In today's society people love to here the latest scoops on the celeberties. But to what extent is it enough? When are people invading there privacy? These are questions looked upon especially when celebarties get put on trial.......
Usually in today's media, before a celebartie gets put on trial information and stories get printed before the actuall trail. Is this really fair to a celebarties privacy. My personal opinion feels that in one way or another it is not fair because like everyone else, celebarties have a private life like any other normal person. So I dont really think it is fair that people get to know about there private life even if they dont want to or do.
I think celebrity trials in the media is wrong. They deserve their privacy and they do not get that when they are tried and the media is covering every aspect of it. having a trial in the media allows people to judge from what they have heard which might not be the whole truth. For that fact when these celebrities are in court the people on jury probably walk into the court room with their mind made up and some might not but it creates biased opinions. There for you can never have a jury that is not biased in some way when you have a celebrity case that is being covered by the media. To think that is what is being covered when there are other important things going on in the world is just sad. After w while these cases just start to get annyoing and people don't care as much because it is on the news or what people talk about every five seconds.
There is really no need to explot the celebrities business all over television for people to see its just not right. In a way it is kind of sad that poeple like to watch what is going on in someone elses life and their private personal business. Celebrities personal buisness in the media should just be stopped or at leastnot give it as much coverage. They deffinately deserve their own privacy and are human to and they don't need to lose respect or self respectfrom other people or form themselves.
Trial by media is wrong because that is showing famous peoples business into the world and that is invading there privacy. When a nobody kills someone, they won't make a big of a deal and put it on the papers like they did with Michael Jackson, but the reason why the media does show it to the world is because they want everyone to know about it. What if they get it wrong like the Kobe Bryant story? They found new facts that can make Kobe Bryant not guilty so that is another reason, the media can be wrong.
The Kobe Bryant, OJ Simpson, R Kelly, and now Michael Jackson. They’re all black but Michael Jackson changed his color but people would think that the media are just doing it to black people because it’s interesting. The R Kelly story could be wrong because he was having sex with a young women that he thought was over 18 because no one would ask someone are you over 18 so I can know that your old enough but it is also his fault because he videotaped it but that’s not rape. He was just making love to the young women. The OJ Simpson story, he was innocent but has also black and everyone notices when you’re black and on the news so people would think the media is racist besides with sport players. People should believe what the media says unless the real person there selves say it.
In Hollywood, paparazzi will go to great lengths to find the newest scams and scandels on the most glamourous and well known celebrity icons. Poeple will dig deep into celebrity's lives to find the grim behind those beautiful faces. But how much of the dirt that we find about these icons are actually accurate? Just like in average life-styles, poeple in Hollywood breakup, get uspet, and go through hard times too. but unlike in an average person's life, if a hollywood gets upset, it could be catagorized as a "mental brakedown" or "a suicide attempt".
i think that the exposure that celebrity's get about their personal lives is very much magnified to make it seem as intense as possible. i bleive that the majority of the scandals that go on in Hollywood are blow up to be seen as worse case scenarios. FUAX
The debate of media, celebrity status, and freedom of the press is a delicate and highly controversial issue. It's hard for someone, perhaps even someone as oppinionated as myself to form a firm conclusion about the topic.
On the one hand, I believe that celebrities have the right to privacy in their personal lives. I also don't believe that the media should continue on this path of shaping the outcome of trials and determining the fates of celebrties before they're even granted a trial. However, one of the things that CAN make this country wonderful, is the right to freedom of the press. They're allowed to produce these stories, so they should be allowed to do so, plain and simple. That then in turn makes this a question of morality. It's horrible for newspapers and news programs to shape celebrity destiny with their biased reporting, but it must be allowed. For censorship of these rights will soon be followed by many more. We can't give abbreviated rights to criminals, for example we wouldn't give a suspect the right to a phone call but no lawyer. So we can't be expected to censor the media so that they can only report on some stories. This coverage is merely a consequence of celebrity status. And with it unfortuneately also comes bias. The only true hope is that morality will one day rule, and these stories will become obselete due to the ethics of the media, as opposed to the laws of censorship by which they obide.
Yo, I've had it with these dumb people that try and screw with celebrities for their money. I would love to smack them. For example, in the Michael Jackson molestation trial, yeah the kid got molested, but why was he there in Michael Jackson's house, long enough to get drugged and molested. Why would the parents let him chill there, alone for mad hours? Its not Michael Jackson's fault he's attracted to 12 year-old boys, but its the parents fault for giving Michael Jackson their 12 year-old kids.
True, Michael Jackson should contain his 12 year-old boy fetish, but if opprutunity is knockin', answer the door. Still, if the parents are that dumb, then just shut up. Besides, Jackson's not even guilty yet so stop yappin about it till the case is done because hes innocent till proven guilty baby.
For years, Michael has been accused of child molestation. Repeatedly charges have been pressed against him, and he has been able to avoid them with television interviews and documentaries. However, recently another young boy has come forward stating that he too had been molested by Jackson. Furthermore, it is being said that the boy is a cancer victim. Police officials have been waiting to seize Michael Jackson and take him in, bail being 3 million dollars. This will be paid I'm sure, however I doubt record sales will reach any all time high.
Celebrity scandals such as this occur all the time. Any time a celebrity is involved with anything negative or otherwise leading to bad publicity, it immediatley floods the media. These happenings with well-known icons do give them a bad name, however, they also remind the public that they exist and therefore enhance their popularity. It is for this reason that it is always questionable whether or not the scandals are true, or the celebrities are simply trying to get their name in the papers. Unless of course they are like Michael Jackson and persistantly are involved with the same scandal, then I assume it is true.
Trial's that have media coverage surrouding there case are quite controversial due to the fact that society is going to have a predetermined opinion on the case and therefore is going to judge the case in a biased way. Furthermore, since a jury is composed of regular people who have most likely read the newspaper articles preceeding the case and have watched the interviews and news based on the case, the jury will have a predilection towards the pitying side. For instance, in the current case involving Michael Jackson, all the articles, documentaries, interviews have favored the victims side and have condemned Michael Jackson as a pedofile or as an insane man, not leaving much room for his innocence.
In the United States a person is considered innocent until they are proven guilty, however, in cases such as that of Jackson's there isnt much room for innocence. When you have been tackled by the media and labeled as a "wacko jacko" there isnt much hope for your case. Of course, society is going to be prejudiced towards the case when the media is treating the case as if it has already been tried. Furthemore, the victim within the case is being pitied to the point where the media is including facts that are irrelevant to the case, such as the fact that the victim is a cancer patient. The only purpose of that statement, which is written in large bold words, is to have society provide more sympathy for the victim than Micheal Jackson.
Lastly, the point of the media is to overdramatisize a case, especially when it involves a character such as Jackson, who has been loved, hated, and has been an important celebrety throughout the last two decades. The fact is that people love drama especially when it includes someone as infamous as Michael Jackson, and no matter what the outcome of the case will be, the media has helped to provide the jury with a proclivity towards the child.
It often happens that a celebrity is said to be guilty of doing something, before he or she has even been trialed for it. I don't think that the media is fair to people when it spreads the news about them like this because 1; no one is even sure what really happened and 2; the celebrities are people just like us, and would therefore, like to have respect and privacy just like any of us would want. Of course, later on if we find out that he or she really is guilty, then we can spread the news on T.V, in newspapers, and all other forms of the media. However, starting gossip about people for no reason, except entertainment, is wrong.
I remember we were discussing something about celebrities in one of my classes last year, and someone brought up the fact that celebrities deserve to be treated the way that they are. The argument that the person made to back up his opinion was that the celebrities get paid enough to be able to handle humiliation. He said that they make billions of dollars for making a simple movie when some people work so hard and can't even make half as much. He also said that the celebrities put themselves in a position to go through all this, and it is their own fault. I agreed with him to some extent at first, but then I realized that it was wrong. The celebrities did not become who they are to be humiliated. They did it to entertain us and because it was something that they wanted to do. They worked hard to get to where they are and therefore earned the right to be paid as much as they get paid. However, that does not mean that the media could think that it has the right to humiliate them and start rumors and gossip about them just to be able to entertain the audience.
