This makes me sad...

[littleguitar]

Seriously, this picture honestly makes me want to stop obsessively looking at pictures of Jake, and I never thought that could happen.  This is the second time I've seen him hiding from photogs...




I think I'm done with both Iheartjake and jake watch for a while... poor guy 

[chefjudy]

  I love looking at Jake also - but I am sure like anyone else in Hollywood, he must get really tired of being in a fish bowl all the time - you're right it is sad............

[moremojo]

From everything I hear, Jake is a warm, open-hearted, and tender person (not unlike Jack--perfect casting!). I'd hate to see his sudden shot to superstardom cause him to feel a need to build a shell around himself, just for peace of mind. This photo gives some evidence that this may have already begun; it's an understandable reaction, but it is sad.

The most precious things in life are often the most vulnerable.

Here's wishing Jake the very best...

Scott

[littleguitar]

I'd hate to see his sudden shot to superstardom cause him to feel a need to build a shell around himself, just for peace of mind. This photo gives some evidence that this may have already begun; it's an understandable reaction, but it is sad.

This is exactly what I was thinking, Scott...

[vkm91941]

It has been so intense for months now!  Poor Jake he's obiviously had enough of having his every step hounded.  Those creeps should be over in Bel Air trying to get that 2 million dollar pix of baby Cruise and leave Jake alone for awhile.

[dmmb_Mandy]

Poor Jake. You're right Mandy, it is sad.. 

[starboardlight]

Seriously, this picture honestly makes me want to stop obsessively looking at pictures of Jake, and I never thought that could happen.  This is the second time I've seen him hiding from photogs...




I think I'm done with both Iheartjake and jake watch for a while... poor guy 

boy! i hate seeing that. I'm with you on giving iheartjake and jakewatch a rest for now.

[Ray]

Pppppllllllllllllllllllllllllllttttttttttttt! One can't use and abuse the media to lift one's profile and then expect them to leave one alone when one feels like it.  It's not sad IMO and I may be a dasardly bastard for saying so, but it's part and parcel of being a successful actor.  They know it when they get into the game, and they know when the attention stops they'd better learn how to carry three plates at once pronto haste!  If they want 'me' time, then they put a lock on the dunny door and stock up with some good books.

Call me a heartless wench but there it is!

[Aussie Chris]

Call me a heartless wench but there it is!

You are a heartless wench Ray, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a very good point.  I'm afraid that I'm a fence sitter here.  Although all young actors want/need to generate as much enthusiasm about themselves as they can, when pictures of the mundane become commonplace, I wonder where the line should be drawn?  I've always admired Jake and thought he was incredibly generous with his time, willing to be open with his personal life for the thrill of his fans.  But I worry about the "give an inch take a mile" nature of the paparazzi.  I mean, do we really need pictures of Jake walking home with his shopping???

[Toast]

Ray has an execellent point.
the lurking photographers are a sign of success.
I wish Jake all the success in the world.
I will pay attention to the photos that are available.
but I don't like intrusive or misinterpreted photos.
Yes Ray, If I had the income that came from being a star, I would accept some times of forced seclusion as a part of the price for stardom. 
I would find a part of Spain, or South America or Australia where no one would expect me and I would develop some alternate appearance and get a new definition of privacy.
by the same token, I would also give up some time by making appearances to satisfy my fans.

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 wish him all the attention and money he can get.

[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!

[JCinNYC2006]

Good point, but again, are we parasites as well?  Or is the relationship symbiotic in some ways?

I chuckled to myself at seeing this thread right up against the one called Jake and His Family.   

Juan

[YaadPyar]

Good point, but again, are we parasites as well?  Or is the relationship symbiotic in some ways?

Well - if you area a consumer of this kind of media, you are feeding the parasites as well.  If their host provides nothing, they will die.  If no one bought photos and mags, etc., they wouldn't still be around.  I have a subscription to People and Entertainment Weekly.  They do provide Entertainment/Celebrity news, but I think they are fairly respectful of their subjects, and are a huge part of the promo cycle for entertainment, so there's a symbiotic relationship.

Other stuff - Ted Casablancas for example - I don't know how that's ever ok.

