This makes me sad...

[newyearsday]

It's true that the price of fame and success these days is to have your every word scrutinized and your every move recorded for the fans, and to a degree this is just part of the game of Hollywood. But I think the web and its proliferation of sites that track stars' movements around the neighborhood or globe have made people's lives a lot worse. This kind of constant photography was probably not happening 8 or 10 years ago. I could be wrong, since the magazines have always done the same thing, but maybe they have increased the amount of picture taking of the "ordinary moments" in actors' lives.

I would absolutely hate it. I don't think it's a fair price to pay for getting to act and be successful. There are limits to it being decent and respectful, and when people like Jake feel the need to hide their faces when walking home from the store, then that's the line. The guy has worked really hard all year doing filming, promotions, awards season, interviews, etc, and he's allowed everyone to photograph the hell out of him. Now he's taking a break, so let's let him have one.

[sparkle_motion]

You guys know I love Jake! More than I should. But...
I agree that it's part of the job. If he wants to cover up his face, more power to him! I'd do the same. But if he's tired of the attention, why go eat at restaurants where he knows he'll be seen? Why does he always sit outside on the patio?
I read a Freddie Prinze Jr. interview a while back and he said he hears all these actors talking about how they are sick of the paparazzi but then they go to all the hotspots where they know they'll be seen.

[vkm91941]

I think it is too bad that our star is being "hounded", but he seems to have decided to become a movie star.  And he did become a star when he picked up that lassoo and stepped into closeup.

I don't think Jake signed up for the Movie Star bit.  He has said in many interviews it's the acting, the story telling that he loves...He says he wants to be someone that people automatically associate with quality work, like Tom Hanks or Paul Newman...When was the last time anyone saw pics of either of those guys carrying home the groceries or walking the dogs? Or had their sexuality so rampantly scrutinized or debated?   Hmmm.

Jake is young and handsome and the flavor of the month.  IF he can hang tight, it will die down in a few months because that's the nature of the beast in Hollywood.

I agree that it's part of the job. If he wants to cover up his face, more power to him! I'd do the same. But if he's tired of the attention, why go eat at restaurants where he knows he'll be seen? Why does he always sit outside on the patio?
I read a Freddie Prinze Jr. interview a while back and he said he hears all these actors talking about how they are sick of the paparazzi but then they go to all the hotspots where they know they'll be seen.

Well it may be the price of fame, but I don't think he should have to be a prisoner of his celebrity or be forced to forego simple pleasures like dining on the patio or visiting what ever restaurant he chooses either. so?

[starboardlight]

Call me a heartless wench but there it is!

heartless wench. but that's alright cause you have a mop on your head. 

you have a good point. that is the reality that people step into when they take on that line of work. I still think that paparazzi's step over the line too often. And I think that we feed that machine, and so we too are at fault. It makes me uncomfortable to see that the price of success is that you lose your privacy altogether.

[JCinNYC2006]

Very interesting thread.  I'm thinking of how to respond so I don't sound preachy or high and mighty.  Here's the thing:  it's like a triangle, and there's one corner of the triangle that we keep missing.  There's the actor/star, there's the media, and then there's the public...meaning us.  

It can be debated whether someone who is an actor by profession should or shouldn't be prepared or ready or resigned to the idea of losing some of their privacy.  Yes, actors use the media to promote movies, or themselves, when it serves their interest.  But there are plenty of very talented, working actors who don't have the same level of exposure or attention or weekly pics in the tabs (I'm sure we can all think of one; Hope Davis, one of my favorite actresses comes to mind).

But there's a difference between posing for pictures as part of publicity, and pictures taken by the paparazzi without consent and that are often very invasive.  And the paparazzi aren't necessarily part of the Hollywood publicity machine.  They tend to make their living by selling these intrusive photos to tabloids and magazines so that those media can make money.  And those magazines and TV shows are bought and watched by...us.  

I know, I'm sure just saying that will spark many to protest, not me, not me!  I'm not saying it as an accusation to anyone in particular.  I love my little fan pics as much as the next Brokie.  However, the kind of good natured obsessing that we do does feed into the market for taking these kinds of pictures.  We can say that they, meaning the actors, should know, or not complain, or whatever.  But to some degree, we the consumers have to cop to our part in it.

I'm just saying...  

Juan

[Kd5000]

I thought Tom Cruise and the Mission Impossible spin and the whole thing with the baby name would cause cameras to swing his way for awhile and let Jake chill out...

To much exposure is also a bad thing. Ppl can get tired of you after awhile, not that Jake is going on tv shows or anything right now. But I expect in late summer, he will have to be making appearances to promote ZOdiac. Didn't we just see this guy for the western? Now he's a journalist.

Jake is very photogenic, but I don't want him to feel like he's being hunted.

[vkm91941]

Very interesting thread.  I'm thinking of how to respond so I don't sound preachy or high and mighty.  Here's the thing:  it's like a triangle, and there's one corner of the triangle that we keep missing.  There's the actor/star, there's the media, and then there's the public...meaning us.  

