Rookie Mag

[Sacred_Path]

Based on every description from everyone who has ever known her. 

 

 

If they all are consistently describing her like that, then I think it's safe to assume she isn't lazy in this case either.

 

 

It doesn't seem like much of a logical leap.

Except that you're accepting quotes from the past to still be true today without evidence. The HP family could attest to her studious nature, but no one knows if it's still like that. Like I said in that other thread, her public stance on the importance of education has changed. It's not a "logical leap" to assume her attitude has changed accordingly, and that may or may not have resulted in a change of behaviour. Simply assuming that she's still the schoolgirl she used to be has little to do with logic but a lot with faith.

[Roberto]

Study habits don't change. 

 

Her priorities changed, but that doesn't mean her entire personality did.

 

She isn't taking her classes this serious to maintain an image, it's a part of who she is as a person. That doesn't just change.

[Elena]

Study habits don't change. 

 

Her priorities changed, but that doesn't mean her entire personality did.

 

She isn't taking her classes this serious to maintain an image, it's a part of who she is as a person. That doesn't just change.

amen

 

Hey, I wasn't talking to you.

I adore you <3 I don't put emma on a pedestal but she is a role model, studious serious and focused person. Professionally. I don't know anything personally.

[Sacred_Path]

Study habits don't change.

On what statistics do you base this opinion?

[Roberto]

Ever heard the saying Old Habits Die Hard?

[Sacred_Path]

Welp, I already said this is a matter of faith.

[Roberto]

http://phys.org/news7412.html

 

This isn't faith.

 

If certain habits existed in the past, then it is completely logical to assume they still exist today.

 

It is not very logical to assume her habits fundamentally changed just because her priorities did.

[Sacred_Path]

If certain habits existed in the past, then it is completely logical to assume they still exist today.

 

It is not very logical to assume her habits fundamentally changed just because her priorities did.

It's not in any way logical to assume that a person can't change over the course of years. Especially if we're talking about putting your mental faculties to work with as much effort as you're capable of.

 

IOW, while we can assume that Emma will always know how to ride a bike, we cannot assume that she will always ride her bike with the same regularity, with the same effort, all her life.

[Roberto]

Riding a bike isn't a habit. That's a bad analogy.

 

 

This isn't about effort. It's about habits.

 

If you habitually studied hard when you were young, you aren't going to reverse that habit with any kind of ease. It's ingrained in your mind.

 

You don't do it that way because you're being forced to. In your mind, it's just the only way you know how.

[Sacred_Path]

Riding a bike isn't a habit. That's a bad analogy.

 

 

This isn't about effort. It's about habits.

The analogy is quite sound. Exercising everyday with a set intensity is a habit; studying everyday with a certain amount of focus is a habit.

 

You're claiming that studying, with a set intensity, isn't about effort - I don't think so. Studying very much requires constant effort. Nowhere (and not in your article) have I read that some people simply can't help but study hard - in a way that it takes no conscious decision - but do so without suffering any exhaustion.

If you habitually studied hard when you were young, you aren't going to reverse that habit with any kind of ease. It's ingrained in your mind.

That's mostly preposterous, for the reasons above.

 

Let's again take exercising as an example. There are plenty examples of people who upheld a certain regimen of sport during a certain time, but had their efforts diminished over time. Emma herself has brought this issue up in some interviews; stating that she used to do so much sports when she was in elementary/ high school, and that she hadn't realized how tedious it is if you have to arrange all that yourself, adding that she nowadays mostly stops running when she's fatigued or only goes for walks, which is "hopeless."

 

Interestingly, in this interview she even hints at the ways she's changed from her highschool days; this supports my argument rather than yours. When she talks about the way we're perceived in school, she might mean the way she was regarded to be brainy or nerdy. At Brown, she was no longer in such an intimate environment (as she had been at her boarding school), and it seems a bit of "reinvention" took place there, regarding her habits (putting less emphasis on studying, and more on other activities, like acting).

[Roberto]

Eh, this is too much speculation.

 

 

With so little information, I can't see any conclusive evidence to suggest she is studying more or less than she was in the past. 

 

Until such conclusive evidence arises, it's normal to assume nothing has changed.

[Sacred_Path]

Welp, I already said this is a matter of faith.

[Emma_Rules]

how could you not have read the HP books and seen the films? wut?!

[caraxiv]

My God Roberto are you trying to make a point here?

 

I love the interview, I love how it's more of a conversation than a boring Q&A thing

[cbmac12]

Omg please lay off of Emma and her school-WHO CARES! Clearly one on here (not Elena or Roberto) missed the entire point of what Emma was saying-WANTS PRIVACY. Why is it so hard to just enjoy an interview? Why attack Emma on her studies-again IT IS HER CHOICE to attend. Why does this bother some of the few on here? Are some of you taking expensive bets on her attending school? I just dont get why her school attendance is so important to some.

 

Anyway, I ADORE this interview-she is sweet, humble, down to earth, and all around cool. Emma respects this interviewer-she shared it on her twitter.

[Sacred_Path]

cbmac, if she had offered any new insights (maybe in this interview) then there wouldn't be the same old argument about her education that was already going on in another thread.

