WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PRESS CHASING DANIEL?

Visit here to read and post all the latest Daniel Craig-related news, TV/VCR(DVD) alerts, etc.

Moderator: Germangirl

Post Reply
Sue
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:28 am
Location: New Zealand

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PRESS CHASING DANIEL?

Post by Sue »

Hi :D

Just wondering what your views are on the Press photographing Daniel out on the street, in his personal life, his new home? Do you feel it's an invasion or are you pleased we get these shots to see? Do you feel there should be a limit on when they take photos or what? Are you secretly glad the photographers do follow Daniel and Satsuki everywhere they spot them in their personal life, or is there a difference for movie previews, publicity, premieres, Awards, etc and taking photos there?

I'm referring to the latest photos of his new house in Regent's Park. Some of you have made really interesting comments and I think it would make an interesting discussion on Daniel and his privacy.

Do photographers follow Daniel 24/7 to get these personal photos e.g. Daniel's new house in Regents Park? :shock: Haven't they got other things to do or don't they know the difference between totally invading one's privacy (even if they are famous) and taking shots at premieres, etc? I guess not!!!! Plus it's all about the MONEY!!!!

At the same time I admit I love seeing some of the personal shots of Daniel alone or with Sats, or others!!! (Just being honest!!!) Yet at the same time I realize they do deserve privacy and not everything lived out in the public arena or is that Madonna? I get confused around it all sometimes.

Sad but we have become an age on insatiable beings!!!! (me included at times!!!) Plus with technology everything is processed so much further.

Have any of you seen the Punk Rock coloured overweight Australian (nothing against Aussies because I have friends from there and my niece lives in Sydney) Darren (can't remember his last name) who lives in London and runs Big Pictures with his ex-wife and employs so many of these photographers all over the world. They send their shots by internet to Darren who then sells them to every media outlet he can for a lot of money!!! Darren says the f--k word every 5 mins or so.

Just remembered
!! There was a fascinating English documentary on Darren, his business, etc and part of it featured when Sienna Miller broke up with Jude Law (nanny affair) and the photographers literally had cameras in her face, following her car to her flat, mum's place, everywhere she went. Well, one evening they filmed our gorgeous Daniel going into a restaurant to meet her (blurry) and then lost them because Sienna & Daniel had gone out the back entrance separately to her flat. Sure enough Daniel was there and they all camped outside her flat all night waiting to hound him. I don't think they ever saw him leave, although he must have done but secretly!!! I'd forgotten that until now!!!

The photographers followed Charlotte Church on a summer beach holiday on one of the Islands in the Mediterranean, and she and her girlfriend (before her 1st baby) had to put up dividers/partitions between the photographers taking photos (lying on the sand trying to look hidden) and the place they were staying at, positioned on the beach. It was awful to witness because how could Charlotte and her friend relax. They can't even have a holiday privately!!!

One of Darren's guys was the man who took the first pictures of Angelina and Brad together with Maddox, spying on them, and those pictures Darren sold for what sounded like a million dollars. His biggest amount to that date!!! Brad & Ang had no idea the guy was there; he was like behind a small sand dune or something with his long range tele focus lense.

Darren has no qualms about how he makes his money as he says, which is true "the demand is there" so "we meet the public's demand". But they are so invasive from what I saw.

One of his photographers was across the other side of the street in London, with his camera out the car window, celebrity spotting. He suddenly saw this young blond lady walking. He then chased this poor woman walking, and when she arrived at the salon to have her nails done, he photographed her in the salon and saw her on her cellphone. When she left, she met up with a male friend whom she had obviously phoned to come and protect her from this photographer. The man came across asking "what is going on" and the photographer only then discovered it wasn't Sienna Miller. He was so disappointed :shock: that he had wasted time following a member of the public, not realizing the lady was aware he was there and that she probably felt she was being stalked.

Interesting!!!
Darren is like a multimillionaire, lives in a very wealthy area of London, promotes a girl band and topless models, etc.

It's interesting to note that Sienna said (no matter what you think about her and her men. I won't even go there!!!) that she was suing Big Pictures for invading her privacy re the topless photos embracing with what looked like a bit more than that with Balthazar Getty!!!

What are your views girls??? :D :?:

I'd love to know. Enough of my rambling and it's up to you now for your views.

Love Suexxx :D
Hi there Daniel fans. Please feel free to e-mail me as I love to hear from others to keep me in touch with what's going on with Daniel!!! He is such an amazing actor, has amazing looks, those blue eyes and a sexy voice!!!
JoniJoni
Posts: 2296
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:00 am

Re: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PRESS CHASING DANIEL?

Post by JoniJoni »

sue wrote:Hi :D

Just wondering what your views are on the Press photographing Daniel out on the street, in his personal life, his new home? Do you feel it's an invasion or are you pleased we get these shots to see? Do you feel there should be a limit on when they take photos or what? Are you secretly glad the photographers do follow Daniel and Satsuki everywhere they spot them in their personal life, or is there a difference for movie previews, publicity, premieres, Awards, etc and taking photos there?

I'm referring to the latest photos of his new house in Regent's Park. Some of you have made really interesting comments and I think it would make an interesting discussion on Daniel and his privacy.

Do photographers follow Daniel 24/7 to get these personal photos e.g. Daniel's new house in Regents Park? :shock: Haven't they got other things to do or don't they know the difference between totally invading one's privacy (even if they are famous) and taking shots at premieres, etc? I guess not!!!! Plus it's all about the MONEY!!!!

At the same time I admit I love seeing some of the personal shots of Daniel alone or with Sats, or others!!! (Just being honest!!!) Yet at the same time I realize they do deserve privacy and not everything lived out in the public arena or is that Madonna? I get confused around it all sometimes.

Sad but we have become an age on insatiable beings!!!! (me included at times!!!) Plus with technology everything is processed so much further.

Have any of you seen the Punk Rock coloured overweight Australian (nothing against Aussies because I have friends from there and my niece lives in Sydney) Darren (can't remember his last name) who lives in London and runs Big Pictures with his ex-wife and employs so many of these photographers all over the world. They send their shots by internet to Darren who then sells them to every media outlet he can for a lot of money!!! Darren says the f--k word every 5 mins or so.

Just remembered
!! There was a fascinating English documentary on Darren, his business, etc and part of it featured when Sienna Miller broke up with Jude Law (nanny affair) and the photographers literally had cameras in her face, following her car to her flat, mum's place, everywhere she went. Well, one evening they filmed our gorgeous Daniel going into a restaurant to meet her (blurry) and then lost them because Sienna & Daniel had gone out the back entrance separately to her flat. Sure enough Daniel was there and they all camped outside her flat all night waiting to hound him. I don't think they ever saw him leave, although he must have done but secretly!!! I'd forgotten that until now!!!

The photographers followed Charlotte Church on a summer beach holiday on one of the Islands in the Mediterranean, and she and her girlfriend (before her 1st baby) had to put up dividers/partitions between the photographers taking photos (lying on the sand trying to look hidden) and the place they were staying at, positioned on the beach. It was awful to witness because how could Charlotte and her friend relax. They can't even have a holiday privately!!!

One of Darren's guys was the man who took the first pictures of Angelina and Brad together with Maddox, spying on them, and those pictures Darren sold for what sounded like a million dollars. His biggest amount to that date!!! Brad & Ang had no idea the guy was there; he was like behind a small sand dune or something with his long range tele focus lense.

Darren has no qualms about how he makes his money as he says, which is true "the demand is there" so "we meet the public's demand". But they are so invasive from what I saw.

One of his photographers was across the other side of the street in London, with his camera out the car window, celebrity spotting. He suddenly saw this young blond lady walking. He then chased this poor woman walking, and when she arrived at the salon to have her nails done, he photographed her in the salon and saw her on her cellphone. When she left, she met up with a male friend whom she had obviously phoned to come and protect her from this photographer. The man came across asking "what is going on" and the photographer only then discovered it wasn't Sienna Miller. He was so disappointed :shock: that he had wasted time following a member of the public, not realizing the lady was aware he was there and that she probably felt she was being stalked.

Interesting!!!
Darren is like a multimillionaire, lives in a very wealthy area of London, promotes a girl band and topless models, etc.

It's interesting to note that Sienna said (no matter what you think about her and her men. I won't even go there!!!) that she was suing Big Pictures for invading her privacy re the topless photos embracing with what looked like a bit more than that with Balthazar Getty!!!

What are your views girls??? :D :?:

I'd love to know. Enough of my rambling and it's up to you now for your views.

Love Suexxx :D


Whoa Suexxx, Quite an entry.

