menu
person
Check out the latest additions to our ever expanding GALLERY hosting over 65,000 photos!
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Summer-Glau.com Forum » Summer Glau » Summer Glau appreciation » Does Summer want to be an A-lister?
Does Summer want to be an A-lister?
FordStaffDate: Tuesday, 06 Dec 2011, 01:01 | Message # 61
Group: Friends
Messages: 507
Status: Offline
Quote

Also its hard to discern what is good and what isn't. The good they do are only confined to the majority of a given countrys population. These interest are almost always collide with the interests of another country which also consists of human beings so you can't say that it was benefitical to the all of humanity. The Independence war was benefitical to the American people but I don't think Great Britain was all that happy about that. And thats actually not the roughest thing happened in history. Inventing a new medicine is good for anybody because less people will die of ilness in BOTH countries.


Casting off oppression and bringing about more democracy is beneficial to the entire human race no? I may not be affected directly by the rising populations in Libya and other such African countries, but I still cheer and applaud the side that is more firmly on the side of valuing human beings. I know I am American, but I am not one of the patriotic fools who believes that America is number one in everything regardless of the data. But I can still say that viewing the Revolutionary War as not beneficial to the history of humanity is shortsighted.

I am under no illusions every facet of history, has many unspoken factors that are not quite as good for its image. For example it is rarely mentioned in US history that Britain (and France) outlawed slavery long before the American Revolution. Hilariously enough Thomas Jefferson tried to pin slavery on King George III in the Declaration of Independence, luckily that line was voted out, it was quite absurd and very hypocritical - Jefferson had really really strong anglophobia, he thought many strange things, just an example, he believed in generational sovereignty - as in every 17 years all social contracts, laws, social systems, etc. would become void and new ones would be made. Jefferson is the perfect example of an image that is far far far far more pristine than the actual product, which is why he was no where near my list.

All my examples had contributions not just beneficial to the United States, Every single one - Theodore Roosevelt, John Adams, and George Washington all prevented unnecessary wars that would mean only death, despite the fact that war is almost always beneficial to a politicians image. Yes you heard me correctly Theodore Roosevelt the big stick guy, the man who consistently sought out fights, he avoided unnecessary wars, and even actually helped negotiate an end to a foreign war (the type of thing that actually makes sense for a Nobel Peace Prize). Of course he also heavily encouraged Americas entry into WW1, but that just goes to (arguably) show that he knew when the big stick ought to be utilized, and when it should not.

I take specific picks of biographies that try to reveal people warts and all, and I go in assuming that they are far worse than their beneficial portrayals. Often times this has the opposite effect it would have in most people, it just makes the greatness of these political figures stand out even more, when you see their failings too. They become real people, not perfect statues. It is an interesting experience trying to gauge and rate historical figures once you try to envision them as a human and not an ideal (or even non-historical figures for that matter). I do not take it lightly, so trust me when I say that I put much thought into my choices. I take the stance that my choices will reflect on my character and values. I find Summer to be a very good person too, so I think that earns me some credibility on the wiki with my judgment.

I understand what your trying to say, but those problems are ever-present, they do not affect only politicians. I take it into account, I do not assume the US was always taking the right stance, I never assumed Americas enemies were a bunch of dicks. In fact Great Britain was for the most part very reasonable during the Revolutionary War, by any rational standards.\.

Quote


The problem with this quotation is that it neglects some important things. First we must mention that in a war there are several major factors: The technological state of the countries military, the economcal output of the country which determines how many weapons it can produce, manpower,landscape, and political aspects like how many friends the country got. The first falls down to the scientists to design the weapons( so they are super important), the second falls down to economists, only the fift to politicians.


The quote should only be judged by its essence, you must remember that it is from the letter of a 18th century New England-er. So of course it neglects many things, especially when transplanted into the Modern World.

The essence would be that there is a funnel structure to society, in order for you to get to the bottom you need the top layers first. You can not have artists without leisure time, you can not have leisure time without technical fields and a structured society, you can not have structured society without order from goverment (including military). So John Adams is saying that the end goal of society is to allow artists to prosper, they are simultaneously the most important and least important aspects of society. This is obviously a simplified view of society, but it gets the point across. For example there is overlap between artistry and science, both are very creative fields, yet science is also more directly applicable to improving certain functioning of society.

