I think that celebrities understand that they're going to be photographed and when they're out and about they have little to no privacy. I admit, I buy the glossy magazines and thrive on celebrity gossip, however, I do think the paparazzi can take it too far. When someone's safety (celebrity or paparazzi) is jeoporadized, especially the children of celebrities, then a line has been crossed. Famous or not, we all have the right to be safe and we do all have a right to privacy.
In a way, yes, I think it is part of the price of fame. Why do people choose acting or music as a career? Because they want people to SEE them. If you are a very private person who wants to be left alone, then you shouldn't pursue a public career.
However, I think the paparazzi take it too far a lot of the time, and I think it is sad to see them snapping pictures of kids or using crazy telescopic lenses to take pictures of movie stars sunbathing in their own back yards.
That being said, if you are opposed to paparazzi, then do you make sure not to purchase magazines like People or InTouch? If no one bought those magazines, then the paparazzi would be out of business... So I think it is hypocritical to say "Paparazzi are terrible! Those poor movie stars!!" and then go buy an US Weekly :)
You know, paparazzi weren't always a problem. Back in the day, when studios had players under contract, in was in their contract that they appeared for periodic photo shoots, that they were provided with studio clothes for when they left the house, and when they were in public, they weren't some girl named Liz, they were "Elizabeth Taylor," and had to appear so. There was an understanding between studios, stars and press that everyone could get what they wanted as long as we respected boundaries. Now, actors and such are free agents, with only ineffective lawsuits to protect them and their families. I do think that, whenever you enter the public stage for any reason, you need to go in with the understanding that you are now a public figure, so you can't complain if people talk about your ears or try and snap pictures while you are at the market. However, I think kids should be left out of it. Harassing adult actors, directors, etc. is one thing. They chose this profession and the life that goes with it. The kids didn't.
I think they do and they don't. I believe that being a celeb means you have to put up with a certain amount of paparazzi. Without them I would not have my beloved "People" or "US Weekly!"
lately, however, I think that the paparazzi have started to take things too far. Leave them alone if they have their children in tow for crying out loud! The kids didn't sign up for this life, their parents did. Celebs, while famous, are regular people too.
I mean, if someone all the sudden got obsessed with people who are college kids working at a law firm, and started following me around snapping pictures, I'd be incredibly annoyed, and I'd probably wind up hitting someone.
Everyone gave really long answers. It is okay to say "I don't really care"? :) I think they live public lives and that is the price they pay. If someone wants to pay me 349583 millions dollars a year, I'll deal with the photographers. As long as they don't run me off the road etc or put me at risk.
I don't think celebs have the right to complain. I believe they have a right to body guards, should they want to pay for them. When you are famous, it just comes with the territory. If you don't want anymore attention, quit doing whatever you are doing to be famous, take your gobs of money and invest it, and slip away to somewhere less glamorous and live a normal life.
I kind of sound like a bitch, but I really think that it is silly to cry over situations you helped create.
The paparazzi shouldn't endanger themselves or the celebs either. I think a strict court ruling would help that out too.
I think the real questions is, why are we obsessed with celebrity? The papparazzi wouldn't be a problem if we cared more about what directly affected us and less about what (God, forbid) Tiger Woods is up to.
Yes and no. Yes because they are obnoxious and can go too far, and no, because it's part of the deal. For most celebs, they had somewhat of a choice in becoming famous. So complaining that being a celeb is not all roses, is kind of offensive.
I think this one is a bit of a catch 22, like some of the other commentors have stated. Yes, they should face reality and realize that they are "Stars" and will be followed everywhere. However, they aren't being followed like the stars of old Hollywood were when people wanted to see what they wore to dinner, or where they ate.
Now the paparazzi is feeding off of the public's apparent need to see what big screw up the Stars will get into next. Paparazzi follow the stars who are addicted to drugs, partying under age, etc. WHO CARES?! Apparently someone out there... The one thing that angers me the most is when they break laws just to get one photo, or try to use the stars children. That is just totally uncalled for.
Yes and no. If they (the celebs) are asking for it (hello Britney Spears!) then yeah, the paparazzi have every right to take advantage of the outrageous things that celebs do. But if say its a celeb trying to have a normal day of shopping or hanging out with their family then no because everyone should be able to have SOME privacy. Yes they are famous, yes a lot of freaky "normal" people want to know what they're doing every second of the day, BUT should they really have to go out in public and get hounded every single time? I think not.
Awesome question! I think to a point the paparazzi is going to be something they have to deal with. But when they are causing accidents or climbing walls to get the shot celebs have a reason to complain. That kinds stuff is going a bit too far.
i think they have no right to complain at all about paparazzi (within reason, for example, if an actress is trying to walk down the street holding her baby and she keeps getting knocked around the paparazzi need to back off). That's what comes with fame. As long as safety isn't an issue, then they can handle it.
I think that celebrities have to accept paparazzi as part of the price of fame to an extent. If the paparazzi is sitting outside of their house or causing accidents then that is going a little to far. But if they are just at a restaurant or whatever then I don't think celebrities should complain about it.
I don't think they should complain unless it is real harassment. I mean they get paid SO much money it is almost sick. I think that is what it is for me. They get paid so much and then get annoyed because they are famous? But it is all apart of the celebrity package I think.
Oooh love it. I think there should be a happy middle ground. I like what JG said about studios and agents and how the lines were defined, and all hell has broken loose now. I'm surprised that after Princess Diana's death there weren't much harsher paparazzi laws. I would say if you're in CA or NY you're fair game. But if you're trying to get away to somewhere for your own sanity, you should be left alone. Unless your Snookie. That girl drives me CRAZY and I've never even watched the Jersey shore. She should be left alone everywhere. All the time.
If a person doesn't want to be photographed then they shouldn't. Plain and simple. Paparazzi are endangering people's lives, crashing into star's cars just to get a photo. They are running in front of their cars just to get their foot ran over so they can sue. Celebrities should only be photographed at events.
Shoot...with the inflated paychecks they are receiving, I would definitely say it's just the price of fame. However, I don't agree with paps climbing fences, hiding in trees, and using ridiculously long lenses. So I suppose there needs to be a bit of balance.
Celebs have the right to complain about paparazzi if they are invading their home or bothering their children or spouse. The celebrity gained the fame, not the family. However, if they are out and about, they need to expect that the paparazzi will be ready and waiting for the latest shot or latest slip-up.
I think that sometimes celebrities bring it on them self. Britney should have gotten out of LA in 2007, when she was going through her breakdown or whatever, but she didn't. She knew she was going to be followed and photographed.
I think there should be laws that keep them from endangering celebrities and by-standers. I also think they should be banned from photographing their children, except with promission.
I think celebs should expect the occassional photog, but it is out of control and dangerous. Especially when they start invading their families privacy. Not cool!
Well, I think it's unfair to the celebs who really do want to keep their lives private. Acting is their job. Just like other people have jobs. But other people don't have paparazzi stalking their every move. I don't understand why people have to stalk celebs in the first place! They are people just like the rest of us, they just happen to have more money! lol
24 comments:
Oooooh...this is good!
I think that celebrities understand that they're going to be photographed and when they're out and about they have little to no privacy. I admit, I buy the glossy magazines and thrive on celebrity gossip, however, I do think the paparazzi can take it too far. When someone's safety (celebrity or paparazzi) is jeoporadized, especially the children of celebrities, then a line has been crossed. Famous or not, we all have the right to be safe and we do all have a right to privacy.
This is a tough one...
In a way, yes, I think it is part of the price of fame. Why do people choose acting or music as a career? Because they want people to SEE them. If you are a very private person who wants to be left alone, then you shouldn't pursue a public career.
However, I think the paparazzi take it too far a lot of the time, and I think it is sad to see them snapping pictures of kids or using crazy telescopic lenses to take pictures of movie stars sunbathing in their own back yards.
That being said, if you are opposed to paparazzi, then do you make sure not to purchase magazines like People or InTouch? If no one bought those magazines, then the paparazzi would be out of business... So I think it is hypocritical to say "Paparazzi are terrible! Those poor movie stars!!" and then go buy an US Weekly :)
Well, since you asked... :)
You know, paparazzi weren't always a problem. Back in the day, when studios had players under contract, in was in their contract that they appeared for periodic photo shoots, that they were provided with studio clothes for when they left the house, and when they were in public, they weren't some girl named Liz, they were "Elizabeth Taylor," and had to appear so. There was an understanding between studios, stars and press that everyone could get what they wanted as long as we respected boundaries. Now, actors and such are free agents, with only ineffective lawsuits to protect them and their families. I do think that, whenever you enter the public stage for any reason, you need to go in with the understanding that you are now a public figure, so you can't complain if people talk about your ears or try and snap pictures while you are at the market. However, I think kids should be left out of it. Harassing adult actors, directors, etc. is one thing. They chose this profession and the life that goes with it. The kids didn't.
I like this question.
I think they do and they don't. I believe that being a celeb means you have to put up with a certain amount of paparazzi. Without them I would not have my beloved "People" or "US Weekly!"
lately, however, I think that the paparazzi have started to take things too far. Leave them alone if they have their children in tow for crying out loud! The kids didn't sign up for this life, their parents did. Celebs, while famous, are regular people too.
I mean, if someone all the sudden got obsessed with people who are college kids working at a law firm, and started following me around snapping pictures, I'd be incredibly annoyed, and I'd probably wind up hitting someone.
Everyone gave really long answers. It is okay to say "I don't really care"? :) I think they live public lives and that is the price they pay. If someone wants to pay me 349583 millions dollars a year, I'll deal with the photographers. As long as they don't run me off the road etc or put me at risk.
