Yes, why do people have to be so concerned about each and every little thing in a celebrity's life?
edited 26th Feb '12 4:33:12 AM by TenTailsBeast
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.True, true. There's money. But it seems rather circular. Chicken and egg? If the public didn't have interest it wouldn't sell. On the other hand, it's rather farfetched to view this obsession as natural.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.I am currently tipsy from one of my favorite alcoholic drinks, so I cannot write my thoughts properly.
There was a time when the Big Three (CBS, ABC, PBS) reigned supreme. Then, news stations like Fox News and MSNBC popped up, favoring sensationalism over actual news. Goodbye Middle-East crisis; hello "Paris Hilton did WHAAAAAT?".
Human beings have a tendency to find something entertaining. Celebrities featured in movies and television are always under the surveillance of fans, critics, and haters. If we did not have television or film — or even drama —, humans will never succumb to such sensationalism.
This is not a chicken or egg issue. Instead, it is all part of consequences. You cannot deny the magnitude of the interest in Whitney Houston's untimely death. Sensationalism will forever captivate human beings and we cannot run away from it. Would anyone have read Lolita if not for the content? Same with South Park. Yet, both are great works of satire. Sensationalism and hyperbole do have some merits, while few.
If anything, blame humans for having known a thing called "entertainment".
edited 26th Feb '12 4:47:36 AM by Trollkastel
Tea is best served with fellow monsters. | MALI've crossed paths with celebrities a couple times over the years and my only inclination was to carry on and leave them alone. I don't particuarly like being approached by strangers myself, so I wouldn't want to inflict that on anyone else.
And as for paparazzi hassling celebrities, need we bring up Princess Diana?
edited 26th Feb '12 4:49:44 AM by Talby
She is one of the most tragic figures that haunts media to this day.
Tea is best served with fellow monsters. | MAL"If we did not have television or film — or even drama —, humans will never succumb to such sensationalism.
This is not a chicken or egg issue. Instead, it is all part of consequences. You cannot deny the magnitude of the interest in Whitney Houston's untimely death. Sensationalism will forever captivate human beings and we cannot run away from it."
OK, you didn't say why, just stated that with nary an explanation. Fair enough, but I think people are far to fatalistic about present institutions. I think it is a bit silly to be certain that things will stay like this forever and ever.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.My mate and I did the 'We Are Not Worthy' thing to Alice Cooper once...does that count? He seemed amused and did the 'kiss the ring' (so to speak) gesture.
edited 26th Feb '12 5:52:22 AM by InverurieJones
'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'Let's try to keep this to a discussion about the causes and effects or something so this doesn't get locked as a complaint thread.
We seem to have created a caste of society that gets lavish praise, wealth, and privilege, at the expense of having zero privacy. The worst part is that we seem to have stopped pretending it has much to do with already being entertainers, since the Gossip industry is creating their own targets out of nothing (Paris Hilton, the Kardashians).
It often seems one of the main reasons Britain is still a monarchy is as tabloid fodder.
Fresh-eyed movie blogWell, it is my understanding that tourism due to the royals is one of the biggest moneymakers for them. And as for Paris Hilton, her father is the owner of a huuuuge company and they're filthy rich. Not trying to justify it, just pointing out a possible reason.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Thing is, though, that's not that. It's easy to say that only stupid people do this stuff, but pretty much everyone in Western society does it. Hell, most of the people on this This Very Wiki have those people they make into larger-than-life avatars (some more obvious than others). Maybe not to the point of paparazzi, but there's certainly some idol worship involved. And I'm willing to give y'all the benefit of the doubt and assume we're all reasonably intelligent people here.
edited 27th Feb '12 7:50:14 AM by 0dd1
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.The way I understand it is that Paris Hilton got notoriety for being rich enough to be a socialite at high-profile parties, and Kim Kardashian is a friend of hers who was going to the same parties, and the rest of the Kardashian family managed to tag along.
