It appears that it isn’t just any Hollywood A-list actor’s name that can draw moviegoers to theaters. For example, according to the ABCnews article “Stars: They Ain’t What They Used to Be,” Tom Cruise’s “Mission Impossible” was the third highest grossing film of 1996 but his most recent movie, “Lions for Lambs” was a box office disaster. Additionally, the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” with A-list actors Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman had low opening weekend box office numbers. The high profile names alone were not able to fulfill the high box office expectations.

There is an increasing difference between the type of star that sells tabloids and the type of star who sells movies. Determining which stars fit into each category is uknown. “There’s a distinction between being a movie star and being a box office star. Being a movie star means you get on the covers of magazines, you get a lot of tabloid coverage, you’re talked about a lot. Being a box office star means you put moviegoers in theater seats,” said Nikki Finke, producer of the blog, Deadline Hollywood Daily. “Right now, you’re hearing Hollywood ask, ‘Who is box office?’ It’s been extremely difficult to pinpoint. Will Smith is a box office star. Adam Sandler still has an audience, if it’s a comedy. Will Ferrell has stumbled several times.”

Predicting the success of a film has become more complicated than it used to be.  With the proliferation of celebrity tabloids and gossip magazines, moviegoers are constantly overexposed to celebrity faces. “Ben Affleck’s career went down when he was on the cover of every magazine. Maybe it’s a fatigue factor, maybe it’s knowing too much about these people. There’s a whole industry devoted to celebrity and it’s removing magic, it’s removing mystery,” said Finke.

This industry situation not only presents a unique predicament to celebrity publicists but also to all entertainment public relations specialists in how they promote their celebrities and clients. Is the problem a result of the amount of overexposure in the media? Are audiences just disinterested in the movies being released? It is important for the public relations experts to recognize these questions. Public relations specialists should conduct industry research and carefully tailor their campaigns while keeping in mind the uncertainty of box office success. It is crucial to acknowledge the possibility that a name value alone might not draw theater moviegoers.

The article details DiCaprio and others’ desires to establish an environmentally sustainable resort on privately owned islands. Other than DiCaprio, the Turks and Caicos government and architect and designer David Sklar have made plans to develop similar islands. Turks and Caicos will change Salt Cay Island into environmentally sustainable. The island is already home to 60-100 families and there currently isn’t much of a tourism industry. The Turks and Caicos government hopes to change that with their updates. David Sklar’s 35-acre island, will feature lots with custom green homes and hotels and bungalows. The entire island will be managed like a hotel. “It’s about facing what I believe is reality: People have to learn how to coexist in the natural environment. We don’t need to dominate it, or fear it,” Sklar said. “It’s about learning to respect it. We want to present a balance, and share the concept with anyone else who wants to contribute.”

Not only are these event great public relations opportunities but also they should serve as an example of what celebrities and other prominent entities can do for the environment. Every public relations team should keep society’s expanding eco-friendly culture in mind when promoting their clients, whether they are celebrities or corporations.

Drew Barrymore made the announcement of her donation on an episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” describes an MSNBC.com article. With rising food and energy prices, the agency is in need of donations. “I’m able to make this incredible donation — this has changed my life,” Barrymore said on the program. “But I encourage everyone to give.”

Other celebrities that have been linked to donating to foundations include Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. According to People.com, Pitt and Jolie, gave a total of eight million dollars in charitable donations in 2006. The eight million dollars was donated to organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and the Global Aids Alliance. Those figures don’t include 2007 during which Pitt’s Make It Right foundation raised five million dollars.

It is admirable of celebrities to donate their money to charities and foundations in need. From a public relations standpoint, these acts of kindness should be well documented in the media. This type of media attention not only sheds light on the celebrity but also benefits the charity and foundation. In general, any charitable donations of such large magnitude should be recognized by the media, celebrity or not.

According to People magazine, the ABC network issued an apologetic statement on behalf of Washington and said that he will seek help.  However, in June of 2007, ABC announced that the network would not be renewing Washington’s contact and he would no longer be apart of the show.  In response to this decision, Washington openly discussed his anger and claimed, “they fired the wrong guy,” according to People magazine.  Later on, Washington released another apology, checked into rehab, met with gay leaders, and released a PSA on the use of hate speech.

In reviewing the mainstream media, the coverage about the Isaiah Washington controversy is very unfavorable.  The focus of the most of the coverage centers on his repeated attempts to apologize for the homophobic slur and following physical altercation.  However, most of the sources described the events in an unfavorable light.  Most of the headlines highlight Washington’s exit from the show and a few quote some of the more controversial quotes.  Photos accompanying the headlines feature Washington in a suit or a still from a Larry King Interview.  The quotes cited are from Washington himself, issued by a publicist.   Other quotes are from T.R. Knight.  The publicist appears to not make any comments regarding the controversy but only serves to release Washington’s statement.  There are not any comments to support Washington; instead friends of T.R. Knight are quoted in outrage and defense of Knight.  Overall, the mainstream media coverage is negative.

In reviewing the Blogs that covered the Washington/Knight controversy, the coverage is also very unfavorable toward Washington. Because of the nature of Blog writing, many of the Blog writers were much more explicit and opinionated in their coverage.  The errors Washington and his public relations team made in resolving the crisis are only emphasized and more critically evaluated. The pictures that accompany the posts are unflattering and some are even graphic.  The headlines poke fun at Washington’s predicament and offer him no slack or support.

In comparison, the mainstream coverage and the Blog coverage are very similar in their unfavorable attitudes toward the homophobic slur and the resulting media onslaught.  There are distinct differences between the coverage however, due to the less restrictive nature of Blog writing. The mainstream media coverage features more neutral pictures and headlines, while the implications of the Blog photos are very unflattering and the headlines could be described as demeaning and critical.  Both types of coverage say the same things but each in a different fashion.  The mainstream media is more factual focused while the Blogs offer facts but are more opinion heavy.

The errors made by Isaiah Washington and his public relations team are abundant.  The situation was for the most part resolved in October of 2006 with Washington’s release of a formal apology.  The controversy should have ended there.  But instead, at the Golden Globes, Washington essentially reopened a debate and a storm of negative media attention.  The behavior was self-destructive.  As his publicist, I would have counseled Mr. Washington to leave his thoughts and comments about the altercation behind in October.  If he decided on his own account to fuel the controversy with his statements at the 2007 Golden Globes, I would have handled the following apologies and statements.  The formal apologies released by the publicist appeared to only add to the negative publicity.  There should have been no question regarding what he said.  There should have been no denial and then later admitting to what he said.  Immediate action needed to be taken and sincere remorse on the part of Washington should have been expressed to the public and the gay community.

This could be a result of the type of movies nominated for awards. The movies this year appealed to a different type of audience. Unlike this year’s films, many of the previous winners were blockbuster hits. There is a huge difference between this year’s nominated movies and previously nominated moves such as “Titanic” and “The Departed.” An Entertainment Weekly interview with executive director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Bruce Davis, explored some of the theories behind the low ratings. “Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience, frankly,” said Davis. Movies like “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country for Old Men” feature themes and settings different from that of a typical Hollywood blockbuster.  According to ABCnews.com, only one movie among the five nominated for best picture, breakout comedy “Juno,” crossed the $100 million box office market domestically. 

In terms of the future of the Oscars and the publicity and marketing angle from here on, the Oscars has come to a crossroads and will have to make a decision whether it’s going to recognize big popular pictures or films that appeal to smaller audiences. Choosing the second option could lead to a smaller Academy Awards audience. It becomes a question of whether it is the goal of the Academy to produce a profitable television show or to recognize the best film work of the year regardless of ratings. “If we simply wanted to do a television show, we would cut out all the awards that didn’t go to actors and directors. We know that a one-hour show like that would attract a larger audience, but we’re not doing that,” said Davis. I completely agree with Davis in preserving the “integrity” of the Oscars. I think for most people the annual Academy Awards is chance for people to get together with their friends and enjoy predicting who will win each category. Do I see every single movie nominated? No. But I do enjoy watching these nominated films and I also enjoy watching the people that created them receive the recognition they deserve at the Oscars.  I will continue to tune in to a program that does just that.

Ever since the first season of “Dancing With the Stars” there has been excitement surrounding the show. The show has a intensely dedicated audience following. I think it’s a huge breakthrough for both the show and the deaf community. Entertainment Weekly’s Lynette Rice says, “They’ve established a trend to break prejudices — we’ve seen it with Heather Mills who danced with a prosthetic to defy the odds.”

It has the potential to both introduce people to deaf culture and alter any misconceptions people might already have. From a public relations perspective this makes a strong statement on behalf of the ABC show. Dancing requires more than just hearing and listening to the music. Internal rhythm will guide Matlin throughout the dancing. As Peter Pover, president of USA Dance, said “The only impediment to dance is when we don’t think we can do it.”

Williams is best known as a comedian, rapper and actor with roles in such films as First Sunday and Norbit.  He was also known for a leading role in Nick Cannon’s MTV show, “Wild n’ Out.”  He has also appeared in a number of music videos and television episodes.

This is a huge chance for both Katt Williams and the Laugh Factory to gain positive media exposure.  Williams’ representatives and publicists should take immediate action to disseminate the information and take advantage of this PR opportunity.  Building on Williams previously established wacky reputation and love for fedora hats and permed hair, publicists should emphasize his outrageous personality and spontaneity.  The Laugh Factory also benefits from such media exposure and should feature Katt Williams again in a show.  There are many ways both Williams and the Laugh Factory could prosper as a result from this wacky $29,000 giveaway.

They have become teachers as they attempt to educate the general public of the inter-workings of guilds, networks and contract negotiations. And not only that but now, they represent two divided clients: the networks and the writers. Whereas before the strike they represented a united client and industry, they are now the representation of two opposing forces. Their role as publicists and media relations specialists has dramatically shifted in the past three months. What their role will be post- strike is yet to be determined but come Monday we will have a better idea of what to expect from publicists and public relations specialists.