PDA

View Full Version : When is a celebrity entitled to be left alone?



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

CynicElle
07-05-2012, 01:44 PM
I don't think there's anything horribly wrong about approaching her in a public place -- I wouldn't do it, but that's me -- but people need to respect that she has every right to refuse autographs or photos. I've seen what happens when celebrities get approached in public places; the minute they sign one autograph, everyone else in the restaurant wants one, and the celebrity doesn't get another moment's peace.

Aceon6
07-05-2012, 02:56 PM
I was fortunate to be on speaking terms with a BIG STAR when a relative was appearing in the same production. We actually talked about it and that person's rules were:
- No, when with the children.
- No, while eating.
- No, while obviously trying to get "normal person" errands done like banking, grocery shopping, or pumping gas.

Other times seemed okay. I got a lot of "hate it, but it comes with the territory."

minx
07-05-2012, 04:16 PM
A family member is in the group of friends of a really big star. It's a life I would never want to live. Ever. People think the star owes them something and are very intrusive.

MacMadame
07-05-2012, 04:40 PM
Personally, I think a celebrity is entitled to be left alone whenever they want to. No matter if they normally live their lives in a very public way and cater to the paps. No matter what they are doing.

Now, is it smart to not be accessible to the public in certain situations? Probably not. But the question said "entitled" and they are always entitled.

UGG
07-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Without fans, celebrities would not be able to have the lifestyle they do. So sign a friggin autograph. :lol:

I do think papparazzi following stars around is a whole different issue and there should be some sort of laws protecting their right to privacy against those people.

*Jen*
07-05-2012, 06:23 PM
I do think papparazzi following stars around is a whole different issue and there should be some sort of laws protecting their right to privacy against those people.

Without disagreeing, I read an interesting article (http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-paparazzifree-zone-20120128-1qmaz.html)a few months ago about how some stars avoid the paparazzi and how it CAN be done...if they want to. It's quite an interesting read and it actually used Cate Blanchett as someone who's kept her private life more or less private.

Aceon6
07-05-2012, 06:37 PM
Without disagreeing, I read an interesting article (http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-paparazzifree-zone-20120128-1qmaz.html)a few months ago about how some stars avoid the paparazzi and how it CAN be done...if they want to. It's quite an interesting read and it actually used Cate Blanchett as someone who's kept her private life more or less private.

Yes, aforementioned BIG STAR went out all the time without being harassed. The secret is making the pictures so easy to get and so "normal" that they were worthless to the paparazzi. Star wearing hoochie clothes stumbling out of bar... big bucks. Star using ATM in jeans and t-shirt... not so much.

essence_of_soy
07-06-2012, 01:45 AM
Yes, aforementioned BIG STAR went out all the time without being harassed. The secret is making the pictures so easy to get and so "normal" that they were worthless to the paparazzi. Star wearing hoochie clothes stumbling out of bar... big bucks. Star using ATM in jeans and t-shirt... not so much.

Unfortunately, these days gutter rags like The Enquirer, OK and Famous to a point, run 'STARS WITHOUT MAKE-UP' issues when photos of them being normal and running errands merits entry into the Hall of Shame.

Sometimes it is a no win for anyone with a degree of public recognition, especially in the entertainment industry.

I remember one magazine going into hysterics claiming Meg Ryan's Mad Descent Into Hell. (She was photographed in a track suit actually stretching after going for a jog.)

Aceon6
07-06-2012, 02:26 PM
Unfortunately, these days gutter rags like The Enquirer, OK and Famous to a point, run 'STARS WITHOUT MAKE-UP' issues when photos of them being normal and running errands merits entry into the Hall of Shame.

Sometimes it is a no win for anyone with a degree of public recognition, especially in the entertainment industry.

I remember one magazine going into hysterics claiming Meg Ryan's Mad Descent Into Hell. (She was photographed in a track suit actually stretching after going for a jog.)

The star said that if you look the same all the time, the paparazzi tire of following you, so yes "star without makeup" might sell the first time or two, but after that, the rags won't pay for stuff they already have on file.

Badams
07-06-2012, 03:20 PM
I think that when it gets to the point where Britney Spears was at during her "meltdown" phase, the paps need to back off and be held responsible in some ways. I remember her interview on television where she was basically BEGGING them to leave her alone. I realize she has a mental disorder, but I honestly believe that they helped drive her so that point. I felt so sad for her. And we all know what happened to Princess Di...While it may be easy for some bigger stars to disappear, I don't think it's possible to every big star to...and the paps should be held to some kind of standards for stalking them.

Gazpacho
07-06-2012, 04:15 PM
There are some absolute times a celebrity is entitled to be left alone:

*It poses a safety or health threat. Princess Diana obviously. People amidst a mental health crisis can also be set off easily.

*They are going to or leaving a doctor's office. Medical information is confidential, so in a similar spirit, visits to medical facilities should be treated as completely private affairs.

*They're not in a public space. There is no excuse for telephoto lenses snapping shots of celebrities in their private yards.

*They didn't ask for fame. This means political children unless you're like Meghan McCain and have purposely sought to make yourself famous in your own right. It means political spouses who don't really have a choice but to make all these public appearance. It means people born into royal families. All these groups generally have very good security though.


In theory, yes. But you can't turn public attention on and off when it suits you to do so. I'm not saying this is the way things should be in an ideal world, but if you spend most of your professional life posing in front of cameras at events you have no professional reason to be at, and if you use the publicity machine to spew out irrelevant news about yourself (e.g. where you shop, who you went to a club with) - then you shouldn't be surprised if people won't leave you alone when you want to be.

Beyond that, it's complicated, as overedge says. It's morally wrong in my opinion to snap photos or seek autographs to sell them for a profit. Most people doing this are professionals, however, and this discussion is mainly about your everyday fan. Celebrities must realize that they run a risk when they refuse, but it's a risk they're completely entitled to make, and I'm sure they have thought about the tradeoff between privacy and their business--they are businesses themselves. I suspect that one such tradeoff they are willing to make is for their kids.


I figure the line should be defined by how the celebrity was able to get to the place where the fans are. If, like I assume Cate B, is on a private vacation and is out with her kids like any other private person, then she should be left alone. If it was celebrity power that allowed access, ie, jumping the two hour line up at Disneyland or going to a movie premier, something that a non celebrity wouldn't get, then the celebrity should expect to do a bit of work for the privilege. I'd say this is a good rule of thumb.

If you're having a private family affair, I still wouldn't go as far as saying the fan is wrong in asking if they do it politely. One way to do it politely is to send a message through the waiter if they see a celebrity at a restaurant. Some celebrities may actually want to talk to tell them about a new movie they're in, pitch them on a product they're endorsing, etc. However, if the celebrity refuses in a polite way, it should not be held against them.

A lot has to do with the way the celebrity refuses. I saw Don Mattingly, of former Yankees fame, tell a teenage fan, "Get out of my face, I'm with my family." That fan was devastated. Compare that with saying, "I'm going to decline because I'm with my kids, so I want to just be Dad today. Thank you for understanding." If a celebrity refuses in that manner, fans have no grounds for holding it against them.

agalisgv
07-06-2012, 04:33 PM
IMO celebrities have a right to their privacy at all times. I think it's actually self-entitled for fans to think they somehow have a right to infringe on someone else's time and space because they like a particular celebrity. Because someone stars in a movie/skates at the Olympics in no way makes them "owe" people their personal privacy. Their fame comes from their talent and performance. That's what they do and what they are paid for. Their lives are their own, and no one has a "right" to infringe on that one iota.

PDilemma
07-06-2012, 04:41 PM
A lot has to do with the way the celebrity refuses. I saw Don Mattingly, of former Yankees fame, tell a teenage fan, "Get out of my face, I'm with my family." That fan was devastated. Compare that with saying, "I'm going to decline because I'm with my kids, so I want to just be Dad today. Thank you for understanding." If a celebrity refuses in that manner, fans have no grounds for holding it against them.

In the 80s and early 90s, there was a huge market for baseball autographs in the card collecting community. It was not at all uncommon for card shop owners and other dealers in memorabilia to pay kids and young teens to get autographs as players have long been more inclined to sign for them than for adults. We were approached at a the stadium in Kansas City on photo day by such a dealer once offering cash or items if I (at age 13 and looking younger) would get extra signatures on specific items for him. At photo day, some players would sign autographs particularly for kids but they were not required to. My dad hated these dealers taking advantage of both the kids and the players and we said no.

I have long heard that Mattingly rarely signed at the ballpark or otherwise. I'm sure he knew about all these scams. Most players did. It was the reason that many would do the large collector shows that charged $3 or $4 for an autograph ticket instead of signing for free at the ballpark. I know this because of having conversations about it with players at these shows, particularly with Rollie Fingers at a show during a snow storm that hardly anyone turned up at. While my father looked for cards, my mother and I stood at the autograph table and chatted with him.

Michalle
07-06-2012, 05:30 PM
When I've seen celebrities in person, it's always a little more exciting than I would have expected, even if it's not someone I particularly care about that much. Our culture is so focused on celebrities that it's hard not to be impacted. Nonetheless, I just don't get the appeal of autographs and never have. It's the signature of some person you don't actually know on a piece of paper. It doesn't really mean anything - they won't remember it later, and they won't remember you.

mag
07-06-2012, 08:22 PM
IMO celebrities have a right to their privacy at all times. I think it's actually self-entitled for fans to think they somehow have a right to infringe on someone else's time and space because they like a particular celebrity. Because someone stars in a movie/skates at the Olympics in no way makes them "owe" people their personal privacy. Their fame comes from their talent and performance. That's what they do and what they are paid for. Their lives are their own, and no one has a "right" to infringe on that one iota.

I disagree. A few years back we were at an amusement park with our kids. A famous basketball player arrived with his wife, small child in a stroller, nanny, and six body guards. They proceeded to jump to the head of of the very, very long line we were waiting in. Furthermore, it was the player, wife, and six body guards who rode the ride while the nanny waited with the child. The ride was a roller coaster that probably held twenty people per car. This guy insisted that the other seats remain empty so he could have his privacy. Add to that, when a small boy, probably about eight years old, asked for his autograph, this star refused quite rudely and stated that he didn't deal with fans during his family time!
IMHO, if you are going to jump to the head of a 40 minute line up and insist seats go empty, you can bloody well spend 10 or 15 minutes signing autographs for kids. Don't want to deal with fans, get in line like the rest of us!