PDA

View Full Version : Serena says she's becoming torn between her tennis and acting careers


spiceboy
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:35 PM
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=2a39d32873385176

Serena returns to tennis from television

Big News Network.com Friday 23rd April, 2004

Serena Williams says she's becoming torn between her tennis and acting careers, the New York Post reported Thursday.

It would be very difficult to choose between tennis or acting, she told the newspaper.

In the eight months since being sidelined from tennis for knee surgery, the 22-year-old has made guest appearances on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Showtime's Street Time and The Division, Lifetime's cop show. Among her upcoming appearances are her first movie role in Beauty Shop. And she is taking horseback riding lessons for an untitled western.

But leaving tennis would be an expensive proposition, the newspaper said. She signed a $40 million deal with Nike that is contingent on her playing competitive tennis.

For now, she's getting in shape again for the tennis tour through July and the French Open, but has withdrawn from the U.S. team's upcoming Fed Cup match against Slovenia, citing concern about her knee.

SJW
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:37 PM
that's funny, because SHE (you know, straight from her mouth :)) said tennis was her #1 priority now that she's been out, and that she's missed it, and now realises it's her career etc etc etc :)

Pureracket
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:37 PM
I would really need to see a quote. She's spoken on this topic, repeatedly. She's said that tennis is her first love. I am thinking that this is taken out of context.

TeeRexx
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:55 PM
Riding lessons?:confused:
She should be starring in "Serena, Warrior Princess".:lol:

SERENA has continually said that tennis is her #1 occupation.:angel:

For now.:eek: :lol:

lizchris
Apr 22nd, 2004, 07:57 PM
If she wants to get back to number one, she'd better tear herself from acting and get back to tennis (when her knee is healed, of course).

pualeez
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:01 PM
If she did choose acting over tennis that would be ashame because she is waaaaaaayyy better at palying tennis than acting. :confused:

I hope she is not confused on where her talents lay. :lol:

sarza
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:26 PM
oh well whateva makes her happy

calabar
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:28 PM
If she did choose acting over tennis that would be ashame because she is waaaaaaayyy better at palying tennis than acting. :confused:

I hope she is not confused on where her talents lay. :lol:
For now het tennis far exceeds her acting skills, however, like most things in life, you have to do somethings repeatedly to be good at it. I cannot understand who or what gives ANYONE other than Serena, the right to tell her what she should be doing with HER life.

venusfan
Apr 22nd, 2004, 08:31 PM
I'm a big Serena fan but the girl needs to have her main focus be tennis because she cant act.

sorry but it had to be said.. she sounds more fake than the American Idol wannabe pop stars.

vogus
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
it's kind of sad when somebody just has no talent for something, but they want to do it so bad that they don't realize it. Serena's acting would be awful even in the 8th grade school play. Hopefully the article was bogus, and Serena will keep playing tennis and keep the 40 million from Nike as well. She can always do cameo roles like other sports stars.

Venus Forever
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:25 PM
The New York Post is the biggest joke of a newspaper.

Do they even report news??

Pamela Shriver
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:25 PM
I think one of the reasons I never won a slam was because I was juggling the international jet-setting celebrity lifestyle with tennis.


*cough*

fifiricci
Apr 22nd, 2004, 09:28 PM
I think one of the reasons I never won a slam was because I was juggling the international jet-setting celebrity lifestyle with tennis.


*cough*
:lol: Pammy you are the funniest girl on the maternity ward!

Dava
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:20 PM
Well whatever, personally I dont think she has a an acting career, sorry if that offends people, but I want to see her at my local megaplex, not doing US pilots etc.

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:35 PM
it's kind of sad when somebody just has no talent for something, but they want to do it so bad that they don't realize it. Serena's acting would be awful even in the 8th grade school play.That, of course, is why they keep giving her roles, right?

You're letting your emotions get in the way of your business sense. Or maybe you don't know much about the business side of TV. Putting someone in a movie or a TV role is has no talent is EXPENSIVE. It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to do one episode of a TV show. It cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. For a hit, it's MILLIONS of dollars. Why do you think you don't see Ann Kournikova all over TV? She's popular enough, but she IS a bad actress. And you don't risk a two million dollar investment by putting someone with no talent in a position to ruin it. Bad actors STAND OUT in movies and TV. If you're bad enough, it's all anyone talks about in an episode.

