If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Digital Spy)   Kristen Bell upset with people taking pictures of celebrity children, so she now refers to the paparazzi as the "pedorazzi." It's not as if they have Woody Allen looking for them   (digitalspy.com) divider line 86
    More: Fail, Kristen Bell, Woody Allen, paparazzi, Dax Shepard, celebrity kid, children, Suri Cruise, celebrity  
•       •       •

2039 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:10 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-03 12:06:40 AM
I've never understood the public's fascination with celebrity children.. Especially babies since they all look the same ugly, wrinkled pink blobs to me.

My only interest in Kristen Bell's child would be the fact that it knows what the inside of her vagina feels like.
 
2014-02-03 12:52:36 AM
uh huh
 
2014-02-03 01:25:01 AM
The paparazzi must be an incredible source of annoyance and frustration to anyone remotely famous. They annoy me, and I'm nobody in particular. And little kids should be off limits to any right-thinking paparazzo. On the other hand, people who refer to those they don't like as "pedo"-something are also annoying, not to mention libelous. As for celebrity opinions, shut up and look sexy.
 
2014-02-03 03:18:17 AM
Wow. Kristen Bell is officially a coont.
 
2014-02-03 03:21:17 AM
Pedorazzi stalking pedophiles. Sounds reasonable to me.
 
2014-02-03 03:34:08 AM
Kristen Bell isn't a celebrity children, is she? Because I'd really like to post these:
newsmanone.files.wordpress.com
www.sitcomsonline.com
kbellicious.files.wordpress.com
i.imgur.com

But if there's a problem, I'll hold off.

(I agree, celebrity's kids should be off limits unless at a public function, i.e., a movie premiere. At the beach or poolside, or even out for an icecream? Probably not.)
 
2014-02-03 03:38:09 AM
She's just saying that celebs themselves are valid targets because they chose the life.

The kids are innocent, and thus should be left alone.
Pretty reasonable.
 
2014-02-03 03:40:33 AM
So freedom of the press is bad now?

If the celebrity parents and kids want to go somewhere private, go somewhere private. You're on security cameras every second anyway. Privacy is dead for everyone, not just celebrities.
 
2014-02-03 03:47:54 AM
Maybe don't blame the photographers...blame the celeb guzzling culture loving freaks that slurp up every bit of "news" that celebs create by stepping out of their house to go shopping.
If we weren't so fascinated with their lives, there would be less call for celeb reporters and photographers.
 
2014-02-03 03:54:19 AM
Why on earth would you slander innocent, hard-working people just trying to get by with such an evil, hateful label...

I mean, come on, man...no group, no matter how heinous, evil, or deserving of scorn deserves to be compared to paparazzi!
 
2014-02-03 03:59:28 AM
I have to admit she has a point. There have been some shots (linked to on Fark) of a celeb pool side and the photo gallery will include like 5 shots of a 6 year old in a bikini.. Paraphrasing here but it happens all the time.
 
2014-02-03 04:24:24 AM
Paparazzi are the scum of the earth.

People who give a fark the looks and lives of celebrities' children are worthless human beings.

Anyone using the term "pedorazzi" is being an ass.

But here's the real problem: Kristen Bell hasn't been on LLSw/Feguson in over a year. WTF is going on with that? I couldn't care less about her personal life. It's none of my business. But those two are comedy gold when she's on his show. The only part of her life I care about is if she and Craig had a falling out, because that affects my (anticipated) enjoyment of his show to some small degree.
 
2014-02-03 04:47:33 AM
She's right.
 
2014-02-03 05:51:52 AM
If she (or anyone) doesn't want her kid being photographed in a bikini, perhaps she shouldn't put her kid in a bikini in public (or private property that can be looked at by the public). Otherwise, her kid will be photographed in said bikini. Whether you get rid of paparazzi or not.

Other idiots will immediately start snapping shots with their phones instead. Celebrities are idolized and their children are adored and talked about by millions of people. If all phones were seized, security camera shots would be leaked by employees for thousands of dollars. You can't stop this in a free and technological society.
 
2014-02-03 06:02:06 AM

Demogorgon: If she (or anyone) doesn't want her kid being photographed in a bikini, perhaps she shouldn't put her kid in a bikini in public (or private property that can be looked at by the public). Otherwise, her kid will be photographed in said bikini. Whether you get rid of paparazzi or not.

Other idiots will immediately start snapping shots with their phones instead. Celebrities are idolized and their children are adored and talked about by millions of people. If all phones were seized, security camera shots would be leaked by employees for thousands of dollars. You can't stop this in a free and technological society.


