George Clooney says he's "surprised" he's still single; says he was 'never very good' at marriage

I'm sure George's girl is out there. He needs time for self. But in the meantime, he has all the ladies in COH. We love him more than he will ever know.

Really nicely said. Greenie time  

it's me wrote:we somewhere wrote he can do what he wants
no

the " studios" black souls ppl
got him under their heel
the spell was 'you will keep yourself available'


that's it

I don´t buy that.
Really you think so.
I don´t doubt the studio system is alive and kicking and using strict cláusulas.
But (as always there is a but)
Slavery was abolished long ago.

And why would he be surpised if that´s the case, he signed the papers! Nah.

Hasn't he served his time paying his dues, after so many years?
He's put himself in a comfortable position to call a lot of shots.
Riding on the success of Gravity ( #71; closing in at billion soon) the Studios would want to keep him happy....

I don't think the studios have anything to do with his dating habits.

But if he's looking for someone to make him happy, have him call Melbert. I'm sure she'll take really, really good care of him!

He may end up a little physically bruised initially but he'll get over it. He'll be her Fifty Shades of Grey bitch I'm sure! Ha!

Surely George has more than paid his dues. He owed nobody his life and time, but I can see that he has given of himself, so much that yes, he needs some down time. Relaxation time and then, to whatever is on his radar...

resting time
for sure

Busiest and most stressful time of the year: christmas   

I agree Lorna,
the world is a complex and uncertain place to make any kinds of deals. Movie deals revolve around the producers and the studios. And perhaps nowhere in the world deals are made in more public arena, more uncertain environment than in the movie business. Therefore I´d imagine person´s reputation is crucially important, but not their dating habits.

Who has time to keep on track who is dating who? When it is already tough enough... studious factory-like mentality meets artists and businessmen...  

it's me wrote:we somewhere wrote he can do what he wants
no

the " studios" black souls ppl
got him under their heel
the spell was 'you will keep yourself available'


that's it

or easy way out to not assume responsibility for his own actions?

Blame others?

I wonder when he breaks his gf "arrangements" if he tells them others from studios decide time for change...

when he tells Manuele Malenotti to find him a "girlfriend" to shortlist from several candidates because he has no luck finding someone himself and that the studio bosses & his management require a publicity girlfriend....
you wonder how he's still "surprised" he's still single in his 50s.

FAIL AFTER FAIL OF PR DATING.

Well I don´t know what you are talking about.

And I don´t know what that "surprised" means, if anything.

Hard to believe he is single. I don´t believe he is.

Past.   I was referring to 2009. He asked Malenotti to suggest some candidates as potential girlfriends so he, his publicist & advisors, +mgmt could shortlist them as the next potential publicity girlfriend. Real authenticity & spontaneity, I tell you.
Sulked he couldn't find a woman on his own as he had "no luck."  Romantic, huh?
  

Repeat pattern in 2011. This time back to Gerber for more suggestions.  No falling in love for George. All business.

Yes. Maybe you're right.
Maybe he has someone now. Going through the ropes of preparing her to handle large crowds or deal with life in the public eye.
Maybe this time it's genuine. Not just for "show."

But there is a saying: if you hang out with eagles you are going to fly. It hasn´t been so bad for him has it.

It is not true that George asked to Malenotti submit an Italian woman but specifically asked to submit Elisabetta Canalis as reported in the interview (translated by google), interview with the show "Tabloid" of which there is also the video also if you can not find it now but I had seen at the time the transmission and I can guarantee that Malenotti said the same things reported in the interview and is the only interview with Malenotti of Clooney and Canalis.




Manuele Malenotti says first of all for the first time how they met Clooney and Canalis : " George Clooney was asking me to meet him Elisabetta Canalis . Had seen her in several advertising campaigns and was crazy about her! Elisabetta and George were not met by chance , he always had the ball Italian women. "
 
" He had been struck by seeing Elizabeth on Youtube and on television - Malenotti says - to me it seemed strange that one could like a person without knowing it . But then as soon as you have known it struck the spark . Then I had this hard task of presenting Elizabeth George , in a restaurant in Rome, and that evening there was the first kiss. "
 
" They met and liked it immediately recalls the friend - of - Clooney has struck the spark, then he took her in motion right away ."
 
