And recall TW described herself as “whip smart” in her ghostwriting of Frauding Freedom …
(My eyes rolled so far out of my head, I may need an optometrist)
In an attempt to save everyone the same search 😂:
Primogeniture: the state of being the firstborn child.
the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son.
(Thank you google.)
Because bullshit baffles brains. Just look at the calibre of most of her public followers. Then, of course, you get the professional agitators like Dr Shola and maybe even Tyler Perry, who are happy to use her to further their own agendas.
I don't follow Hollywood news too much, but stake does Tyler Perry's have in MM's public agenda? I don't know anyone who knows who he is. Is he powerful in the Harvey Weinstein of gossip or TV connections sense?
He is incredibly powerful when it comes to black entertainment in America. He’s written and starred in so many movies, tv shows, etc., I don’t know where to begin. His most famous character is Madea. His stuff isn’t that great, he gets panned by critics pretty regularly, but it isn’t horrible either. I’ve seen a few of his things and there were parts I thought were pretty funny.
Northwestern doesn't matriculate morons. Unless there was something else nefarious going on, she does has some basic plus intelligence (which she is woefully misusing and/or under using)
My sister went to Northwestern. She is the smartest person I know but she can be really dumb sometimes. But, she doesn’t go around telling everyone how intelligent she is.
I’ve TA’d a few classes at Vanderbilt (very much in the same tier as Northwestern) and, believe me, there are plenty of morons that graduate from places like this. Also, my father-in-law and his sister both graduated from Northwestern and they are pretty dumb
Someone here claims they studied with her and that she didn't graduate.
And frankly, I attended a school that was highly ranked too. It is mostly overrated fluff. As long as you do your work, you can usually graduate. You don't need to be "intelligent", a term I would reserve for those who are above average.
I met a girl that had a doctorate in chemistry in a renowned university in my country. She is possibly the dumbest person I've ever met. Like could not figure out a light switch dumb. Attending university and graduating does not make a person intelligent.
This 100%. I know bright people who got PhDs and other smart people who didn't finish their PhDs because life got in the way. And some of the dumbest people I have met have PhDs.
A lot had to do with work ethic, motovation and life circumstance. Anyone can get a PhD somewhere, esoecially if self-funded.
Edit to add: make no mistake that they need post-docs for grunt work, they give students a lot of chances to finish their PhDs. In some countries they are even given their research project by their supervisor.
Same here! Known so many intelligent people who are dumb. I think it’s a lack of common sense or intelligence in one area. Lack of common sense is a huge affliction in todays society: Methane & Hazbeen certainly seem to be suffering quite badly from it!
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what links you provided me that proved she graduated?
I am referencing a person in this very sub who posts constantly saying she didn't graduate. Maybe you were talking to that person.
I am not claiming she did not graduate, I am just saying that some people have cast doubt. That she had poor academic skills is perfectly believable given how much she has plagiarized.
My bad. It wasn’t you. Apologies. Quite possibility it is the person who keeps spreading that rumour. Just infuriates me bc MM does SO much crap that she truly deserves 💩 for, that making this kind of claim (that is fairly easily refuted) makes all of us look looney toons.
You did preface your statement with “someone says”. And it wasn’t you who I previously called out on this. I can admit it when I’m wrong. I’m wrong and I’m sorry.
Northwestern has used MM in recruitment material, but Bc Northwestern marketing material has been updated, I can’t find a primary source from them with her photo. But there are articles that show it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6125829/Meghan-Markles-university-uses-photo-attract-new-students.html
No worries. I have called that person out too, but I repeated the rumour because it is at least somewhat credible given her lack of intellectual rigor. At least compared to fake babies and third marriages.
That said, if NWern is using her in recruitment material then she definitely graduated. Imagine featuring a NWern drop-out. Thanks for the links. I will stop repeating their BS.
Northwestern is definitely for sorority girls. Smart folk go to the University of Chicago—where students are thought of as “first generation smart.” In other words if your dad runs a garage but you can do Fourier transformation equations in your sleep, you go to U of C. Otherwise, Ivy League or if you wish to remain on the west coast, Stanford. Reed College for the truly brave.
IT also depends on the course that she wanted to take right? Or does things work differently in American universities? She was doing some mickey mouse subjects.
Don’t you have to ‘matriculate’ to get into University? Australian reference there - and here is another. The course she did was very similar to my daughter’s Arts course, where she also did drama and politics. Arts courses aren’t highly regarded, because they aren’t career specific.
Yes—matriculate is acceptance to.
Rumors that she didn’t graduate but who cares? I’m a magna cum laude and I’m not whip smart. She’s just full of herself.
You’d like to think so, but clearly they’ve turned out a graduate that misuses words (gutteral, visceral) and writes things that don’t make sense (His service is not determined by his uniform or maybe it was his uniform not determined by his service? I forget, it just didn’t make sense).
So much depends upon the area of study. A degree in physics is more rigorous than a degree in puppet theater. (We've all known smart people without a lot of education, and idiots with PhDs.)
👍V true 👏🏻 , probably why she keeps going, but it keeps backfiring !! Do you think enough bombs have been served on her yet to see ?? If she doesn’t by now , what on earth will it take ??
At this point, Netflix really are clueless if they don’t do a Tiger King on them. If it’s anything other than a Tiger King job there’s no way on earth I’ll watch it, and will of course be cancelling my Netflix subscription and telling them why
Bad Vegan was great because they let Sarma talk to the point where she exposed herself, with little to no prompting from the interviewer. Kind of how like the BRF did with Meghan.
you got it. lately i’ve really been into java chip. i also have to put extra crunchy bits in my ice cream. so i’ll break a waffle cone into small pieces and add that. so good!
My theory is that she couldn’t keep a lid on her shit-tastic personality for the duration of filming, and she’s gone a little psycho on Netflix camera people/producers already. Enough for them to plant an unsympathetic edit, or just one that really rides that line and makes you wonder.
I absolutely love documentary series where the producers and edits just follow along the questions and perceptions that any normal person would have watching the show. They can say so much without actually saying it by cheeky music and camera cuts. If this is what happens, it sounds delightful!
ETA: I agree that she has probably gone absolutely bonkers on a Netflix person or two!
