Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lindsay Lohan in car collision in West Hollywood
- Thread starter machobson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac_Freak said:
I saw this on cnn and its quite sad that some stars seem to have more of an issue with the press. If it was such a big deal, I'd try to avoid getting noticed - it seems she wasn't doing much except yelling at them before she tried to get away.
But I really don't know what I'm talking about - I can't even imagine living in her or any other stars' world.....
D
Ok, there have been movie stars for 80 years or so.. and stage 'stars' for a few hundred before that. These are not people who had the spotlight cast upon them out of the blue for saving a puppy, or winning the lottery... these are people who, for the most part, set out early in life to get as much attention as possible.. then they want to dictate when and how they get that attention. This game has been played, as I said, for far too long to feel any sort of sympathy whatsoever for the people involved. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Is it too much to ask to be a movie star and have a private life, too? Well, apparently the answer is yes, it IS too much to ask... And has been, for longer than the vast majority of these people have been alive. They made their choices, they accepted the trade-off, now live with it. Many of these same people will be drinking and drugging themselves to death in a decade or so when the spotlight has moved on and they WANT the attention again. Everyone else has to live with the situations they make for themselves, I do not understand why celebrities think the same should not apply to them. Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is. Take the 30 seconds and let the media get their pictures, and the HUGE majority of this rabid shutterbug crap will take care of itself.
Is it too much to ask to be a movie star and have a private life, too? Well, apparently the answer is yes, it IS too much to ask... And has been, for longer than the vast majority of these people have been alive. They made their choices, they accepted the trade-off, now live with it. Many of these same people will be drinking and drugging themselves to death in a decade or so when the spotlight has moved on and they WANT the attention again. Everyone else has to live with the situations they make for themselves, I do not understand why celebrities think the same should not apply to them. Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is. Take the 30 seconds and let the media get their pictures, and the HUGE majority of this rabid shutterbug crap will take care of itself.
IndyGopher said:
Yes lets puts everybody in playboy they deserve it
, mate everybody deserves a private life irrespective of what they do!!!
I agree with you in most ways, but I do agree that they made the decision to go and continue in this business. They get paid millions to make movies, but also to "be" famous. If they didn't get any attention, they wouldn't be paid so much.barneygumble said:Yes lets puts everybody in playboy they deserve it
It is a trade-off, and we know what her choice is.......to make marketable movies and stay famous. So while I feel sorry for her that she doesn't have as much privacy as I do, she does ask for it, in a way. I know that some people will argue that she chose acting because she loves it *cough*, and maybe she didn't "choose" to be famous, but if she loved the acting part of the job so much and wanted to maintain privacy, she could make very small movies that don't get her much attention, or act in shows and stage productions. She has enough money already.
But lets see what choice she makes.
Abstract said:I agree with you in most ways, but I do agree that they made the decision to go and continue in this business. They get paid millions to make movies, but also to "be" famous. If they didn't get any attention, they wouldn't be paid so much.
It is a trade-off, and we know what her choice is.......to make marketable movies and stay famous. So while I feel sorry for her that she doesn't have as much privacy as I do, she does ask for it, in a way. I know that some people will argue that she chose acting because she loves it *cough*, and maybe she didn't "choose" to be famous, but if she loved the acting part of the job so much and wanted to maintain privacy, she could make very small movies that don't get her much attention, or act in shows and stage productions. She has enough money already.
But lets see what choice she makes.
Personally i'd prefer playboy
I also realise thay put themselves out there and only want publicity when it suits them as opposed the general public having them all the time, i blame the womans magazines
Ducks
Abstract said:
Only those with a perverse mind want to see someone widely recognized injured or killed while being hounded relentlessly by paparazzi. Pictures taken of actresses venturing outside without any makeup, having a power lunch with another bigshot or while pregnant will cause dangerous situations to arise since competition for big money shots is cutthroat.
Entertainers and sports figures know that a pact is made with the devil when those professions are gone into and success achieved afterwards. Adulation and obsessive worship from the public fuel the craziness and demand for more and more candid photos. There is little basis for claiming unfairness when the rules are known to all, especially that photographers and tabloid publishers are hardly known for restraint and decorum.
The tradeoff for having an enviable lifestyle of the rich and famous, with all the terrific perks involved, can be terribly steep. Once a person has "made it," trying to reclaim personal privacy is as difficult as winning libel and slander lawsuits. Is it possible? Yes. Likely? No, because the burden of proof is challenging to meet.
Ok time to tell you that you need to watch Milos Forman's "The People vs Larry Flynt".
In it you will learn, theatrically, what you could read in Wikipedia or your local library.
That choosing a public life places you in public scrutiny. While Larry Flynt's case was a bit dramatic it proved that as celebrities, they arent afforded the same sense of privacy you and I do.
Being a public figure, in this case a worldwide figure, removes you from having a private life. It is your life to now live in front of the world. You chose it and cant complain. Otherwise, remove yourself from public life.
In other words, dont like the heat get out of the kitchen.
Dont like the hazards of the job, quit.
Cant take the millions of dollars in exchange for a few paparazzi? Quit.
No one made celebrities REMAIN in the spotlight, they do that themselves.
Lindsay Lohan can quit singing and going out clubbing like a hoe.
Tom Cruise could quit acting.
etc
etc
In it you will learn, theatrically, what you could read in Wikipedia or your local library.
That choosing a public life places you in public scrutiny. While Larry Flynt's case was a bit dramatic it proved that as celebrities, they arent afforded the same sense of privacy you and I do.
Being a public figure, in this case a worldwide figure, removes you from having a private life. It is your life to now live in front of the world. You chose it and cant complain. Otherwise, remove yourself from public life.
In other words, dont like the heat get out of the kitchen.
Dont like the hazards of the job, quit.
Cant take the millions of dollars in exchange for a few paparazzi? Quit.
No one made celebrities REMAIN in the spotlight, they do that themselves.
Lindsay Lohan can quit singing and going out clubbing like a hoe.
Tom Cruise could quit acting.
etc
etc
Aeolius said:
So true ... the allure she once possessed has vanished along with her flesh. Speaking of lost flesh, have you seen the stick-like appearance of Nicole Ritchie lately? I saw her several days ago on ET ... well on the way to becoming invisible.
Abstract said:The difference is that she was never attractive.
yes lohan is a shadow of herself now, but thats life