Serena's okay. Nothing special, but if you didnt know it was her, you wouldn't pick her out of a scene as a non-actress. The best thing about her Cosby episode was that she WASN'T the one thing people talked about afterward. For that to happen, she'd have had to be very good, or very bad. And very good isn't likely in a non-professional.

BTW, most of you are reading that article wrong. Look at what they actually wrote.It would be very difficult to choose between tennis or acting, she told the newspaper.Of course that might be difficult. But who's asking her to do that? If anything, it's to everyone's advantage that she do both.

1) Her tennis is what makes her a celebrity. Her celebrity is what gets her acting parts.

2) The acting parts raise her already high profile, improves the ol' Q-rating, which menas she can charge sponsors more.

3) The tour gets free advertising to non-fans who happen to hear she's on a show. Maybe they'll check out her tennis.

4) The show maybe gets some tennis fans tuning in who otherwise would not have.

That's all good as long as she wins a slam every year.

In five or six years, she might get to be good enough to make a career out of acting. I doubt she'll ever be Meryl Streep, but people become millionaires doing supporting roles. And, to take an example, Nick Nolte went from being a professional (American) football player to being a very accomplished and awarded actor. It took him time. Serena HAS time.

But the idea that some TV production company is going to waste two or three million dollars letting Serena stink out the joint on TV is ludicrous. You get the first part on name recognition. If you're good enough, you can KEEP getting parts on name recognition. If you're bad, all the fame in the world won't help you. If all it took was fame and popularity, don't you think Anna Kournikova or Monica Seles would be all over TV?

SelesFan70
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:46 PM
I wonder if Serena "kneeds" a stunt woman during those action sequences? ;)

arcus
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:47 PM
"don't give up the day job, Serena"

I was thinking about this the other day....... Some tennis players get huge publicity on the basis that they are famous for being great tennis players. That notoriety opens all kinds of doors. And thats great, the players get a chance to do different things. So long as they dont take the attention too seriously.

Just cos a netwark wants an A1 sport celeb to do a stint and boost ratings, or Vogue wants a hot, recognizable sports star on the cover, don't mean that they would even return your calls if you weren't the current WTA darling.

Anna k. is a good example. She is ravishingly beautiful. But she is not the only drop dead georgous women in the world. But her fame in tennis was the platform. Now, away from tennis, I think the interest will still be there, but it will wane, IMO. Instead of being tennis-ace-who-happens-to-be-red-hot" she might end up being just another hottie with a celebrity bf.

CanadianBoy21
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:49 PM
Serena needs to do a film where she is the main role and the movie goes to theaters.
I know she wants some practice with smaller movies, but she will get no where from there. Anyone can act in the roles she has been in lately.
I do think she has acting talent. Who are you to know her limits. She is a work in progress. She does have natural talent, but through practice she will learn how to expose it. I do think she should have been in Cat Women rather tan Halle Berry.
Talk about level of danger, slender halle against a powerhouse like Serena.

venusfan
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:54 PM
OH Pleaze.. Serena is an awful actress. That McDonald's commercial, nice commercial but her and Venus are awful. Great tennis players but I wouldn't pay $10 to go see them at the movies or $0 because my cousin works at the theatre.

arcus
Apr 22nd, 2004, 10:54 PM
That, of course, is why they keep giving her roles, right?

You're letting your emotions get in the way of your business sense. Or maybe you don't know much about the business side of TV. Putting someone in a movie or a TV role is has no talent is EXPENSIVE. It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to do one episode of a TV show. It cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. For a hit, it's MILLIONS of dollars. Why do you think you don't see Ann Kournikova all over TV? She's popular enough, but she IS a bad actress. And you don't risk a two million dollar investment by putting someone with no talent in a position to ruin it. Bad actors STAND OUT in movies and TV. If you're bad enough, it's all anyone talks about in an episode.

Serena's okay. Nothing special, but if you didnt know it was her, you wouldn't pick her out of a scene as a non-actress. The best thing about her Cosby episode was that she WASN'T the one thing people talked about afterward. For that to happen, she'd have had to be very good, or very bad. And very good isn't likely in a non-professional.

BTW, most of you are reading that article wrong. Look at what they actually wrote.Of course that might be difficult. But who's asking her to do that? If anything, it's to everyone's advantage that she do both.

1) Her tennis is what makes her a celebrity. Her celebrity is what gets her acting parts.

2) The acting parts raise her already high profile, improves the ol' Q-rating, which menas she can charge sponsors more.

