Thousands of articles have theorized about the relationship between Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, but rarely has one been as asinine as PopEater’s latest effort.
“Perpetually in bad moods,” Pattinson and Stewart give “grumpy” sound bites and “glower at the cameras,” sneers the site… next to a photo of the pair smiling.
But PopEater isn’t satisfied to prove its point merely with the observational and photo editing skills of a wet sock.
How about some condescension?
Compared to Pattinson and Stewart, “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg look like Snooki and The Situation making out in a hot-tub,” chortles PopEater, scoffing, “If you’re too young to know who Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are, then R-Pattz and K-Stew are probably your romantic role models.”
Ah, yes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. A couple executed in 1953 for atomic espionage. And, apparently, the gold standard for being “grumpy.”
If we didn’t know better, we’d say PopEater invokes the Rosenbergs (and Snooki!) while patronizing its readers because it has no actual case to make.
Oh, but it tries.
The main thrust of the article exploring their “deliciously suspicious romance” is that Pattinson and Stewart have faked it “to sell movie tickets.”
Here’s a summary of PopEater’s “argument”:
*** Stewart denied a relationship with Pattinson in a Nylon magazine interview while filming New Moon, saying that she and he were “good friends.”
OK. She gave that comment a year and a half ago. Why is this relevant?
*** Stewart and Pattinson were photographed “by a small-town blogger” on vacation on the Isle of Wight.
Yes. Um. What’s the point? They went on vacation because… they aren’t really dating?
*** Stewart and Pattinson “may or may not” have revealed (off camera) their relationship to Oprah Winfrey.
They didn’t. And if they had, so what?
*** Stewart attended the premiere of Pattinson’s Remember Me.
Yes, she did. Girlfriends regularly attend premieres. Platonic friends regularly attend premieres. Past and future co-stars regularly attend premieres. What does her presence have to do with a conspiracy to sell out theaters for, say, Eclipse? Especially when PopEater makes a point of saying she and Pattinson didn’t have much contact that night?
(Which itself is inaccurate. Gossip Cop was there the whole night. Pattinson and Stewart spent the entire after-party in a VIP area with a select group of friends and family.)
And… that’s pretty much all the article offers in the way of “specifics.”
PopEater then writes, “Perhaps the media wouldn’t be so suspicious of the real relationship between Rob and Kristen if there wasn’t such a massive financial incentive for them to lead us along.”
They don’t own Twilight. Their salaries have already been negotiated. That’s the beginning and end of their “financial incentive.”
“If Rob and Kristen really are just following the studio’s orders to generate heat for their films,” blusters PopEater, “At least it would explain why they’re so sour all the time.”
Wait.
So Summit’s grand plan is to force Pattinson and Stewart into faking a relationship that makes them “sour” with the press? Of course. Because everyone knows “sour” people with a “miserable attitude” are a huge draw at the box office. It’s why Andy Rooney’s been the decade’s biggest motion picture star.
There’s also this: It’s an awfully big commitment to pretend you’re dating for a few years (and five films) to the exclusion of dating other people.
But the biggest problem is that PopEater’s main argument doesn’t even makes sense.
If Stewart and Pattinson are forced into a publicity stunt relationship, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Summit would want it to gain… publicity?
The two stars shun the paparazzi. They avoid being photographed holding hands, kissing, etc. If, for instance, Summit planted Stewart at Pattinson’s Remember Me premiere to make it seem like they’re in a relationship… why would Pattinson walk the red carpet with co-star Emilie de Ravin? If they “forced” them to vacation together, why would it be on an island with zero paparazzi?
If they conspired with their studio to perpetuate a “fake relationship,” wouldn’t they be photographed just once holding hands and kissing on the red carpet or “accidentally” spotted around L.A. having romantic dinners together?
If this were a “fake relationship,” we’d see more photos of them together, not less.
The only thing “fake” here is PopEater’s premise.
No comments:
Post a Comment