Kinda OT: The "Double-Edged Sword" of Fame

[TRAGChick]

Cribbed from: CNN Blogspot:

Monday, November 06, 2006

Stars should be stars!

As I recently watched video of Jennifer Aniston rushing through an airport, surrounded by cameras and trying to hide from view as if she were a criminal suspect on a perp walk, I could not help but wonder: Why do the famous whose livelihoods depend on being craved by the public often react to it as if there was something criminal about it? How would stars like Aniston feel if suddenly the cameras went away and no one was interested in them anymore?

Whatever happened to the grand old days of Hollywood when stars would wave to their adoring public, and their adoring public would wave back and scream shrieks of adoration, and the mutual lovefest was a joy to behold? When did it change? Why did it change? And when is it appropriate for duck-and-run to substitute for smile-and-fun?

Injected into this perplexing double standard is the question of privacy and intrusion, and what constitutes crossing the line. If those same camerafolk were trampling on Aniston's private lawn and in her backyard, then no one could argue the line had been crossed. But is it not fair to expect that when a star is out in public they should not be surprised when they are snapped and photographed -- and should embrace it?

Former "Partridge Family" child star Danny Bonaduce, who now bares his train wreck of a life on the VH1 reality series "Breaking Bonaduce," considers himself a lone voice in the wilderness. Appearing on Showbiz Tonight on CNN Headline News, Bonaduce's eyes seemed to bulge in anger as he presented his opinion.

"I'm real militant about this," he told us. "[The stars] have no right to privacy. I bought their privacy for $9 when I went to their last movie. They owe me, you know. And I believe that to be true. I mean, the day you catch me out in public with a hat and glasses, you know, will be the day I die. That's cheating. I didn't try and become famous so I could hide."

Thanks for the reality check, Danny. Now would you go tell your famous friends?
___________________________________________________________________________

I can totally understand why some stars "go underground"....

Thoughts?

[ohsherrie]

Cribbed from: CNN Blogspot:

Monday, November 06, 2006

Stars should be stars!

As I recently watched video of Jennifer Aniston rushing through an airport, surrounded by cameras and trying to hide from view as if she were a criminal suspect on a perp walk, I could not help but wonder: Why do the famous whose livelihoods depend on being craved by the public often react to it as if there was something criminal about it? How would stars like Aniston feel if suddenly the cameras went away and no one was interested in them anymore?

Whatever happened to the grand old days of Hollywood when stars would wave to their adoring public, and their adoring public would wave back and scream shrieks of adoration, and the mutual lovefest was a joy to behold? When did it change? Why did it change? And when is it appropriate for duck-and-run to substitute for smile-and-fun?

I think the biggest difference between then and now is that the legitimate Hollywood press in the old days respected the difference between private life and public appearances. The constant hounding by the paparazzi that stars endure today has made them have to try and steal a little privacy. After being chased around for so long it gets to be like a challenge for these people to try and avoid them.

Injected into this perplexing double standard is the question of privacy and intrusion, and what constitutes crossing the line. If those same camerafolk were trampling on Aniston's private lawn and in her backyard, then no one could argue the line had been crossed. But is it not fair to expect that when a star is out in public they should not be surprised when they are snapped and photographed -- and should embrace it?

When they're making a public appearance for the purpose of promoting their career they should expect to be photoqraphed, but when they're shopping or eating or just enjoying time with their families on an outing of some kind I think they deserve some privacy.

Former "Partridge Family" child star Danny Bonaduce, who now bares his train wreck of a life on the VH1 reality series "Breaking Bonaduce," considers himself a lone voice in the wilderness. Appearing on Showbiz Tonight on CNN Headline News, Bonaduce's eyes seemed to bulge in anger as he presented his opinion.

"I'm real militant about this," he told us. "[The stars] have no right to privacy. I bought their privacy for $9 when I went to their last movie. They owe me, you know. And I believe that to be true. I mean, the day you catch me out in public with a hat and glasses, you know, will be the day I die. That's cheating. I didn't try and become famous so I could hide."

Thanks for the reality check, Danny. Now would you go tell your famous friends?
___________________________________________________________________________

I can totally understand why some stars "go underground"....

Thoughts?

Danny Bonaduce is such a publicity hound that I'm sure he would love the attention. In fact he'll do almost anything to get it. When he paid his $9 for a movie ticket he got what he paid for when he watched the film. That's all the star owed him. That's all any of the people who entertain us owe us. We pay for the CD, concert ticket, DVD, or movie ticket and we get out of it the entertainment we paid for. These people don't owe us anything beyond that.

All that being said, I still enjoy the candid pics we get now and then of Steve.

[conversationpc]

Celebrities should accept some inconvenience in their lives. It's part of the territory. However, people need to back off and give them their space. If I were a celebrity being hounded by the papparazzi, I would probably end up in jail for attempted murder.

[ohsherrie]

Celebrities should accept some inconvenience in their lives. It's part of the territory. However, people need to back off and give them their space. If I were a celebrity being hounded by the papparazzi, I would probably end up in jail for attempted murder.

It's easy to see why some of them lose their cool and fight back, but when they do they're vilified for it.

I also think who the celeb is makes a difference too. I mean when you're talking about someone like Pam Anderson or Paris Hilton who seem to be out there just to be notorious that's a different thing than someone like Jennifer Aniston or Nicole Kidman. Don't you think?

[whocares]

Back in the day, even with gossip "columnists", if a star wanted to keep something from the public, they could. Whatever it took to keep it private. People in that position "respected" stars' privacy then. Now there's too much money to be made from ONE frickin' photo of someone's newborn baby. Who is gonna pass up a $1,000,000 payday for taking pics? You also have those who are so money hungry that they'll do whatever it takes, even if it means geting punched out by a star, then they can sue for lots of money. People are too sue happy.

As far as how much privacy should they have? I think it's not reasonable to expect a star to be cordial when in public, but if it's a private setting, vacation, family event, whatever on private property, then they should be allowed their privacy. When on public property outside or wherever, then they should expect someone will be watching their every move, possibly with a camera. Celibrities are deffinately starved for attention, it's why they are in the biz in the first place. If they don't like it, then they should go do something else.

[larryfromnextdoor]

this is quentin loosing it ....

http://www.break.com/index/quentin_tara ... orter.html