Walk to any public pool and hang outside the wall with your $5,000 DSLR and 75-300 lens and start snapping photos of women and their little kids and see how fast the 4Chan party van shows up..
 
2014-02-03 06:05:03 AM
I wonder how many are willing to give up an incredibly charmed life of wealth and privilege to escape the harassment.
 
2014-02-03 06:26:06 AM

styckx: Demogorgon: If she (or anyone) doesn't want her kid being photographed in a bikini, perhaps she shouldn't put her kid in a bikini in public (or private property that can be looked at by the public). Otherwise, her kid will be photographed in said bikini. Whether you get rid of paparazzi or not.

Other idiots will immediately start snapping shots with their phones instead. Celebrities are idolized and their children are adored and talked about by millions of people. If all phones were seized, security camera shots would be leaked by employees for thousands of dollars. You can't stop this in a free and technological society.

Walk to any public pool and hang outside the wall with your $5,000 DSLR and 75-300 lens and start snapping photos of women and their little kids and see how fast the 4Chan party van shows up..


And here's an exciting and little known bit of hospitality law; If the celebrity in question (or anyone, for that matter) is staying at a hotel or resort, if they see someone taking their picture or otherwise recording them and do not want to be, all they have to do is tell a member of the hotel staff. The photographer will be asked to stop, and probably asked to leave if not a guest. Using a telephoto lens and taking the pictures from a location not on the physical site will also get you in trouble... All large hospitality companies (Marriott, Hilton, Four Seasons, and so on) require that any photo that shows a recognizable location on the property (not just the name or logo) receive a signed release (Marriott requires it for each person in the photo). This the reason why most of those paparazzi shots are so fuzzy.. the background has to be as non-descript as possible. All 50 states have some variant of this law. I have had reporters escorted off our property because they were bothering celebrity guests, and more than one has been cited for trespassing. Also, that security camera bit? Illegal... the footage on the camera belongs to the comapny, and access to those recording is usually strictly limited. Images taken from them can be tracked back to the unit that recorded it, which can lead to liability issues for the owner, and the employee who released the unauthorized can be fired and brought up on charges (if the images were sold, this can include theft of the dollar value). I'm not saying that such leaks don't happen, but they are very rare.
 
2014-02-03 06:33:48 AM
Despite her sharp knees, she's right. Stop feeding the retarded pop culture that has to have by minute updates on the kids. Let them, ya know, grow up as kids.

/By sharp knees, I mean sweater puppies
 
2014-02-03 06:47:06 AM
On the one hand, paparazzi are bottom feeding scumbags. On the other hand, go live in Montana if you don't want to be hounded. A lot of these celebrities who whine about being stalked by photographers, if they woke up one day and no one paid attention to them, they'd jump out of a farking window.
 
2014-02-03 06:52:55 AM

Mugato: On the one hand, paparazzi are bottom feeding scumbags. On the other hand, go live in Montana if you don't want to be hounded. A lot of these celebrities who whine about being stalked by photographers, if they woke up one day and no one paid attention to them, they'd jump out of a farking window.


"The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about." - Shia LaBeouf*

* or Oscar Wilde
 
2014-02-03 07:06:45 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Anyone using the term "pedorazzi" is being an ass.


I dunno - it seems like a clever turn of phrase that gets her point across. What else would you call papparazzi that target kids? "Ped" means "child."  A doctor for children is a "Pediatrician." The fact that you associate the prefix "ped" with something unsavory just shows that you know nothing about the Latin roots of English.
 
2014-02-03 07:26:04 AM
I don't disagree.

quickdraw: The fact that you associate the prefix "ped" with something unsavory just shows that you know nothing about the Latin roots of English.


It's always funny when people try so hard to sound smart that they wind up saying something incredibly stupid.

What's more relevant? The actual, current, commonly-understood meaning of the prefix "pedo" in the language as it exists today, or the prefix it stems from in a dead language that only influenced our current vernacular?
 
2014-02-03 07:34:37 AM
Anyone who goes around taking pictures of children like that at the very least have pedo tendencies.  I certainly wouldn't do it.  And it's not like it takes anything more than a willingness to sell pictures to TMZ to make someone a "professional" photographer.
 
2014-02-03 07:34:57 AM
Also, isn't this the chick who has a Kickstarter campaign to fund her "The Adventures of Clarissa Explains Alex Mack" or whatever movie she could easily fund herself? She needs attention from the press, even if it involves her precious spawn.
 