[wtbgirl]

There's no easy answer.  On the one hand, if you want to be a sucessful working actor, you need a widespread fan base - and ergo fame comes with it (along with, I must note, MILLIONS of dolllars).  Let's face it, for the most part, most actors barely etch out a living - rich movie star sounds like the better alternative to me, over starving actor.  UNLESS you fall into the almost perfect in-between niche by making a living being what I call "THAT GUY" - that is, the true working actor you see in a MILLION films but never know who the guy (or girl) is - paparrazzi scum is part of the deal.  (Kevin Spacey was a THAT GUY years ago.  Same with Philip Seymour Hoffman until fairly recently.   I would say a guy like William Fichtner remains a "THAT GUY" to the majority of the public.)  So to a degree this is the price one pays for fame and fortune.

Both sides of the argument have validity.   Jake chose to be a movie star, and to a DEGREE, should be willing to put up with these scumbags (and believe me, I think these paps are parasites as well).  Believe me, there are hundreds of formerly famous actors in the "has-been" Hollywood dustbin that would KILL for a second chance at fame.

Having said that, on the flip side, it irritates me to no end that these parasites have relentlessly trolled around the West Village and Soho, day after day, looking for Jake.   I was in the West Village the other day, and for the first time in the 15 plus years I have been here, I saw 3-4 paps roaming around with telephoto lenses.  I knew who they were looking for - and honestly, as a New Yorker, I felt disgusted and invaded - like the city was overrun by bugs - LOL (believe me, it already is at times!)   I guess when Jake first arrived here in NYC, I was OK with the first, second day photos - he's visiting, big family news, etc. etc., there is some reason to take a photo - but these loser paps have just NOT stopped - and it's been TWO weeks.   Believe me, I'm no saint, I enjoy seeing Jake - but I do think a line was crossed at some point here.  Enough is enough. 
   

[ednbarby]

I learned what I think to be a valuable lesson one day about 10 years ago.  Ed and I went to see what was then called the Lipton tennis tournament in Key Biscayne.  Andre Agassi was playing.  He was married to Brooke Shields at the time.  We were lucky enough to score seats in the box right in front of hers - they were owned by a tennis partner of Ed's whose wife was a big promoter at the tennis venue.  We got there before his match started.  As he came out to warm up, Brooke was being seated behind us.  I know this because *everyone* in our box (I swear, I did not know any of them - we were using Ed's tennis partner's tickets) and the boxes around us *stood up* and turned around just to gawk at her.  Mind you she was only about 10 feet behind us.  Ed and I refused to stand up or turn around.  He leaned over to me and said "I'll be God-damned if I'm gonna make a jerk of myself like these numbnuts."  I said, "I'm with you, baby."  So that was our silent protest.  On top of that, two stragglers came in while Andre was still warming up and all the hoopla of her arrival had died down.  Both women, they started talking really loudly to this affect:  "Ooh - I wonder if Brooke is here!  She's probably over on the other side.  Do you think she's pretty?  I think she's kind of horsey.  Yeah.  I don't know what he sees in her, really."  I turned around and said quietly to them, "You might want to keep it down.  She's sitting *right* behind you."  They turned around and glanced at her and turned back around beet red.  It wasn't that I gave a damn about them embarrassing themselves - I just didn't think she should have to hear that crap on top of the previous gawking.

This is what I came away with that day, but I think I already knew it:  Celebrities DO NOT OWE US ANYTHING except the best job they can do at whatever their particular art form is on any given day.  And honestly, I don't even think they owe that TO US - I think they owe it to themselves.  We're just lucky enough to get to be along for the ride from time to time.  I know I'm gonna catch royal shite for this - we pay all this money to see their movies, go to their concerts, look at magazines in which they model or advertise products, blah, blah, blah.  It's part of the price of their fame, yada, yada, yada.  I don't buy it.  Do I like looking at the cute Jake pictures?  Sure.  Would I be heartbroken if they disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow?  No.  Some will say magazines like Us Weekly and People and OK exist because we the public demand them.  Bullshit.  They exist because the owners of the companies that make them know that if they put that crap out there, people will buy it.

As Victoria said, it's one thing to do publicity for the film or record or book you're selling and to go to photo shoots to promote your latest project.  THAT is part of the job.  Being dogged by paparazzi is not.  It helped kill Princess Diana, for Godssake.  How far does it have to go before people recognize that not only is it ugly and unnecessary, but it's criminal?

Needless to say, I don't blame any of these folks when they get pissed off about it and say enough is enough.  It surprises me, generally, that it takes some of them as long as it does.