 

I think it's sad that someone as intelligent and opinionated as Emma doesn't seem interested anymore in forming any kind of image, of a public persona. It might be that she's needing a break from the celebrity circus, or that she's insecure or unsure about her priorities right now, but anything would be better than nothing. When talking about her roles, she's very broad and unspecific in her statements. Ditto for college, "it was tough but I managed and maybe I'll be writing a book." Plz watch my movies, kthxbye.

 

What does she stand for? Some nights, I don't know... anymore.

[Roberto]

What does she stand for? Who cares?

 

She's a freaking actress, not a politician.

 

This isn't a press release. She isn't running for office. 

 

 

Why are her insights so vitally important?

 

Is she supposed to try to convince you to like her? Is that her job now?

[Sacred_Path]

What does she stand for? Who cares?

 

She's a freaking actress, not a politician.

She has been an actress in the past as well, but since the end of HP, she's been very reluctant with statements that could be translated into any form of image. Maybe it's her strategy; we know that she believes that giving away too much could hinder people's suspension of disbelief. But for me as a consumer, it's much less interesting to watch a non-descript actress' performance. I much prefer to have an impression of someone as a person and then see how that plays out on screen, even or especially if the role seems at odds with their personality (like Emma in Bling Ring).

 

Also, I really enjoyed the way she seemed to be sending out signals during her HP years; I got the impression of someone with a message. I wonder if that isn't something she misses, if she's genuinely happy with the way she's perceived nowadays, or if she simply feels she doesn't have anything to share at this point in time.

 

Is she supposed to try to convince you to like her? Is that her job now?

quite the contrary. I'd still find her interesting even if I didn't agree with her.

[Roberto]

But for me as a consumer, it's much less interesting to watch a non-descript actress' performance. I much prefer to have an impression of someone as a person and then see how that plays out on screen, even or especially if the role seems at odds with their personality (like Emma in Bling Ring).

 

That very well may be more entertaining for you to watch, but that doesn't mean it's what Emma is focused on doing.

 

 

It seems to me like you want Emma to become a certain type of actress that doesn't really align with her own goals.

 

 

The goal of a character actor should be to transform into a character that the audience fully believes is real.

 

This becomes difficult for an actor when the audience already has expectations of them that have nothing to do with the story.

 

 

Actors like Gary Oldman or Meryl Streep don't have these problems. They don't have that baggage.

 

If Emma wants to achieve that, she has to completely destroy that "persona" that was created with HP, and make sure she doesn't create a new one in the process.

 

 

Obviously that's something that will take years to truly accomplish, but it's going to have to involve a certain level of privacy that you apparently don't agree with.

[Sacred_Path]

It seems to me like you want Emma to become a certain type of actress that doesn't really align with her own goals.

 

 

The goal of a character actor should be to transform into a character that the audience fully believes is real.

Welp, we don't know what her goals are. You're supporting Emma's position that suspension of disbelief is hard to achieve and must be a priority. OTOH, Emma seems to be convincing in her role as Nicki, so this is no insurmountable problem to her.

 

If Emma wants to achieve that, she has to completely destroy that "persona" that was created with HP, and make sure she doesn't create a new one in the process.

She's been very open during her HP time. She can neither make people forget about that nor suddenly turn that image on its head (that wouldn't be credible). What I'd like to see is her keeping on being so open, and embracing any changes in her image that may come with it. The HP legacy certainly inhibits her; young girls looking up at you with gleaming eyes and saying "you're my rolemodel" aren't easy to brush aside.

 

Obviously that's something that will take years to truly accomplish, but it's going to have to involve a certain level of privacy that you apparently don't agree with.

She IS giving interviews/ attending events. She doesn't hide. Therefore, she could just as well use those interviews to really give insights about what's on her mind. The press doesn't care; as long as they can tout an interview with a famous actress on the cover, they don't mind if it consists of the same old, same old. The ones who really are hurt [pause for dramatic effect] are her fans. They are left wanting for her to shed some light on what's really going on in her life.

[Roberto]

Welp, we don't know what her goals are. You're supporting Emma's position that suspension of disbelief is hard to achieve and must be a priority. OTOH, Emma seems to be convincing in her role as Nicki, so this is no insurmountable problem to her.

 

Her goal is to become an accomplished actor. This becomes very difficult when people are constantly comparing everything you do with HP. 

 

Yes, suspension of disbelief is a huge deal for any serious actor. Without it, we're just watching some actors pretend to be other people for a couple hours.

 

This is a very real problem, and she has a long way to go until it can be solved.

 

She's been very open during her HP time. She can neither make people forget about that nor suddenly turn that image on its head (that wouldn't be credible). What I'd like to see is her keeping on being so open, and embracing any changes in her image that may come with it. The HP legacy certainly inhibits her; young girls looking up at you with gleaming eyes and saying "you're my rolemodel" aren't easy to brush aside.

 

She absolutely can make people forget about HP. It won't be easy or quick, but it's definitely possible.

 

If she can establish herself with a market that never cared about HP, then that audience won't have that emotional baggage to taint her performance.

 

 

If she just replaces her HP persona with a new one, then she'll still be limiting herself.

 

Personas are very constricting to an actor. It puts you in a box and doesn't let you leave it.

 

She wants the freedom to try new things without the backlash of unfair expectations. 

 

 

She IS giving interviews/ attending events. She doesn't hide. Therefore, she could just as well use those interviews to really give insights about what's on her mind. The press doesn't care; as long as they can tout an interview with a famous actress on the cover, they don't mind if it consists of the same old, same old. The ones who really are hurt [pause for dramatic effect] are her fans. They are left wanting for her to shed some light on what's really going on in her life.

 

Personal information can often be used against you in ways you would never imagine.

 

You can't just tell you're biggest fans something personal and have it be just between them. 

 

The media loves to take the simplest of insights and blow it out of proportion. This creates unnecessary drama and it will often do more harm than good.

 

This is one of the biggest downsides of being a celebrity, and Emma avoids it at all costs.

[Emma_Rules]

i agree with Roberto, and truth be told, i am much more the fan of Emma the actress, than the celebrity/reality individual. if i never knew anything about her offscreen, other than what she publicly revealed at events such as recarpet premieres or promotional/publicityappearences, i could live with that. i just want to see her on the silver screen...and the oscar stage.

[Sacred_Path]

Her goal is to become an accomplished actor. This becomes very difficult when people are constantly comparing everything you do with HP. 

 

Yes, suspension of disbelief is a huge deal for any serious actor. Without it, we're just watching some actors pretend to be other people for a couple hours.

 

This is a very real problem, and she has a long way to go until it can be solved.

People are accepting her in roles other than Hermione, and she delivers in these roles. The issue you have in mind doesn't seem to exist in reality.

 

 

She absolutely can make people forget about HP. It won't be easy or quick, but it's definitely possible.

 

If she can establish herself with a market that never cared about HP, then that audience won't have that emotional baggage to taint her performance.

I don't think her foremost goal is to make people forget about Hermione. But even if it was, there are several ways to go about it. Of course she can simply try to keep her real personality out of the media for 10 years; but that's not very efficient, or honest, or guaranteed to succeed. You can change your image by simply being upfront about the changes you're going through; I don't think that her problem is credibility. People tend to believe her. So why not simply share more personal information as you go along, and hope that people accept that you've changed/ aren't stagnating?

 

 

If she just replaces her HP persona with a new one, then she'll still be limiting herself.

 

Personas are very constricting to an actor. It puts you in a box and doesn't let you leave it.

 

She wants the freedom to try new things without the backlash of unfair expectations.

two of her acknowledged role models, Jodie Foster and Natalie Portman, have been very succesful in different roles without keeping their personalities locked away.

 

Personal information can often be used against you in ways you would never imagine.

 

You can't just tell you're biggest fans something personal and have it be just between them. 

 

The media loves to take the simplest of insights and blow it out of proportion. This creates unnecessary drama and it will often do more harm than good.

I wouldn't call standing by your personality/ opinions "creating unnecessary drama". Sure it's possible that personally she's tired of having her statements dissected by press/ the public. I just don't think that the natural reaction is trying to be an actress without an attitude.

 

i agree with Roberto, and truth be told, i am much more the fan of Emma the actress, than the celebrity/reality individual. if i never knew anything about her offscreen, other than what she publicly revealed at events such as recarpet premieres or promotional/publicityappearences, i could live with that. i just want to see her on the silver screen...and the oscar stage.

While I'm certainly not saying "my fandom is better than your fandom", I take it you haven't been a fan of Emma's for a long time? Because honestly, if you take only her appearance in the HP movies, without any background/ personal information, there's not much that would make a lasting impression (on me, at least).

[cbmac12]

I am sorry but I am not a stalker nor someone who cares about what a celebrity does with their life personally. I dont see why some people on here get so irritated over Emma's education plans or over Emma not revealing personal/private information about herself. Would any of you be willing to reveal personal information about yourselves to people on here-people whom you have never met? If you were in Emma's shoes, would you be willing to share private/personal information with fans (in other words, people who are total strangers?). My guess is no. Again I am a teacher-we are in the public eye at times ourselves. Do we reveal personal information to our students or even our students' parents? No we dont. Do they like me less or respect me less for not being more open with my life? No. I just think that there some who need to respect Emma's privacy a heck of alot more and quit moaning over the fact that she doesnt share what she does with her life 24/7.

[Sacred_Path]

cbmac12, on 01 Jun 2013 - 20:28, said:

Oh Lord....drama is back....see yall....

cbmac accusing other people of causing drama is pretty lulzy. I don't know what your problem is, only that you have one.

 

Comparing fans to stalkers doesn't work logically. Some people here obsess over Emma's clothes or makeup, which is much creepier IMO. Still, it's not harmful in any way.

You give no reasons why we should discount the importance of image/ recognizable personality to an artist, because there simply are no reasons for that; other than "I wouldn't want anyone to know anything about me either!". Somehow, the obvious consequence doesn't appear to you: not giving any interviews at all.

 

Btw, stop comparing yourself to a movie star because you're a teacher FFS. That's another analogy that doesn't work.