3) The tour gets free advertising to non-fans who happen to hear she's on a show. Maybe they'll check out her tennis.

4) The show maybe gets some tennis fans tuning in who otherwise would not have.

That's all good as long as she wins a slam every year.

In five or six years, she might get to be good enough to make a career out of acting. I doubt she'll ever be Meryl Streep, but people become millionaires doing supporting roles. And, to take an example, Nick Nolte went from being a professional (American) football player to being a very accomplished and awarded actor. It took him time. Serena HAS time.

But the idea that some TV production company is going to waste two or three million dollars letting Serena stink out the joint on TV is ludicrous. You get the first part on name recognition. If you're good enough, you can KEEP getting parts on name recognition. If you're bad, all the fame in the world won't help you. If all it took was fame and popularity, don't you think Anna Kournikova or Monica Seles would be all over TV?


Good points Volcana. Its a balance, a star might be an ok actress, but the name recognition is a plus for ratings. So its Win-Win to put serena on camera, even if she not juliette binoche ( :drool: ).

But IF she gave up tennis to JUST act, I think that things wouldn't work out nearly so well....... She can get away with decent but not great acting cos she is a tennis star, so I think she need to stay a tennis star if she wants the offers to keep flowing in!!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

decemberlove
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:00 PM
That, of course, is why they keep giving her roles, right?

You're letting your emotions get in the way of your business sense. Or maybe you don't know much about the business side of TV. Putting someone in a movie or a TV role is has no talent is EXPENSIVE. It doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to do one episode of a TV show. It cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. For a hit, it's MILLIONS of dollars. Why do you think you don't see Ann Kournikova all over TV? She's popular enough, but she IS a bad actress. And you don't risk a two million dollar investment by putting someone with no talent in a position to ruin it. Bad actors STAND OUT in movies and TV. If you're bad enough, it's all anyone talks about in an episode.

Serena's okay. Nothing special, but if you didnt know it was her, you wouldn't pick her out of a scene as a non-actress. The best thing about her Cosby episode was that she WASN'T the one thing people talked about afterward. For that to happen, she'd have had to be very good, or very bad. And very good isn't likely in a non-professional.

BTW, most of you are reading that article wrong. Look at what they actually wrote.Of course that might be difficult. But who's asking her to do that? If anything, it's to everyone's advantage that she do both.

1) Her tennis is what makes her a celebrity. Her celebrity is what gets her acting parts.

2) The acting parts raise her already high profile, improves the ol' Q-rating, which menas she can charge sponsors more.

3) The tour gets free advertising to non-fans who happen to hear she's on a show. Maybe they'll check out her tennis.

4) The show maybe gets some tennis fans tuning in who otherwise would not have.

That's all good as long as she wins a slam every year.

In five or six years, she might get to be good enough to make a career out of acting. I doubt she'll ever be Meryl Streep, but people become millionaires doing supporting roles. And, to take an example, Nick Nolte went from being a professional (American) football player to being a very accomplished and awarded actor. It took him time. Serena HAS time.

But the idea that some TV production company is going to waste two or three million dollars letting Serena stink out the joint on TV is ludicrous. You get the first part on name recognition. If you're good enough, you can KEEP getting parts on name recognition. If you're bad, all the fame in the world won't help you. If all it took was fame and popularity, don't you think Anna Kournikova or Monica Seles would be all over TV?
umm, i dont see serena getting parts everywhere in big name productions. shes been on crappy tv shows, and has a small part in an upcoming most likely to be shitty movie. shes a tennis player... a NATURAL athlete... a great one at that. she can take as many acting classes as she wants, but she is NOT a NATURAL actress. right now shes a bad actress. with lessons, she can be an average actress. shell never been a good/great actress.

and she wont make as much money from it as she will tennis thou. it certainly wouldnt support her shopping addiction :)

moon
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:19 PM
the NY POST is a complete rag. I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sky was blue. :p

articles from that "paper" should be taken as entertainment value only.

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:22 PM
umm, i dont see serena getting parts everywhere in big name productions. shes been on crappy tv shows, and has a small part in an upcoming most likely to be shitty movie.
1) Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is a hit show. On a network, where the shows cost even more. Cosby was a hit show as well. These are not, by any indutry measure 'crappy tv shows'.

2) Street Time and The Division are cable, so they don't cost as much, but it's still almost a millon an episode. You're missing the point.

ALL TV SHOWS ARE EXPENSIVE. ALL movies MORE are expensive, if you realize that you have to invest way more with no guarantee of a return on investment.