The rest of the story between Clooney and Elisabetta Canalis is known to all , and is on the rumors circulating recently that Manuele Malenotti still means something : "It is true that there is a contract between George and Elizabeth, is not it that the story is fake, you continue to say so many things that are not true . they had a very intense story , brought her to Los Angeles and made it work . George went so far as to know the parents of Elizabeth. "
 
At the wedding between George Clooney and Elisabetta Canalis , however , there has never believed " also because he had been seared and then they were too different , and sooner or later these differences would come out."





[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How do you know, Carla?
For brand Clooney?
It may have been better. Much.
As for his private life, he's a lonely, vapid single man, going by how Jason Reitman compares him to his character in Up In The Air.

He has no interpersonal longevity in his partner relationships. Not what his parents or close friends have. Just mega fails PR oriented relationships.
Hence the gay innuendo.
Maybe the speculation from the ambiguity serves as intrigue and that's what he wants.

Then there's the alleged excessive drinking. He stated in a recent interview on another thread that his friends care enough to mention he drinks too much...
Escapism?

@lelacorb - what Manelotti said in an interview & what he tells someone in person, concerned & enraged, may be not be the same thing.

Yes, in 2009, George asked Manuele Malenotti to find him an Italian small time TV personality who had some publicity exposure as he had " no luck finding women" on his own. And that his management & publicist pressured him that it was time for another "arrangement."

There was nothing genuine about meeting these potential candidates..
Several were suggested & considered.
Long gone history.
All for showbiz.

Ocean wrote:@lelacorb - what Manelotti said in an interview & what he tells someone in person, concerned & enraged, may be not be the same thing.

Yes, in 2009, George asked Manuele Malenotti to find him an Italian small time TV personality who had some publicity exposure as he had " no luck finding women" on his own. And that his management & publicist pressured him that it was time for another "arrangement."

There was nothing genuine about meeting these potential candidates..
Several were suggested & considered.
Long gone history.
All for showbiz.

That's what you say, Malenotti said another if you want to commit yourself to the facts is fine if you want to invent, invents well!

Oh, I'm not inventing...
I know exactly what Malenotti said.

Wow, Ocean! He "sulked" because he couldn't meet someone on his own? He's a "lonely, vapid" man? Are you his shrink? Were you there?

He's got to be one of the busiest men on the planet, and never in one place for too long. When most of the women he meets are in "the business", how can he trust their interest is in him and not in what they can get from him? How can he sustain a relationship with a "civilian" when he's almost never around? What self-respecting normal woman would put up with that if she really wanted a long term relationship with him? Would you expect him to give up his career for her?

If he does really hire these wanna-be's for arm candy status, why should he have to hunt them down on his own?
They're basically employees, providing a service from which they benefit much more than he does. Hopefully, he enjoys their company in the process, but I think its understood on both sides that its a job with a limited life span.

"Self-respecting civilian women" come in many forms with multiple careers.... or not. It worked for many others who took on supportive roles to their high-profile spouses.  Real life roles.
Who's talking about giving up his career for her, LizzyNY ?

She can plan her life around his, if it works for both. She can work remotely in her own field if possible. All kinds of possibilities.
Colin Firth...Matt Damon... Jeff Bridges...etc etc etc .......
List goes on.

Seems to me that some think George ALONE is the busiest man on the planet.  There are so many more who manage.

No, I'm not his "shrink." Are you? Or PR?

Who said he hunts down the publicity girlfriends on his own? He asks friends to recommend one for a short period... because his management require it.  And then he reviews them with the advisory team to see if they'd be acceptable for the publicity....

Real genuine stuff.
Yes, showbiz.

I don't think he enjoys the company too much.  Mostly seen strained or posing like he barely tolerates them during photo-ops.

Well, I don't pretend to be so close to all this that I have inside knowledge on the all the scheming that apparently goes on, but I always believed that His Nibs enjoys being the hunter (I seem to recall an Italian actor working with Canalis in New York mentioning that he thought he ought to look after her when he noticed a car following her on several occasions, only to discover it was His Nibs and this was way before they met up before in Italy).