[littleguitar]

This is what I came away with that day, but I think I already knew it:  Celebrities DO NOT OWE US ANYTHING except the best job they can do at whatever their particular art form is on any given day.  And honestly, I don't even think they owe that TO US - I think they owe it to themselves.  We're just lucky enough to get to be along for the ride from time to time.  I know I'm gonna catch royal shite for this - we pay all this money to see their movies, go to their concerts, look at magazines in which they model or advertise products, blah, blah, blah.  It's part of the price of their fame, yada, yada, yada.  I don't buy it.  Do I like looking at the cute Jake pictures?  Sure.  Would I be heartbroken if they disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow?  No.  Some will say magazines like Us Weekly and People and OK exist because we the public demand them.  Bullshit.  They exist because the owners of the companies that make them know that if they put that crap out there, people will buy it.

As Victoria said, it's one thing to do publicity for the film or record or book you're selling and to go to photo shoots to promote your latest project.  THAT is part of the job.  Being dogged by paparazzi is not.  It helped kill Princess Diana, for Godssake.  How far does it have to go before people recognize that not only is it ugly and unnecessary, but it's criminal?

Needless to say, I don't blame any of these folks when they get pissed off about it and say enough is enough.  It surprises me, generally, that it takes some of them as long as it does.

Really thoughtfull post, Barb and I completley agree.

Like I said before, that's it for me, I'm swearing off Iheartjake and jake watch.  I've never been into tabloids or even magazines like people and us weekly, I used to get Entertainment weekly for the film reviews but I don't during the school year.  Jake sparked a new obsession in me, he's the first celebrity I've really watched closely.  But that stopped with that picture.  Like you said, they owe us nothing and as much as i like to look at Jake he deserves some sort of privacy... That picture makes me feel guilty.  I didn't start this thread though to make anyone else feel guilty or to say that those who still want to check out those sites are doing something wrong... just that I can't anymore.

Really interesting discussion on this thread though! thanks for sharing your thoughts! 

[ednbarby]

Really thoughtfull post, Barb and I completley agree.

Like I said before, that's it for me, I'm swearing off Iheartjake and jake watch.  I've never been into tabloids or even magazines like people and us weekly, I used to get Entertainment weekly for the film reviews but I don't during the school year.  Jake sparked a new obsession in me, he's the first celebrity I've really watched closely.  But that stopped with that picture.  Like you said, they owe us nothing and as much as i like to look at Jake he deserves some sort of privacy... That picture makes me feel guilty.  I didn't start this thread though to make anyone else feel guilty or to say that those who still want to check out those sites are doing something wrong... just that I can't anymore.

Really interesting discussion on this thread though! thanks for sharing your thoughts! 

Thanks, lg.  And I'm with you - that picture makes me feel bad for having gone to those sites (yes, I admit it freely - I have been a hypocrite) in the past, too.  I don't think there's anything wrong with people who do still enjoy it and don't feel guilty about it or who have a different point of view than I about what celebrities do and do not owe the public - I just feel differently.  I agree - very interesting discussion!

[kirkmusic]

I think about this stuff sometimes because I plan on being famous within the next couple of years.  As someone who likes going places on my own and enjoying my solitude, I wonder how I'd handle it.  For me, fame isn't a goal.  I would just take it as an indicator that I'm reaching the audience that I think I'm capable of reaching.  But how dramatically does one's life change?  Will I still be able to go to Disneyland and just have a good time being a rambunctious adult like I always have?  As a fan, I have enjoyed seeing pictures of Jake working out and hanging with friends, so I don't think I would mind sharing some of that with my own fans.  But, like, where do you take vacations if you're Madonna?  Or how about George Michael?  Being openly gay and famous is a dangerous combination in some places, I'd imagine.

I figure if I really hate being famous I could always just stop doing work for public consumption and let my career crash.  I don't want to be Kurt Cobain after all.  But (using that word a lot here) would the price of not being able to write and sing and share my own songs and make my living off of that be worth having my privacy back?  I've been tremendously unfulfilled for not doing that up until now.  I've only learned to really open up in the past 6 years or so and to suddenly have to start keeping secrets would fckng suck!  Think about it.  Just the little things.  I'd have to change my name on this forum.  I'd have to take my face pictures down from the personals sites I have profiles on, and what good are said profiles without them?  Well, that wouldn't be a big deal.  But you know what I mean?  Think about how you live now and what would have to change if you knew that everything you did might be subject to public scrutiny.  Part of me thinks, the hell with it.  What do I really have to hide?  Nothing I'm ashamed of but there are certainly things for which some would judge me.

I can't possibly know what it would be like until it happens, if it happens.  I trust myself to handle whatever comes, it just gives me pause sometimes.