2014-02-03 07:44:55 AM

Mugato: On the one hand, paparazzi are bottom feeding scumbags. On the other hand, go live in Montana if you don't want to be hounded. A lot of these celebrities who whine about being stalked by photographers, if they woke up one day and no one paid attention to them, they'd jump out of a farking window.


That's sort of what  think about paparazzi. I mean there is a reason that that the Kardashian people and the losers from Teen Mom are usually the ones who show up on tabloid covers. And it is not because they are they most famous people in the world, it is because they are the type of whores who want the attention. You almost never see Johnny Depp or George Clooney on those same magazines, because they live private lives (Clooney in Italy/Depp in France). It would seem that if you make some effort to avoid photographers, they won't chase after you.
 
2014-02-03 07:49:13 AM

Mugato: Also, isn't this the chick who has a Kickstarter campaign to fund her "The Adventures of Clarissa Explains Alex Mack" or whatever movie she could easily fund herself? She needs attention from the press, even if it involves her precious spawn.


Not sure she could have easily funded it herself. I mean the movie raised 5.7 million on Kickstarter. According to the internet Kristen Bell is worth 16 million. That is not a lot by hollywood standards. And I doubt there are that many people who can or are willing to put up 36% of their entire net worth for 1 job.
 
2014-02-03 07:50:34 AM

Wolf892: Maybe don't blame the photographers...blame the celeb guzzling culture loving freaks that slurp up every bit of "news" that celebs create by stepping out of their house to go shopping.
If we weren't so fascinated with their lives, there would be less call for celeb reporters and photographers.


I don't actually think that most people really are all that fascinated with their lives. At least, no one I know personally, or have known personally, for the last 20 years or so has expressed more than a casual interest in this. My wife is guilty of occasionally buying a magazine or two, but really - that's more out of sheer boredom than any sort of deep seated desire to keep up with the Kardashians.

Really, I think that this is an industry that just exists to perpetuate itself. If it wasn't manufacturing stuff for people to look at, it'd have no reason to exist. There just isn't that much truly interesting stuff going on with these people, at least, not enough to fill a few dozen monthly magazines.

As for her point - I suppose I agree. I also feel very strongly that you have to be some sort of weird creep to take unsolicited photos of some other persons children.
 
2014-02-03 08:02:11 AM

mechgreg: Mugato: On the one hand, paparazzi are bottom feeding scumbags. On the other hand, go live in Montana if you don't want to be hounded. A lot of these celebrities who whine about being stalked by photographers, if they woke up one day and no one paid attention to them, they'd jump out of a farking window.

That's sort of what  think about paparazzi. I mean there is a reason that that the Kardashian people and the losers from Teen Mom are usually the ones who show up on tabloid covers. And it is not because they are they most famous people in the world, it is because they are the type of whores who want the attention. You almost never see Johnny Depp or George Clooney on those same magazines, because they live private lives (Clooney in Italy/Depp in France). It would seem that if you make some effort to avoid photographers, they won't chase after you.


www.biography.com

Worked for me!
 
2014-02-03 08:02:27 AM

Demogorgon: So freedom of the press is bad now?


The spin is "abuse of freedom".

It just strikes me as "stopping making money off my kids without my cut!"
 
2014-02-03 08:07:05 AM

100 Watt Walrus: Paparazzi are the scum of the earth.

People who give a fark the looks and lives of celebrities' children are worthless human beings.

Anyone using the term "pedorazzi" is being an ass.

But here's the real problem: Kristen Bell hasn't been on LLSw/Feguson in over a year. WTF is going on with that? I couldn't care less about her personal life. It's none of my business. But those two are comedy gold when she's on his show. The only part of her life I care about is if she and Craig had a falling out, because that affects my (anticipated) enjoyment of his show to some small degree.


She hates that farking robot skeleton.

The show ain't what it used to be. That farking skeleton ruined it.

The lls used to be exciting because you never knew what it was going to be. Now it's basically the same lame show every night. And you get the feeling they're phoning it in. The show turned into Letterman.
 
2014-02-03 08:08:06 AM
Wow. A lot of people are really sensitive about what people who buy expensive lenses and scale fences to take pictures of children are called.
 
2014-02-03 08:10:28 AM

mechgreg: Mugato: Also, isn't this the chick who has a Kickstarter campaign to fund her "The Adventures of Clarissa Explains Alex Mack" or whatever movie she could easily fund herself? She needs attention from the press, even if it involves her precious spawn.

Not sure she could have easily funded it herself. I mean the movie raised 5.7 million on Kickstarter. According to the internet Kristen Bell is worth 16 million. That is not a lot by hollywood standards. And I doubt there are that many people who can or are willing to put up 36% of their entire net worth for 1 job.