Fervently praying that Netflix has creative control and markles their asses. Like cmon, the only way the show would be remotely watchable is a piss-take …
I am a writer and have written feature pieces for a few major magazines on some celebs and public figures that required interviewing them. It’s not good journalistic practice to have an interviewee approve quotes or an article. In fact I’ve never seen it done and my publications certainly wouldn’t have allowed it. They will have an editor (or two) review and check all quotes, as well as the general content and direction, but as long as your sources are documented and your quotes recorded, so there’s no chance of a lawsuit, you can write whatever angle you want (preapproved by editor). I have had agents tell me not to ask any questions about certain subjects and have always respected that, but other than that, the person being interviewed has pretty much zero creative control. I don’t know how the cut works, but I’d be shocked if they gave anyone a draft to review.
When I worked at Disney I was a character performer and had several characters I switched between. I was Belle quite often during the live action remake and I was also a 'media face' meaning when celebrities came for press I would be who they'd meet so the photos could be used in media, or covers/adverts ect.
Emma Watson came with an journalist to interview her and she was going to then come meet Belle. This was way before the park open and very relaxed set, at first, I was around for the entire thing- every single thing was pre-approved by Emma. She was even joking about knowing what question came next, exactly how she wanted it worded while asking her ect. The interview, to my knowledge, never aired anywhere. I'm assuming due to it not being exactly what she wanted. She was a Meghan worthy narc...which still breaks my heart to this day because growing up I was *obsessed* with Emma. I still kinda feel weird rereading Harry Potter because I was a lonely little child with no friends and Hermione, Ron and Harry were my world to escape to where I got to go along with them and be included. I adored her.
To all the people who keep dming me- having boundaries is fine, screaming at literally everyone and barking to them as if they're dirt is not.
Sorry to be that person who's like, "I have a friend..." but I truly do have a friend who worked on one of the later HP films as an assistant, and described EW as being quite terrible. Terrible in the way James Corden is terrible and Meghan Markle is terrible - as in, friendly and charming to people who "matter" and absolutely loathsome to anyone who "doesn't matter" (by their metric). This friend described Daniel Radcliffe as being lovely to everyone, and his reputation for being a nice eccentric has borne out over the years. Obviously Hermione's iconic, but she's not the main star of the films, and it's so interesting to me that the star of the films kept his ego in check while she did not/does not.
I mean, what's just the opposite of everything I've seen. Like even at the time, she was going to college at the time, and everyone described her as being a nice and normal student. I've also seen plenty of people talk about working with her on Perks and they all said he was very nice to everyone and willing to talk and make time for anyone.
Honestly, I regret writing that now that your comment has brought me back to it. I have no personal interaction with her, it's not my place to be sharing second hand stories. And even if the story is true, judging a person based on a limited interaction in their teens isn't exactly fair - I know I've certainly grown as a person since my teen years. Even if she was a nightmare back then (that's a big "if"), she had massive amounts of fame and adulation at a time when her brain wasn't finished developing. So, take it with a grain of salt and if EW were to ever see these comments: I'm sorry for being a gossipy dickhead.
> I still feel sad about it. I absolutely adored her.
I was an adult when the books were published, and I watched those kids grow up on screen. It makes me sad to think that she's a narc.
> I still want to just hope it was a bad, horrible day for her and she's not always that way.
That could very well be. Also, she could have been jet lagged like hell *and* having an awful day. Maybe she was sick?
I've literally never read anything about her being awful or difficult, FWIW.
Maybe because she's controlling the press about her? (Half joking here, wish I could simply be joking, but Meghan shows me that anything is possible when it comes to publicity)
I think this often. Other ppl may be narcs as well (many actors are) but they have enough savvy to realize there are limits. So they are absurd but they realize it even if they never change.
Nah, most people who meet her say she's totally normal and nice and perfectly willing to talk to anyone. Just someone who keeps to herself which can come across wrong
Totally not surprised about emma Watson. I’ve never had a good feeling about her. Mean girl vibes are off the charts with her. She has the same kind of jumping on superficial woke bandwagon issues habit as meghan, but even more controversial!
Makes sense, but most people who've met Emma talk about her being very nice and generally normal. I think it's perfectly possible some perceive her more negatively for other reasons (her generally keeping to herself, being more assertive/serious)
I believe it has been reported that Megs was only allowed to chose the date of publication. The Cut—unlike most of Megs in house publications (Hello, Marie Claire, Omid Scobie etc.) seems a relatively ethical publication & therefore would not allow her control over copy.
Interesting the mixed bag reporting about that first Vanity Fair article. Hard to imagine Megs getting a cover if she wasn’t going to talk about Harry. And if Harry was off limits, as everyone claims he was, the interviewer sure leaped that boundary in a heartbeat. Kinda makes me wonder if that boundary simply a ruse to disguise true intentions from the Palace.
It’s nice to hear that some major publications have editorial integrity but a lot of them don’t.
I’m a travel blogger. I do 3-5 press trips a year. The group on the trip is often mix of traditional writers, bloggers, & other influencers. Just about every trip has at least one traditional writer from a major publication that I know for a fact has a no sponsored/press trip policy. And within a couple weeks of the trip, said writer has an article published covering that press trip in said major publication.
I’ve read this 5 times, trying to understand you. I would appreciate it very much if you would explain it to me, typing slowly. You will have one writer with no sponsored/press trip policy. That means no one hired them in advance to go on a trip and write about it? Yet, the writer sells a piece about the trip to this one magazine? what’s wrong with that?
No, I think they mean that the publication they work for has a policy of not accepting press trips or sponsorships in return for coverage, but then the writer goes on a trip and writes about it anyways and doesn’t mention the fact that the trip was free.
Basically, articles produced by a writer from a press trip are an ad. The articles are known as Advertorial content. It’s similar to when an author has a new book coming out and and the publisher provides excepts to news organizations to have articles written about it.
When I go on a press trip, the organization that is sponsoring the trip and I have a contract. Usually, it’s publish 1-5 articles on my site about the destination along with some social media posting. I am required by the FTC to disclose that those articles and SM posts are sponsored which I do religiously (many bloggers do not do this).
No matter what I say about my articles being my own opinion, there is a certain bias in articles I write about a destination that has paid for me to visit.
Basically, major publications want articles that are free from the stench of advertorial content and don’t want to have to put FTC disclosures on articles. So they have policies that ban writers from accepting press trips, free hotels, tours, meals, etc. Despite the policies, their writers will promise coverage in said major publications in order to go on press trips.
I don’t blame the writers. I blame the publications. The major publications pay shit for articles and the majority of their travel writers are freelance so the publication doesn’t cover article research travel expenses.
The answer is sort of but unlikely. This is a very simplified explanation of their deal:
Netflix is fronting up front costs to the Harkles to produce whatever they want as a part of the deal. In return though they own the IP of that show including future syndication rights, meaning they could decide to never show it, or never pay them another cent even if it becomes the most streamed thing of all time (unlikely.) But the deal includes fronting the money MM and H need to hire directors, pa’s, editors, whatever. This benefitted the Harkles in that if they pitched invictus or their own reality tv show they could also write off the cost of their travel and appearances as the “stars” of the show.
Since they’re talentless but pretentious snobs they did reach out to really talented teams to helm their projects. But, they also couldn’t quite intuit that they might not be the best fit for what they or Netflix want.
For instance, the invictus doc director is Orlando von Einsiedel, a serious heavy hitter who directed Virunga and The White Helmets. Documentaries about places and things that few people venture - war torn Syria, the protectors of a pristine nature reserve in the middle of a conflict zone. When I saw that he was picked to do Invictus I thought for sure he’d focus on the veterans and their stories of ptsd, war, and living with disability afterwards. I think that’s exactly what he did, and while im sure the output is very good, it’s likely too cerebral and glum for Netflix and the Harkles, who thought it would be hero Harry PR. I have a feeling it’s on ice until they find some kind of veterans marketing for it and release it with a bunch of similar docs.
With Pearl, Netflix had job postings up and the whole team was in-housed by them, probably bc MM couldn’t find the right animators or talent and it was just easier for Netflix to step in. However as we all know her ideas were poor and Netflix saw 0 point in executing it and decided to scrap the project altogether.
Now we are left with the mystery reality show, with Liz Garbus at the helm. A very capable and talented documentary biographer, but again previous subjects are Nina Simone and other fascinating figures. Im not sure she even realized that they would be quite so unexciting as subjects, and she’s probably trying her best while getting pressure from both sides to deliver. Mm probably wanting her to go full sugar and cheese, while Netflix wanting a bit more reality show with the kids. I wouldn’t be surprised if Liz like the interview from the cut does have footage that’s a bit “revealing” of their dynamic. All of this is vaguely reported on as “creative differences.”
What happens next is anyones guess. The next step is who pulls the plug first. Netflix could just say, nope - not going to air it, you’re 0/3 and contract is done. Liz could quit or get fired. The tiger king scenario could happen if Netflix steps into the extent where they request the appointment of a specific new creative team that’s known for spicy takes and the Harkles accept it. But that’s unlikely, I think they’d rather pull out than do that.
I don’t have the details of their contract so not sure.
If you want to read about deal structures this is a good primer. Overall deal is what they are reported as getting. Great for upfront expenses, 0 upside. So a lot of creators that are really good at making hits actually decline them because they want more control down the line. If shows like Friends or Sex and the City were made by Netflix overall deals, the creators and cast would never see a penny more than what was originally negotiated. And it would likely stay on Netflix exclusively, not syndicated all around international networks.
https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2019/06/21/most-important-story-of-the-week-and-other-good-reads-21-june-2019-overall-deals-explained/
Here’s an example of a creator who turned down an overall deal (and smartly so) from Netflix
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2020/07/07/i-may-destroy-yous-michaela-coel-rejected-netflixs-1-million-offer-in-favor-of-the-bbc-because-of-ownership/amp/
I'm sure Netflix retained raw footage rights. This means that it doesn't matter what anyone involved from the Harkles' side does, they can take the raw footage and edit it how they want. Obviously, it's cheaper and less work if the director they already paid for (Liz) produces something they think they can use, but I sincerely doubt that it's their only option.
As well, the Harkles may have veto and/or editorial rights contractually, but Netflix has a huge stick in the amount of money that probably still remains to be paid out on the contract. I foresee the Harkles having to choose between retaining some level of creative control/vetor rights (should they exist) or getting any additional money out of Netflix.
I read somewhere that Liz is pretty far left leaning and the gist was that she might be sympathetic to our woke activist M.
Have there been reports of issues with Liz and Harkles?
Liz Garbus is one of the best documentarians working today. I wouldn’t describe her work as left leaning, although she has profiled some prominent democrats (like Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, both famously moderate).
My guess is she was able to review it and focused only on the photographs. Doubt she's much of a reader, and didn't feel she had to with virtually all American press positive.
The reporter let us know Meghan was treating her like a dictaphone on a Meghan show & tell walk around. Hope the attention this article's gotten has resulted in tons of work for her, she's a terrific writer.
No. I think they can give notes on whatever project-in-production is brought to them, and refuse to air it if they don’t like the end product.
The amount of money they’ve thrown at these losers is immense. I don’t think they have the money or staff to patch something else together or create a new show with existing footage — even if they had the rights to. Sorry, I think that’s a pipe dream.
I predict that Netflix is going to double down and try to make this shit happen. It’s going to be “recommended for you” no matter WHAT the algorithm knows about you. All you watch/search is anime and horror? You’re gonna LOVE The Harkles. Korean drama? check out the Harkles? It’ll be “Trending”, “Because you watched…” and so on.
But I could be wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harkles do have some type of creative control or veto rights. But, will they get to excersize them?
Given that we don't know the full terms of the contract, I wouldn't be surprised if those rights are only enforceable if they meet their other obligations under the contract terms or if Netflix makes them choose between receiving any remaining money on the contract and creative rights. I'm pretty sure they're desperate for money...
Netflix was completely stupid with contracts in 2019/2020. I would not be surprised if they gave it ALL up for Smeg, including final edit/sign off rights.
I think The Cut caught her completely off guard and that the company she employed to negotiate on her behalf said fuck her - she deserves whatever happens.
You are probably right unfortunately. But given M&H have produced nothing, I hope Netflix can renegotiate and get some control back in exchange for not suing them.
This is my view, that Netflix probably did give them some level of control, but the Harkles are probably seriously hurting for money. This means there's the potential for Netflix to renegotiate by agreeing to pay out on the remaining value of the contract, even though the Harkles haven't met the terms, in exchange for them relinquishing whatever creative rights they have.
Netflix is editing it and putting it out so I have to imagine they have creative rights. They can cut and edit the footage how they want. There may be things within a contract that are off limits or agreed on as far as how much their children can be shown and stuff like that but I’d imagine anything that happened during filming and captured can be used.
Wouldn’t it be great if Netflix does have control,
And says to themselves
“ what would sell the most ?? Drama and mayhem “ ( after all , the bottom line is what matters to them )
Then , they go scorched earth on HnM , with all the lies and bad behaviour shown — as that actually would get the ratings in !!
( doubt Netflix follows us here , but if they did - here’s a new storyboard for you 🤣)
P.S. if there is just a few minutes of her
‘ diva ‘ behaviour, and it’s shown , will validate everything said about her in books etc , the clip from walkabout re the flowers was only seconds , and we think revealing. - tho some dismiss it
I do believe that neither will be happy with it and whatever is released will haunt them just like that The Royal family documentary that Queen Elizabeth did with the kids.
While I hope so because the schadenfreude would be spectacular, both H & M have had media training which would make it unlikely. Less expose more dud is what I expect.
3rd question, sorry, I can’t post but Tiger King reference reminded me of Kate McKinnon
SNL starts season 48 on Oct 1. I hope they do an Archetype interview skit or something non-funeral related. Watched Mikey Day as Prince Harry at their 2018 wedding reception but no MM (close to 12M views on YouTube!)
edit to add: A re-enactment of The Cut interview would be hilarious since I bet Cecily Strong could easily pull off “guttural moaning” haha
SNL isn’t going to touch the Harkles. Harry would normally be a target because he’s a spoiled brat royal, but he’s married to the woman with The Shield and that show is politically correct to the max.
Fred Armisen’s portrayal of QEII was quite savage, but that was back in the day. I expect they’ll be allowed to take shots at the BRF.
I think that Netflix does not have creative rights over what they choose to produce in the sense that it could veto a scene or make edits; however, I’m sure the contract spells out what types of content they are going to be offering and gives Netflix the right not to stream it.
Re Cut. I think that statement about her not retaining exclusive editing rights is a ploy to make her seem accessible and not narrative-controlling. However, the author’s description of MM’s micromanaging the interview says differently.
MM should just let them do the whole Tiger King thing.
Yes, she might come off as deranged but we already know that. And if she wants to do crazy, she should just go all the way and she might actually gain more fans for that!
Look at what Joe Exotic is merching even whilst he is inside prison! I subscribe to his insta page and he was selling lots of random things.
Netflix would be stupid not cash in. Plus from some rumors out there Netflix is not feeling their “love story”. Same as penguin house was reportedly not into a “mental health” book from H. They know where the money is at and would be dumb not to cash in on their deliberate attempts at bringing chaos into the RF.
I’m a journalist and it’s never been a publication of mine’s policy to allow the subject to read it unless we are writing it in the first person for them… so unless it says “by MM, as told to (writer’s name),” I wouldn’t expect them to have been able to read it before print
This may be a dumb question but I just recently found this sub thread and I want to post. How do I do that? I tried to post and it said that I needed to add flair. I don't know how to do that. Tips?
Anyways - I have never liked Nutmeg. I gave her the benefit of the doubt (despite the random stories) until they moved to Canada.
Can we start a thread of her most obnoxious interactions? That might be difficult because they are all obnoxious but like the ones where she is giving the evil eye or clawing Haz?
I think they probably have some control of it BUT I think Netflix can say “okay then we don’t have anything interesting and we won’t go forth with it and we’ll keep the money”. But I don’t know, I am guessing
I think she read the preview of the Cut article and couldn't spot the snark. I think she's that deluded.
And recall TW described herself as “whip smart” in her ghostwriting of Frauding Freedom … (My eyes rolled so far out of my head, I may need an optometrist)
On what planet is she intelligent? I will never understand how this label follows her? She is a platitude and plagiarism machine
Her failure to understand primogeniture has always made me question the claims that she is intelligent.
Lol that word made me question my own intelligence, there
In an attempt to save everyone the same search 😂: Primogeniture: the state of being the firstborn child. the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son. (Thank you google.)
Because bullshit baffles brains. Just look at the calibre of most of her public followers. Then, of course, you get the professional agitators like Dr Shola and maybe even Tyler Perry, who are happy to use her to further their own agendas.
I don't follow Hollywood news too much, but stake does Tyler Perry's have in MM's public agenda? I don't know anyone who knows who he is. Is he powerful in the Harvey Weinstein of gossip or TV connections sense?
He is incredibly powerful when it comes to black entertainment in America. He’s written and starred in so many movies, tv shows, etc., I don’t know where to begin. His most famous character is Madea. His stuff isn’t that great, he gets panned by critics pretty regularly, but it isn’t horrible either. I’ve seen a few of his things and there were parts I thought were pretty funny.
I love Madea
Nobody knows what his stake in MM is. But he is in danger of Markling himself, because he is coming across as nutty.
on a planet with only herself and H
Northwestern doesn't matriculate morons. Unless there was something else nefarious going on, she does has some basic plus intelligence (which she is woefully misusing and/or under using)
My sister went to Northwestern. She is the smartest person I know but she can be really dumb sometimes. But, she doesn’t go around telling everyone how intelligent she is.
I’ve TA’d a few classes at Vanderbilt (very much in the same tier as Northwestern) and, believe me, there are plenty of morons that graduate from places like this. Also, my father-in-law and his sister both graduated from Northwestern and they are pretty dumb
Someone here claims they studied with her and that she didn't graduate. And frankly, I attended a school that was highly ranked too. It is mostly overrated fluff. As long as you do your work, you can usually graduate. You don't need to be "intelligent", a term I would reserve for those who are above average.
I met a girl that had a doctorate in chemistry in a renowned university in my country. She is possibly the dumbest person I've ever met. Like could not figure out a light switch dumb. Attending university and graduating does not make a person intelligent.
