Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Emma out in London - November 26th


Recommended Posts

I think Emma can control herself very well when she wants to, and that in turn means she's making a point by ignoring/ looking upset at paparazzi. I don't think it has much to do with her having a bad day. She's reinforcing that she's not a show-off kind of starlet, but to some people that can be provocative (those expecting her just to go with it and not complain/ make a fuss).

 

 

I agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I reckon if I was in her position, every time I go out in public that isn't involved with work, e.g Like the above pictures. I would dress up in the most ridiculous outfits ever. Like dressed as a lumber jack or a storm trooper or wear a pregnancy suit to confuse everyone.

I'd annoy them until they left me alone. Wear stuff that completely covers my face...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok not mentioning names here but someone is def missing the point-Emma or other celebrities are not a something-they are a someone...not a single person here can say they would looooove to have cameras in their face when out with their family, friends while doing everyday normal things like eating, walking down a street, or my gosh even pumping gas for their car-not part of the acting or their sports (athletes) playing jobs roles. Yes there are some who so seek that attention, but Emma is not one of them. Rupert Grint is another one who doesnt want the attention-every pic you see he wears his hoodie with his hood pulled over so not to be recognized. I really believe there is a great number of celebrities that want to be left alone and personally we need to respect the privacy of them.

 

Jo, all the points you made about Emma were just so spot on...as for the Leveson report, the media in general is out of control and something def needs to be done. I am all for freedom of press, but they take those liberties to limit and beyond these days-not just paps but media in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG I cannot even with this anymore. D:

 

These aren't bad shots. They're really effing annoying, and I feel genuinely sad for her, but as long as she's not punching everyone in the face then who cares if she's listening to music and looking tired and angry.. It's the same difference as if she smiled. They'd still be sold to pubs and they'd just make up a story like "Emma's looking super cheerful she must be on some kind of drugs" or something equally outrageous. So, no, she shouldn't have to cater to what they want because they'll get what they want EITHER WAY.

 

It's not a matter of EMMA changing HER attitude toward the situation, but yes, the paparazzi and the government changing THEIR attitude toward it (which has been this on-going thing for a while).

 

I mean, to take this to the extreme example, anyone remember Princess Diana? Should she have smiled and waved to the paparazzi as they chased her to her death? D:

 

I mean, think about what you're saying. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG I cannot even with this anymore. D:

 

These aren't bad shots. They're really effing annoying, and I feel genuinely sad for her, but as long as she's not punching everyone in the face then who cares if she's listening to music and looking tired and angry.. It's the same difference as if she smiled. They'd still be sold to pubs and they'd just make up a story like "Emma's looking super cheerful she must be on some kind of drugs" or something equally outrageous. So, no, she shouldn't have to cater to what they want because they'll get what they want EITHER WAY.

 

It's not a matter of EMMA changing HER attitude toward the situation, but yes, the paparazzi and the government changing THEIR attitude toward it (which has been this on-going thing for a while).

 

I mean, to take this to the extreme example, anyone remember Princess Diana? Should she have smiled and waved to the paparazzi as they chased her to her death? D:

 

I mean, think about what you're saying. :rolleyes:

Spot on of course :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, to take this to the extreme example, anyone remember Princess Diana?

 

 

Of course; but Diana was the other way round: she first did everything to attract the photographers to use them as allies in her war against the royal family; then, suddenly, she wanted to switch off the interest in her person when having the relationship with Dodi al Fayed. With the known result; she treated them suddenly as enemies and they behaved like enemies. The drunken and druged driver did the rest......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're uncomfortably much on the paps' side. The Diana example has a point, and that's not if her driver was drunk. In a high speed chase through a tunnel it doesn't take alcohol to cause a lethal crash.

 

I think Emma's support of the Leveson inquiry on Twitter may imply that she indeed feels her privacy/ comfort zone is violated by the press at times. That would be very sad and isn't justifiable by saying she makes the wrong use of her PR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're uncomfortably much on the paps' side. The Diana example has a point, and that's not if her driver was drunk. In a high speed chase through a tunnel it doesn't take alcohol to cause a lethal crash.

 

I think Emma's support of the Leveson inquiry on Twitter may imply that she indeed feels her privacy/ comfort zone is violated by the press at times. That would be very sad and isn't justifiable by saying she makes the wrong use of her PR.

