Paparazzi Pics

[caramel]

Poor lamb, at least the hotel he is staying in is top-notch and exclusive, he will get some peace and quiet there.

A quick question , you guys.
Is he staying at a hotel during his stay in London?
I know his Regents Park house is on sale. Doesn't he have another house? Or is that sold already? Just wondering

[Sylvia's girl]

Poor lamb, at least the hotel he is staying in is top-notch and exclusive, he will get some peace and quiet there.

A quick question , you guys.
Is he staying at a hotel during his stay in London?
I know his Regents Park house is on sale. Doesn't he have another house? Or is that sold already? Just wondering

He's staying at The Soho Hotel, not sure if he's still got the other house.

[sf2la]

Poor lamb, at least the hotel he is staying in is top-notch and exclusive, he will get some peace and quiet there.

A quick question , you guys.
Is he staying at a hotel during his stay in London?
I know his Regents Park house is on sale. Doesn't he have another house? Or is that sold already? Just wondering

He's staying at The Soho Hotel, not sure if he's still got the other house.

I posted the listing of his RPark house on the news thread.

[Germangirl]

A quick question , you guys.
Is he staying at a hotel during his stay in London?
I know his Regents Park house is on sale. Doesn't he have another house? Or is that sold already? Just wondering

He's staying at The Soho Hotel, not sure if he's still got the other house.

I posted the listing of his RPark house on the news thread.

But he "only" about 4 Mill something for his part - so are you sure, the whole house is up for sale now and that this is it?

[sf2la]

He's staying at The Soho Hotel, not sure if he's still got the other house.

I posted the listing of his RPark house on the news thread.

But he "only" about 4 Mill something for his part - so are you sure, the whole house is up for sale now and that this is it?

I think the paper said he paid 4.5M pounds for it (7.2M dollars) then. That was before he remodeled it. Yeah, that is his house.

[sf2la]

I find this article interesting, and it reminds me of the current papz incident. Poor guy about all the bathing suit comments.

THIS IS AN ARTICLE FROM 2007

Craig shaken and stirred by reporter's remark
By RICHARD SIMPSON
Last updated at 18:45 12 February 2007


All that visceral, muscular acting has, it seems, left Daniel Craig rather wanting in the humour department.
It might have been hoped that Craig would react with James Bond-style nonchalance - or at least magnanimity - at being passed over for a Bafta at Sunday night's awards in London.

Daniel Craig and girlfriend Satsuki Mitchell arrive at the BAFTA's last night
Yet it appears that he became so wound-up after being beaten by Forest Whitaker in the best actor category that he shunned the whirl of afterparties and almost got involved in brawl with a journalist.
The evening did not start too comfortably for Craig, who appeared visibly uncomfortable at being praised for his honed looks by show host Jonathan Ross - then bristled with annoyance when Whitaker was announced best actor.
Craig left the awards at the Royal Opera House on the arm of his girlfriend, producer Satsuki Mitchell.
By the time the couple arrived at the Grosvenor House afterparty, a hotel security member described Craig as being "incandescent with rage".
It was at that point that the 39-year-old came face to face with journalist Johann Hari. Mr Hari, who is gay, said last night: "When we first spoke, he was in a vile mood. I just made a joke about how great he looked in his shorts in the film. There were so many ways he could have reacted.

"But instead, he called me a 'f***ing fool'. I hadn't said it nastily. He could have just smiled and said he wasn't in the mood for a joke, but he was actively rude and seemed to snarl at me. I watched as he lost out to his award. Every clap for Forest Whitaker was like a little fracture in his heart."
A source from the hotel security added: "Satsuki saw the situation was about to get out of hand. She knows that Daniel can react and did not want it to kick off in front of so many people.
"She rushed to his side and literally put her arm between them before this guy got thumped. It was clear that Daniel was not at all happy."
A source close to the actor added: "Over the course of the evening, he had been getting increasingly wound-up with people coming up to him telling him how great he looked in those shorts as he came out of the sea in Casino Royale.
"Daniel sees himself as a serious classically-trained actor who spent three years with the RSC, and brought real depth to the role of Bond.
"First of all, he loses out on the Bafta, then everyone from Jonathan Ross downwards spends the night talking about how buff he looks in swimming trunks.
"He left the awards and went straight to the Grosvenor House and every five minutes was telling Satsuki he wanted to go. But his studio execs were adamant that he should stay on to show willing.
"Even when Dame Judi (Dench) came up to commiserate with him, she was given short shrift.
"Judi tried to have a laugh with him calling them a pair of losers - since she lost out to Helen Mirren too - but he didn't see the funny side.
"By the time this journalist popped up trying to have a joke about his shorts, Daniel was ready to rip someone's head off."
Shortly after Craig's short discussion with Mr Hari, he left with Miss Mitchell and the couple retired to their suite at the nearby Dorchester Hotel.
Craig's publicist did not wish to comment last night.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... emark.html

[Dunda]

I posted the listing of his RPark house on the news thread.

But he "only" about 4 Mill something for his part - so are you sure, the whole house is up for sale now and that this is it?

I think the paper said he paid 4.5M pounds for it (7.2M dollars) then. That was before he remodeled it. Yeah, that is his house.

I think the new one is already sold. The wooden fence is down and when I went by yesterday the window have been open.

[sf2la]

But he "only" about 4 Mill something for his part - so are you sure, the whole house is up for sale now and that this is it?

I think the paper said he paid 4.5M pounds for it (7.2M dollars) then. That was before he remodeled it. Yeah, that is his house.

I think the new one is already sold. The wooden fence is down and when I went by yesterday the window have been open.

Couldn't the fence have come down after he moved and as a recommendation by the realtor? Read the listing. It has his name and property all over it. And it's the only listing with no photos inside or outside.