We know so little, unless we really are insiders in the business. so we can only surmise............

First I ever heard of that PR gossip, partyanimal-not!   
And it's a load of lies as George met Canalis for the first time in 2009.
He had never heard of her before and he asked Malenotti to suggest several women.

The forum rules state that one must provide sources of inside knowledge.  However, it is a breach of trust if I do. Phys major addressed this matter once when she mentioned here on this forum that George & Stacy were in a strictly business arrangement and platonic.  She could not provide her sources either.
If need be, I'll explain it privately to the administrator in more detail.

Suffice it to say that Malenotti suggested several women for the specific purpose of an publicity arrangement, at Clooney's request to make some suggestions.

yes, George may like to be the hunter, if he really is an Alpha-male (and not part of the image he likes to project), but he sure hasn't done much hunting with anyone available to lease their services for a fee.

And when they've done their time... they run back to age appropriate men. All of them. No "father figures" again.
How many boyfriends has Elisabetha had in the last 2.5 years? 20?  All her age group.
Stacy is with a guy who is in her league, in looks and age too.

Neither shrink nor PR person. Just not a cynic who hints at inside information and seems to see George as either a plastic PR manipulator or a pathetic loser in his personal life.

Personally, I don't claim to know what goes on inside his head or why he really does the things he does. I only speculate, and wish him happiness - whatever his choices.

P.S. - I never said he has to hunt down arm candy on his own. I said "Why should he?" If his "people" feel he should have someone on his arm for professional reasons, I'm sure its easier to have them find someone than for him to try to meet someone while doing all the other things he has to do.

And I never said he's the only busy man in the world - but he is constantly working and I doubt he has much time for the kind of socializing that most of us enjoy that provides us the opportunity to meet potential mates.

Not hinting at inside information.  I explained in post above where I stand on this information.  
Hinting at inside knowledge is the domain regurgitated by gossip tabloids... You know, the ones that see a bloated PR gf's belly and claim immaculate conception.

Plastic PR manipulator? No doubt about that last two words!!!  
Plastic - well if he's superficial.

Pathetic loser in his personal life? - String of mega fail relationships in recent years. Closing in on 53.  Surprised that he's still single???
The vapid lonely man is what director Jason Reitman compared GC in real life to his Up In The Air character. So just paraphrasing that part.

Maybe he'll finally meet someone he can pursue as a hunter.   Rely on those hidden primal caveman instincts hunters have.... In the flesh.... so to speak.
Then it'll be all smooth sailing on the Argo ship for him...

He's surrounded by teams of assistants, security, colleagues...
He's busy no doubt.
But there's lots of free time too. And lots of friends & family.

I don't think he would rely on his team to deliver the next staged pr relationship on a platter. No, no. George might like to feel he's actively participated in that orchestration...

So, he asks friends like Gerber for suggestions.
And of course, Malenotti was asked too.

The team just review the shortlist. And conforming to George's democratic ideals, they might even collectively vote on best candidate, if need be...   
I think prior to these last two, he genuinely met/ saw them.. on film sets..in strip joints...in Vegas bars ....on madam Diana Jenkins' boat. Then asked for intros.

Ocean - when you say that we are supposed to provide sources of inside knowledge but "it is a breach of trust if I do", you are implying that you do have an inside source for what you say. JMO.

I stated what occurred.  There are different versions in the gossip media to dress it up...naturally.

So has phys major shared many facts on several occasions for the benefit of those following this forum. That was never an issue.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If someone has some knowledge and shares it vaguely without too many details,  to some genuine forum participants,  without compromising sources,  it's really shedding some light without attracting libel.

If an administrator wants me to back it, she can ask me privately.

Ocean - Maybe I'm dense, but when you say "I stated what occurred", how do you know unless you have either personal knowledge or an inside source? (I'm really not trying to pock a fight - just trying to understand.) And please, what are "genuine forum participants"?

Sorry - "pick" a fight. I'm getting tired.

"Genuine forum participants" - anyone posting/reading here on this fan forum who is a genuine, independent follower interested in George Clooney & his work. That's all.

I've explained on multiple posts above...

