Jennifer's Body

[tylerd]

I wasn't the photographer of this or the photo shoot, nor do I find that funny. This is a bit appalling. We just found out about this today, and no one's happy about this. It was a ----ing paparazzi jerk with a telephoto lens. The day before they were hiding in the bushes on another set.

If I ever caught one of these ---holes I'd break his nose and keep his cameras. Paparazzi are a ----ing cancer.


Megan's a nice girl and I feel really bad for her for this. She doesn't deserve any of this.

i don't understand.

don't you take pictures of celebs for a living too? meagan is a public figure so she gives up certain rights, like having her picture taken in public. they are trying to make a living just like you. so you'd not only advocate assault and theft, but you'd carry out those CRIMES because you think you're defending the honor of a girl that has approved posing nude in her career, just because you weren't the one profiting from it? sounds like someone just did their job better than you, and they're probably getting paid more than you as well. jealous much?

 

[Grange Wallis]

Paparazzi are a cancer and so is the modern thread of the media & it's coverage. I think respect needs to be taken. I honestly believe (like the French system) Celebrates should only be able to have their photo's publish if they are on the publicity circuit and not in their private lives or at work without permission. Especially not by these losers with their cameras and trigger happy need to sue people they have attacked to warrant being attacked in returned. They make me furious because they are willing to exploit others for their precious paycheques. They are vermin.

 

[tylerd]

Paparazzi are a cancer and so is the modern thread of the media & it's coverage. I think respect needs to be taken. I honestly believe (like the French system) Celebrates should only be able to have their photo's publish if they are on the publicity circuit and not in their private lives or at work without permission. Especially not by these losers with their cameras and trigger happy need to sue people they have attacked to warrant being attacked in returned. They make me furious because they are willing to exploit others for their precious paycheques. They are vermin.

celebs need to decide whether they want to be 'stars' or not. with the title celebrity, comes the burden of not having your privacy in a public place. it sure sucks making millions of dollars for working a couple of months, don't it? now if that celeb is in their house, or in a private setting on private property, no one has the right to invade their privacy just like anyone else. trespassing is a violation of the law. but if they are filming on location in a public place or going to a mall or shop, they don't have the luxury to dictate who snaps their photo. my advice is for them to learn to live with it. they can always give up their lifestyle and the big bucks if they value their privacy that much. no one is making them work in the profession they've chosen.

 

[Shropt]

Paparazzi do suck, but you must enjoy that this will provide A LOT of free advertisement for your movie. I for one can say I never heard of this movie before these pictures were released.

 

[tylerd]

Paparazzi do suck, but you must enjoy that this will provide A LOT of free advertisement for your movie. I for one can say I never heard of this movie before these pictures were released.

hype is part of the seedy business that is hollywood. don't feel sorry for these celebrities, very few give a crap about you.

 

[D. Martin]

Paparazzi are a cancer and so is the modern thread of the media & it's coverage. I think respect needs to be taken. I honestly believe (like the French system) Celebrates should only be able to have their photo's publish if they are on the publicity circuit and not in their private lives or at work without permission. Especially not by these losers with their cameras and trigger happy need to sue people they have attacked to warrant being attacked in returned. They make me furious because they are willing to exploit others for their precious paycheques. They are vermin.

My thoughts exactly. These clowns have no respect for the medium. They are not photojournalists, they are opportunists. The pictures they take are not news, and do nothing but degrade the subject of the photography.

(not directed to grangewallis)

Most people who don't live in the public eye tend to disregard the fact that the subject of paparazzi photography are actual human beings with feelings and thoughts of their own. Photos like these ones are a violation of a person's rights. There is nothing right about someone making a load of money off of images the subject would never approve. If you were to put yourself in their shoes you might see things the same way.

 

[D. Martin]

celebs need to decide whether they want to be 'stars' or not. with the title celebrity, comes the burden of not having your privacy in a public place. it sure sucks making millions of dollars for working a couple of months, don't it? now if that celeb is in their house, or in a private setting on private property, no one has the right to invade their privacy just like anyone else. trespassing is a violation of the law. but if they are filming on location in a public place or going to a mall or shop, they don't have the luxury to dictate who snaps their photo. my advice is for them to learn to live with it. they can always give up their lifestyle and the big bucks if they value their privacy that much. no one is making them work in the profession they've chosen.

Let's see if you'd say the same thing if you got hounded everywhere you go. This is something that is new. 20 years ago, this sort of thing simply didn't happen.

Personally, I don't think that your reasoning holds any water on this one. A violation of someone's personal life is a violation no matter what their occupation is. People choose to be actors, not celebrities.

 

[D. Martin]

hype is part of the seedy business that is hollywood. don't feel sorry for these celebrities, very few give a crap about you.