It can be debated whether someone who is an actor by profession should or shouldn't be prepared or ready or resigned to the idea of losing some of their privacy.  Yes, actors use the media to promote movies, or themselves, when it serves their interest.  But there are plenty of very talented, working actors who don't have the same level of exposure or attention or weekly pics in the tabs (I'm sure we can all think of one; Hope Davis, one of my favorite actresses comes to mind).

But there's a difference between posing for pictures as part of publicity, and pictures taken by the paparazzi without consent and that are often very invasive.  And the paparazzi aren't necessarily part of the Hollywood publicity machine.  They tend to make their living by selling these intrusive photos to tabloids and magazines so that those media can make money.  And those magazines and TV shows are bought and watched by...us.  

I know, I'm sure just saying that will spark many to protest, not me, not me!  I'm not saying it as an accusation to anyone in particular.  I love my little fan pics as much as the next Brokie.  However, the kind of good natured obsessing that we do does feed into the market for taking these kinds of pictures.  We can say that they, meaning the actors, should know, or not complain, or whatever.  But to some degree, we the consumers have to cop to our part in it.

I'm just saying...  

Juan

You make a very good point as well Juan

[slayers_creek_oth]

Very interesting thread.  I'm thinking of how to respond so I don't sound preachy or high and mighty.  Here's the thing:  it's like a triangle, and there's one corner of the triangle that we keep missing.  There's the actor/star, there's the media, and then there's the public...meaning us.  

It can be debated whether someone who is an actor by profession should or shouldn't be prepared or ready or resigned to the idea of losing some of their privacy.  Yes, actors use the media to promote movies, or themselves, when it serves their interest.  But there are plenty of very talented, working actors who don't have the same level of exposure or attention or weekly pics in the tabs (I'm sure we can all think of one; Hope Davis, one of my favorite actresses comes to mind).

But there's a difference between posing for pictures as part of publicity, and pictures taken by the paparazzi without consent and that are often very invasive.  And the paparazzi aren't necessarily part of the Hollywood publicity machine.  They tend to make their living by selling these intrusive photos to tabloids and magazines so that those media can make money.  And those magazines and TV shows are bought and watched by...us.  

I know, I'm sure just saying that will spark many to protest, not me, not me!  I'm not saying it as an accusation to anyone in particular.  I love my little fan pics as much as the next Brokie.  However, the kind of good natured obsessing that we do does feed into the market for taking these kinds of pictures.  We can say that they, meaning the actors, should know, or not complain, or whatever.  But to some degree, we the consumers have to cop to our part in it.

I'm just saying...  

Juan

Good thinkin....

[starboardlight]

Very interesting thread.  I'm thinking of how to respond so I don't sound preachy or high and mighty.  Here's the thing:  it's like a triangle, and there's one corner of the triangle that we keep missing.  There's the actor/star, there's the media, and then there's the public...meaning us.  

It can be debated whether someone who is an actor by profession should or shouldn't be prepared or ready or resigned to the idea of losing some of their privacy.  Yes, actors use the media to promote movies, or themselves, when it serves their interest.  But there are plenty of very talented, working actors who don't have the same level of exposure or attention or weekly pics in the tabs (I'm sure we can all think of one; Hope Davis, one of my favorite actresses comes to mind).

But there's a difference between posing for pictures as part of publicity, and pictures taken by the paparazzi without consent and that are often very invasive.  And the paparazzi aren't necessarily part of the Hollywood publicity machine.  They tend to make their living by selling these intrusive photos to tabloids and magazines so that those media can make money.  And those magazines and TV shows are bought and watched by...us.  

I know, I'm sure just saying that will spark many to protest, not me, not me!  I'm not saying it as an accusation to anyone in particular.  I love my little fan pics as much as the next Brokie.  However, the kind of good natured obsessing that we do does feed into the market for taking these kinds of pictures.  We can say that they, meaning the actors, should know, or not complain, or whatever.  But to some degree, we the consumers have to cop to our part in it.

I'm just saying...  

Juan

yep, it's important to recognize our part in the system. It reminds me of those who would only focus on the cheating in the film, and saying over and over "personal responsibility". They attempt to ignore that we as a society also have a responsibility, in that we pressure the men in the difficult place of having to face those life and death choices in the first place.

[YaadPyar]

I just think about it being me - what if this were my life, and I had the talent and charisma and looks to attract this sort of attention, and how would I feel about the cameras and the public.  

I'm not a fan of parasites - leaches, fleas, ticks.  As defined, "parasites are an organism that grows, feeds, and lives on or in another organism to whose survival it contributes nothing. The relationship benefits the parasite and harms the host."

All the gossip columnists and paparazzi and tabloids are parasitic - they feed off the energy of celebrities to exist, and it's at the expense of the host...the only mutually beneficial relationship between parasite and host is for those who are FFBF - famous for being famous (Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie...).  YUK!