 

I am not on the paps' side, never was, I am just realistic. No politician will have the press as enemy - so there maybe will be some new laws (f.e. that it is illegal to take pics on private grounds, like it happend Kate, Duchess of Cambridge). But they will never make it illegal to take pictures on public ground. My opinion, as I stated earlier, is now that it is better to turn such events in a "positive" way for the own PR and appearance in the media. And as a celbrity you are more often in the media with pap-shots then without. (Austrian Newspapers: approx. 20 articles about/with Emma in 2012. More then 12 (!) included "pap-shots". So please do not tell me, that such pictures have no part in the PR of a celebrity).

 

Only Emma herself may be able to answer the question, why it is better for one of the most beautiful woman in the world to have more "unfavorable" pictures out there then "favorable". And I think, she is actress enough to look "nice" even when angry or tired. Paps are part of the profession as an actor/actress (not part of a "job", I took the wrong word), they are there, you cannot make them disappear with a spell, so why not USE them.... As I said, only Emma herself could explain that, any other answer is only speculation about what she might think or the own point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not on the paps' side, never was, I am just realistic. No politician will have the press as enemy - so there maybe will be some new laws (f.e. that it is illegal to take pics on private grounds, like it happend Kate, Duchess of Cambridge). But they will never make it illegal to take pictures on public ground. My opinion, as I stated earlier, is now that it is better to turn such events in a "positive" way for the own PR and appearance in the media.

And as a celbrity you are more often in the media with pap-shots then without. (Austrian Newspapers: approx. 20 articles about/with Emma in 2012. More then 12 (!) included "pap-shots". So please do not tell me, that such pictures have no part in the PR of a celebrity).

 

I think there are two kinds of celebrities, those that need publicity in itself because they have nothing else going for them, and people who became famous for their work. Emma obviously is in the latter group. I personally doubt that pap shots and intrusion of her privacy will result in her getting more/ better jobs. Like 'zomg, look at this picture of her getting out of the car! You can see her snatch! We need this girl!'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two kinds of celebrities, those that need publicity in itself because they have nothing else going for them, and people who became famous for their work. Emma obviously is in the latter group. I personally doubt that pap shots and intrusion of her privacy will result in her getting more/ better jobs. Like 'zomg, look at this picture of her getting out of the car! You can see her snatch! We need this girl!'

 

Your are right, Sacred, but I think, it is simply not possible to say "I am famous enough, please no pictures" (Emma would never say that, right?). And the unfortunate "get out of the car"-thing. Emma had always problems with that (from her 18th birthday on......). I remember a story about Kate Middleton. One of the first things she was thought by members of the royal court was how to get out of a car propperly without exposing "something" to the paps. This is - for me - also a part of "beeing famous". I know, each and everybody in this forum wants that the paps leave her alone and I am appointed to be the "despicable unperson" here because I have a different point of view, but that's the way it goes. Future will show, who is right in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your are right, Sacred, but I think, it is simply not possible to say "I am famous enough, please no pictures" (Emma would never say that, right?). And the unfortunate "get out of the car"-thing. Emma had always problems with that (from her 18th birthday on......). I remember a story about Kate Middleton. One of the first things she was thought by members of the royal court was how to get out of a car propperly without exposing "something" to the paps. This is - for me - also a part of "beeing famous". I know, each and everybody in this forum wants that the paps leave her alone and I am appointed to be the "despicable unperson" here because I have a different point of view, but that's the way it goes. Future will show, who is right in the end.

 

She'd never say 'please no pictures', no. In fact, she has participated gladly in quite many photoshoots, all of which kept her in magazines without paps. It's not like she didn't know how to play the media game IMO.

 

About the paps leaving her alone, well there are limits to everything I'd say. You can take pictures a distance away from someone quietly, or you can shove your camera in their face, shout at them, or rummage through their trash/ stand on their lawn. It's all a matter of courtesy, and British paps seem like a really intrusive and often obnoxious bunch. I don't think that i.e. in Germany the problem is nearly as bad as in Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She'd never say 'please no pictures', no. In fact, she has participated gladly in quite many photoshoots, all of which kept her in magazines without paps. It's not like she didn't know how to play the media game IMO.

 

But these shoots are a different thing. They are jobs, work. She get's paid for. And it is a different to be in a studio or on the streets.

 

German and Austrian paps are more polite, I agree. Many artists here have "agreements" with them. In my "old life" I had to deal with some actors and singers (some of them not known to everybody here <_< ). They all had agreements with the fotographers. They were willing to pose, but "enough" meant "enough", and the flashes stopped immediatly. I was always under the impression, that the British are the inventors of "gentlemans agreements", but in this special case it seems that we on the continent are better......

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the unfortunate "get out of the car"-thing. Emma had always problems with that (from her 18th birthday on......). I remember a story about Kate Middleton. One of the first things she was thought by members of the royal court was how to get out of a car propperly without exposing "something" to the paps. This is - for me - also a part of "beeing famous".

 

WHOA WHOA WHOA.

 

You DID NOT just say this, to imply that one should have to LEARN HOW TO EXIT A CAR PROPERLY in order to not have someone take pictures up their skirt.

 

1) I'm sure every dress wearing person on this forum has learned to exit a car in such a manner. But that does not apply when someone is literally lying on the sidewalk with a $5K camera and telephoto lens with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of taking that very shot.

 

2) Photos like those, and the very process of even ATTEMPTING to take them is SEXUAL ASSAULT. When you see those photos, you are looking at Emma being assaulted in a HORRIBLE, TERRIFYING way- much worse than being annoyed by some flashbulbs, but LITERALLY BEING STRIPPED OF THE RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY.

 

3) The fact is that, again, this is not ANYTHING to do with Emma. Ask any female-identified person you can find, and just listen to the stories they can tell you of the same sort of personal invasion happening to them. This is not a "famous person problem" this is a "society lets others believe that they have the right to someone else's body problem."

 

On Emma's 18th birthday, she was violated by someone taking photos up her skirt, and likewise on pretty much every woman's 18th birthday they are opening themselves up to a world where people think they can just take what they want, when they want it. Whether it be men groping on a crowded train, or groups of men following you down the road at night making comments-- it's a very real problem that MANY women face. I'm not famous, and I have had groups of drunk men yelling at me and chasing me down the street. It has nothing to do with fame, it has to do with being female-identified in a world controlled by white cis-gendered males who have every bit of power in the world (not hating against all of you, since many are lovely, but there are those ones that ruin your stereotype for you ;) ).

 

There is NO REASON why any woman should have to "learn to exit a car properly." All of us should REALLY be able to walk around COMPLETELY NAKED without fear of being assaulted. That should be a basic human right. If you think it's just the "famous" people being called a slut or a whore and having their personal space and right to their own body invaded to invoke a reaction then... wow. I mean, at least Emma has the protection of a ton of witnesses and enough lawyers to sue the pants off anyone who might touch her, but that still doesn't undermine the fact that she has been PUBLICLY ASSAULTED. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You DID NOT just say this, to imply that one should have to LEARN HOW TO EXIT A CAR PROPERLY in order to not have someone take pictures up their skirt.

 

 

Why ask you ME this question? Ask the royal family. The femal members of this family learn how to do it. Wonder, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said "Emma had always problems with that."

 

NO SHE DOES NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT *HER* PROBLEM THAT SHE IS BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WHEN SHE EXITS A DAMN CAR.

 

And then you said that learning to exit a car without exposing something is something someone should learn because having someone TAKE PICTURES UP THEIR SKIRT is part of being famous???

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said "Emma had always problems with that."

 

NO SHE DOES NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT *HER* PROBLEM THAT SHE IS BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED WHEN SHE EXITS A DAMN CAR.

 

Yes, it is "her" problem. Because as long as it is not forbidden by law (and it seems, that it is until this day possible to take and print such pics without getting to court) it MIGHT be in the intrest of a celeb woman to learn how to get in and out a car without the danger to find such a pic in tomorrows newspaper. Do you really think, Kate & Co. would learn such things without need?

 

And don't be so aggressiv. You really have a problem to accept other peoples opinions.

Edited by Jonny Carinthia
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with fame, it has to do with being female-identified in a world controlled by white cis-gendered males who have every bit of power in the world (not hating against all of you, since many are lovely, but there are those ones that ruin your stereotype for you ;) ).

 

Being a white hetero male I could take offense to that, but since the world is my oyster your spite doesn't hurt me in the slightest. Now watch me slowly spinning this globe while cackling sinisterly :king:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is "her" problem. Because as long as it is not forbidden by law (and it seems, that it is until this day possible to take and print such pics without getting to court) it MIGHT be in the intrest of a celeb woman to learn how to get in and out a car without the danger to find such a pic in tomorrows newspaper. Do you really think, Kate & Co. would learn such things without need?

 

And don't be so aggressiv. You really have a problem to accept other peoples opinions.

 

You are seriously justifying the paparazzi's right to sexually assault Emma? :unsure:

 

And damn right I'm going to be aggressive over a very real issue that 50% of the population faces. It's not an OPINION, because you have NO RIGHT to an opinion over people taking photos up women's skirts because IT'S NOT YOUR BODY.

 

Being a white hetero male I could take offense to that, but since the world is my oyster your spite doesn't hurt me in the slightest. Now watch me slowly spinning this globe while cackling sinisterly :king:

 

I love you so much. :kiss:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are seriously justifying the paparazzi's right to sexually assault Emma? :unsure:

 

Not I, the british law, I think.

 

And as long as the law does not protect the victim of such "pictorial assaults" it MIGHT be a good idea to me to be careful.

 

We I stayed with my friends in San Fransisco, we were told that it is not good for tourists to go to certain streets. So we avoided them, and we did not enter them with the idea: "it is not correct to get robbed and stabbed, but it will not happen, because the criminals knows that it is not right".

Edited by Jonny Carinthia
Link to post
Share on other sites

We I stayed with my friends in San Fransisco, we were told that it is not good for tourists to go to certain streets. So we avoided them, and we did not enter them with the idea: "it is not correct to get robbed and stabbed, but it will not happen, because the criminals knows that it is not right".

 

Okay, so apply this logic and imagine you are female (female-identified), and having to be afraid of being hurt or assaulted on ANY street you walk on. And then tell me that the paparazzi are part of her job, because "the law" (again, the law written by a majority of upper-class cis-gendered white men) says it's okay. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In keeping with your analogy, it's more like saying "there are thugs out there who might jump you no matter where you go. So you can either go unarmed and hope for the best, or take martial arts lessons and carry a gun on you at all times." So far, Emma has gone with the more reasonable (relatable, natural) option I'd say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so apply this logic and imagine you are female (female-identified), and having to be afraid of being hurt or assaulted on ANY street you walk on. And then tell me that the paparazzi are part of her job, because "the law" (again, the law written by a majority of upper-class cis-gendered white men) says it's okay. :rolleyes:

 

As far as I can see it, the british law make do difference between "normal" pictures and pictures of a indecent nature. And I do not think, that femals in London are more in danger to get hurted or assaulted then in other big cities (speaking for Europa). But still in our peaceful Vienna, capital of Austria, women know which streets should be avoided at certain times. I know, you say this is not correct, but it is so in many countries of the world. This is no excuse, just fact.

 

And the law: it seems to me - maybe one of our british members of this forum can tell us details - that there is no law at all against such indecent pictures. Because in Austria you can take "pap-shots", but a "upskirt-thing" would lead immediatly to criminal prosecution (not looking at the fact that no newspaper would print them). I know that the british law is different in questions of "personal rights", so maybe this is the problem?

 

Most politicians - men and women - are interested in a good relation to the press. This is the explanation why it is so difficult to change the law. They not even did it after the death of Diana. All possible was a "gentlemans agreement" between the editors in chief and the royal houshold to let the boys until they are 18.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if a doctor or teacher took photos of a patient or student that's illegal and would cause them to lose their job. But the paparazzi can do the same thing to a celebrity and they get to keep doing it forever? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if a doctor or teacher took photos of a patient or student that's illegal and would cause them to lose their job. But the paparazzi can do the same thing to a celebrity and they get to keep doing it forever? :unsure:

 

As patient of student I must agree that my picture is taken (speaking for Austria). There is a special form to fill in. For politicians, artists, athlets ecc. the Austrian law knows the term "Person of public interest". If you regarded to be such person, the right "on your own picture" is different then to a "pedestrian on the street".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...