Quote

So counting contributions to humanity I'd say most Roman emperor, philosopher, scientist would automatically beat any politician of the more recent eras. Does that make Washington's efforts less worthy?



I was not just considering contributions to humanity in my pickings, there were other factors such as character. The main factor is my limited knowledge, I have yet to get to my readings on Roman History (not being sarcastic, working my way outwards slowly), so I really can not pick any Romans, when I know nothing of their character or accomplishments.

Quote
If you say no then I'd say Washington's efforts aren't making Summers contributions less either.


What? I never claimed this at all, Summer makes great contributions and is a good person, but there is a vast difference, this is a Man who spent SEVEN years fighting an essentially hopeless war, simultaneously having to act as a politician and general, respecting the authority of a congress who did not have the power to aid him, working against the very states who demanded his help, who at every turn deny aid and make demands. Multiple times getting his horse shot out, Riding between two firing lines to motivate his men, dealing with disrespect from both the British enemies and French allies (one cool anecdote is when after the surrender at Yorktown, the British troops refused to do the traditional surrender activities when addressing the American troops, they would only do it towards the French troops, so the Marquis de Lafayette tricked the British troops, I forget how, into addressing the American troops). Then after victory he had to calm down a powder keg of abused soldiers, single handedly (very very close to not happening - he brought his men to tears by mentioning how he had literally grown grey fighting for his country with them) preventing a second revolution that threatened to overthrow the republican principles that were fought for to begin with. All this was just in the name of duty, he many times considered resigning as would anyone who was not a robot. And this is all just during the American Revolution.

Quote
Ok then call her, I don't know, more civilized perhaps? I still hold it that civilization has something to do with intelligence through.


If I were to call Summer I doubt I would have the ability to talk if she answered, and even if I did I would not ask her if she was a good person because she was intelligent. I have no idea what I would ask, but I know it is not that biggrin .

Quote
And why must I automatically assume the worst regarding her abilities? I'm not saying that its 100% sure that she could become even a mediocre engineer, that'd be foolish obviously but I'm just saying that I have a feeling that she'd do fine even in more conventional jobs which'd require intelligence of some sort.


You do not need to do that? I completely agree she would do fine in any conventional job, but physics professor or brain surgeon are not conventional jobs, those are the things I would have difficulty assuming she has the capability to do. At the same time I am not assuming she could not, I am assuming nothing. (except the aforementioned "conventional jobs")


Keep Flying - Not much, but it's enough.

Message edited by FordStaff - Tuesday, 06 Dec 2011, 01:02
 
BlaziusDate: Tuesday, 06 Dec 2011, 01:45 | Message # 62
Group: Friends
Messages: 1200
Status: Offline
Quote (FordStaff)
You do not need to do that? I completely agree she would do fine in any conventional job, but physics professor or brain surgeon are not conventional jobs, those are the things I would have difficulty assuming she has the capability to do. At the same time I am not assuming she could not, I am assuming nothing. (except the aforementioned "conventional jobs")


I've never suggested that she'd become a physics professor, I played with the idea of a mediocre engineer at most who gets by somehow with the help of her more proficient peers. I suggested conventional jobs like some kind of teacher or something. It doesn't even matter. My whole point was that Summer took a risk by becoming an actor other than something else and that was a willing choice to live for her passion and make life happier in the process, not a necessity because her intelligence was sub par and she was "only good for dancing".

Quote (FordStaff)
What? I never claimed this at all, Summer makes great contributions and is a good person, but there is a vast difference, this is a Man who spent SEVEN years fighting an essentially hopeless war, simultaneously having to act as a politician and general, respecting the authority of a congress who did not have the power to aid him, working against the very states who demanded his help, who at every turn deny aid and make demands. Multiple times getting his horse shot out, Riding between two firing lines to motivate his men, dealing with disrespect from both the British enemies and French allies (one cool anecdote is when after the surrender at Yorktown, the British troops refused to do the traditional surrender activities when addressing the American troops, they would only do it towards the French troops, so the Marquis de Lafayette tricked the British troops, I forget how, into addressing the American troops). Then after victory he had to calm down a powder keg of abused soldiers, single handedly (very very close to not happening - he brought his men to tears by mentioning how he had literally grown grey fighting for his country with them) preventing a second revolution that threatened to overthrow the republican principles that were fought for to begin with. All this was just in the name of duty, he many times considered resigning as would anyone who was not a robot. And this is all just during the American Revolution.


