We love Milly Alcock. The 25-year-old actress was so magnetic as a young Rhaenyra Targaryen in House of the Dragon that some viewers wanted to abandon the show after Emma D’Arcy replaced her. No one batted an eye when James Gunn announced that she would play Kara Zor-El in Supergirl (2026). If anything, they celebrated because they had not seen her in so long. And then it happened. The same thing that always happens. Alcock started throwing accusations of misogyny around. She argued that, in the coming months, audiences would criticize her simply for ‘existing as a woman’. The internet was not amused, primarily because people had criticized the Supergirl trailers. But they mainly took issue with the tone, which is a little too reminiscent of Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy. Excluding the usual trolls, audiences were perfectly content with Alcock’s performance. And why wouldn’t they be? First, they already like her. Secondly, they have not seen enough of Alcock in this role to form an opinion. So, for the moment, they had happily embraced her. Then she made those accusations, and the internet went crazy, arguing that, if Supergirl (2026) came out and failed to win audiences over, Alcock would blame misogynistic men, and she was merely laying the seeds for that excuse ahead of time. Now, some pundits are worried that Supergirl (2026) may fail because audiences have developed a sour attitude toward Alcock. Timothee Chalamet was fortunate because Marty Supreme had been in theaters for some weeks before he rubbed audiences the wrong way by asserting in an interview that opera and ballet were dead art forms that no one cared about. Then there’s Rachel Zegler, who became public enemy number one after speaking ill of Snow White, even though she was slated to appear in a re-imagining of the popular fairy tale. Her career has yet to recover. Sydney Sweeney is trying and failing to distance herself from accusations of racism after starring in a controversial marketing campaign. Have you noticed that concerning pattern? Let me change tracks. Do you remember the first time you saw Sylvester Stallone in Rambo (1982)? You probably thought he was cool. More than likely, you had a difficult time separating the actor from the character. I’m also willing to bet that, had I quizzed you about Stallone’s personal life in the 1980s, you would have responded with a blank stare. This year could not be more different. Put Hollywood aside for a second. I know people in this country who refuse to listen to the music of Ugandan artistes they once loved because those artists expressed support for a political party they despise during the 2026 presidential elections. Think about what that means. The artiste’s music has not changed. You still like it. But you can no longer enjoy it because you can’t stand the artiste’s political leanings. Do you see the problem? The issue isn’t the artist’s political opinions, but rather that you are aware of them. Celebrities have become too accessible. They have opened their lives to the public in ways that have begun to erode our ability to enjoy their work. We have started consuming art based on who we agree with as opposed to what we truly enjoy, and that needs to change. Celebrities have to retreat. They must return to the shadows, wrapping themselves in that mysterious sheen that made stars like Michael Jackson so alluring. They should morph into the sort of blank canvas that allows us to reimagine them however we wish, instead of telling us who they truly are and risking our wrath. The alternative would be for the public to mature, but that won’t happen. So, for the sake of their sanity, celebrities must disappear. katmic200@gmail.comThe post Celebrities must return to the shadows appeared first on The Observer.