Yes, they don't just engineer nobodies, but they've stopped worrying about whether the audience already cares about the subjects or not.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:29:00 AM by TParadox
Fresh-eyed movie blog...I have no idea what that means.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.I recall that someone approached J.K. Rowling's daughter at school and asked if she would give a letter to her mother for them, which everyone agreed was highly inappropriate. Of course Rowling herself was quite angered.
There is also the current frenzy about Natalie Portman possibly having a wedding without telling anyone. To a man she was engaged to. And now has a child with.
I feel that if the paparazzi were on the receiving end of this intense scrutiny into their personal lives every once in a while, they'd be more willing to not intrude into the privacy of other people.
Well the question why they do is obvious: Money.
What's more interesting is the question what to do about it. There should be much more stricter restrictions (and I'm speaking about most Industrialized countries here, not just the USA or my own Germany) guarding celebrities' personality and privacy rights. Because clearly those rights should overrule any "right" of the public to "information" about them.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic![]()
![]()
Well, first we should define a celebrity as somebody who is famous for doing something, as opposed to somebody who is famous for no particularly good reason.
With that done, we can call a celebrity a "Doer", and other famous people (and, I suppose, everyone else who isn't a celebrity, but they aren't relevant here) "doers".
An act which would be cause for celebrity - that is, remarkable discovery or creation or achievement or whatever else - could be called a celebrated or celebratable act. They are the source of celebrity - someone becomes a "Doer" by "doing" these things, which means that they are not just "done", but "Done".
One particular issue that we seem to have is the attention paid to things that are merely "done" (that is, not "Done") by "Doers". To pay attention to these things is far from sensible.
One other issue is to pay attention to the acts and affairs of "doers", who don't actually "Do" anything in the first place.
Here is a set of examples, then:
Doer Doing:
Robert Downey Junior had the lead role in the film Iron Man
Doer doing:
Robert Downey Junior has had problems with drugs
doer doing:
Paris Hilton has a pet rat named Tinkerbell
edited 29th Feb '12 12:40:18 AM by ekuseruekuseru
See, the issue I have there is (using your terminology) that it's not just doers that the paparazzi and the public at large become obsessed with, but Doers Doing as well.
Especially since all you have to do to find out Madonna is the root of all evil is work one of her concerts in the summer. No I'm not still bitter about her demanding the heat be turned off 6 hours before her concert on a 90 degree day when the air was so thick with humidity you could bottle and sell it to hipsters as a designer water. And No I'm not bitter that she then started her concert an hour late each night. I'm not Bitter AT ALL *is still bitter*.
On the actual subject: I honestly don't get the interest, but hey I don't get how people find entertainment in a lot of things. The demand to know more about the celebrities is what helps drive this weird industry.
Obligatory self promotion: http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/

I'd have put this in 'It Just Bugs Me', if that forum still existed.
My dad was on a flight once and he saw Cate Blanchett. On another flight he saw Quentin Tarantino. And he also once saw Bill Gates at a hotel. On all three occassions, he came home and told us about it, and my little sister (who is a really stereotypically girly-girl obsessed with celebrities) went ballistic, yelling at him: "DIDYAASKFORTHEIRAUTOGRAPH?!?!" Ummm, no, he didn't; because you don't just go up to complete strangers on planes and in hotel lobbies and ask them to write their name on a piece of paper for you.
Frankly, I hate this crap. It pisses me off when fans and/or the paparazzi do something like go up to a celebrity in a coffee shop and shove a camera in their face. I know that they're rich and fortunate; but it still can't be pleasant to have people point you out at restaurants, the bank or the post office, or flock around the back of your car preventing you from backing out of your driveway; let alone rummage through your trash to find out what brand of toothpaste you use!
I remember this episode of Jamie's Kitchen where the paparazzi tried to play up this (supposed) fight between Jamie and his wife; tried to make out that they were having a marital crisis. His wife was in tears over the incident, saying: "What will my children think when they're grown up and they read about this when going through old news stories? They'll be asking me 'what was this about?' But nothing happened!" I thought that was horrible.