Ok, now I'm the one who is confused. When I'm bringing examples about supreme contributions to human society you say that you watch their character too but when I'm tending towards that view then you start to mention epic deeds. Also how do we define good character? Are we talking about charisma or what? I think it'd be a bit tough if we wanted to count all factors in defining the ultimate pantheon of good people in our entire history

Quote (FordStaff)
The quote should only be judged by its essence, you must remember that it is from the letter of a 18th century New England-er. So of course it neglects many things, especially when transplanted into the Modern World.

The essence would be that there is a funnel structure to society, in order for you to get to the bottom you need the top layers first. You can not have artists without leisure time, you can not have leisure time without technical fields and a structured society, you can not have structured society without order from goverment (including military). So John Adams is saying that the end goal of society is to allow artists to prosper, they are simultaneously the most important and least important aspects of society. This is obviously a simplified view of society, but it gets the point across. For example there is overlap between artistry and science, both are very creative fields, yet science is also more directly applicable to improving certain functioning of society.


I know that you can't drag something out of context but you just did that and wanted to prove that politicians are not the most supremely important parts of society. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I felt it that way.

One another question: Who came up with that particular structure of society? Who came up with the idea for example that the government, the parliament and the court should never be controlled from one hand in a democracy ?


Summer Glau is so awesome, it isn't even funny!
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!
 
FordStaffDate: Tuesday, 06 Dec 2011, 02:32 | Message # 63
Group: Friends
Messages: 507
Status: Offline
Quote
My whole point was that Summer took a risk by becoming an actor other than something else and that was a willing choice to live for her passion and make life happier in the process, not a necessity because her intelligence was sub par and she was "only good for dancing".


I agree completely with this.

Quote
One another question: Who came up with that particular structure of society? Who came up with the idea for example that the government, the parliament and the court should never be controlled from one hand in a democracy ?


It was a common feature of the British enlightenment philosophers, if I remember correctly. John Locke would be the most prominent example. In the end it is not philosophers who decide anything about the structure of society, they are merely commentators, they by definition do not take an active role at least in their profession. In fact it was a bunch of pissed nobles not philosophers that started the separation of powers in English goverment with the Magna Carta. The great politicians are never just politicians, they are many things, including a philosopher. I am not dissing philosophers by the way, I appreciate their contributions, and there are quite a few who sacrificed for their work, just like with every other creative field. (this would be an example of good character, standing against the oppression of creativity )

Quote
Ok, now I'm the one who is confused. When I'm bringing examples about supreme contributions to human society you say that you watch their character too but when I'm tending towards that view then you start to mention epic deeds. Also how do we define good character? Are we talking about charisma or what? I think it'd be a bit tough if we wanted to count all factors in defining the ultimate pantheon of good people in our entire history


I mention the deeds of Washington, because it demonstrates just how much bullshit he had to go through. Yet he did it anyways because it was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing despite getting your teeth knocked in for it is the epitome of good character in my mind. The epic deeds are only relevant if they demonstrate good character, for example Stalin assassinating millions of people may be epic (not in a good way), but it only shows how awful his character was. Washington could simply have refused, the demands were insane. He had to start fighting a war that was almost guaranteed in defeat before even his own goverment had acknowledged its own independence, for all he knew he could be wrung out to dry. Still he put his life on the line.

I agree it is tough, we could spend pages upon pages just upon deciding what should be the qualifying factors. Then it would take even more for each person up for consideration.

Quote

I know that you can't drag something out of context but you just did that and wanted to prove that politicians are not the most supremely important parts of society. Maybe that wasn't your intention but I felt it that way.