You have to pay cameramen, key grips, electricians, on cop shows gunmasters, makeup people, rent space, rent lighting equipment, build and maintain sets, pay for advertising and pay the extras and the stars. This is why 'Reality TV' is popular with networks. It's relatively cheap. But 'cheap' to a network exec is two million not ten. Remember when the cast of 'Seinfeld ALL wanted a million an episode? That's four million bucks down a rathole EVERY WEEK before you even turn the lights on.

I'm sure you know a lot of people who can afford to waste that kind of money on a 'bad' actress. I don't. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But obviously, the people who make the shows don't agree with you. And they don't agree with for the simple reason that casting Serena makes them more money than it costs them.

Ballbuster
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:35 PM
It doesn't matter what YOU think she should do.

I suspect Serena is having FUN. and that's what life is all about. Can you imagine the set of Beauty Shop? With all those "I-get-paid too" Afro-Americans. People bond on sets. If she is anywhere near Queen Latifah she will be out partying - Big Time. A damn good movie is like an actors Wimbledon.

but you are right, she can't act - yet.

Martian Willow
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:47 PM
...lots of famous people with no talent for acting have had cameos in films and TV shows...it's not expensive if it generates interest...it's not like acting is even difficult or anything...it's just pretending to be someone else...it's just that most act-ors are a bunch of pretentious pseuds who want people to believe they are artists...they are not... :)

tenn_ace
Apr 22nd, 2004, 11:51 PM
acting career? :haha: thanks for a good laugh

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:03 AM
It never fails. The jealousy pops up when people see someone else getting something they can't have. Serena gets to try to have an acting career. And as long as she makes producers more than she costs, she gets to KEEP trying.

And this jealous bitching and moaning is as meaningless as a dust speck in a hurricane. She gets to. You don't. Even worse, it's FAIR.

I gotta go catch Nets/Knicks. Y'all have fun. If you miss me, just think, Serena's agent is probably negotiating her next TV or movie role right now. That'll make you feel better. ;)

Martian Willow
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:18 AM
...what makes you think I can't have it...? :confused:

Ballbuster
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:19 AM
I gotta go catch Nets/Knicks. Y'all have fun. If you miss me,


I miss you already :wavey:

It doesn't matter that the game has returned to the Garden. The Knicks doom is sealed. They can't do much with the Nets - and I cannot stand the Nets.

flyingmachine
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:32 AM
I think she is better off on the tennis court for now. ;)

CanadianBoy21
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:44 AM
Of course we see that she is better off on the tennis court.
I will miss her if she went gone for another few weeks, lime I'm missing her now :sad:.
Serena fans think her acting stinks because we want her on, haters think her acting is bad because they ust want to diss her.(why do they even watch her than if she is bad :rolleyes: ).
Serena has always said it is far easier being in hollywood than running up a sweat everyday on the tennis court. And besides, the injuries take their tools!!!!!!!

Greenout
Apr 23rd, 2004, 12:46 AM
I've chatted with some non-tennis neutrals about this when we watch
CNN World Sport, and Serena was in Miami. Let's get real here. She's
great at tennis- everyone loves her as the tennis player; but that may not
be what she really wants to do. Only Serena will know what she prefers,
tennis or acting. Yes, she's outstanding at tennis, and maybe that's the
problem- it's not that different or not challenging enough anymore on
a personal level. You have to admit- tennis is predictable. There's a
pattern to the games, a routine to practice- and you see the same people
ALL the time. If you do take TV/Film roles, things are different all the time.
New stories, new things to learn, new people to meet, etc... Tennis is
a sport for people who crave discipline. I think it's no surprise that in the
past 10 years the world's greatest tennis players on the whole come from
very bad situations, or broken families. Sampras, Todd Martin, Chanda,
Lindsay etc...are the exceptions, everyone else is looking for a place
to be excepted.

Serena may not be a good actress now; but alot of people weren't in
the beginning. I think she's just doing it because it's open to her now.
Who knows if these very same doors will open 9 months from now

vettipooh
Apr 23rd, 2004, 01:18 AM
umm, i dont see serena getting parts everywhere in big name productions. shes been on crappy tv shows, and has a small part in an upcoming most likely to be shitty movie. shes a tennis player... a NATURAL athlete... a great one at that. she can take as many acting classes as she wants, but she is NOT a NATURAL actress. right now shes a bad actress. with lessons, she can be an average actress. shell never been a good/great actress.

and she wont make as much money from it as she will tennis thou. it certainly wouldnt support her shopping addiction :) I missed the post that introduced u as Serena's judge!!!!:rolleyes: :tape:

dreamgoddess099
Apr 23rd, 2004, 07:43 AM
Hey Volcana, when was Serena on Cosby?

decemberlove
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:06 PM
1) Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is a hit show. On a network, where the shows cost even more. Cosby was a hit show as well. These are not, by any indutry measure 'crappy tv shows'.

