Yeah, fan wikis are an amazing source of this stuff. Thanks for noticing! All I can really hope for now is that this video at least met expectations of the wider fandom.
Society started its downfall when it started worshipping celebrities and putting them in higher regard than they should be. They are just randos whose job it is to entertain. They are not Gods and are nothing more than rich jesters who are so out of touch with reality that it is comical. We need to come to our senses and focus on more important things.
I can agree with this in principle - I mean, worshipping people who just stand around and are only famous because they're famous is one of society's greatest pitfalls (and will prove to be a nail in the coffin in the long run). Wherein we are looking up to people who do nothing more than react to videos in the corner of our screens; pretend to be an NPC for money; or were related to someone who actually meant something in a very disturbing case of "wait, they're related?". Look at stuff on TLC, or any reality(/brainrot) TV programme, and you see people who have or will become famous for the most inane of things. But where my own situated view on this differs is that there are actually talented people who need to be celebrated (the genuinely creative types, scientists, etc.) and culture does just that. Fandom itself is an example of both: with an example of merited celebrity being this very video talking about people who celebrated the talents of five young men (who were lucky enough to all be selected for a group performance). Based mostly on their singing skills and potential to perform to a standard worthy of the mainstream; converse to groups who form around people who either react in front of a camera with no constructive (or destructive) input whatsoever or (again) are only known because they were born into it (granted, meme culture does change the last one up with some becoming [in/]famous for one little thing here or there that didn't help society as a whole - but making someone laugh even for a minute could be seen as helping if you want to accentuate the positive). The positive effect of the celebrity is they can help give role models to those who need them through exhibiting either positive or culturally acceptable traits (i.e. a famous actor who helps out with disaster relief in their home town, the singer who willing signs up for the war effort to support the homeland (or gratefully accepts conscription; it depends on the country), or the philanthropist author who gives 90% of their books' profits to support struggling families). Taking it a bit further, religion is one of the few original cases of celebrity - and seeing as humanity has shifted more towards secular and atheistic spaces, which might just be a logical cultural jump in reverence towards something - which, along with mythology and folklore, is quintessentially the baseline for celebrity culture: humanity/cultures celebrating the actions or effect(s) of a particular individual. If we want to get more post-modern, and I don't have the brainpower to do that half the time, people like French philosopher Roland Barthes have come up with more modern mythologies (literally a Barthes book) about human culture and enshrining things in higher stratum; it's a good read, would recommend the chapters "The World of Wrestling", "The Brain of Einstein", and either "The Jet-Man" or "Steak and Chips". But what the book got at is that humanity will have a way to hold something up and go "This. This is something I like and feel like it should be noticed more." - kind of how we get fandoms around arts and sports - it's the sort of championing of individual tastes that draws others towards a particular thing; I mean just look at whatever sports team is near you - its fans are celebrating the collective efforts of the players in both achieving feats of physical aptitude and representing the place they play (either poorly or amazingly depending on who wins that game) and forming a community around them that supersedes any previous differences. We could also go back to the great blend of myth and reality found in a lot of religions: where it doesn't matter where one's path has taken them - so long as whoever it is shares the same values taught by and love towards that common denominator, they are part of that second family that is the community. We have a video on high culture that (somewhat, but not exclusively) helps convey the "out of touch" part of celebrity/higher economic class culture; as they isolate themselves into this subculture out of realizing they can no longer relate to the "common rabble" - only for this insular community to birth hundreds (if not thousands) of people who think that a $500 watch is pocket change while college grads and retirees are struggling to pay for rent and food on their own. *Interestingly enough, we had a video on celebrity culture planned for the 2023 production run, but it was cut for running over the 30 minute mark and reading more like several different people wrote it awkwardly in a darkroom on black paper with invisible ink. ---------- Apologies for this book of a comment, but what you have written is pretty thought-provoking and could serve as a thesis statement for a degree (or the very least a term paper). Thank you for that, it's always good to look away from the vacuum of archived papers and sites full of endless (sometimes useless) information to see the thoughts of the here-and-now from people in real time. ---------- TL;DR /in plain English: I agree we shouldn't idolize (for lack of a better word) celebrities who do nothing aside from existing, but draw the line in a handful of places regarding the idea (and cultural promotion) of celebrity itself. Everything is celebrity culture in one form or another if you realize the parameters; celebrities who are famous for doing nothing should not be celebrated, but people who have contributed something remarkable (usually positive) should at least deserve what spotlight is cast on them; celebrity culture has existed in one form or another since humanity began.