I dunno, say what you want about Kevin Smith and his body of work but he maxed out his credit cards and sold his comic book collection to make Clerks. I do tech stuff in movies but if I had a script that I was passionate about, I'd like to think I'd do the same. Well, if I had a comic book collection and a decent credit rating. A lot of independent filmmakers fund their own movies. Robert Rodriguez is another example. George Lucas managed to scrape enough money together to make the Star Wars prequels himself. That might not be the best example.

And $16mill is a lot by any town's standards in the US anyway. You don't have to have a house in the Hills to live well in LA with $16mill.
 
2014-02-03 08:14:52 AM

delathi: Worked for me!


Well it's not like Princess Di could go live on a ranch in Wyoming. I don't want to sound like the count pointer count guy from Airplane! and of course she didn't deserve what happened to her but she sort of knew what she was getting into when she married into the royal farking family.
 
2014-02-03 08:18:38 AM
I went to a photography convention about a year ago.  They had an entire section set up for some "company" that specialized in "candid photography of celebrity and/or public figures."  I couldn't actually believe someone set up a booth to farm for paparazzi *ahem*  talent, so I went in to take a look.

That overly bombastic guy on the TMZ show?  Yeah, apparently that's either how these people tend to act and this life just attracts them like a beckoning flame, or they are all modeling themselves after that slimy bastard like some weird subculture hero.  It felt dirty.  I don't care how much I would be getting paid, I couldn't handle the self loathing that would come with stalking in the bushes with a telephoto to get a picture of a lady in her workout gear getting her mail without makeup.
 
2014-02-03 08:23:35 AM

stoli n coke: Wow. A lot of people are really sensitive about what people who buy expensive lenses and scale fences to take pictures of children are called.


No joke.  "Ah want mah photos of little children's in mah magazines, bah gum!  Don't ask why!"
 
2014-02-03 08:37:56 AM

quickdraw: 100 Watt Walrus: Anyone using the term "pedorazzi" is being an ass.

I dunno - it seems like a clever turn of phrase that gets her point across. What else would you call papparazzi that target kids? "Ped" means "child."  A doctor for children is a "Pediatrician." The fact that you associate the prefix "ped" with something unsavory just shows that you know nothing about the Latin roots of English.


I'm not sure what else I'd call an adult taking photos of children with a telephoto lens for money.
 
2014-02-03 08:43:17 AM
She's right, you know.

Imagine a neighbor jumping your fence and taking "no prisoners," authorized glamor shots of your child and then get back to me with your opinion that such is the price of freedom of speech.

Any person, adult or child that does not want their picture taken or did not explicitly state that they wanted to be on camera-should not be mercilously followed with a camera, even if it's public.

A public park is pretty damn public, but if someone ambles up and starts taking my picture-up close-without my person, they're asking for trouble and I'm a grown man.
Now, if they're further away and I'm simply a bystander in a larger shot of society, then that's different.

However, up close shots are personal.
 
2014-02-03 08:44:47 AM
"*permission," rather

Anyway, don't be a rude farkstick with your camera.
 
2014-02-03 08:45:30 AM

Demogorgon: So freedom of the press is bad now?

If the celebrity parents and kids want to go somewhere private, go somewhere private. You're on security cameras every second anyway. Privacy is dead for everyone, not just celebrities.


So, it's freedom of the press to stalk children because their parents happen to be famous? How is that not creepy in any way?
 
2014-02-03 08:47:06 AM
The creepiest thing is.. The mob that follows Katie Holmes around isn't following her. They're following that kid specifically because her last name is Cruise. Katie Holmes is not a popular celeb and carries very little stock at this point. I found one article by Radar Online that had a picture of Katie in a bikini, Suri in a Bikini doing a leg lift and the caption was "Two hot bikini babes"

Scumbags
 
2014-02-03 08:49:14 AM
Blame the people who watch E! and buy People/US Weekly.
 
2014-02-03 08:49:37 AM

styckx: The creepiest thing is.. The mob that follows Katie Holmes around isn't following her. They're following that kid specifically because her last name is Cruise. Katie Holmes is not a popular celeb and carries very little stock at this point. I found one article by Radar Online that had a picture of Katie in a bikini, Suri in a Bikini doing a leg lift and the caption was "Two hot bikini babes"

Scumbags


They're trying to normalize pedophilia.
 
2014-02-03 08:53:35 AM

Mugato: mechgreg: Mugato: Also, isn't this the chick who has a Kickstarter campaign to fund her "The Adventures of Clarissa Explains Alex Mack" or whatever movie she could easily fund herself? She needs attention from the press, even if it involves her precious spawn.

