrities and Their Obscure Foreign Commercials | Fox News

I will try to look for the link of a few funny ads that my friends in Japan sent to me a while back.
.

 

[pauldun170]

It's kinda of nice to hop on the internet to find people complaining about actors and musician's again.
Seemed like it died down from 2017 to 2020 for some reason.

Playing a bit of catch up in this thread so please pardon and I'm not into gambling or sports betting or that stuff so I had to do a little googlin..

A quick check of ye old search engine reveals that MGM Resorts is a company that owns and operates Casinos. I believe that's a place where you go to gamble. The ad campaign for a BetMGM, which is their new online gambling site.

Jamie Fox is a well known Actor\Musician\Producer\Comedian\philanthropists whatever....
Actors and Musicians earn a living by performing for money.

MGM Resorts hired Jamie Foxx for an ad campaign.

Jamie Foxx To Star In BetMGM's New Brand Campaign

/PRNewswire/ -- BetMGM, the market-leading sports betting and online gaming platform, is proud to announce that Academy and GRAMMY Award winner Jamie Foxx will...

www.prnewswire.com

His previous ad campaigns

Chrysler Recruits Jamie Foxx for New Pacifica Marketing Campaign | Knight Claremont Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram

Jamie Foxx, the Oscar-winning actor, recently joined forces with Chrysler to create a brand-new marketing campaign that speaks to potential minivan

www.claremontcdjr.com

Before that

Apple brings in Jamie Foxx for iPhone 6s ads

Apple has brought in a constellation for celebrities to push its new iPhone 6s, this week bringing in Jamie Foxx to show off the new Siri capabilities.

www.campaignlive.co.uk

With that established, is thread supposed to be about gambling in general and that actors and musicians should not accept contracts from such organizations? Should we be protesting all the shows they have at Casinos and burn copies of the Oceans films?

Is this thread supposed to be online gambling only and how the gambling industry should be banned from having an online presence?

Is this thread just about Jamie Foxx and between iPhones, Pacificas and Websites the camels back has been broken?

Is there a podcast available for this thread?

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, you've gone so far off-topic, I'm not sure what the hell you are getting at. Jamie Foxx is rich and he's still active in his career. WTF that has anything to do with female celebrities and their career length, I don't even know. You're trying to prove a point to something that has nothing to do with a comment about his net worth and the fact he still makes money.

This isn't commentary about all actors, it's a statement about a single celebrity.

why are you guys having issues with this?

All I am saying is that celebs work gigs like this their whole lives because they've gone through the shit to get anywhere close to successful. You seem to believe that because any one of the top of them is at the top now--that they always will be. So, you judge them for the decisions they make in earning money in the careers taht they understand--careers that you don't understand, at all. You don't understand how quickly things can turn from them.

I bring up female celebrities, because they are also in the same boat. You make a sweeping comment about the industry, as if it is the same for everyone. You don't understand that actresses have a far, far, far more limited shelf life than do men, because of what studios expect of them. I am simply pointing this out, because you seem unaware that not only are their female celebrities, but there existence in the field does have an affect on what you seem to be the careers of all actors. What you assume to be a thing, probably isn't that thing because you are applying what you know of the most successful, male actors.

I'm asking why you are basing this assumption you have on how the industry works for these people when you don't understand that female actors have much shorter careers, much higher turnover rate, historically.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, I mean - it's not like there aren't successful females past age 30....

Beyonce
Betty White
Britney Spears
Gwen Stefani
Lady Gaga
Madonna
Jennifer Lopez


I'm sure the list goes on and on and on but I also just generally don't care or pay attention to hollywood in the last 15 years since I started going to college and working.

Regardless, you're full o' shit on this one. You act as if there aren't males also clamoring in hollywood for any and all roles and desperate to do a shitty 30 second commercial for chump change?

There is way more opportunity for them now, and yeah, things are changing. It is why I am pointing out, again and again, that this is how the business has worked, historically. Without Netflix and many many more cable opportunities, the studios would eat them alive...and they still do.

Also, lol at you listing a bunch of musicians and not actors. Yes, that is a bit different for these celebrities, when not depending on studios to hold the reigns of their careers (It's why Meryl Streep is like, one of 5 women in the last half century to keep her career beyond the 80s--those women of her generation barely get work; but yes, that does seem to be changing).

Lol. Betty White. Save for the cult of internet love, where would she be?

Brittney Spears? wtf.