If it's ok for some posters to mention facts from first hand knowledge, then...?

Ocean - "Then..." - then what? I'm sorry I'm so stupid, but I really don't know what you mean. Do you mean that if it's ok for them, why can't you? (Am I wrong in thinking this means that you have first hand knowledge so why can't you share it too?) I'm very confused.

Well I'll only comment that the forum participants, owner and mods have issue with people coming on the forum stating "facts" with no actual first hand knowledge.

It's one thing to state an opinion it's another to make a statement that is then stated "is a fact" without backing up the statement.  What we would prefer then is that the comment not be made.

These "I know something you don't" type of comments are what piss everyone off and that's why there is the rule.

So Ocean, if katiedot requests you back up your statements to her in a PM and she verifies that your statements are correct (without compromising your source) then that would be fine with me.

But if you want to continue stating vaguely that you have inside knowledge but you don't wish to disclose your source in an open forum, then that's when we start calling bullshit.

Just like that "thing" on IMDb who says he/she/it has first hand knowledge, but can't "compromise my sources" is bullshit!

LornaDoone wrote:

So Ocean, if katiedot requests you back up your statements to her in a PM and she verifies that your statements are correct (without compromising your source) then that would be fine with me..

Yes, I already wrote so above several times.


Strange how no one ever questions phys major's many disclosed facts here.
Quite interesting to read.
From Clooney never once having slept with Keibler in the two years of their "dating arrangement" to the fact that she also has stated Canalis was a pr arrangement too, though Clooney did sleep with her, & Jakassic & Larson & many others concurrently.

Of course all this is in the past. He may have turned a new leaf & ended public fiasco dating. Timing a new strategy
Or he may be seeing someone else discreetly.

Example. Interesting & quite matter of fact.
Many similar posts on this forum.

Re: Stacy? But this woman really exists in the life of George or is it just an accessory?
by phys major on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:29 pm

"Dior Quantum Physics and theology are two subjects that would certainly hold my interest!!!
As far as Eli saying George was more like a father figure, I can understand that comment. I dated a man 7 years older than me and he would talk to me like he was my father..Did George and Eli have sex?? Yes they had a sexual relationship...Do George and SK have a sexual relationship?? NOPE purely PR...Not that anyone listens to what I say, but there is my 2 cents!!"

melbert wrote:Just like that "thing" on IMDb who says he/she/it has first hand knowledge, but can't "compromise my sources" is bullshit!

Yep. She's the same one who misuses the word 'vapid' in sentences and calls Elisabetta 'masculine' and says Stacy is too tall and unfeminine. She's not new to this forum and bullshit is all it is.

Ocean wrote:

LornaDoone wrote:So Ocean, if katiedot requests you back up your statements to her in a PM and she verifies that your statements are correct (without compromising your source) then that would be fine with me..

Yes, I already wrote so above several times.

Strange how no one ever questions phys major's many disclosed facts here.

Yes they did and that's the reason she rarely posts here. I expect it gets as annoying for her to be called out as you find it is for you.

For the record, you ARE breaking the rules here. You're making claims of having secret information and that's not allowed. If you can't support your claims publicly, then keep stumm about what you think you know.

People who genuinely have inside information about George Clooney have the decency to protect his privacy and not go sharing what they know all over the internet. Those who revel in the thrill of sharing their 'secret knowledge' are, in my long experience of sites like this, fantasists and liars.

party animal - not! wrote:Well, I don't pretend to be so close to all this that I have inside knowledge on the all the scheming that apparently goes on, but I always believed that His Nibs enjoys being the hunter (I seem to recall an Italian actor working with Canalis in New York mentioning that he thought he ought to look after her when he noticed a car following her on several occasions, only to discover it was His Nibs and this was way before they met up before in Italy).

We know so little, unless we really are insiders in the business. so we can only surmise............

I do not claim to know the truth I trust only the articles that I read, and this is the article you are referring to.

Rome - The story is there, in spite of denials and rumors homophilic . George Clooney


and Elisabetta Canalis have been dating for two years , it all started in 2007. I said , dispelling any doubt , the actor Alessandro Siani . The interview
exclusive speaking friend will be published by the weekly Here , on newsstands
on Tuesday, September 1. " This is a story that goes back a long time ago " - he
Neapolitan actor stated that he met Canalis in
2006 on the set of the film Christmas in New York.