Not sure she could have easily funded it herself. I mean the movie raised 5.7 million on Kickstarter. According to the internet Kristen Bell is worth 16 million. That is not a lot by hollywood standards. And I doubt there are that many people who can or are willing to put up 36% of their entire net worth for 1 job.


I dunno, say what you want about Kevin Smith and his body of work but he maxed out his credit cards and sold his comic book collection to make Clerks. I do tech stuff in movies but if I had a script that I was passionate about, I'd like to think I'd do the same. Well, if I had a comic book collection and a decent credit rating. A lot of independent filmmakers fund their own movies. Robert Rodriguez is another example. George Lucas managed to scrape enough money together to make the Star Wars prequels himself. That might not be the best example.

And $16mill is a lot by any town's standards in the US anyway. You don't have to have a house in the Hills to live well in LA with $16mill.



The deal with Smith and Rodriguez is they didn't really have much money to put up anyway, and they were what 21? 23? If their movies had tanked, they could have just moved back in with their parents until they paid it off, which, in Rodriguez's case, would have been what, a few months? $7,000 is a little easier to recover than $5 million.

Plus, they didn't have a family to support or anything, so they had nothing to lose.

In the cases of George Lucas and Mel Gibson, they were already uber-wealthy, so they could easily finance their own stuff without missing it. Lucas made money everytime any movie used THX, which, in the late 80s through the 90s, was virtually every movie released by a major studio.

Bell, on the other hand, is middle of the road. She's rich, but that net worth probably also includes her house, cars, production company, etc. Not many people want to risk all that on one movie, especially someone who just had a kid and realizes that she may only have a few more years of peak earning potential. She's already committed the actress sin of turning 30.

Plus, look at what happened to Coppola. He made 3 of the most financially successful and enduring movies of the 1970s, and is still living one step ahead. Hell, he nearly lost his house making Apocalypse Now, and the only reason Godfather III exists was because he was nearly broke and needed the money.
 
2014-02-03 08:58:15 AM

Mugato: I dunno, say what you want about Kevin Smith and his body of work but he maxed out his credit cards and sold his comic book collection to make Clerks. I do tech stuff in movies but if I had a script that I was passionate about, I'd like to think I'd do the same. Well, if I had a comic book collection and a decent credit rating. A lot of independent filmmakers fund their own movies.


I am not sure Clerks is a fair comparison. The movie cost Kevin Smith around $30,000. Except the movie you saw is not really the movie he made, since when Miramax bought it they added a sound track, and securing the rights to those songs cost more than $30,000. Plus I doubt anyone who worked on that movie, including the actors got paid (at least as he was shooting it). Veronica Mars by comparison is a studio movie, and google tells me that shooting took 28 days. Union actor scale rate appears to be $850 per day or so. Assuming Kristen Bell works every day, her union mandated salary is almost $24,000.
 
2014-02-03 09:02:45 AM
Look at these photographers or listen to them on TMZ, these are not candidates for the NSA, if they are easily finding these celebrities to photograph, it is only because the publicist the celebrities pay to use does their job informing them to get said celebrities with their mock outrage into magazines. And if you sell your baby's first photos for any amount of money, you have turned that child into a social whore so should just stfu.
 
2014-02-03 09:05:31 AM

Mugato: On the one hand, paparazzi are bottom feeding scumbags. On the other hand, go live in Montana if you don't want to be hounded. A lot of these celebrities who whine about being stalked by photographers, if they woke up one day and no one paid attention to them, they'd jump out of a farking window.


Who was the actor, a few months ago, that was pushing for legislation similar to that in the UK of taking pics of star's kids. Some people called him a jerk, but he had examples of, for instance, strange fellows following them home from school or otherwise invading the child's normal privacy. I just remember the actor saying that "he volunteered for this stuff, the kid didn't." I feel it was a Ben Affleck level guy. He had a good point and was actually pretty sporting about the papparazzi and press saying stuff about him but felt that kids shouldn't have strangers following them around, just because mom or dad are famous.
 
2014-02-03 09:08:32 AM

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

 
2014-02-03 09:10:36 AM

Penny_Ante: She's just saying that celebs themselves are valid targets because they chose the life.

The kids are innocent, and thus should be left alone.
Pretty reasonable.


thelowdownunder.com
Disagrees.
 
2014-02-03 09:11:08 AM
insidejobscast.files.wordpress.com

What's a couple of pics? Come on!
 
2014-02-03 09:24:59 AM
I'm just trying to figure out where getting knocked up by Dax Shepard is on the Timberline scale.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report