Jenna Ortega felt 'unhappy' after Wednesday success
Jenna Ortega became an "unhappy person" after season one of 'Wednesday'.
The 22-year-old actress plays Wednesday Addams in the hit Netflix show, but Jenna initially struggled to cope with the pressures of fame and success.
She told Harper's Bazaar magazine: "To be quite frank, after the show and trying to figure everything out, I was an unhappy person.
"After the pressure, the attention - as somebody who's quite introverted, that was so intense and so scary."
Jenna now serves as a producer on 'Wednesday' and she's loving the experience.
She said: "I sit in on meetings and listen and learn. I'm still finding my footing in that area."
Jenna also teased season two of the show, describing it as "bigger, bolder, gorier, and a bit darker" than the first.
She explained: "It's sillier in the best way possible."
The actress has also welcomed the show's move from Romania to Ireland.
Jenna explained: "Dublin was incredible.
"I loved everything about that experience, the cast, the crew. It was so sweet and so awesome. That island is so beautiful."
Jenna made the most of her free time when she wasn't filming 'Wednesday'.
She said: "On weekends, we'd go down to Kerry and Cork and Donegal and swim in thunderstorms.
"I spent a lot of time laying in fields, going on hikes with my dog. I was raising chinchillas, and I'd read books with my chinchillas in my lap. Maybe I'd go to a karaoke bar one night or host a dinner at my place - things like that. I tried to make it feel as family-like as possible."
Jenna has enjoyed a meteoric rise in recent years, starring in a host of big-budget projects, including 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice', 'Scream' and 'Wednesday'.
But the actress previously admitted that she's still adjusting to her own fame and success.
She told MTV: "It's definitely an adjustment."
Jenna actually relished being able to lean on Winona Ryder - her 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' co-star - for some advice about navigating the potential pitfalls of fame.
She explained: "I'm very grateful to be where I am and she had kind of a similar thing to say.
"It was just so nice to speak to someone who actually understood me."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
Scott Caan and Elizabeth Debicki join Once Upon A Time In Hollywood sequel
Scott Caan and Elizabeth Debicki have joined the cast of the new 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood' movie. The pair will join Brad Pitt in David Fincher's follow-up to Quentin Tarantino's 2019 film, which starred Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. According to The Hollywood Reporter, it is unclear who Caan and Debicki will play in the upcoming movie. The story is said to feature two key female roles, 'one who runs a bar and mud wrestling establishment and one a trophy wife' but it has not been revealed if Debicki will play once of these or an entirely new part. It will be a reunion for Pitt and Caan, who previously worked together on the 'Ocean's' movie series. Brad, 61, will reprise his role as stuntman Cliff Booth, in the upcoming film, which Fincher will direct for Netflix from a Tarantino script. It's said that Tarantino retains the rights to the characters in 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood', while Sony - which financed and released the movie - retains the film itself, which is why the upcoming project is not seen as a sequel or prequel despite using the Booth character. It's unclear if Leonardo DiCaprio will return as Western TV star Rick Dalton. Tarantino won't be at the helm, which means the film won't count as his 10th and final film. The director had had been set to reunite with Pitt - who also appeared in 'Inglourious Basterds in 2009 - for third collaboration on 'The Movie Critic. According to Deadline, Tarantino has "simply changed his mind" after delaying production to rewrite the script. Now, he's expected to go back to the drawing board in a bid to find a firm idea for what will be his final film.
News.com.au
a day ago
- News.com.au
Meghan Markle's huge billionaire plan wobbles
COMMENT Shipping. Building supplies. Petrol stations. Roofing. Online gambling. Take a moment to peruse the list of the world's top five self-made female billionaires and how they have accrued their wondrous fortunes through quite the selection of heavy-on-the-rivets industries. Can – or will – jam be added to that list? This week Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex gave a new interview and crucially not to a mag intent on unpacking her trauma while shooting her in haute couture worth about the same price as a mid-range Kia RIO. Instead she spoke to the business title Fast Company and made no bones (nor broth) about her intent to make her mark in the commercial world. Huzzah for ambition, truly, but … well, how's all that going exactly? In March, a 'well-placed source' told the Telegraph that the duchess 'thinks she's going to be a billionaire' but the signs are, so far, that her joining the likes of women who can buy themselves ports in Panama for funsies won't be happening in the next hot minute. 2025 has been the year of Meghan Pty Ltd. Within hours of the new year starting, she had returned to Instagram to provide the world with enough gardening and kitchen content to constitute an application for official tradwife membership. Then came her Netflix series, With Love, Meghan, which debuted in March to teach the world how to make a frittata, decant popcorn into decorative thingames and to scatter flower sprinkles on every known human comestible. On April 2, the duchess finally gave the world the chance to spend $23 on said same desiccated petals for our own strewing delight. (But wouldn't your morning Weetbix bring you more joy if they had a few bits of decorative, dried nasturtium scattered on the top, hmmm?) Still, the duchess' As Ever range of spreads (not jams), crepe and biscuit mixes, and herbal teas sold out in 45 minutes, guaranteeing a marketing win for the 43-year-old and her business partner, up and coming, bootstrapped enterprise Netflix. Less than a week later, on April 8, Meghan's new podcast, Confessions of a Female Founder launched, giving rise to the spectral return of the girl boss trope. However, how far has all this industry and all this newmaking gone towards reaching billionaire territory? Nearly two months and even the most eager buyer with the sturdiest of platinum credit cards can't reorder any flower sprinkles with the As Ever range yet to be restocked. More products on the As Ever shelves might not come until next year, according to the Fast Company piece. It reports that the duchess now 'wants to take a step back, gather data from the launch, and figure out exactly what As Ever could be. She says she's planning to announce new products in the first quarter of 2026.' Which is clearly not good news if you had been a hankerin' to get your hands on some $43 limited edition honey with honeycomb and, I'm assuming, brunchy bragging rights. 'I want to really focus on the hospitality angle of As Ever, but as we take the learnings, we can understand what the customer's needs are seasonally,' Meghan has said, at which point we should all pause and consider how our spread and sprinkle 'needs' might change when winter officially hits next week. As it is, Fast Company has reported that the duchess and As Ever team 'spent a year preparing the line and forecasting demand'. Still, I'm sure there's a line here about hares and tortoises and so onwards we go, towards the Sussexes' most lucrative commercial ronde. By far the biggest wodge of cash that Meghan and husband Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex have received has come from Netflix. In 2020 they signed what was reportedly a $USD100 million, five year deal, meaning the current contract is set to expire soon. In February the Daily Mail 's Alison Boshoff raised the question of just how much of this massive sum the couple might have actually banked and she reported that, per 'well-placed sources with knowledge of the deal' the Sussexes ended up 'drawing a relatively meagre amount from the streamer — thought to amount to as little as $20 million ($AUD31 million) for them personally'. Of this, Boshoff reported, $15 million ($AUD23 million) went 'directly to the couple, the rest being spent on making the series.' While there has been much speculation that the steamer is getting set to delete the Sussexes' numbers and institute an official ban on anyone uttering the word 'polo', this week Boshoff provided a surprising update. Another 'well-placed source' told her that CEO Ted Sarandos is 'a massive, massive fan of Meghan personally' and that 'he is all in'. Which is spiffing news if you are the duke and duchess' bank manager but perhaps less so if considered in the cold light of an inflammatory- fighting ice bath. When the Sussexes' signed their current, back in 2020, it was at the absolute apex of the global obsessions slash fascination with them, when their stock could not have been higher and they had not uttered a syllable about their royal story. Oprah Winfrey was just a fellow Montecitan resident; 'unconscious bias' was still something that Harry couldn't quite spell and 'spare' was just how one described unused, junk-filled bedrooms. A Netflix deal in 2025 could look very different and Boshoff has reported that what will reportedly be on the table going forward will be 'a much-reduced offer … focused entirely on Meghan' and there will be no 'generous upfront payment.' At least the duchess has not been shy about experimenting, her work ethic and willingness to try her hand at new ventures a genuinely, straight-faced impressive thing. (Doff your cap everyone.) This year she has also launched a ShopMy account, which allows users to buy the chic things she wears, and stylish ambitions could stretch far beyond that. Speaking to Fast Company she said that 'fashion is something I will explore at a later date, because I do think that's an interesting space for me'. Last year the New York Times revealed she had gotten into the investing game, including putting money into handbag brand Cesta Collective, along with a previous investment in vegan latte business Clevr. There could also be a Meghany book in the works. She confirmed to friend Jamie Kern Lima, while appearing on the It Cosmetics founder's podcast, that she is open to turning author again after her children's title The Bench however it would be most likely connected to 'hospitality and home and entertaining and food and those sort of tips'. However, potentially hair-raisingly for Buckingham Palace, she also said, 'people are often curious if I'm going to write a memoir, but I've got a lot more life to live before I'm there'. It all sounds very promising – but can or will it be billionaire-making? At least we can say for certain that should the duchess arrive at having ten figures in the bank, she won't feel bad about it. While interviewing self-made billionaire Sara Blakely who founded Spanx on the final episode of Female Founder, Meghan said that women are 'taught to not even talk about money, and there's lots of guilt mentality surrounding having a lot'. The good news is for the time being, while she might have tens of millions to not feel guilty about at least she doesn't have to battle billionaire-level guilt – yet.
Perth Now
a day ago
- Perth Now
Scream 7 writer teases ‘really specific reason' for Neve Campbell's return as Sidney Prescott
'Scream 7' writer Guy Busick has teased there is a "really specific reason" why Neve Campbell's Sidney Prescott has returned. After sitting out 2023's 'Scream VI' due to a row over her salary, the 51-year-old actress has reprised her iconic scream-queen role, and 'Scream 7's writer Guy Busick has revealed there is a "really cool reason" why Sidney is back. In an interview with the scribe said: "I don't want to give anything away about the reason ['Scream 7'] had to be a Sidney movie because there's a really cool reason. "In all these movies, you have to ask, 'Why now? What is the thing 'Scream' is commenting on now?' 'Scream' is always in a conversation with the audience about the state of movies, the state of horror movies and in particular, franchises." Busick added he had first pitched the idea for Sidney's return to director Kevin Williamson, which he had come up with alongside his 'Scream' and 'Scream VI' co-writer James Vanderbilt. He explained: "There is a really specific reason why Sidney is in this movie. I will say there is a reason and we were happy with it when we cracked it. "We went to Neve Campbell and said, 'This is why. This is why Sidney now.' Neve was like, 'Oh, I get that.' I pitched Kevin this first, too. "He got it and then I pitched the studio. I came up with the story with my co-writer on 5 and 6, James Vanderbilt." As well as Campbell, 'Scream 7' will see the return of some other series icons, including Courteney Cox's Gale Weathers, Matthew Lillard's Stu Macher, David Arquette's Dewey Riley and Scott Foley's Roman Bridger. However, Busick admitted the original idea for 'Scream 7' 'was a completely different thing', as it would have focused on the 'Core Four' - the Meeks-Martin twins Chad (Mason Gooding) and Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), and Carpenter sisters Tara (Jenna Ortega) and Sam (Melissa Barrera). However, after Ortega and Barrera exited the project - with the latter actress being dismissed by Spyglass Media Group following her controversial comments about the war in Gaza - the 'Scream 7' team "had to start from scratch". Busick explained: "We weren't able to use what we had in the previous iteration for this one. [We] just had to start from scratch, which was a bummer. "We were excited about what we had for that movie. We wanted to do one more 'Core Four' movie. We know the fans love those characters. We love those characters. We created those characters. I would love to see, in some universe, the continuation of their characters, in some way. But we weren't able to port over the stuff from the other story. "It was like, 'Okay, here is what the universe dealt us.' We always wanted to do a Sidney movie and so it was like, 'All right, let's get into it and why now and why this one?'"