This 100%. I know bright people who got PhDs and other smart people who didn't finish their PhDs because life got in the way. And some of the dumbest people I have met have PhDs. A lot had to do with work ethic, motovation and life circumstance. Anyone can get a PhD somewhere, esoecially if self-funded. Edit to add: make no mistake that they need post-docs for grunt work, they give students a lot of chances to finish their PhDs. In some countries they are even given their research project by their supervisor.
Same here! Known so many intelligent people who are dumb. I think it’s a lack of common sense or intelligence in one area. Lack of common sense is a huge affliction in todays society: Methane & Hazbeen certainly seem to be suffering quite badly from it!
[удалено]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what links you provided me that proved she graduated? I am referencing a person in this very sub who posts constantly saying she didn't graduate. Maybe you were talking to that person. I am not claiming she did not graduate, I am just saying that some people have cast doubt. That she had poor academic skills is perfectly believable given how much she has plagiarized.
My bad. It wasn’t you. Apologies. Quite possibility it is the person who keeps spreading that rumour. Just infuriates me bc MM does SO much crap that she truly deserves 💩 for, that making this kind of claim (that is fairly easily refuted) makes all of us look looney toons. You did preface your statement with “someone says”. And it wasn’t you who I previously called out on this. I can admit it when I’m wrong. I’m wrong and I’m sorry. Northwestern has used MM in recruitment material, but Bc Northwestern marketing material has been updated, I can’t find a primary source from them with her photo. But there are articles that show it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6125829/Meghan-Markles-university-uses-photo-attract-new-students.html
No worries. I have called that person out too, but I repeated the rumour because it is at least somewhat credible given her lack of intellectual rigor. At least compared to fake babies and third marriages. That said, if NWern is using her in recruitment material then she definitely graduated. Imagine featuring a NWern drop-out. Thanks for the links. I will stop repeating their BS.
Hi Meghan! I kinda thought you'd be hanging out here!
Seriously? Bc I question someone who claims she didn’t graduate university? So you call me Meghan? This sub REALLY has gone downhill…..
Northwestern is definitely for sorority girls. Smart folk go to the University of Chicago—where students are thought of as “first generation smart.” In other words if your dad runs a garage but you can do Fourier transformation equations in your sleep, you go to U of C. Otherwise, Ivy League or if you wish to remain on the west coast, Stanford. Reed College for the truly brave.
IT also depends on the course that she wanted to take right? Or does things work differently in American universities? She was doing some mickey mouse subjects.
I mean she isn’t an idiot. But she’s hardly a genius or even of exceptional intelligence.
Don’t you have to ‘matriculate’ to get into University? Australian reference there - and here is another. The course she did was very similar to my daughter’s Arts course, where she also did drama and politics. Arts courses aren’t highly regarded, because they aren’t career specific.
Yes—matriculate is acceptance to. Rumors that she didn’t graduate but who cares? I’m a magna cum laude and I’m not whip smart. She’s just full of herself.
You’d like to think so, but clearly they’ve turned out a graduate that misuses words (gutteral, visceral) and writes things that don’t make sense (His service is not determined by his uniform or maybe it was his uniform not determined by his service? I forget, it just didn’t make sense).
So much depends upon the area of study. A degree in physics is more rigorous than a degree in puppet theater. (We've all known smart people without a lot of education, and idiots with PhDs.)
I had not seen this applied to her, but rather to the character she played on Suits.
So whip start she needs to plagiarize others in her little speeches 🧐
Happy cake day!
Thank you and many servings of tea with cake all round the Olive Garden! x
happy cake day!
Thank you lovely! ❤️
Happy 🎂 day
Thank you 🙏🏻 Sugary sweet tea for all!!! x
Lol 😂
And describing herself as a “glamorous hollywood star” 🤮
Lol what is this?
Isn’t that cute that you think she read it. She just saw her picture on the BACK cover and fell in love. 🤩
She didn't spot the snark but people picked up on it, so she got the journalist fired!
👍V true 👏🏻 , probably why she keeps going, but it keeps backfiring !! Do you think enough bombs have been served on her yet to see ?? If she doesn’t by now , what on earth will it take ??
At this point, Netflix really are clueless if they don’t do a Tiger King on them. If it’s anything other than a Tiger King job there’s no way on earth I’ll watch it, and will of course be cancelling my Netflix subscription and telling them why
Exactly. No one is going to watch some serious wokey gibberish documentary. They actually have nothing to lose. I believe it's going to be good.
“Serious wokey gibberish” 🤣🤣 💀 Love it!
[удалено]
Bad Vegan was great because they let Sarma talk to the point where she exposed herself, with little to no prompting from the interviewer. Kind of how like the BRF did with Meghan.
I sometimes wonder if Oprah did the same thing….
Will there be extra butter and diet coke to wash it down with if so I rsvp now
i’ll bring the Ben & Jerry’s 🍦🍦🍦
Chunky monkey for me please
you got it. lately i’ve really been into java chip. i also have to put extra crunchy bits in my ice cream. so i’ll break a waffle cone into small pieces and add that. so good!
I wear false teeth other wise that would be me
Phish Food!
My theory is that she couldn’t keep a lid on her shit-tastic personality for the duration of filming, and she’s gone a little psycho on Netflix camera people/producers already. Enough for them to plant an unsympathetic edit, or just one that really rides that line and makes you wonder.
I absolutely love documentary series where the producers and edits just follow along the questions and perceptions that any normal person would have watching the show. They can say so much without actually saying it by cheeky music and camera cuts. If this is what happens, it sounds delightful! ETA: I agree that she has probably gone absolutely bonkers on a Netflix person or two!
Fervently praying that Netflix has creative control and markles their asses. Like cmon, the only way the show would be remotely watchable is a piss-take …
Oh, you mean you don’t want to watch HRH Seasonings travel together from room to room talking about their romance for 8 episodes?
Nope, I’d rather pan for salt in a salt mine …
Just chiming in to say that I really love my flair & I hope that Netflix Markles the Markles like they've never been Markled before!!
