The Shrine

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

Woody gets in a clash with a paparazzi, and claims he mistook the paparazzi for a zombie.

Kinda wish there were loopholes that ALLOWED stars to kick the shit out of the paparazzi.

The thing I don't get is these people have high powered lenses, why the fuck do you have to be 2 feet in front of the star?

Imakeholesinu wrote:The thing I don't get is these people have high powered lenses, why the fuck do you have to be 2 feet in front of the star?

Because they can be.

Yes, otherwise you can't piss off the stars and wreck their kids' lives and get shots of them looking angry to slander them with in the tabloids. Eric, I absolutely agree and find Woody's zombie defense perfectly acceptable. Anyone got an abandoned mall and a lawnmower?

They've gotta wake up and realize that this "freedom of speech" bullshit is taken waay to far by the 'extreme media' types and just needs to be changed.

TMZ deserves to have their people beaten. They're a bunch of asshole celebrity stalkers. There's a HUGE difference between writing articles and stalking people to get photographs and videos of their personal lives and family lives to the TMZ website.

Either way, common sense when your job is stalking celebrities. You don't fuck with certain celebs; Woody Harleson obviously among those.

The zombie defense is flawless. Abandoned mall, lawnmower. And a camera if you like, in the spirit of both homage to the idea's inspiration and the concept of "turnabout is fair play".

Awesome.

Imakeholesinu wrote:The thing I don't get is these people have high powered lenses, why the fuck do you have to be 2 feet in front of the star?

Because that's how you get the see-through breast shots. Use a flash powerful enough, anybody can see through your clothes. I'm surprised they haven't shifted to using some form of x-ray vision on these lens.

Also, why can't Woody sue him back for stalking? After all, that's exactly what they are doing.

SineSwiper wrote:Also, why can't Woody sue him back for stalking? After all, that's exactly what they are doing.

What's to be gained? If you use the word "sue" you're talking about civil, not criminal, prosecution, and talking about going after someone's bank account. Most paparazzi don't have enough money in their bank accounts to even recoup your legal fees. They work as independents and sell shots to the papers as individuals, so you can't sue the tabloid papers themselves. And if you want to switch over to criminal prosecution instead and something like a restraining order, then you go through potentially months of court dates to get rid of one person out of thousands. You could spend your life going after them one-by-one with restraining orders with the rough effect of trying to eradicate mosquitoes with a flyswatter.

The paparazzi have a really, really unkind and utterly selfish racket going on, and it would take a changing of the legal code around photography in public places to get anything changed. I think it would be worth it. Most of the celebrity paparazzi have no ethics or scruples whatsoever and attitudes of entitlement and arrogance as bad or worse than the celebrities they harass. I saw a YouTube video where someone was literally hounding Britney Spears as she tried to go into a gas station bathroom, asking her to smile for the camera and whatnot. He just would not leave her alone, but it was so odd because from the guy's tone of voice you'd think he was at a press event. These people frequently have stars in their eyes the size of golf balls and are not in touch with reality themselves except as it relates to the business of getting shots they can sell to the tabloids or TMZ.