I don't think celebs have the right to complain. I believe they have a right to body guards, should they want to pay for them. When you are famous, it just comes with the territory. If you don't want anymore attention, quit doing whatever you are doing to be famous, take your gobs of money and invest it, and slip away to somewhere less glamorous and live a normal life.
I kind of sound like a bitch, but I really think that it is silly to cry over situations you helped create.
The paparazzi shouldn't endanger themselves or the celebs either. I think a strict court ruling would help that out too.
I think the real questions is, why are we obsessed with celebrity? The papparazzi wouldn't be a problem if we cared more about what directly affected us and less about what (God, forbid) Tiger Woods is up to.
Yes and no. Yes because they are obnoxious and can go too far, and no, because it's part of the deal. For most celebs, they had somewhat of a choice in becoming famous. So complaining that being a celeb is not all roses, is kind of offensive.
Roxanne has such an EXCELLENT point!!
I think this one is a bit of a catch 22, like some of the other commentors have stated. Yes, they should face reality and realize that they are "Stars" and will be followed everywhere. However, they aren't being followed like the stars of old Hollywood were when people wanted to see what they wore to dinner, or where they ate.
Now the paparazzi is feeding off of the public's apparent need to see what big screw up the Stars will get into next. Paparazzi follow the stars who are addicted to drugs, partying under age, etc. WHO CARES?! Apparently someone out there... The one thing that angers me the most is when they break laws just to get one photo, or try to use the stars children. That is just totally uncalled for.
Yes and no. If they (the celebs) are asking for it (hello Britney Spears!) then yeah, the paparazzi have every right to take advantage of the outrageous things that celebs do. But if say its a celeb trying to have a normal day of shopping or hanging out with their family then no because everyone should be able to have SOME privacy. Yes they are famous, yes a lot of freaky "normal" people want to know what they're doing every second of the day, BUT should they really have to go out in public and get hounded every single time? I think not.
Awesome question!
I think to a point the paparazzi is going to be something they have to deal with. But when they are causing accidents or climbing walls to get the shot celebs have a reason to complain. That kinds stuff is going a bit too far.
i think they have no right to complain at all about paparazzi (within reason, for example, if an actress is trying to walk down the street holding her baby and she keeps getting knocked around the paparazzi need to back off). That's what comes with fame. As long as safety isn't an issue, then they can handle it.
Good question!
I think that celebrities have to accept paparazzi as part of the price of fame to an extent. If the paparazzi is sitting outside of their house or causing accidents then that is going a little to far. But if they are just at a restaurant or whatever then I don't think celebrities should complain about it.
I don't think they should complain unless it is real harassment. I mean they get paid SO much money it is almost sick. I think that is what it is for me. They get paid so much and then get annoyed because they are famous? But it is all apart of the celebrity package I think.
Oooh love it. I think there should be a happy middle ground. I like what JG said about studios and agents and how the lines were defined, and all hell has broken loose now. I'm surprised that after Princess Diana's death there weren't much harsher paparazzi laws. I would say if you're in CA or NY you're fair game. But if you're trying to get away to somewhere for your own sanity, you should be left alone. Unless your Snookie. That girl drives me CRAZY and I've never even watched the Jersey shore. She should be left alone everywhere. All the time.
If a person doesn't want to be photographed then they shouldn't. Plain and simple. Paparazzi are endangering people's lives, crashing into star's cars just to get a photo. They are running in front of their cars just to get their foot ran over so they can sue. Celebrities should only be photographed at events.
When it comes to their kids...YES!
I agree with Abbie. 100% :)
Shoot...with the inflated paychecks they are receiving, I would definitely say it's just the price of fame. However, I don't agree with paps climbing fences, hiding in trees, and using ridiculously long lenses. So I suppose there needs to be a bit of balance.
Celebs have the right to complain about paparazzi if they are invading their home or bothering their children or spouse. The celebrity gained the fame, not the family. However, if they are out and about, they need to expect that the paparazzi will be ready and waiting for the latest shot or latest slip-up.
I think that sometimes celebrities bring it on them self. Britney should have gotten out of LA in 2007, when she was going through her breakdown or whatever, but she didn't. She knew she was going to be followed and photographed.
I think there should be laws that keep them from endangering celebrities and by-standers. I also think they should be banned from photographing their children, except with promission.
I think celebs should expect the occassional photog, but it is out of control and dangerous. Especially when they start invading their families privacy. Not cool!
Well, I think it's unfair to the celebs who really do want to keep their lives private. Acting is their job. Just like other people have jobs. But other people don't have paparazzi stalking their every move. I don't understand why people have to stalk celebs in the first place! They are people just like the rest of us, they just happen to have more money! lol
Here's something else to throw in the pot: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/02/24/when-did-the-concept-of-celebrity-jump-the-shark/
Post a Comment