At this point it is a tired old cliché that moviestars, actors etc need the paparazzi to survive. It is the justification of the paparazzi profession just to be able to stay alive. Besides, even if one of the "stars" would specifically say "I don't need nor want paparazzi photographers taking my picture, camping outside my house etc", they wouldn't stop, which means that it is the paparazzi that need to take pictures, and not actors etc that need to be photographed.
Obviously some people are media whores, and if they specifically ask for it by showing up at every media event known to man (Paris Hilton), then obviously people should photograph them if that is what they want to do. But even then should Paris do a 180 and specifically ask not to be photographed she should be able to.
Bottom line, I don't read magazines with paparazzi photos, and I have no problem sustaining the interest of seeing actors and actresses on film. I don't blame people for reading entertainment magazines or watching E! when they air "10 most awesome celebrity makeouts", but don't justify it by saying it is in any way "necessary" for actors etc to be in the news. It would in fact be alot easier to immerse yourself in a movie with some actor if you haven't seen them walking their dog at 5am "being just like the rest of us". Who needs magazines or photographs in papers these days to get information anyways?
reply
share
TerryThomasPhotos
16 years ago
Your point of view about the paparazzi is slightly off.
We photographers don't "need to take pictures" of entertainers and it's not what we "want to do". It's the editors who offer big bucks for the photographs that motivates the photographers. As a photographer, I can guarantee you if the money was NOT there, the paparazzi wouldn't be either.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
www.imdb.com/name/nm1669504/
www.TerryThomasPhotos.com
reply
share