I meant the quote to demonstrate that there is a certain place for different aspects of society, they can be simultaneously very important, but not. For example you need goverment for order, very few like the business of politics, but it is a fundamental building block of modern society. Yet the only reason we have goverment is to allow for the ability of more audacious activities such as research into the workings of the universe, or artistry. It is difficult to have either with out the other consistently, so which is more important? Impossible to say.


Keep Flying - Not much, but it's enough.

Message edited by FordStaff - Tuesday, 06 Dec 2011, 02:33
 
chrisdvanneDate: Thursday, 08 Dec 2011, 18:30 | Message # 64
Group: Administrators
Messages: 12842
Status: Online
Let me reproduce an old article, published at NYPost.com in June 2009, to fuel our conversations about Summer Glau's professional choices. It seems that Summer preferred her moral values to fame.
As usual, we must be very cautious whith the content of the article since we don't all about this story.

Quote
ROLE JUST TOO RISQUE FOR SUMMER GLAU

ACTRESS Summer Glau doesn't remember what "Kids" did for Chloe Sevigny and Rosario Dawson. Sources say Glau ("Terminator") passed up her chance at becoming an indie queen when she turned down the lead in "Trophy Kids," which started filming this week in the city. "She wanted to cut a risqué dream sequence where she kisses Taniya Raymonde and Ryan Eggold," said an insider. But writers Josh Sugarman and Brandon Yankowitz refused to change the script and the part went to "Wolverine" starlet Tahnya Tozzi. A rep for Glau told Page Six, "She passed on the film due to creative differences."


You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or Youtube
 
BlaziusDate: Friday, 09 Dec 2011, 01:41 | Message # 65
Group: Friends
Messages: 1200
Status: Offline
Quote (chrisdvanne)
Let me reproduce an old article, published at NYPost.com in June 2009, to fuel our conversations about Summer Glau's professional choices. It seems that Summer preferred her moral values to fame.
As usual, we must be very cautious whith the content of the article since we don't all about this story.


This event was another thing which led me to believe that she cares more about art than fame( I think it was reported on the Wiki before, if memory serves). She always seems to be very careful in her selection of roles to select roles only which seems to have substance, which are a bit challenging to play, but most importantly "feel good to be a girl" while playing them.

She is also very careful with photoshoots to appear sexy and beautiful on them but still remain elegant and classy.

So this event is absolutely something which I could imagine happening with her and only just with her. It fits in the pattern she shows so far.

She stood up for herself and said that she is an artist and not some kind of whore. She didn't care for what kind of fame it may bring to her because she knew that she'd feel bad about playing the role. Similar happened I remember after the Lich episodes from the Cape. I remember that there was a thing with her criticizing Wheeler for his episodes.

She is very sensitive towards her roles( the reason why she plays them so perfectly) and if its not rewarding for her she simply passes on them or gets outright pissed if she has already took the job. So this further supports the theory I think that if Summer was required to do something ugly for A-lister status she'd rather not become an A-lister.

I know that the article was intended as some kind of mocking that she "feared" to take the job. But it was not fear. It was that again that she is a far better person than anybody else in Hollywood and morals matter to her much as opposing to anybody else in the industry.


Summer Glau is so awesome, it isn't even funny!
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!
 
FordStaffDate: Friday, 09 Dec 2011, 02:29 | Message # 66
Group: Friends
Messages: 507
Status: Offline
Quote

I know that the article was intended as some kind of mocking that she "feared" to take the job. But it was not fear. It was that again that she is a far better person than anybody else in Hollywood and morals matter to her much as opposing to anybody else in the industry.


If what you say is true, that is a horrible standard. Not accepting a role because it crosses boundaries your not willing to pass should be encouraged not mocked. It is a personal choice, different for everyone. Selling out has a very negative connotation for a reason.


Keep Flying - Not much, but it's enough.
 
BlaziusDate: Friday, 09 Dec 2011, 03:22 | Message # 67
Group: Friends
Messages: 1200
Status: Offline
Quote (FordStaff)
If what you say is true, that is a horrible standard. Not accepting a role because it crosses boundaries your not willing to pass should be encouraged not mocked. It is a personal choice, different for everyone. Selling out has a very negative connotation for a reason.


Thats why I say that reaching the top of such a system with such standards may not be the most desirable goal of a person like Summer.

I think her aim is more like reaching as far as possible while not violating any of the values she believes in.


Summer Glau is so awesome, it isn't even funny!
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!
 
chrisdvanneDate: Monday, 19 Dec 2011, 02:26 | Message # 68
Group: Administrators
Messages: 12842
Status: Online
I exchanged interesting tweets with the official twitter account of Legendary Women, Inc. , "an organization founded to counteract the negative representation of women in the media, as well as to empower and promote women* in their everyday lives and endeavors."

It seems they share our vision of Summer Glau and her great care not to pick up roles that could be degradating for the women's representation.

Older twets on top :
Quote

legendarywomen
@singfromthehair @millajovovich @maggieq @allisonmack - them & SMG and Summer Glau are all women we respect for their work onscreen and off.

chrisdvanne
@legendarywomen Congrats, your tweet about Summer Glau has been selected as "Best Comments about Summer on the Web" bit.ly/v7hCCe

legendarywomen
@chrisdvanne - thanks! We adore her as river or cameron or anyone else really :P

chrisdvanne
@legendarywomen Right, Summer Glau has said on numerous interviews that she always choose roles that gives a positive image of women.

legendarywomen
@chrisdvanne - river w/ her intelligence & other abilities and cameron being kickass fit. Also confess even love her guest spot on Angel


You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or Youtube
 
BlaziusDate: Tuesday, 20 Dec 2011, 01:41 | Message # 69
Group: Friends
Messages: 1200
Status: Offline
Quote (chrisdvanne)
I exchanged interesting tweets with the official twitter account of Legendary Women, Inc. , "an organization founded to counteract the negative representation of women in the media, as well as to empower and promote women* in their everyday lives and endeavors."


Nice to know that there are still people who care about such things. I hope they'll be successful in their agenda, I can sympathize with their sentiments.

Quote (chrisdvanne)
It seems they share our vision of Summer Glau and her great care not to pick up roles that could be degradating for the women's representation.


I think we'll hardly find a more suitable woman to be a symbol of such ideas. If Summer could be somehow A-lister without abandoning her ideals maybe she could acquire enough influence to change Hollywood's approach towards women to be much better. Unfortunately it seems impossible at the moment as I see.


Summer Glau is so awesome, it isn't even funny!
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!
 
riversfeetDate: Tuesday, 20 Dec 2011, 04:22 | Message # 70
Group: Friends
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
Summer is an A-list actress to me. Even more so than Angelina Jolie.

"My favorite thing about River is that she gets to be barefoot so much of the time. I don't like shoes very much." - Summer Glau
 
chrisdvanneDate: Tuesday, 20 Dec 2011, 10:12 | Message # 71
Group: Administrators
Messages: 12842
Status: Online
Quote (riversfeet)
Summer is an A-list actress to me. Even more so than Angelina Jolie.

She sure is in our heart.

Does that weight on her career? Not so much.


You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or Youtube
 
chrisdvanneDate: Friday, 13 Jan 2012, 00:09 | Message # 72
Group: Administrators
Messages: 12842
Status: Online
Even if the following story is Summer-related, it might help us understanding how Hollywood works.

Nathan Fillion won the People's Choice Awards in the "Favorite TV Drama Actor" category yesterday; in an interviewd shortly after he received his trophy, the interviewer asked him what kind of tv show the public would be surprised to find on Nathan's DVR, a sort of guilty pleasure.

I was a bit surprised by Nathan Fillion's answer : instead of quoting a cult tv show on cable like The Vampire Diaries of Fringe or even Jersey Shore, he quoted Community and Modern Family, which are certainly good shows but doesn't qualify as guilty pleasure imo.

Where is the rebellious Nathan from the Firefly years? Has making $100 000 for an episode of Castle changed him that much? (and i'm not talking about the extra 50 pounds)



You can also find me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or Youtube
 
Summer-Glau.com Forum » Summer Glau » Summer Glau appreciation » Does Summer want to be an A-lister?
Search: