As I recall, that was the problem of her career.
-
jefspicoli82 — 17 years ago(January 20, 2009 06:27 PM)
Yes,I am saying that. Drug-use,or being fired(like Suzanne Somers) could 'blacklist" you.
I don't think I am wrong about her career; the films he had done on the 80's,90's are low-budget and sometimes soft-porn(directed by the late Chuck Vincent,who started with hard-core/soft-core and then attempted mainstream). Blair is not performing the sex-scenes in these films,but still in them,acting with unknowns.
This is from an actress who was the toast of Hollywood in 1973,made some decent TV-films through the mid-seventies,then the big-time was over.
Yes, it is true that Linda was the toast of Hollywood when she played a possessed little girl with the help of some pretty cool effects for the time and some really disturbing imagery that would be embedded in our brains forever. However, we all know Linda oozed sex appeal ever since Exorcist 2. (The cute face, the D cups, the bubbly personality) Whether or not her hotness overshadowed her acting talent is debatable, but Ive seen all the B movies and IMO she was meant to play those type roles. Drug bust or not, I think she would have ended up going that route anyway. Its not like those roles didnt pay and there was plenty of demand for her in the B movie department. She wasnt hurting.
As far as your claim that there was more intolerance for drug use in the 70s as opposed to today I dont think that you could be anymore wrong. In the 70s not only was drug use accepted, but it was encouraged (at least with the younger generation). And in all honesty that didnt exactly hurt my record collection much, but I digress because were talking about films. Of coarse all that changed by the mid 80s with the conservative backlash, the drug war, and what not. -
jimellis — 17 years ago(January 21, 2009 02:30 AM)
I am saying drug-use was not tolerated in the film-industry where an actor/film has to be insured. Producers are not going to take chances with multitmilion dollar investment if they suspect trouble lies ahead.
(Did you say drugs were "encouraged" to young people in the 70s? only by drug-pushers,you mean.)
I don't know if you were there in the 70's, but I remember it quite well.
Blair's B-films were not just B-films; I said they were bottom of the barrel horror and soft-core flicks that went straight-to-video. That is not "being in demand"; that is taking whatever she could could get,and her career being virtually gone.
She gained the demeaning title in the business: "queen of the junkpile". Not a nice thing to label anybody;I'm just telling you the facts. -
jefspicoli82 — 17 years ago(January 26, 2009 05:56 PM)
(Did you say drugs were "encouraged" to young people in the 70s? only by drug-pushers,you mean.)
I don't know if you were there in the 70's, but I remember it quite well.<<
You claim you remember the 70s quite well, but you dont seem to have much recollection of a little something in American History called the counter culture.
Only pushers encouraged drug use in the 70s you say??? Im not even sure what you mean by pusher So if someone scores a bag of weed for himself and his friends is that person what you would then label a pusher? Were artist such as The Stones, Hendrix, and Zeppelin what you call pushers because they had drug references in their music? Is Tommy Chong a pusher? What about the original SNL cast?
There were so many drug references in film, music, by comedians and talk shows back then and Id hardly call those people who made them pushers. Pretty much everybody under 35 was getting high back then and believe me it wasnt because they had some type of pusher twisting their arm and forcing the drugs on them.
Now you also said, drug-use was not tolerated in the film-industry where an actor/film has to be insured. You ever heard of a film called Easy Ryder? That was real LSD that they took in the movie, BTW.
You probably do know more about Linda Blair's career than I do because I never really followed it, but I wouldn't call Roller Boogie soft porn and it was fairly popular at the time. -
valro — 16 years ago(January 22, 2010 11:09 PM)
Actually, showbiz doesn't abandon you if you take drugs but only as long as you are successful and making lots of money for the people around you. When the money sta5b4rts to run out because your popularity is fading, that's the time when you are abandoned.
Drug use was very common in the 1970s and people were much more open about it back then. For example, the infamous celebrity disco Studio 54 had a giant light sculpture of a crescent moon face with a coke spoon and lights that suggested the sculpture was snorting it. Some of the party favors they used to give out were grams of cocaine. Can you imagine anyone being able to get away with that now? -
flan99 — 16 years ago(January 23, 2010 07:12 AM)
Valro,
Exactly.
Hollywood doesn't care if actors are drugged out day and night, as long as they make a profit. Judy Garland is a prime example - the studios even drugged her.
Linda Blair simply spent too much time with drugs and partying and not enough time on her career. She derailed it. -
Gold_Moon — 17 years ago(March 05, 2009 03:03 PM)
Not really look @ Robert Downy Jr. Big crack head and got a glden globe and nominated for an Oscar!!!
Check Out MySpace Friends Welcomed
http://www.myspace.com/angelo_bianco -
vindicator19 — 17 years ago(March 21, 2009 07:05 PM)
Everyone assumes that just because it was the 70's and 80's that drugs where everywhere. This is not true. In hollywood during the late seveties and early 80's, there was not a buzz around drugs. The media actually left celbs alone for the most part. it wasn't until the show trials of the late 80's and early 90's that tabloids started stalking celebs.
People go to drugs for a variaty of reasons. And lets remember something, we dont know linda or her situation. -
jefspicoli82 — 16 years ago(May 26, 2009 10:58 PM)
"Everyone assumes that just because it was the 70's and 80's that drugs where everywhere. This is not true. In hollywood during the late seveties and early 80's, there was not a buzz around drugs."
Huh? What plannet have you been living on? Seriously, because I would like to go. -
ofumalow — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 11:30 PM)
When I interviewed her in the late 80s or early 90s (I forget), she was totally straight-edge. She gave the impression that her few personal follies were a long time ago. She was also nicer, funnier, and less pretentious about herself than almost any celebrity i've met.
-
Gold_Moon — 16 years ago(January 22, 2010 03:24 PM)
When you come right down to it, show-biz abandons you regardless.
!!!Come See What It's All About!!!
http://www.cosas7.cjb.net -
-
SimplemindedSociety — 15 years ago(January 13, 2011 01:26 PM)
not,it's not "utter rubbish", and why are you so hostile?
We are talking about 1980's ,an arrest, and a moderately successful actress. Were you around in 1980? Was Blair some huge bankable star? Did you read her imdb bio?
Do you think before speaking? -
SimplemindedSociety — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 02:19 PM)
Which celbs do you mean, and did they have more clout? It's not using the drug, but being arrested for it,and resulting damage to one's reputation. Even if Blair's controvery simmered down, the momentum of her career could still had been affected. I don't wish Blair any ill,just stating how the biz can lose their trust in an actor for doing certain things. She couldn't even book TV films after that incident.