"I think they kissed " And the actor continues: "After
I accompanied Elizabeth acted outside his hotel . me
felt a little ' observed for a series of stalking under the
building , or in the hotel. I always saw a machine that there
behind it. One night later , I finally decided to tackle it :
and who saw in the car was George Clooney . "
In the last month , Siani has not had the opportunity to review its
actress friend , but he has few doubts: " I ​​have not felt in
this time because I'm doing a lot of things - he concluded
- But I think there is something between them . In my opinion you are
kissed . "http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/clooney-canalis-storia-c-siani-e-iniziata-nel-2007.html

Yes, I remember the 'stalking' article. I also remember we worked out that George probably wasn't in New York at that time or something like that and a lot of posters doubted that George could really follow someone in a car in New York without ever being spotted.

LizzyNY wrote:And please, what are "genuine forum participants"?

 I believe I can answer that one: it's a common fantasy among a certain crowd to think that sites such as this one are actually secretly run by George Clooney's publicity team AND that most of the posters are publicists (or employed by publicists) paid to post to boost George's online presence.  

I could - and have - shoot about a million holes in that fantasy but logic isn't a strong point with these conspiracy theorists.  They'd much rather believe that they're fighting the good fight to reveal 'the truth' about George Clooney against a network of agents than accept that real fans are questioning their crackpot theories.

As for 'the truth' about George, it varies (old hands, feel free to chime in) but mostly it's along the lines that George is dating (or being forced to date) his girlfriends and the entire relationship is all fake.  The reasons why vary; at the moment it seems to be 'for publicity' but in the past it's been to pay off mafia gambling debts and the IMDb nutjob is back to claiming he's being controlled by satanists.  Sometimes there's the addition to the theory that he's secretly dating someone behind the scenes.

You can read about the various conspiracy theories HERE

Katiedot wrote:
 Yep.  She's the same one who misuses the word 'vapid' in sentences and calls Elisabetta 'masculine' and says Stacy is too tall and unfeminine.  She's not new to this forum and bullshit is all it is.

Is that the same person on imdb who posted that I'm a moron for joking about an ideal lady for Clooney being someone similar to Marilyn Monroe in a post here? That thread is still there on imdB.

However, I do hold the opinion that EC has masculine features. She calls herself a tomboy.  I do think that SK is taller & broader than Clooney. Proof is in the photos.
Just look. It's not an insult to be tall, broad shouldered or masculine featured.  It's an objective opinion. I do not find them attractive, nor MJ. I do find other many ex-gfs he's dated attractive, nevertheless.

As for "vapid," Clooney himself said that of his role in Up In The Air.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When asked by Ryan Seacrest what part of himself he brought to his role as Ryan Bingham in "Up in the Air," George Clooney instantly replied "The vapid part. The vapid part was a big part of me."

Katiedot wrote:
Yes, I already wrote so above several times.
 Yes they did and that's the reason she rarely posts here.  I expect it gets as annoying for her to be called out as you find it is for you.

For the record, you ARE breaking the rules here.   You're making claims of having secret information and that's not allowed.  If you can't support your claims publicly, then keep stumm about what you think you know.

People who genuinely have inside information about George Clooney have the decency to protect his privacy and not go sharing what they know all over the internet.  Those who revel in the thrill of sharing their 'secret knowledge' are, in my long experience of sites like this, fantasists and liars.

No necessarily. Those who reveal some facts may also be fed up about lies or public deception.
They may be shedding some information and provide it as a guidance. But I'll choose to protect his privacy than elaborate further, in this case, as this is a public site. And to adhere to the rules.
That's why I stated that I would only privately back my claim to an administrator.
Besides it's so long ago.

Rarely posts?  Phys Major has over a thousand posts.
I can quote so many of her posts with "similar revelations" as the one above about his pr arrangements with SK or EC, and yet you hardly ask for evidence or mention the forum rules to her.  
Furthermore, phys major states that she has met George Clooney several times in a post here on Jan 9, 2013. No one asks her anything further.