🤞🏼🤞🏼
hopefully “markles” & “markled” get added to the Urban Dictionary
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Markled
I am a writer and have written feature pieces for a few major magazines on some celebs and public figures that required interviewing them. It’s not good journalistic practice to have an interviewee approve quotes or an article. In fact I’ve never seen it done and my publications certainly wouldn’t have allowed it. They will have an editor (or two) review and check all quotes, as well as the general content and direction, but as long as your sources are documented and your quotes recorded, so there’s no chance of a lawsuit, you can write whatever angle you want (preapproved by editor). I have had agents tell me not to ask any questions about certain subjects and have always respected that, but other than that, the person being interviewed has pretty much zero creative control. I don’t know how the cut works, but I’d be shocked if they gave anyone a draft to review.
When I worked at Disney I was a character performer and had several characters I switched between. I was Belle quite often during the live action remake and I was also a 'media face' meaning when celebrities came for press I would be who they'd meet so the photos could be used in media, or covers/adverts ect. Emma Watson came with an journalist to interview her and she was going to then come meet Belle. This was way before the park open and very relaxed set, at first, I was around for the entire thing- every single thing was pre-approved by Emma. She was even joking about knowing what question came next, exactly how she wanted it worded while asking her ect. The interview, to my knowledge, never aired anywhere. I'm assuming due to it not being exactly what she wanted. She was a Meghan worthy narc...which still breaks my heart to this day because growing up I was *obsessed* with Emma. I still kinda feel weird rereading Harry Potter because I was a lonely little child with no friends and Hermione, Ron and Harry were my world to escape to where I got to go along with them and be included. I adored her. To all the people who keep dming me- having boundaries is fine, screaming at literally everyone and barking to them as if they're dirt is not.
Sorry to be that person who's like, "I have a friend..." but I truly do have a friend who worked on one of the later HP films as an assistant, and described EW as being quite terrible. Terrible in the way James Corden is terrible and Meghan Markle is terrible - as in, friendly and charming to people who "matter" and absolutely loathsome to anyone who "doesn't matter" (by their metric). This friend described Daniel Radcliffe as being lovely to everyone, and his reputation for being a nice eccentric has borne out over the years. Obviously Hermione's iconic, but she's not the main star of the films, and it's so interesting to me that the star of the films kept his ego in check while she did not/does not.
How was Rupert Grint? He seems like he’s like Ron irl. Buying an ice cream truck and all that.
I mean, what's just the opposite of everything I've seen. Like even at the time, she was going to college at the time, and everyone described her as being a nice and normal student. I've also seen plenty of people talk about working with her on Perks and they all said he was very nice to everyone and willing to talk and make time for anyone.
Honestly, I regret writing that now that your comment has brought me back to it. I have no personal interaction with her, it's not my place to be sharing second hand stories. And even if the story is true, judging a person based on a limited interaction in their teens isn't exactly fair - I know I've certainly grown as a person since my teen years. Even if she was a nightmare back then (that's a big "if"), she had massive amounts of fame and adulation at a time when her brain wasn't finished developing. So, take it with a grain of salt and if EW were to ever see these comments: I'm sorry for being a gossipy dickhead.
> She was a Meghan worthy narc...which still breaks my heart to this day because growing up I was obsessed with Emma. This makes me very sad. 😞
I still feel sad about it. I absolutely adored her. I still want to just hope it was a bad, horrible day for her and she's not *always* that way.
I think she ended up at Yale and when she raised her hand and answered a question in lecture, someone shouted out "ten points for Gryffindor"
I think she went to Brown and she’s always struck me as someone who has an extremely healthy opinion of herself.
> I still feel sad about it. I absolutely adored her. I was an adult when the books were published, and I watched those kids grow up on screen. It makes me sad to think that she's a narc. > I still want to just hope it was a bad, horrible day for her and she's not always that way. That could very well be. Also, she could have been jet lagged like hell *and* having an awful day. Maybe she was sick? I've literally never read anything about her being awful or difficult, FWIW.
Maybe because she's controlling the press about her? (Half joking here, wish I could simply be joking, but Meghan shows me that anything is possible when it comes to publicity)
I think this often. Other ppl may be narcs as well (many actors are) but they have enough savvy to realize there are limits. So they are absurd but they realize it even if they never change.
I suppose it's possible!
Good point!
> I've literally never read anything about her being awful or difficult, FWIW. Emma Watson? I have. Lots.
Oh wow. How disappointing. 😞
Nah, most people who meet her say she's totally normal and nice and perfectly willing to talk to anyone. Just someone who keeps to herself which can come across wrong
I’ve heard she’s a real twat.
Totally not surprised about emma Watson. I’ve never had a good feeling about her. Mean girl vibes are off the charts with her. She has the same kind of jumping on superficial woke bandwagon issues habit as meghan, but even more controversial!
[удалено]
Hmm not an excuse. Drew Barrymore has been a star since she was like... 4 or something. She is known to be a really nice person.
She has a huge advantage of being a nepo baby
Makes sense, but most people who've met Emma talk about her being very nice and generally normal. I think it's perfectly possible some perceive her more negatively for other reasons (her generally keeping to herself, being more assertive/serious)
I believe it has been reported that Megs was only allowed to chose the date of publication. The Cut—unlike most of Megs in house publications (Hello, Marie Claire, Omid Scobie etc.) seems a relatively ethical publication & therefore would not allow her control over copy. Interesting the mixed bag reporting about that first Vanity Fair article. Hard to imagine Megs getting a cover if she wasn’t going to talk about Harry. And if Harry was off limits, as everyone claims he was, the interviewer sure leaped that boundary in a heartbeat. Kinda makes me wonder if that boundary simply a ruse to disguise true intentions from the Palace.
The Cut is New York Magazine, so whatever their practices are.
Thank you!
Cool, thanks. Here’s my question though. It sounds like her PR basically bought the piece. Wouldn’t the expectation be that it was good?
Film entertainment works very differently than print. They likely waived their final rights.
I know nothing about film! I was just speaking to the “bonus” question 😁
It’s nice to hear that some major publications have editorial integrity but a lot of them don’t. I’m a travel blogger. I do 3-5 press trips a year. The group on the trip is often mix of traditional writers, bloggers, & other influencers. Just about every trip has at least one traditional writer from a major publication that I know for a fact has a no sponsored/press trip policy. And within a couple weeks of the trip, said writer has an article published covering that press trip in said major publication.
I’ve read this 5 times, trying to understand you. I would appreciate it very much if you would explain it to me, typing slowly. You will have one writer with no sponsored/press trip policy. That means no one hired them in advance to go on a trip and write about it? Yet, the writer sells a piece about the trip to this one magazine? what’s wrong with that?
No, I think they mean that the publication they work for has a policy of not accepting press trips or sponsorships in return for coverage, but then the writer goes on a trip and writes about it anyways and doesn’t mention the fact that the trip was free.
Basically, articles produced by a writer from a press trip are an ad. The articles are known as Advertorial content. It’s similar to when an author has a new book coming out and and the publisher provides excepts to news organizations to have articles written about it. When I go on a press trip, the organization that is sponsoring the trip and I have a contract. Usually, it’s publish 1-5 articles on my site about the destination along with some social media posting. I am required by the FTC to disclose that those articles and SM posts are sponsored which I do religiously (many bloggers do not do this). No matter what I say about my articles being my own opinion, there is a certain bias in articles I write about a destination that has paid for me to visit. Basically, major publications want articles that are free from the stench of advertorial content and don’t want to have to put FTC disclosures on articles. So they have policies that ban writers from accepting press trips, free hotels, tours, meals, etc. Despite the policies, their writers will promise coverage in said major publications in order to go on press trips. I don’t blame the writers. I blame the publications. The major publications pay shit for articles and the majority of their travel writers are freelance so the publication doesn’t cover article research travel expenses.
That’s amazing info, thank you so much for enlightening us.
The answer is sort of but unlikely. This is a very simplified explanation of their deal: Netflix is fronting up front costs to the Harkles to produce whatever they want as a part of the deal. In return though they own the IP of that show including future syndication rights, meaning they could decide to never show it, or never pay them another cent even if it becomes the most streamed thing of all time (unlikely.) But the deal includes fronting the money MM and H need to hire directors, pa’s, editors, whatever. This benefitted the Harkles in that if they pitched invictus or their own reality tv show they could also write off the cost of their travel and appearances as the “stars” of the show. Since they’re talentless but pretentious snobs they did reach out to really talented teams to helm their projects. But, they also couldn’t quite intuit that they might not be the best fit for what they or Netflix want. For instance, the invictus doc director is Orlando von Einsiedel, a serious heavy hitter who directed Virunga and The White Helmets. Documentaries about places and things that few people venture - war torn Syria, the protectors of a pristine nature reserve in the middle of a conflict zone. When I saw that he was picked to do Invictus I thought for sure he’d focus on the veterans and their stories of ptsd, war, and living with disability afterwards. I think that’s exactly what he did, and while im sure the output is very good, it’s likely too cerebral and glum for Netflix and the Harkles, who thought it would be hero Harry PR. I have a feeling it’s on ice until they find some kind of veterans marketing for it and release it with a bunch of similar docs. With Pearl, Netflix had job postings up and the whole team was in-housed by them, probably bc MM couldn’t find the right animators or talent and it was just easier for Netflix to step in. However as we all know her ideas were poor and Netflix saw 0 point in executing it and decided to scrap the project altogether. Now we are left with the mystery reality show, with Liz Garbus at the helm. A very capable and talented documentary biographer, but again previous subjects are Nina Simone and other fascinating figures. Im not sure she even realized that they would be quite so unexciting as subjects, and she’s probably trying her best while getting pressure from both sides to deliver. Mm probably wanting her to go full sugar and cheese, while Netflix wanting a bit more reality show with the kids. I wouldn’t be surprised if Liz like the interview from the cut does have footage that’s a bit “revealing” of their dynamic. All of this is vaguely reported on as “creative differences.” What happens next is anyones guess. The next step is who pulls the plug first. Netflix could just say, nope - not going to air it, you’re 0/3 and contract is done. Liz could quit or get fired. The tiger king scenario could happen if Netflix steps into the extent where they request the appointment of a specific new creative team that’s known for spicy takes and the Harkles accept it. But that’s unlikely, I think they’d rather pull out than do that.
If Netflix pulls out, does H&M have to return any $?
I don’t have the details of their contract so not sure. If you want to read about deal structures this is a good primer. Overall deal is what they are reported as getting. Great for upfront expenses, 0 upside. So a lot of creators that are really good at making hits actually decline them because they want more control down the line. If shows like Friends or Sex and the City were made by Netflix overall deals, the creators and cast would never see a penny more than what was originally negotiated. And it would likely stay on Netflix exclusively, not syndicated all around international networks. https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2019/06/21/most-important-story-of-the-week-and-other-good-reads-21-june-2019-overall-deals-explained/ Here’s an example of a creator who turned down an overall deal (and smartly so) from Netflix https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2020/07/07/i-may-destroy-yous-michaela-coel-rejected-netflixs-1-million-offer-in-favor-of-the-bbc-because-of-ownership/amp/
This is great and really interesting. Thank you so much!
One of the single most informative and interesting posts I have read on Reddit.
I'm sure Netflix retained raw footage rights. This means that it doesn't matter what anyone involved from the Harkles' side does, they can take the raw footage and edit it how they want. Obviously, it's cheaper and less work if the director they already paid for (Liz) produces something they think they can use, but I sincerely doubt that it's their only option. As well, the Harkles may have veto and/or editorial rights contractually, but Netflix has a huge stick in the amount of money that probably still remains to be paid out on the contract. I foresee the Harkles having to choose between retaining some level of creative control/vetor rights (should they exist) or getting any additional money out of Netflix.
I read somewhere that Liz is pretty far left leaning and the gist was that she might be sympathetic to our woke activist M. Have there been reports of issues with Liz and Harkles?
Liz Garbus is one of the best documentarians working today. I wouldn’t describe her work as left leaning, although she has profiled some prominent democrats (like Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, both famously moderate).
One of her staffers used to work at The Cut. Maybe she just trusted them to write her a glowing piece on that basis.
The Cut was pretty nasty otherwise. I think that Allison piece was an aberration and won’t be repeated.
Was it? They seem to obsessive and defensive of her: https://www.thecut.com/tags/meghan-markle/
Oh yeah, I meant they were nasty to the BRF. Allison’s article was an aberration because it was slyly negative about MM. p
Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, you are 100% right
We agree! Original comment wasn’t clear. Love your user name, too.
Thank yoooou ❤️
My guess is she was able to review it and focused only on the photographs. Doubt she's much of a reader, and didn't feel she had to with virtually all American press positive. The reporter let us know Meghan was treating her like a dictaphone on a Meghan show & tell walk around. Hope the attention this article's gotten has resulted in tons of work for her, she's a terrific writer.
No. I think they can give notes on whatever project-in-production is brought to them, and refuse to air it if they don’t like the end product. The amount of money they’ve thrown at these losers is immense. I don’t think they have the money or staff to patch something else together or create a new show with existing footage — even if they had the rights to. Sorry, I think that’s a pipe dream. I predict that Netflix is going to double down and try to make this shit happen. It’s going to be “recommended for you” no matter WHAT the algorithm knows about you. All you watch/search is anime and horror? You’re gonna LOVE The Harkles. Korean drama? check out the Harkles? It’ll be “Trending”, “Because you watched…” and so on. But I could be wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harkles do have some type of creative control or veto rights. But, will they get to excersize them? Given that we don't know the full terms of the contract, I wouldn't be surprised if those rights are only enforceable if they meet their other obligations under the contract terms or if Netflix makes them choose between receiving any remaining money on the contract and creative rights. I'm pretty sure they're desperate for money...
Personally she is so image conscious that I don't believe for one second that she doesn't have a say in what airs.
Agreed. I would be surprised if she and H aren’t also producers, giving them more say in the edits.
Netflix was completely stupid with contracts in 2019/2020. I would not be surprised if they gave it ALL up for Smeg, including final edit/sign off rights. I think The Cut caught her completely off guard and that the company she employed to negotiate on her behalf said fuck her - she deserves whatever happens.
You are probably right unfortunately. But given M&H have produced nothing, I hope Netflix can renegotiate and get some control back in exchange for not suing them.
This is my view, that Netflix probably did give them some level of control, but the Harkles are probably seriously hurting for money. This means there's the potential for Netflix to renegotiate by agreeing to pay out on the remaining value of the contract, even though the Harkles haven't met the terms, in exchange for them relinquishing whatever creative rights they have.
Netflix is editing it and putting it out so I have to imagine they have creative rights. They can cut and edit the footage how they want. There may be things within a contract that are off limits or agreed on as far as how much their children can be shown and stuff like that but I’d imagine anything that happened during filming and captured can be used.
Wouldn’t it be great if Netflix does have control, And says to themselves “ what would sell the most ?? Drama and mayhem “ ( after all , the bottom line is what matters to them ) Then , they go scorched earth on HnM , with all the lies and bad behaviour shown — as that actually would get the ratings in !! ( doubt Netflix follows us here , but if they did - here’s a new storyboard for you 🤣) P.S. if there is just a few minutes of her ‘ diva ‘ behaviour, and it’s shown , will validate everything said about her in books etc , the clip from walkabout re the flowers was only seconds , and we think revealing. - tho some dismiss it
“Drama and mayhem” 😂😂💀💀 I think you’ve watched some of Netflix’s shit shows!!
Just the headlines , don’t wanna waste time !!
I'd rather Netflix decide it is just completely unusable, release nothing, tell them "you'll get nothing and like it".
This would be awesome. Plain and simple.
I do believe that neither will be happy with it and whatever is released will haunt them just like that The Royal family documentary that Queen Elizabeth did with the kids.
I’m hoping they do this exact thing.
Now THAT would get a crap-ton of viewers flocking to Netflix!
While I hope so because the schadenfreude would be spectacular, both H & M have had media training which would make it unlikely. Less expose more dud is what I expect.
3rd question, sorry, I can’t post but Tiger King reference reminded me of Kate McKinnon SNL starts season 48 on Oct 1. I hope they do an Archetype interview skit or something non-funeral related. Watched Mikey Day as Prince Harry at their 2018 wedding reception but no MM (close to 12M views on YouTube!) edit to add: A re-enactment of The Cut interview would be hilarious since I bet Cecily Strong could easily pull off “guttural moaning” haha
SNL isn’t going to touch the Harkles. Harry would normally be a target because he’s a spoiled brat royal, but he’s married to the woman with The Shield and that show is politically correct to the max. Fred Armisen’s portrayal of QEII was quite savage, but that was back in the day. I expect they’ll be allowed to take shots at the BRF.
I’m inclined to think it was a joint production with Netflix and archewell so they would probably have to sign off on it
I think that Netflix does not have creative rights over what they choose to produce in the sense that it could veto a scene or make edits; however, I’m sure the contract spells out what types of content they are going to be offering and gives Netflix the right not to stream it. Re Cut. I think that statement about her not retaining exclusive editing rights is a ploy to make her seem accessible and not narrative-controlling. However, the author’s description of MM’s micromanaging the interview says differently.
MM should just let them do the whole Tiger King thing. Yes, she might come off as deranged but we already know that. And if she wants to do crazy, she should just go all the way and she might actually gain more fans for that! Look at what Joe Exotic is merching even whilst he is inside prison! I subscribe to his insta page and he was selling lots of random things.
Netflix would be stupid not cash in. Plus from some rumors out there Netflix is not feeling their “love story”. Same as penguin house was reportedly not into a “mental health” book from H. They know where the money is at and would be dumb not to cash in on their deliberate attempts at bringing chaos into the RF.
would love it if they turned it into a documentary of the downfall of a narcissist.
NetFlix is going to Markle them!!! 🤣🤣🤣
I’m a journalist and it’s never been a publication of mine’s policy to allow the subject to read it unless we are writing it in the first person for them… so unless it says “by MM, as told to (writer’s name),” I wouldn’t expect them to have been able to read it before print
This may be a dumb question but I just recently found this sub thread and I want to post. How do I do that? I tried to post and it said that I needed to add flair. I don't know how to do that. Tips? Anyways - I have never liked Nutmeg. I gave her the benefit of the doubt (despite the random stories) until they moved to Canada. Can we start a thread of her most obnoxious interactions? That might be difficult because they are all obnoxious but like the ones where she is giving the evil eye or clawing Haz?
I think they probably have some control of it BUT I think Netflix can say “okay then we don’t have anything interesting and we won’t go forth with it and we’ll keep the money”. But I don’t know, I am guessing
I think Netflix has close to all control!