Lana Del Rey launches Institute of Innovative Thinkers

[lola 6,642]

She was recording the Gods&Monsters film lately, maybe she's still working on that and everything else is out of her mind (you know, other than football matches of course)

 

what? did i miss something? when did she say that?

[Creyk 11,699]

what? did i miss something? when did she say that?

 

Ruaquin tweeted it.

He met her apparently.

His username is oachim1814 if you want to check it out.

[Monicker 3,035]

But when she says once in GQ magazine, say again in Vogue and again and again to newspapers is a clear that is not private but public. And in that way can sound negative like it does to me. Sound negative not the work or charity but the fact that it seems fish. Can also sound positive since you see as a positive.

 

I’m not seeing it as a positive/negative thing. I was just saying that i don’t see the reasons for imposing those guidelines on how she should conduct interviews. Something that i think a lot of people don’t realize or remember (myself included because i tend to forget sometimes) is that Lana Del Rey is not giving these interviews for us. This place is insane. We are insane. We pick every single last shred of meat off the bone. We scrutinize everything. We know every single interview she’s done. So for us, her interviews are painfully repetitive. Or it may seem to some of us that she’s mentioned outreach work/charity a lot when, to the average fan, she really hasn’t. This is the nature of being a public figure and being interviewed frequently by several different sources and markets. People who are interviewed like this are mostly repeating shit because they’re covering a lot of bases, and you can only vary your responses so much. Overlap is inevitable.  

 

Also, for the most part, celebrities get asked the same shit all the time. I don't think that's unique to Lana or an indication that she and/or her management are screening questions and only allowing certain ones through.

 

Remember that a publication and interviewer reflect its audience. So if a clueless interviewer is asking her very basic stuff, stuff that has been asked a million times before, it is most likely that the bulk audience of that publication doesn’t know this stuff, just as the clueless interviewer doesn’t know, hence the questions in the first place. They are catering to their readers, not to the minority cult following. We are small in numbers. Think about the amount of fans she has, the number of record sales, and then take a look at how few people are registered on this forum, the only active forum that exists for her (and how many of those are people who registered and never bothered coming back more than twice?) Most people that read her interviews, i’m betting, do not read every single one of them like we do. Even within this forum we haven't all read every single interview, so it’s almost like it’s a niche within a niche. I think people being interviewed recognize this, so they don't necessarily see it as repeating the same stuff over and over.

 

Plus, you think most people who are interviewed as much as she is keep perfect track of all their responses? I'm sure we are more familiar with her responses to interview questions than she herself is. I think, like most any celebrity, when she answers a question, she has a broader audience in mind, not the obsessive/fanatical core of fans. And i don’t think that she’s thinking of giving a satisfactory answer in the same way that we’d consider it satisfactory. In all honesty, we probably fucking freak her out some and she’s probably a little put off by us to an extent. 

 

 

 

I never said that. 

 

Not in those words, no, but: 

 

 

I also think an artist, a heiress or a rich business person is not obligated to donate or give anything away.

That is great but or you mention once, or you don't say anything or you give names. 

 

So if someone mentions philanthropy more than once, according to what you wrote above, you expect them give the name of the organization, no? That's all i was pointing out. But i guess i have the answer to the why now (because you find it in poor taste). 

[MafiosiPrincessa 294]

This place is insane. We are insane. We pick every single last shred of meat off the bone. We scrutinize everything. We know every single interview she’s done.

 

So for us, her interviews are painfully repetitive. Or it may seem to some of us that she’s mentioned outreach work/charity a lot when, to the average fan, she really hasn’t. This is the nature of being a public figure and being interviewed frequently by several different sources and markets. People who are interviewed like this are mostly repeating shit because they’re covering a lot of bases, and you can only vary your responses so much. Overlap is inevitable...............................................................................

 

ya know, I've noticed that I sometimes find myself scoffing at those normal fans every time they seem so excited over finding a "new" interview or photo shoot that I've already seen millions of times before.

I dismiss them immediately as if I they were wrong for not already knowing certain Lana things.

I'm also 1 of those that complain over how repetitive her interviews seem but ur post def. gave me some clarity over these kind of situations, lol

 

it's easy to forget that all of ~this~ is a bit psychotic & I shouldnt be sooOOOoo rude.

 

 

 

Plus, you think most people who are interviewed as much as she is keep perfect track of all their responses? I'm sure we are more familiar with her responses to interview questions than she herself is.  I think, like most any celebrity, when she answers a question, she’s thinking of a broader, less obsessive audience. I don’t think that whenever she’s asked a question, she’s thinking of giving a satisfactory answer in the same way that we’d consider it satisfactory. I doubt she's looking to satisfy the small core of fanatical obsessives. In all honesty, we probably fucking freak her out some and she’s probably a little put off by us to an extent. 

 

sigh, ive always imagined I'd make a sort of ~inside joke~ with Lana if I ever met her. Like bring up some of the things she's previously said in interviews.....       