2) Street Time and The Division are cable, so they don't cost as much, but it's still almost a millon an episode. You're missing the point.

ALL TV SHOWS ARE EXPENSIVE. ALL movies MORE are expensive, if you realize that you have to invest way more with no guarantee of a return on investment.

You have to pay cameramen, key grips, electricians, on cop shows gunmasters, makeup people, rent space, rent lighting equipment, build and maintain sets, pay for advertising and pay the extras and the stars. This is why 'Reality TV' is popular with networks. It's relatively cheap. But 'cheap' to a network exec is two million not ten. Remember when the cast of 'Seinfeld ALL wanted a million an episode? That's four million bucks down a rathole EVERY WEEK before you even turn the lights on.

I'm sure you know a lot of people who can afford to waste that kind of money on a 'bad' actress. I don't. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But obviously, the people who make the shows don't agree with you. And they don't agree with for the simple reason that casting Serena makes them more money than it costs them.
law & order is a decent show.

but street time? its showtime.. the aldi's version of hbo. crap. ive never even heard of the division.

they have shitty actors/actresses all over the place... shitty tv shows and shitty movies as well. skills dont matter much in the hollywood business. its your star power... and thats something serena got. you think these execs believe britney spears can act? no. lil kids and most of the brainless sheep out there dont care about her acting abilities. the same goes for serena.

how much revenue a persons star power brings in does not say ANYTHING about their skills in hollywood today.

also, when was serena on the cosby show?

decemberlove
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:08 PM
I missed the post that introduced u as Serena's judge!!!!:rolleyes: :tape:
im sorry, i live in a free country. i can say whatever the fuck i want.

im sorry if it hurts your feelings. :cry:

Virginia Wade
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:18 PM
Serena says she's becoming torn between her tennis and acting careers
I was asked to open Boggleswith Garden Centre Cactus department in 1978, so one understands about the excesses of celebrity status. It is a difficult crossroad to comprehend. Young Serena should come to her Aunty Ginny for advice.

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Hey Volcana, when was Serena on Cosby?2002? She played a school-teacher. She had one scene. I'll google it and see if I can get a date.

Right role, wrong show. 2001 My Wife and Kids

harloo
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Serena is not a great actress, "YET"!! I would hope that she studies the craft a bit more if she gets serious. However, right now I think she is playing alot of cameos because she want's to continue playing tennis.

Both of the sisters can bore easily with the game, and it's good to have outside interests. I do hope Serena stays around a bit, but I know one day she will have to hang up her catsuit, and rhinestone studded bandana. :D

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2004, 11:30 PM
how much revenue a persons star power brings in does not say ANYTHING about their skills in hollywood today.
I spent 14 years in that business and you're wrong.

And I don't think Serena's star power actually brings in much revenue. But as long as her acting is good enough not to stand out as bad, she only has to bring in a little. A little in that context being a rating point or two.

Acting isn't easy. And in my experience, most of the people I hear talking about how 'shitty' the acting is can't do it themselves. The pros don't say that. The WRITING, mind you, does suck, and professioanl writers bitch about that constantly. But hey, if you don't like the acting, don't watch. If enough people DO like the acting, they keep tuning in. THey write saying they like seeing certain people. Those people get more parts.

Serena gets more parts. So more people want to see her than don't. In that most vicious of measures, her acting CAN'T be bad, regardless of your individual opinon.

vogus
Apr 24th, 2004, 03:44 AM
well, i guess that through her tennis achievements Serena has at least earned the opportunity to try something else, even if she's not a natural at it...the rest of us don't have that opportunity but then, we aren't the #1 tennis player in the world.

good points by Greeny and Volcana

hotandspicey
Apr 24th, 2004, 06:26 PM
im sorry, i live in a free country. i can say whatever the fuck i want.

im sorry if it hurts your feelings. :cry:No need to apologize.we both live in free countries,and can say what the f*&% we want!!! ;)