I explained to Lizzy NY above the descriptive generic term of "genuine independent participants."  That's all.
And that is what I assume those who post here are.
I never said that only a few here are so or that others from PR teams or gossip sites read here (with or without logging on.)  Though some other poster like Best in Category have stated as such in one thread. I can quote that too.

There is no insinuation on my part in that post above that others are posting here.
Why so defensive?

As a genuine independant participant and a free spirit, I agree to most of the things you posted here, Ocean, as they are obvious. Nobody needs any secret knowledge to see the obvious right under your nose. And I have a feeling that if somebody would leak private things about private Mr. Clooney, he would be deleted and banned within a few minutes.
I am just here for fun and do not analyze or criticize other posters for their comments, except they are attacking me personally.
But I was very amused one day I found a blog, where people were commenting on our comments and identities; I didn't knew that I am a Belgian, so happy that I know where I come from now!
 

A lot of posters here post speculation or their opinion like it is accepted fact.  I think new posters may see statements like "last 2 relationships were contract PR relationships and not real"  and think that has been established as true.  It has not.  There is just not enough time in the day to call out everyone who posts their assumptions/opinion/speculation as fact.  Also, that information may have come from a publication does not make it true. If there is anything I have learned here, it is that lazy reporters and publications often pass along misinformation (like G got his "eyes done") without doing any independent checking.

Also, those who claim inside "knowlege of the fact" or "what actually happened" between G and his friend/girlfriends etc. are full of BS.  There is a reason hearsay is not admissible in court--it is not evidence.

Ocean wrote:As for "vapid," Clooney himself said that of his role in Up In The Air.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When asked by Ryan Seacrest what part of himself he brought to his role as Ryan Bingham in "Up in the Air," George Clooney instantly replied "The vapid part. The vapid part was a big part of me."

 George was joking, but that's irrelevant.  The point is YOUR use of the word.  The nutjob - and you - consistently mis-use 'vapid' in the same way.  The minute I see this error in a sentence it throws up a big red flag about the writer.  

Ocean wrote:No necessarily. Those who reveal some facts may also be fed up about lies or public deception.

That's as may be, but it's not their place to share this information.  It's also not their place to be 'fed up' about it unless it affects them personally.

Ocean wrote:Phys Major has over a thousand posts.

It's 934 posts made over two years.  She used to post more often here until I asked her to stop with her unsubstantiated claims.  I assume that this has pissed her off and is the reason why she posts less on here than she used to - in November she made barely half a dozen posts.   As I say, that's only an assumption on my part; I've never asked and I could be way off base.  In any case, in recent times she has dialled down her statements in accordance with the forum rules for which I'm thankful and appreciative.

That's what I'm asking you to do.  If you have insider information that you can't share in full, then don't.  You don't have the right to reveal 'secrets' or 'the truth' about George Clooney.  If there even are any lies or deception then that's George's prerogative and up to him to reveal (or not), not yours.

The important question that has been ignored is......Where is he? Haven't seen a recent picture of him in ages.

This is none of my business, but Ocean, this is message boad, people chat here anonymously ( I for one do not care if tomorrow when I log in my face and real name appears by all my posts and if it happened I know there are quite of lot of people who would come and read everything once they knew it... LOL)

What I mean is that you can´t really rely on things you read on various boards. People have opinions and some can say them aloud even. If I wrote last quarter´s report that I see clear evidence of bubble forming in all asset classes. This quarter I write it´s safe to buy properties...see, there are no quarantees and no one really knows.

And yes blubelle, good question, hopefully somewhere having good christmas time!   (wheater he likes to celebrate it or not)

blubelle wrote:The important question that has been ignored is......Where is he?  Haven't seen a recent picture of him in ages.

He's getting his eyes done and his balls ironed. It's that time of year!!!!

Thanks Katie and everyone else for letting me know that I wasn't the only one who felt Ocean was being purposefully mysterious. By the time I logged off last night I had a whopper of a headache trying to understand what Ocean meant. You guys (gals) have made my headache go away.

And Melbert, thanks for the laugh. The good nature of the posters here (or most of them) is the reason I come to this site. Thanks again everyone!