Well done Bill Murray

Hagar

Hagar

Hagar

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,888
Location
Voting Conservative.
Fed up with people taking his photo, throws their phones off a second storey balcony.

I am not famous or even photogenic but I applaud the principle. OK if he was at a premiere or somewhere you expect photographs to be taken otherwise it could get pretty annoying.

Why do people have to record their life and who they might have come across on their phones? Shows a lack of memory capacity IMO. Or they can only be satisfied by reflected glory on FB.
 
He chose to become an actor and so the fame that goes with it is something he knew was part of the deal. Now he can't handle people taking his photograph smacks of hypocrisy. Destroying peoples property isn't the right way to deal with it, he can always turn around and walk away. Just another celebrity tantrum.
 
In general, if you seek fame, and enjoy the money and adoration that comes with it, then an almost complete lack of privacy is inextricable from it and you damn well shouldn't complain.
 
nkata said:
Fed up with people taking his photo, throws their phones off a second storey balcony.

I am not famous or even photogenic but I applaud the principle.
Click to expand...

The principle of criminally damaging other people's property because they annoy you? :confused:

Sounds like a petulant bell end with temper issues to me.
 
You probably shouldn't break rude people's stuff
You probably shouldn't stick your camera phone in people's faces without asking
Only one of those may be criminal, but legal doesn't necessarily correlate to moral.

Why should people have to forgo a private life when they have a high profile career?
It may be "that's be the way it is", but should we accept that being so?
 
If I took the OPs phone and threw it off a 2nd story balcony, do you think he would start a thread commending me for it too?
 
cheesyboy said:
You probably shouldn't break rude people's stuff
You probably shouldn't stick your camera phone in people's faces without asking
Only one of those may be criminal, but legal doesn't necessarily correlate to moral.

Why should people have to forgo a private life when they have a high profile career?
It may be "that's be the way it is", but should we accept that being so?
Click to expand...

You take the rough with the smooth when those same rude people are the only reason you have your 'high profile career' in the first place.
 
Moses said:
Thankfully the courts don't share such a bonkers view.
Click to expand...

How bizarre. People who deliberately seek to be in the public eye and benefit hugely from it cannot suddenly turn that off when it suits them.

I like Murray, but he's one of the most famous people on our entire planet: clearly, people will want to take photographs of him. Constantly. It's bonkers to think they wouldn't.
 
Skeeter said:
If I took the OPs phone and threw it off a 2nd story balcony, do you think he would start a thread commending me for it too?
Click to expand...

Probably, I don't mind, it is an old Nokia C3.00 worth about 50p + available credit.

You would have to throw it somewhere interesting for me to post about it though.
 
Kenai said:
You take the rough with the smooth when those same rude people are the only reason you have your 'high profile career' in the first place.
Click to expand...

Bill Murray isn't big because he's a celeb. And he made it big a long time before such intrusions were expected. Is Bill Murray really someone whose career relies on the sort of people who stick smart phones in the faces of anyone you see on the telly?

Besides, your answer is more "that's how it is" than it is really explaining why that has to be so
 
Sliver said:
He chose to become an actor and so the fame that goes with it is something he knew was part of the deal. Now he can't handle people taking his photograph smacks of hypocrisy. Destroying peoples property isn't the right way to deal with it, he can always turn around and walk away. Just another celebrity tantrum.
Click to expand...

If Bill Murray never left his house other than to shoot movies he would still be just as 'famous'. It is his career that is lauded, not his self.
 
One said:
If Bill Murray never left his house other than to shoot movies he would still be just as 'famous'. It is his career that is lauded, not his self.
Click to expand...

Except that Murray has played up to the recent cult following that's developed around him which is about his self.
 
I wonder how far any old Joe Bloggs would get with the Police if they threw a 'Celebrities' phone off a two-storey building...
 
cheesyboy said:
Bill Murray isn't big because he's a celeb. And he made it big a long time before such intrusions were expected. Is Bill Murray really someone whose career relies on the sort of people who stick smart phones in the faces of anyone you see on the telly?

Besides, your answer is more "that's how it is" than it is really explaining why that has to be so
Click to expand...

He's big because he was in films that were popular with people, from there it becomes a circle, the films are bigger because of him and he's bigger because of the films.

Like it or not, that success is founded entirely on his popularity and success with the general public who are willing to throw money at his films. His continued success is reliant on maintaining that popularity.

He'll have had to deal with intrusion forever, whether it was constant autograph requests, instant cameras etc. It's all part of what he reaps the benefits of year in year out. It's not like 5 years ago suddenly privacy stopped existing for him.
 
One said:
If Bill Murray never left his house other than to shoot movies he would still be just as 'famous'. It is his career that is lauded, not his self.
Click to expand...

But he does leave his house and he is famous and he chose that life. Not sure what point you're trying to make if any. :confused: Smashing peoples property is not to be lauded as OP seems to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom