Shia Lebeouf throws coffee on paparazzi, then flees for his life

Status
Not open for further replies.
DY_nasty said:
Because he swims in pussy, rolls around on 24" chrome, and smiles as he fucks up their childhood memories

Yeah I oughta know better by now. GAF just hates on people that get more money than them.
 
Koodo said:
Nothing will ever top this:

2h55tzn.jpg
edward norton really put on weight
 
Pinko Marx said:
Yeah I oughta know better by now. GAF just hates on people that get more money than them.
That doesn't make any sense. Think about all of the people with plenty of money who get nothing but love here. Normally they're talented.

GAF hates famous people that don't contribute anything worthwhile to their art (e.g., music, movies) and earn riches with little merit. Shia Lebeouf and Justin Bieber are a couple good examples.
 
CharlieDigital said:
Whether he thinks it's good or not is really irrelevant. There are multiple measures of what's good and what's not. And whether you like it or not, one measure of goodness is financial success at the box office and beyond, regardless of the critical merits of the movie.

And that's fine, but it isn't what solely determines an actor's trajectory.


Here's a mind game you can play. Is the following statement true: if the papparazzi didn't exist, movies and actors would still exist.

If you answer "Yes", then they don't sustain anything.

You're incorrectly making the argument that I'm making the argument that movie stars didn't exist before paparazzi. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is there are numerous celebrities who only stay relevant because there are fans and consumers of the photos you rile against so much that help keep them relevant. Paparazzi photos don't exist in a vacuum. There have to be consumers of this media and many of these consumers are the same ones that go to see Transformers 2. Stop pretending like I'm saying these guys are the foundation of the entire industry.

Ask yourself this: "Does publicity help an actors career?" Can you honestly answer no to that?
 
every movie Shia stars in ends with him running, sweating, and making a dumb ass face while shouting, "no! no! no!"

i see nothing out of the ordinary in this video.
 
starchild excalibur said:
Ask yourself this: "Does publicity help an actors career?" Can you honestly answer no to that?

Sure it does, but that doesn't mean that the paparazzi have the right to dictate what is "publicity". Who a man or woman sleeps with, where an individual drinks coffee or eats, what books an individual reads, what an individual's children are wearing -- this type of "publicity" does not contribute to an actor's career. An actor's suitability for a role and an actor's skill at playing that role are what advances careers, not shots of an actor drinking coffee, reading a book.

Again, did LeBeouf get cast for Transformers because of the effect of the paparazzi? Because of where he chose to drink coffee and read a book? Or because of the brand of jeans he wears? Or because he was deemed the best actor for the role and script?
 
Shit like "all you guys do is hate" or "haters gonna hate" should be a bannable offense.

Shia Labeouf sucks, and whatever call it jealousy over his money I don't care. God damn, it's impossible to dislike anything with any semblance of fame if you use that bullshit "gaf hates it because it's popular" argument.
 
I fucking hate the Paparazzi. They are scum, and openly embrace how much shit they are. They literally know it, and are fine with selling any sense of morality for a quick buck. Empty people.
 
starchild excalibur said:
You're incorrectly making the argument that I'm making the argument that movie stars didn't exist before paparazzi. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is there are numerous celebrities who only stay relevant because there are fans and consumers of the photos you rile against so much that help keep them relevant. Paparazzi photos don't exist in a vacuum. There have to be consumers of this media and many of these consumers are the same ones that go to see Transformers 2. Stop pretending like I'm saying these guys are the foundation of the entire industry.

Ask yourself this: "Does publicity help an actors career?" Can you honestly answer no to that?

:lol

That's what magazines and television are for, not professional stalkers.

Just because people buy something doesn't somehow magically make it ethical.
 
Clevinger said:
:lol

That's what magazines and television are for, not professional stalkers.

Just because people buy something doesn't somehow magically make it ethical.

Where do you think magazines get their pictures and television get their footage?:lol
 
CharlieDigital said:
Sure it does, but that doesn't mean that the paparazzi have the right to dictate what is "publicity".

They don't dictate what is publicity. The consumers - i.e., the fans - do.

Who a man or woman sleeps with, where an individual drinks coffee or eats, what books an individual reads, what an individual's children are wearing -- this type of "publicity" does not contribute to an actor's career. An actor's suitability for a role and an actor's skill at playing that role are what advances careers, not shots of an actor drinking coffee, reading a book.

Again, did LeBeouf get cast for Transformers because of the effect of the paparazzi? Because of where he chose to drink coffee and read a book? Or because of the brand of jeans he wears? Or because he was deemed the best actor for the role and script?

That's debatable. Am I saying an actor that a director wouldn't otherwise like would still get cast solely because of his or her publicity? No. I've never argued in this thread the results are that direct. What I am arguing is that public opinion of an actor can affect their chances.

I've heard more about Lindsay in Machete than the movie itself. I've heard more interest about the revival of Pee Wee Herman after his fall from grace than i did when he was still on the air. To pretend that image plays no role in determining what people gets cast, that on even $200 million budget movies there's no research done into what actors skew towards what audiences and why and that image is defined in no way by what gets leaked publicly is something that I just can't buy, especially just after having a guest speaker at my school who worked in publicity at New Line for 6 years and re-affirmed this.

Clevinger said:
:lol

That's what magazines and television are for, not professional stalkers.

Just because people buy something doesn't somehow magically make it ethical.

I never said it was ethical. I'm simply saying they play a role in keeping these celebrities relevant and talked about.
 
More info needed. Had LeBeouf been harassed by the same dude for a long time, or to an excessive degree?

LovingSteam said:
How are they the scum of the earth when they're just delivering a service that people pay for?
People have been paid to kill others, to torture, to lie, to engage in any reprehensible activity you or I could name. How do you suppose that being paid to do a service has any bearing on the character of the person who was hired (or, for that matter, the integrity of the service performed)?

POWERSPHERE said:
Humans are scum of the earth.
You're so edgy.
 
Meh, I don't see the probem. Celebrities--be they movie or sports stars--are literally walking, talking advertisements. You pretty much forfeit your right to privacy when you sign on as one.
 
LovingSteam said:
How are they the scum of the earth when they're just delivering a service that people pay for?

I'm sorry but that's kind of a dumbass defence, since you could say the same about hitmen, crack dealers, etc.
 
That was fun. Was expecting like a fight between then, not the paparazzi running away and Shia throwing coffee at him; to then continue running. :lol

And that Joseph Gordon-Levitt clip is pure gold! Love the guy! :lol :lol
 
I blame the people that buy those shitty tabloids rather than the camera man taking the pictures. Paparazzi exist because there's such a huge demand for that kind of shit.

And not to totally defend paparazzi, but if you're famous you should expect this kind of stuff. Whether it be dudes following you with cameras or just fans wanting an autograph/picture. Sure it probably gets annoying, but you can't expect to be a movie star and just sit on the sidewalk without being approached.
 
Yeah, we can say "It's not my fault, I've never bought any tabloid or gossip magazine", but you have to go deeper... Our mothers and girlfriends around the world are giving work to these assholes because we are not giving them enough attention. GAF, unite and give love to our women, so we can stop the paparazzi menace once and for all.

Partially joking
 
It's weird how you guys are bagging out skinny jeans.

Here in Australia nearly everyone wears them. If you wear baggy jeans you're usually considered to be a fashion failure.
 
Pinko Marx said:
Yeah I oughta know better by now. GAF just hates on people that get more money than them.

Naw, I think Johnny Depp makes more money than most people on GAF, and he seems to generally be loved and adored. Not just for the nice things he does, but that he's actually talented at what he gets paid to do to boot.
 
_Alkaline_ said:
It's weird how you guys are bagging out skinny jeans.

Here in Australia nearly everyone wears them. If you don't wear baggy jeans you're usually considered to be a fashion failure.

Southern state, right ?
 
_Alkaline_ said:
It's weird how you guys are bagging out skinny jeans.

Here in Australia nearly everyone wears them. If you wear baggy jeans you're usually considered to be a fashion failure.
What. Which part of Australia are you in?
 
_Alkaline_ said:
It's weird how you guys are bagging out skinny jeans.

Here in Australia nearly everyone wears them. If you wear baggy jeans you're usually considered to be a fashion failure.
You can probably wear a leather waistcoat in Australia and no one will blink an eye. Australia is hardly at the forefront of any fashion trends.

And I like Shia, he cool and does his thing. I some how relate his girlfriend/pussy rate and bank balance is relative to his hate on GAF
 
Mecha_Infantry said:
And I like Shia, he cool and doesn't afraid of anything. I some how relate his girlfriend/pussy rate and bank balance is relative to his hate on GAF

oh yeah, i totally agree. gaf is only jealous. it isn't because shia leboof is a man trapped in a boy's body. and it isn't because he talks like the most annoying douche in the school. it even isn't because every single movie he's in is terrible to begin with, only to be dragged down further by his presence. haters are gonna hate, it's just that simple.
 
Hazmat said:
I don't really understand the clip. He calmly zips up his bag, runs, throws coffee on a dude, and keeps running? Seems like he had to know people were watching him, why bother with mildly irritating one of them if he's going to look like a douche?
Obviously he wasn't thinking rationally. Hopefully he didn't just set himself up to be sued, but I'm sure that's wishful thinking.

Also, on the subject of whether or not the paparazzi is scum. Princess Diana.
 
starchild excalibur said:
Ask yourself this: "Does publicity help an actors career?" Can you honestly answer no to that?

Depends on the actor, publicity certainly hasn't helped Mel Gibson's career lately.

The only celebrities who are truly kept alive by paparazzi are the fake celebrities that most of us wish didn't exist, they pander to the lowest common denominator. ie, reality stars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom