Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
This makes me sad...
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:
--- Quote from: JCinNYC2006 on April 25, 2006, 01:45:37 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
You make a very good point as well Juan
slayers_creek_oth:
--- Quote from: JCinNYC2006 on April 25, 2006, 01:45:37 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
Good thinkin....
starboardlight:
--- Quote from: JCinNYC2006 on April 25, 2006, 01:45:37 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
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!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version