Honestly, I don't see why everyone is always in celebrities' business. They are entitled to their own privacy, and who care whether or not Martha Stewart goes to jail, no one likes her anyway. Everyone is just all in her business because she has money and we all want to see someone with money go down. You could say that the stars put themselves in a situation where everyone is all in their business, but even so, if they win the trial or not, will it realy make that much a difference in our lives?
The only argument anyone could have s that ether they're nosy, or its entertainment. But if you want entertainment that bad, just go watch Jerry Springer.
Another thing, is that in some situations, the only time mediocre celebrities become famous is when they commit some sort of crime. For example, Winona Ryder, not too great of an actress and never got too much publicity, but the second she shoplifted from Saks, she was on the cover of every magazine and newspaper and everyone wanted to know what happened next in the big Winona Ryder shoplifting trial. But honestly, who cares?!?!
Scandals are everywhere with celebrities, from Jacko, to the likes of Liza Minelli and Rosie O'Donell. the media will do anything to get the attention of the public. scandals sell, people love to hear about how truly messed up the life of the glamourous celebrity. If that sells, that makes money, and the media industry, just like any other large industry, is that it is about making money.
"The Breakfast Club," starring Molly Ringwald and Emilio Estevez is on my top ten list of favorite movies along with "Sixteen Candles," and other 1980's classics. The relationships formed amoung the group of bizarre teens forced to spend Saturday in detention are developped brilliantly. John Hughes stages the film in mostly one room and manages to hold my interest for two hours.
Hughes takes the six basic stereotyped high school students; the athlete, the brain, the bad boy, the freak and the princess and forces them into a bonding situation. The actors are very talented and stay in character throughout the movie. The camera work is very impressive, especially when the students sneak back into the library after escaping. The audience feels as if they are part of the scene, waiting with anticipation to see if they get caught.
What bothers me is when "the princess" gives "the freak" a makeover. When her beauty is apparant and she is wearing nice clothes and make-up everyone likes her more, as opposed to when she had a more unique style and was labeled weird. This is a true depiction of the affect of the media. Even twenty years ago, movies were sending messages targetting the youth of America. On the contrary, one of my favorite parts is the end when detention is over and the students get out of school. Before going home, they each have a little part of eachother in themselves. The final shots of the characters talking to eachother in the end show how they have changed their attitudes towards life.
The problem with movie kisses...there are a whole bunch of problems. First of all, they're not real and no matter what actors attempt in their kiss, it will cannot and will not look real unless there is chemistry between the actors. Chemistry between two actors is hard to create, it has to be there from the beginning. In a kiss between two actors in this particular situation, "sparks" may not fly, but it may appear to the audience as such. There is still something missing however, because we know that the kiss is not with real, heartfelt passion. Instead, it is a simple example of actors following a script.
We are all brought up to understand the basis of a kiss, why people kiss and what it means. A movie kiss changes this, because we all know that the actors do not feel passion for each other, nor do they plan to kiss again off the set. The only case in which we can be sure that there is real feeling behind a movie kiss is if the people kissing are in fact together, though this is a rare occurance.
There is no way to make a movie kiss a real kiss. No matter how good an actor is, there is no way to create a real love facade.
last night, i saw the sequal to The Matrix, The Matrix Reloded. I remember the Matrix being a fabulous movie, it kept me interested throughuot the movie. The suspense was very intense and i understood all of the twists and truns. i beleive that Sequals should be a jump-off of the origional movie but it should also have its own origional storyline. Obviously the sequal is a continuation to the first one but one should not rely on seeing the first movie to see the second. it should be an independent prodution.
I saw The Matrix a few years ago and didn't really remember all of it. I understood the idea but over the years, alot of the movie faded away in my mind. so when it came time to watch the sequal, i expected to be a bit reinformed about what happened in teh origional, but i was taken by suprise to be very confused during the duration of the begining of the movie.
the problem with sequals these days in mainly that they expect you to know about teh first one completly so whether you haven't see it or are a bit fuzzy on the main topics in the movie, you get lost within the first half of the movie. i think that everyon should go on strike and STOP watching sequals!!!
I have seen many movies ever since I was a little kid. When was little I used to watch the same movie every day before I went to nursery school alternating between my beloved Raffie and Peter Pan. I used to know every world to the movie and recite it. However since then my taste in movies has changed and I feel that they are a little more sophisticated, although I do enjoy the occasional children’s film.
I would have to say that my favorite movies are Pretty Woman, Legally Blonde, and Finding Nemo. As you can see I am not a big fan of scary movies, when I go to the movies I would rather laugh for $10 instead of being scared.
Legally Blonde is sooo... funny. One of the major reasons why I like this movie is because I really like the color pink (haha). Also the dialogue can be really dumb but at the same time hilarious one of my favorite parts was the video that she made in order to get into Harvard. The way that she talks about how she I a great candidate for law school and he uses "legal jargon" everyday. I also really like the other characters like Paulette and the bend and snap scene might be the best thing every crated on film (haha). In all this movie is really funny and although the plot of the sequel was not as good, but the different scenes were still as funny as the last.
When I was about four years old, I remember sitting in front of my t.v., extremely close up to the screen as the images of chucky killing one of his new victims appeared. My mother and father never really protested my watching of any kind of film, whether it be horror, drama, comedy or anything else. I remember watching a number of movies that were quite inappropriate for a child of my age.
Watching chucky at such a young age intrigue in me an interest to watch other horror movies as I grew older. For instance, I grew an interest in the Freddy movies, such as Nightmare on Elm Street, or the Halloween movies, or the Friday the 13th movies, it was never-ending. I had developed a liking for a genre of movies that disgusted others, but for the most part I found them funny and entertaining, realizing that none of them were real. Chucky, a movie that isnt viewed as an influential movie, was quite influential on my judgement of films and provided me with a proclivity towards thrilling movies. As time passed my judgement of films inproved, for instance I started watching a different kind of horror film, such as Rosemary's Baby, Psycho, Vertigo and others. However, I never forgot the cheesy movies such as Chucky that influenced me into the film industry.
I don't have a favorite movie because each month they come out with a new movie and a lot of them are good and a lot of them are bad. The best movie that is coming out this year might be The Matrix Revolution.
The Reason why I chose the Matrix Revolution i because everyone liked Matrix 1 and Matrix reload and everyone wanted to see the newest and last one because it is exciting. That is my favorite movie for this year
Scarface is my favorite movie. It is about the hard work and struggle for a person to get to the top. This movie has so many memorable quotes, and is an influence in culture today. Al Pacino who played Tony Montana in the movie was a Cuban refugee who left from his Cuban refugee camp to America. He wished the American dream. He wanted the world to be his. In the beginning of the movie he was working in a restaurant until he got his big break. He started working for a business. Tony Montana did everything he did to get to the top of business, and even killed the boss to start running the business. He even married the boss's girl Elvira who was played by Michelle Pfeiffer after the boss died. He made his business expand around the world, and had things under control.
When somebody is at the top there are always people who want to knock their hustle. Tony Montana had people who did not like him, but he kept on working. He wanted to make money and have all the good things in life. In life though, even your best friends go against your say. Tony Montana best friend who put Tony into the business Manolo Ray played by Steven Bauer married Tony's sister without permission after Tony told him don't do it. Tony being a gangster that he is, killed Manolo, in front of his sister. At this point things started going down for Tony.
Tony could not stay on top forever. He had a powerful empire. Things started gradually going bad for him. His wife left and his best friend. He had nothing but his money, and all the material things he wanted. The last scene which was a memorable one is when Tony is fighting an army, by himself. He was taking bullet shots and defeating his enemies, until an enemy was behind him and shot him in the back. That was the end of his empire. This movie was a great story about a person rise to the top, and the downfall of a person.
My favorite movie series I must say is the Matrix series. Not just because of the action sequences that occur within the movie, but because of the a the camera angles and motions which make the Matrix environment come to life.
In Enter the Matrixthis use of computer graphics is dazzling and creates that illusion of what is the matrix. However, even though these scenes are computer generated, they still rely on camera positions and angles to provide the specia effects need to create a good scene. The scene when Neo and Trinity are fighting in the lobby uses a lot of slow motion effects (which I particular love) to present a highly intense battle scene. In addition to the special effects, the music that is incorporated within that scene intensifies that moment in time. I plan to hopefully mimic some of the techniques from the Matrix and use those slow motion shots in my movie to dramatize the seriousiness of the character and the situation. That why I will be able to construct a movie with pin-point shots in which people will focus on.