[bumblebee]

Dunda's on stakeout - good to hear!

[sasha]

I personally don’t care what profession you’re in everyone has the right to their privacy, this is simply supply and demand. We demand and the media/paps supply. Just because someone earns x does not disqualify them from this sort of basic right but for some excuse and legitimises the lengths we want others to go to, to satiate our insatiable appetite.

Entertainers may earn loads but we also get entertained so why should what they do after their work is done still be our business . We may have bought a ticket to the show but it doesn’t and shouldn’t include ownership of their private lives.

In theory, of course you are right. In practice, it's never been that way. Those who enter into the entertainment business and become famous have always, always been subject to paparazzi. It goes with the territory, and they know it. No one is saying that everyone should enjoy it (some celebrities encourage it), especially one as private as DC. There is good and bad with the profession. As for one of the good aspects, it provides an incredible source of wealth and financial freedom. He doesn't have to continue to work. He could retire a very wealthy man today, but to him, the good outweighs the bad, which is fortunate for us.

How true about supply and demand law. The only point is that entertaining is the only occupation where professionals use their physical features (body, face, gestures) as instruments –and more these features loved by audience the more successful the entertainers become. The problem is that the audience (being only humans) can’t switch off that attraction after performance – so the demand is only natural. Now what to do with the supply side - is whole different issue, it’s where we need some morality cods, that are priceless, but nobody pays for them.
My two- it seems that DC loves acting for mere acting itself, and something tells me, that even if he would be paid less for what he does he would still act, it seems that his main problem is that he does it too well.

[cheryl1700]

I personally don’t care what profession you’re in everyone has the right to their privacy, this is simply supply and demand. We demand and the media/paps supply. Just because someone earns x does not disqualify them from this sort of basic right but for some excuse and legitimises the lengths we want others to go to, to satiate our insatiable appetite.

Entertainers may earn loads but we also get entertained so why should what they do after their work is done still be our business . We may have bought a ticket to the show but it doesn’t and shouldn’t include ownership of their private lives.

In theory, of course you are right. In practice, it's never been that way. Those who enter into the entertainment business and become famous have always, always been subject to paparazzi. It goes with the territory, and they know it. No one is saying that everyone should enjoy it (some celebrities encourage it), especially one as private as DC. There is good and bad with the profession. As for one of the good aspects, it provides an incredible source of wealth and financial freedom. He doesn't have to continue to work. He could retire a very wealthy man today, but to him, the good outweighs the bad, which is fortunate for us.

How true about supply and demand law. The only point is that entertaining is the only occupation where professionals use their physical features (body, face, gestures) as instruments –and more these features loved by audience the more successful the entertainers become. The problem is that the audience (being only humans) can’t switch off that attraction after performance – so the demand is only natural. Now what to do with the supply side - is whole different issue, it’s where we need some morality cods, that are priceless, but nobody pays for them.
My two- it seems that DC loves acting for mere acting itself, and something tells me, that even if he would be paid less for what he does he would still act, it seems that his main problem is that he does it too well.

so true and so well said sasha

[sf2la]

In theory, of course you are right. In practice, it's never been that way. Those who enter into the entertainment business and become famous have always, always been subject to paparazzi. It goes with the territory, and they know it. No one is saying that everyone should enjoy it (some celebrities encourage it), especially one as private as DC. There is good and bad with the profession. As for one of the good aspects, it provides an incredible source of wealth and financial freedom. He doesn't have to continue to work. He could retire a very wealthy man today, but to him, the good outweighs the bad, which is fortunate for us.

How true about supply and demand law. The only point is that entertaining is the only occupation where professionals use their physical features (body, face, gestures) as instruments –and more these features loved by audience the more successful the entertainers become. The problem is that the audience (being only humans) can’t switch off that attraction after performance – so the demand is only natural. Now what to do with the supply side - is whole different issue, it’s where we need some morality cods, that are priceless, but nobody pays for them.
My two- it seems that DC loves acting for mere acting itself, and something tells me, that even if he would be paid less for what he does he would still act, it seems that his main problem is that he does it too well.

so true and so well said sasha

So true, Sasha. Daniel has been quoted as saying he's not in it for the money; he just loves to act and that if the money is good with it, that's just a bonus.

It also really 'hurts' paparazzi-wise that he's handsome and James Bond. When he was on Jay Leno, he was asked what the downside of being James Bond was, and he said, "Nothing really," and then spoke briefly about his greater loss of privacy. Jay spoke about himself and said something to the effect that because he's not good looking, no one cares.

[$abbatha]

Basically Craig has his temper,everyone knows it also the he's a private guy.What happened to this pap isn't very new cause,thanks Sf for the article, i'm perfectly aware that he can be heated sometimes.
What i found really incomprehensible is why sometimes people are so harassing with celebrities and are so interested in papped piccies.I ask that to myself cause i found its not really interesting.
Basically being an A line actor means lose a lot of your privacy,but undestand that and manage that are two different things really,and also sometimes you can't fight against your inner feelings.
What i believe is that unfortunately being a celebrity means lose your privacy sometimes,now i'm not really interested to see so many papped piccies,but it's also true that more piccies means more visibility,means more popularity and definitely even bad publicity is still publicity.
It's sad but it's in this way that popularity works.

[$abbatha]

Basically it doesn't matter if someone praising Craig or simply badmouthing Craig,the main thing is that people talking about Craig.
It's the indifference from people the bad thing into the HW industry,vause indifference is an alarm bell,means that no one is really interested in a certain celebrity that means that in lack of popularity.

[Flower]

Good article Sf2la! I had a funny feeling DC had a temper but never really saw any evidence of it. If true, it makes me sad that he couldn't laugh at the situation.