Hopefully Daniel will continue with what he's been doing. :)

We really only see him out and about when pictures are released. An occasion where he might be photographed in a public scene. Just like any other famous person, he knows certain precautions are taken.

I guess it's the price of public fame.

You seem so interested in this intrusive behavior. It must be a passion of yours. :)
Daskedusken
Posts: 14137
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:14 pm
Location: Always heading somewhere

Post by Daskedusken »

I guess press chasing is one of the bad things about being famous, but Daniel seems to handle it very well. He's lucky to have friends and family to support him. A Norwegian celeb once said that when you become famous there's a part of your personal life that disappears no matter how much you keep yourself private.

I think everyone has the right to privacy whether they are celebs or not; and we have to respect celeb's wish to maintain their privacy - their are only human just like everyone else.
"Love anyway. Live anyway. Choose to part of this anyway”
BondBabe2008
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:55 pm

Post by BondBabe2008 »

Well I'm very impressed with your entry "Sue" :wink: :wink:

I personally reckon that Dan is handling it very well as I can't imagine what it is like being famous & how your life would turn out once you become famous out of my curiosity :!: :!: But I personally think that the Paparatzi ought to have a some respect for Dan's & Sat's privacy as they are trying to get on with their lives even though they plan to get married soon not sure when. Once you are known to the whole world, people start liking you alot, they are bound to find info about famous people aren't they :?:
User avatar
Ang
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:46 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ang »

Hi Sue, thanks for the post, lots of good points well put and I do think it's an important subject.

Personally I don't like the whole Paparazzi thing. I know it's not a recent invention but I think it's got way out of hand and has a really mean streak.

I can't get all high and mighty about it because I used to look at these pictures as much as anyone. A few years back I had a huuuge crush on George Clooney and lapped up all the pictures and tabloid stories, didn't question the ethics of it at all, but then I caught this series on late night tv called Paparazzi where a journalist shadowed a snapper as he chased stories and discussed his "methods" and this snapper was just the most hideous person, harrassing this poor ex tv star and shouting awful stuff at him just to get a reaction and accusing him of being a drunk - the man hadn't done anything to deserve it :shock: . Anyway it was a bit of a Road to Damascus moment and from then on I can't look at those pictures without thinking of that hideous man - the human embodiment of something a dog leaves on the pavement.

Now although I'm tempted to look (oh god am I! :oops: ) I know I'll just feel grubby afterwards so I don't.

I do think people have to ask themselves before they look at Paparazzi pics whether they would themselves harrass someone, be rude to them, shove a person around just for a picture and if the answer is no then is it acceptable to pay a proxy to do this, which is essentially what looking at these pictures on justjared etc and buying Heat magazine and it's ilk is doing.

That said it's no good the paparazzi saying this behaviour is okay because it's just supplying a demand - there's a demand for drugs and child porn, it doesn't make providing them okay.

Mind you I don't only blame the paparazzi. The waters are muddied by those people super famous and less so who "allegedly" have deals with certain paparazzi, those who are 'caught out' in favourable pictures a bit too much for it to be chance and also those like Paris Hilton who seem fearful that a second of their life will remain unrecorded. However there are still many famous people who appear to have avoided tabloid / paparazzi coverage as much as possible and never use it to boost their career, and I believe Daniel can be included in this group, and I think that should be respected and he should be left alone, but this depends on the snappers, the papers and the 'consumers' including ourselves.

Anyway, I'll stand down from the soapbox now :)

Ang x
SmittenDramaKitten
Posts: 9942
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:29 am

Post by SmittenDramaKitten »

The headline news on TV today was not the economic crisis but whether Madonna & Guy Ritchie are getting a divorce. It's a sad fact of the 21st century that celebrity culture has become quite invasive. Look at what happened to Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse etc etc etc... They all imploded under the glare of the media spotlight.

I think Daniel has the intelligence to handle these situations with aplomb and his typical sense of humour. He must need a pretty thick skin though and it's bound to piss him off every now and then.

Speaking for myself, I Love Him Loads but I would NEVER go to his house in London nor do I have much interest in reading about his private life - as long as he's safe and happy, I'm happy too. I'll be sending some positive energy (and kisses!) for the healing of his injured shoulder... Apart from anything else, I think going to his house and expecting him to invite you in is just nuts. It's a bit like "so close and yet so far" from my point of view, which would drive ME nuts!!! :lol:
Post Reply