Is Disney Responsible for Its Stars' Breakdowns?
It's no secret that many child stars have a hard transition from the squeaky-clean kids' entertainment world to Hollywood at large. In fact, it seems like stars are usually noted as having made the crossover successfully if they don't wind up in rehab. Now, celebrities have self-image troubles enough, but pair that with the equally troublesome teen years, and you've got a recipe for, well, breakdowns.
Disney Channel President Gary Marsh, who's worked at the company for over 24 years, recently stated in an interview that its stars' troubles were not Disney's fault ... but is he right? We think yes and no.
Marsh notes that the pressure of being a 15-year-old star in the public eye is demanding, maybe too demanding, but that being identified with Disney "is net positive" and that Disney "is not responsible for raising" the stars. That task, he claims, lies with the parents.
Now, without delving into the incredibly complicated world of bad parents who use their children (*coughDinaLohancough*), Marsh is at least partially right—parents are, for the most part, supposed to be the ones ultimately responsible for their children.
But that doesn't mean that Disney isn't partially at fault, here. After all, somebody—or some network—pushes these teen celebrities to have perfect-seeming reputations, right? Disney Channel plays such a huge part in branding its stars, making them go out of their way to un-identify with Disney once they outgrow it, that's it's hard not to give them at least some of the blame.
What do you think, Sparklers: is Disney responsible? Or does the fault lay on the teens and their parents?