Anyway, point of this thread is dumbshits like you pretending that you know industries that you know very little about, particularly with your cherry picking of examples that aren't even really under discussion.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm really having a hard time working out what is really being argued about here. It seems like more a vague dispute over 'values' than anything specific. Everyone has their price, I guess, and any of us could be 'corrupted' in the very unlikely event we are in Foxx's position. But I reserve the right to judge celebs who chose to endorse or support or promote things I consider damaging or just plain undignified. They can take the cash and I can think less of them for it - that's the bargain they struck, I guess.

Right? me too. No idea why people here are bitching about a person, or anyone, that has made their living promoting content and selling their image. I don't get it. I'm trying to explain to cubicle nerds that have never experienced that industry how an entirely different group of people make their livings.

The judgement placed on them from a position of ignorance, as usual, is delightful.

 

[pmv]

Right? me too. No idea why people here are bitching about a person, or anyone, that has made their living promoting content and selling their image. I don't get it. I'm trying to explain to cubicle nerds that have never experienced that industry how an entirely different group of people make their livings.

The judgement placed on them from a position of ignorance, as usual, is delightful.

I don't get why you are so defensive about the acting profession in particular. Some in that line of work will take any work going, and will accept the judgement that follows, while others will draw a line about what work they will take.

Even 'cubicle nerds' have standards (I once turned down a job for an arms company - I went to the interview having rationalised that "well, the country needs defending", only to discover, after being offered the job, that the work was for a certain middle-eastern nation with a less-than-stallar human right record). Some actors and others of that ilk have standards about what they will do, and others don't. Those who don't get judged accordingly.

Edit - not that I care much about Jamie Foxx (any more than he does about me). Only thing I think I've seen him in is Collateral, which was notable mainly for the aforementioned Cruise, showing he's paritcularly good at playing an intense weirdo who is very good at his job but has trouble understanding how to be a normal human being.

 

[LikeLinus]

Right? me too. No idea why people here are bitching about a person, or anyone, that has made their living promoting content and selling their image. I don't get it. I'm trying to explain to cubicle nerds that have never experienced that industry how an entirely different group of people make their livings.

The judgement placed on them from a position of ignorance, as usual, is delightful.

I work in Video Production and I've had jobs ranging from camera work, editing, production and art director over the past 16 years. You've gone off-top because the OP's point is that he lost respect for Jamie Foxx choosing to work with MGM to promote online gambling. You simply seem to forget that Jamie Foxx is an A-List celebrity that could promote many, many more products than he currently does. He made the decision to accept that job and it doesn't sit well with some people due to his status and potentially more influence over people. This could lead to more gambling and gambling addictions. The commercials are on almost non-stop in my state as well. That and stupid Draft Kings.

Has nothing to with struggling actors or the fact that females may have a shorter career due to ageism in Hollywood. This was specific to Jamie Foxx, hence why you've gone off-topic. Jamie isn't in the "same boat" and all this other bullshit you're spewing. Jamie is worth in excess of $100M and isn't a struggling actor and doesn't necessarily have to choose his roles base strictly on pay. What you seem to not understand is that some people have opinions and he was voicing his. He doesn't like the fact that Jamie is doing it. It's a forum for christ sakes, he's just throwing something out there that he is thinking about.

Speaking of ignorance, you can now back to your struggling actor non-sense and talk yourself to death to prove a point that has nothing to do with the conversation. Enjoy!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think he can choose his roles - but I also don't see why it isn't acceptable to feel that he enjoys gambling for sports and doesn't mind advertising it regardless of his wealth.

You can't be the moral king for everyone and expect "no one that I respect" to do advertisements for Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling, Aunt Jemima, etc.

 

[pmv]

Right? me too. No idea why people here are bitching about a person, or anyone, that has made their living promoting content and selling their image. I don't get it. I'm trying to explain to cubicle nerds that have never experienced that industry how an entirely different group of people make their livings.

The judgement placed on them from a position of ignorance, as usual, is delightful.

Honestly just don't understand why you feel the need to jump in to make the case for having no political or moral principles as long you work in one particular industry. Would you say the same for journalists and PR flaks, for Roger Stone or all the other right-wing grifters, who make their money by trying to keep wars going or doing PR for autocrats and fascists? All those Fox (with one-x) presenters. After all, that's how they make their living. I realise I'm going a bit over-the-top as far as comparisons with Foxx promoting gambling goes, but you started down the route of making it about the general principle. Surely the general principle is that 'wanting to make a living' is not a watertight defence for every choice someone makes?

There are actors who refused to do ads their entire careers, and others who specifically turned down certain products. Amusingly, I can think of some who made their peace with the idea of doing voice-overs, but consistently refused to actually appear on camera in ads, somehow concluding that was a step too far.