 

 

#PsychoLanaFanSelfRealizations

 

 

 

[Coney Island King 26,087]

Hopefully someone gives her an innovative idea about a COLA video tbqh

[Viva 3,170]

I’m not seeing it as a positive/negative thing. I was just saying that i don’t see the reasons for imposing those guidelines on how she should conduct interviews. Something that i think a lot of people don’t realize or remember (myself included because i tend to forget sometimes) is that Lana Del Rey is not giving these interviews for us. This place is insane. We are insane. We pick every single last shred of meat off the bone. We scrutinize everything. We know every single interview she’s done. So for us, her interviews are painfully repetitive. Or it may seem to some of us that she’s mentioned outreach work/charity a lot when, to the average fan, she really hasn’t. This is the nature of being a public figure and being interviewed frequently by several different sources and markets. People who are interviewed like this are mostly repeating shit because they’re covering a lot of bases, and you can only vary your responses so much. Overlap is inevitable.  

 

Also, for the most part, celebrities get asked the same shit all the time. I don't think that's unique to Lana or an indication that she and/or her management are screening questions and only allowing certain ones through.

 

Remember that a publication and interviewer reflect its audience. So if a clueless interviewer is asking her very basic stuff, stuff that has been asked a million times before, it is most likely that the bulk audience of that publication doesn’t know this stuff, just as the clueless interviewer doesn’t know, hence the questions in the first place. They are catering to their readers, not to the minority cult following. We are small in numbers. Think about the amount of fans she has, the number of record sales, and then take a look at how few people are registered on this forum, the only active forum that exists for her (and how many of those are people who registered and never bothered coming back more than twice?) Most people that read her interviews, i’m betting, do not read every single one of them like we do. Even within this forum we haven't all read every single interview, so it’s almost like it’s a niche within a niche. I think people being interviewed recognize this, so they don't necessarily see it as repeating the same stuff over and over.

 

Plus, you think most people who are interviewed as much as she is keep perfect track of all their responses? I'm sure we are more familiar with her responses to interview questions than she herself is. I think, like most any celebrity, when she answers a question, she has a broader audience in mind, not the obsessive/fanatical core of fans. And i don’t think that she’s thinking of giving a satisfactory answer in the same way that we’d consider it satisfactory. In all honesty, we probably fucking freak her out some and she’s probably a little put off by us to an extent. 

 

 

 

 

Not in those words, no, but: 

 

The original comment was so streched that now I am only answering whatever you write and so and so.

 

So if someone mentions philanthropy more than once, according to what you wrote above, you expect them give the name of the organization, no? That's all i was pointing out. But i guess i have the answer to the why now (because you find it in poor taste). 

 

OMFG. Just no. Has nothing to do with mentioning philanthropy more than once, a million times or one time. Obviously I don't think the mentioning of philanthropy is in poor taste. But to mentioning and exagerating to the point it becomes something else bugs me.

 

You didn't get it did you? Has to do with the amount of time and type of commitiment she says she has. The mention is not about philanthropy in general is about a very specific place which she claims to have worked constantly for years. I think it seems fishy since the TIME doesn't add up because she was in London. That's all.

 

I am gonna stop this now because you are breaking my comment in peaces and building something else with my words that actually is not what I think or what I said or at least what I meant. Let's put it this way: whatever you think It is is what it is.

[L-ANADELR 27]

March 26th and I'm still waiting for more details

why Lana why

[slang 1,532]

"Innovative thinking foundation" should not be put in the same category as outreach/rehab work. Her social work implies volunteering time to accredited orgs. But a new foundation? If she wanted her financial contribution to be tax deductible, the foundation has to be set up as legit in some sense. Can you imagine how complicated that might be (i.e., tax lawyers, various govt reviews and approvals, who knows)?  Maybe she spoke too soon about it, but give it some time.  

 

Her outreach/rehab pursuits are interesting too. Maybe, she mentions them often so when she writes a song like "Gods and Monsters" we are supposed to think it's more about a personality type that interests her and not a comment on her recent life (unlike some reviews of the Paradise EP I remember).

[americas_paradise 0]

"Details to come next week." 

[Coney Island King 26,087]

Its just not a Lana project unless it's late/never happens.

[TRENCH 15,450]

omg queen of lying        

[Elle 121,574]

Its just not a Lana project unless it's late/never happens.

 

 

damn.

we really have been knew huh.

[YUNGATA 14,955]

Imagine if lana created this for tax avoidance reasons and that's why we've never heard of it since   

[Amadeus 11,334]

Imagine if lana created this for tax avoidance reasons and that's why we've never heard of it since

someone call up lisandro to do some digging on this inbe4 our gal has to go to court for this

(but u could also say that jail time just runs in the family )

[partymonster 4,722]

What in the world 

[Super Movie 51,717]

what the fuck is this  and how have I never even heard about it before today? 

[Make me your Dream Life 88,048]

wait this is exciting, but whatever happened to it? 

[partymonster 4,722]

Just now, Diamantes WILD said:

wait this is exciting, but whatever happened to it? 

it's called tax evasion sweetie

[Make me your Dream Life 88,048]

1 minute ago, partymonster said:

it's called tax evasion sweetie

everytime someone idk calls me sweetie i immediately think of this  but damn that sucks 

[Jaeden xx 7,138]

Our little tax evasion queen