On that show Celebrities Uncensored you get the feeling that the paparazzi folk can get pretty annoying blocking your movement and flashing cameras in your face. And if you push them, touch their cameras, or get physical with them they’ll try to sue you.
So what can these celebrities do to annoy the paparazzi without getting in trouble? Smoke a cigarette and blow smoke in their faces? Carry a hand held airhorn and blast em? Carry a squirt gun? How about carrying a spray bottle and misting thier camera lens’?
???
They could change careers. Seriously, they were fully aware that the Paparazzi came with the celebrity status. I have no respect for those who are constantly bitching and moaning about their presence. Ashton Kutcher comes to mind; he’s been quite vocal about his distain for the paparazzi, while he has a TV show that’s very similar to the very gripes he presents.
If celebrities are tiring of the publicity (which is really what keeps their careers afloat), stop making movies, stop doing TV show specials and some publicly whining about the paparazzi, it’s only going to draw more unwanted attention.
agreed. Not 20 minutes ago a friend of mine was describing a Britney sighting outside of Fatburger in LA. Then he goes off on how badly he felt for her b/c the papparazzi were “treating her like an animal.”
Cry me a river.
Do like Joan Crawford and Marlene Dietrich used to do, or Sharon Stone and Nicole Kidman do now: always looks your best in public, smile nice for the cameras, and collect your huge paycheck for being a Movie Star.
What about when you’re on private property, such as a fenced backyard, or a hotel room? Are you still obligated to look your best?
What about the people who do not receive Huge Paycheck for being a Movie Star, because they aren’t? Say, Gary Coleman, who is near-broke, yet cannot go out in public without being mobbed due to decision made for him when he was a minor. How does that fit in?
Entering into certain careers does imply a loss of some privacy. But in the days of Dietrich, there was a certain level of professional courtesy, a line in the sand. That line is gone.
That is true, you do have a point. Joan Crawford didn’t have to deal with telephoto lenses and helicopters. But still, it’s a trade-off. If you want to be a movie or TV or rock star, you have to be able to deal with paparazzi and stalkers and idiotic fans, with a great big Colgate smile. Otherwise, stick with the theater or indie films–no one ever mobs those people!
Do people really mob Gary Coleman?
how about royalty?
I don’t agree that if you’re a celeb you should put up with the Paparazzi. No one should have to put up with people taking dozens of photos of them in ordinary situations, like shopping or whatever. Also if you snap enough shots of someone in quick succession at least one of the pics will have the person with their eyes closed (because they blinked) these pics are slapped on tabloids with huge headlines proclaiming that whoever was photographed staggering drunk.
I think it should be illegal to take a photograph of a celeb anywhere but at a public function (movie premiere, or whatever)
Afraid so. He got sued (arrested? Can’t recall.) recently for flipping out on some pushy paparazzi. He also declared bankruptcy last year.
And I’ve no doubt there there is a certain percentage of celebrities that are fairly hypocritical in their attention-seeking. Nowadays, though, paparazzi is all over more than just people who made the decision to be famous. Lottery winners. Local heroes who make the paper. Those accused of crimes. Victims of crimes. Those testifying to crimes. Jurors. Anyone, really, can find themselves suddenly thrust into the spotlight, and find that their privacy rights stripped away.
I’ll agree in that regard. Look at Kobe Bryant. His image has been trashed, despite a verdict not yet having been declared (a better example would be to use someone who wasn’t a celebrity to begin with, but Kobe conveys my point).
However, I still wholly stand by my statement in regards to anyone who realizes that the results of their actions could result in the Paparazzi being heavily involved.
True, but as an adult he has repeatedly chosen to capitalize on his has-been status, thereby refueling interest. I wonder if Emmanuel Lewis has a problem with the paparazzi?
I saw Gary Coleman pn Judge Judy a little while ago… Doesn’t get much sadder than that.
It also doesn’t get much sadder than spelling “on” incorrectly.
It’s not unlikely he’s mistaken for Gary Coleman from time to time, I’d wager.
I’ve always thought that if a celeb was having trouble with a certain paparrazo, that celeb should hire their own paparazzo to follow the offender around and snap pictures all day. Eventually they’ll get the point.
Beyond that, though, I can’t help but thinking that the General Public is at least partly to blame. Look at it this way: a paparazzo shoots an unflattering pic of, say, Ashley Olsen. A tabloid pays $25,000 for that pic. Then Americans buy that tabloid by the truckful. If this cycle is broken at the consumer level, then the paparazzi will lose their incentive to ply their trade.
Silly String! Lots and lots of Silly String.
If you watch Celebrities Uncensored, you quickly realize that some of the paparazzi are doing anything in their powers to annoy their targets and provoke some kind of interesting response. Taking pictures is once thing, but you can be unobtrusive while doing it.
Personally, I’d consider what Sean Penn used to do: come eqipped with squirt guns loaded with urine.
I’m gonna have to concur with Lobelia. Yeah, they make a lot of money and chose that lifestyle, but a line has to be drawn. I think they have a right to buy their cheerios without someone snapping their picture. It’s one thing to have a job with long hours (which they do) but quite another to have a job that’s 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they can’t even take their garbage out at 2 in the morning without the photographers hovering, then yes, I do feel sorry for them.
I have to disagree with that. The vehicle of celebrity seems to be making it through a constriction in the market—radio, television, or movie time being some major examples. So I’m not convinced that a celeb is really in a competitive market, in the economic sense of the word. Additionally, imagine that a celeb were replaced by the next best alternative; e.g. Britney is replaced by Normandy Shields. How much will the net well-being of society drop?
I guess that in my view, celebs enjoy fairly massive economic rents and the annoyances of fame seem a fair trade-off. A small trade-off indeed, since people are still standing in line to become famous. When the scourge of the paparazzi become so severe that people are no more clawing to be famous than they are for any other job, then we’ll have reached a point where complaints will have become legitimate, IMO. (IM not-entirely-thought-through-and-open-to-being-convinced-otherwise O, that is.)
Caveat: Paparazzi who block paths or peep are not included in what I’m thinking of. Bruce Willis still has a right to move freely even if he trades anonymity for fame. IMO.
imho there are many who do not really appreciate what it means to have their privacy taken away 24/7. i did not keep up with the news, but wouldn’t the death of a princess by paparazzi be severe enough to qualify as having reached that point?
i view this as an extreme situation where our rights to privacy are being tested, and thus a line must be drawn. well, maybe not so extreme. with digital cameras everywhere nowadays, everyone is conveniently vulnerable. if you have a (not so)secret admirer stalking you like a paparazzi, would the situation be different? who gets to decide if you’re famous enough to lose your privacy?
note on caveat: i sort of ignored that since by definition a paparazzi is one who would hound either steathily or aggressively.