Maybe if you worked with these people you'd have a better sense of the situation. You seem to have a pretty negative opinion on a group of people I doubt you've interacted with...

 

[Anzik]

Paparazzi suck, however they can only suck as much as the people who purchase or view their pictures.

 

[Sick Boy 82]

Hype is part of the machine. If I didn't see those pictures, I sure as hell wouldn't be going to see that film. And wouldn't I have seen that in the film anyways??

And not to say that the paparazzi don't go to far, becasue they do, but I don't see taking pictures of them at their work that huge of a thing. I think the family stuff is what really bothers me.

 

[The Josh]

Paparazzi suck, however they can only suck as much as the people who purchase or view their pictures.

I totally agree with ya there.

 

[The Mike]

Paparazzism is a weird thing. I agree with the fact that Celebs are in the public eye and many of them do that whole "I want privacy" thing as an act. You know there are 500 phototags at The Ivy, yet Mr/Ms. I want Privacy goes there to eat on a regular basis then complains?

Anything done out in public is free reign as far as I'm concerned. Now that doesn't apply to closed film sets and personal residences. If Lindsay Lohan is photographed a thousand times shopping in Malibu whether the guy is in the bushes or hanging from a copter, I don't care. Now if someone is in the bushes of her house with a telephoto trying to nab her in the shower, that's different.

The truth is if it were so much of a money maker then people wouldn't do it. If you want to stop the Paparazzi you have to stop the cash flow to them. Then it will stop.

That being said I'd still belter Megan Fox until she starts seeing in Acid Trippy Technicolor.

 

[Sick Boy 82]

Yeah, the home and family stuff is off limits to me. And yes, if people stopped buying the crappy mags, then the money would go away and they would more than likely stop or at least it would trickle down.

And I'm pretty sure no one flipped out when we got to see the pictures of IM and TDK when they came out on the web. I guess it's becaue she is "naked". But like I said previously, we are gonna see that in the movie, so what's the big deal.

 

[tylerd]

Let's see if you'd say the same thing if you got hounded everywhere you go. This is something that is new. 20 years ago, this sort of thing simply didn't happen.

Personally, I don't think that your reasoning holds any water on this one. A violation of someone's personal life is a violation no matter what their occupation is. People choose to be actors, not celebrities.

i don't believe that someone whose profession is in the public eye gets to choose when they'd like to be in the public eye or not. they aren't complaining when the public loves them enough that they land a multi-million dollar role. do unpopular 'actors' make millions? no, they certainly don't. so the trade off is their privacy in public places is compromised. do you think even one actor, if they had the chance to go back, would say i'll give up my multi-million dollar paychecks to keep my privacy? give me a break bud. looks like from here your argument is the one with plenty of leaks.

 

[tylerd]

Maybe if you worked with these people you'd have a better sense of the situation. You seem to have a pretty negative opinion on a group of people I doubt you've interacted with...

i'm not negative towards actors. i just believe all of us, at some point in our life, have to trade off. people that work a regular job, trade off parts of their life for a paycheck. celebrities are people too. they are not gods, so why shouldn't they have to trade off too? seems clear that giving up their privacy in a public place is the trade. keep in mind, i still believe they deserve their privacy behind closed doors, in their homes, and in any other place that privacy is dictated. (private party, weddings, funerals, etc.)

actors demanding privacy in a public domain is 100% contradictory. it's the publics' recognition that put them in the position that they're in. unpopular or really good character actors don't get recognized, and most don't get paid near what the popular ones do. and i noticed that you insist on calling them actors. some are but most are plain movie stars. do you think megan fox's acting ability got her where she is today, or was it her great looks and sweet rack?

 

[The Mike]

Ooooh! Ooooh! I know this one. Great Looks and Sweet Rack!

 

[pixletwin]

i don't believe that someone whose profession is in the public eye gets to choose when they'd like to be in the public eye or not. they aren't complaining when the public loves them enough that they land a multi-million dollar role. do unpopular 'actors' make millions? no, they certainly don't. so the trade off is their privacy in public places is compromised. do you think even one actor, if they had the chance to go back, would say i'll give up my multi-million dollar paychecks to keep my privacy? give me a break bud. looks like from here your argument is the one with plenty of leaks.

Code-eeeeeeee-ack

 

[tylerd]

Code-eeeeeeee-ack

you wish. was i ranting like your old nemesis?

 

[pixletwin]

you wish. was i ranting like your old nemesis?

I can't imagine who you are talking about. I am sure he would never do anything as disingenuous as trying to rejoin the forum after being banned under a different name.

Code-eee-ack

 

[The Josh]

She's very attractive but I gotta admit Brian Austin Green is odd choice but hey if they're happy.