Actor Jim Parsons

[Stewie99]

Actors are people, just like everyone else in the world.  They enter the profession to perform because they enjoy entering into another character and another alternative world as another character.   But they also still have real lives where they experience pain, sorrow, joy, elation, sickness, good health, etc.  They too have real emotions.

People have enjoyed actors throughout centuries, but it hasn't been until more recent years that the concept of fandom has changed.   For years actors lived public lives and private lives and the private lives stayed private.  

So while I understand Stewie99's comment above, I still believe there are propriety lines that still should be considered, whether you are a public figure or not.   I feel that the media and paparazzi cross that line far too much and it has now made fans feel they have the right to cross that line.   

I don't think if you ask a single actor whether they entered the profession to be invaded all the time by media and fans that they would say, "yes".  No, they still have feelings and still are people when it comes to wanting some respect when it comes to their real lives.   They do need personal space, just like the rest of us.

I remember Jim mentioning in an interview a long time ago that he never got in the business for fame and honestly wishes fame was not a part of the business.  I have heard other actors say the same thing.  While they do love their fans and love that people enjoy their work, most don't invite all the negative that comes with it and that negative has seemingly gotten more and more bold.

Standing outside a persons home for long periods of time to try and catch them coming/going is not appropriate, IMO.   If you want to drive by and snap a couple of pictures of the  building and neighborhood briefly, that is one thing.   As mentioned by others above, this person had already met Jim,  received his autograph, saw him in the play, and had a lot of pictures from that event.   Why was there a need to stand outside of his home and wait hoping to see he or Todd come out...and then again approach him to talk?   That is "stalking" and no longer just being a fan.  It is no different than the paps that stalk stars and we all talk about how we disrespect them for doing that.   So why should a fan suddenly be given a "free pass" that it is okay just because Jim is a public figure?  I don't buy that argument at all.  It still is crossing a line from appropriate to inappropriate fan behavior.  

I appreciate what you're saying and I believe that you're right when it comes to actors previously being allowed privacy by the public. However, whether we like it or not, times have changed.

I think people are quick to blame the media and paparazzi but as a member of the media myself I think it's difficult. As much as actors are people, so are the media and paparazzi. They have families to support and a job to do. I accept that sometimes they may cross a line in the way in which they get photos or stories, but at the end of the day if the public really had an issue with what the media was doing they wouldn't buy the newspapers and therefore support it. What I'm saying is that the public perpetuate the problem of increasing media intrusion through lack of objection and buying newspapers to read the stories the journalists have uncovered through occasionally dishonourable means.

You say that the fans follow the example of the media- I would argue it was the other way round. The fans are prepared to intrude into celebrities' lives and therefore the media can sell newspapers by obtaining stories through obtrusion.

With regards to your second point, I  agree with you that intrusion isn't what actors want but as I said, it has become a part of the profession now that actors must deal with whether we like it or not. It is difficult for the actors because as I say these people are often not legally doing anything wrong, but asking all fans to respect a person's personal space or exercise common decency won't do anything. People are selfish in this world and they will do anything to obtain what they want, and if that is pictures or signatures from a famous celebrity then they are often prepared to invade privacy for that.

Let's also not forget that, despite Jim saying that he doesn't like the fame that comes with acting, Jim would not be a multi-millionaire if he didn't have the fame. I remember Jim saying in an interview with Ellen that he once bought his sister a car outright. He is able to afford property developments and rich luxuries only because of his acting and because people are fans of the show. Would TBBT have risen to such popularity without Jim? I doubt it. Jim owes his success to TBBT as much as TBBT owes it's success to Jim. I'm sure if you asked Jim "would you rather have millions of dollars in the bank and a few fans chasing after you or have a modest income and no intrusion?", Jim would answer the former.

I agree that fan behaviour is inappropriate but as I say, it is part of the job and if Jim doesn't want that he can quit acting and live off the fortune he has already made. Let's be clear- this particular case of intrusion has come as a result of Jim's appearance in a stage play, not as a result of appearing in TBBT. Jim already receives a $24,000,000+ salary per year, so appearing in this stage show was always going to be something that he did out of choice rather than necessity. If he doesn't like the intrusion, then he doesn't have to appear in stage shows which perpetuate that intrusion.

I'm certainly not condoning intrusive behaviour by fans here- I'm just saying that there is more than one side to the story and there are certain things which cannot be helped in this day and age.

[mirs1]

I agree that fan behaviour is inappropriate but as I say, it is part of the job and if Jim doesn't want that he can quit acting and live off the fortune he has already made. Let's be clear- this particular case of intrusion has come as a result of Jim's appearance in a stage play, not as a result of appearing in TBBT. Jim already receives a $24,000,000+ salary per year, so appearing in this stage show was always going to be something that he did out of choice rather than necessity. If he doesn't like the intrusion, then he doesn't have to appear in stage shows which perpetuate that intrusion.

I'm certainly not condoning intrusive behaviour by fans here- I'm just saying that there is more than one side to the story and there are certain things which cannot be helped in this day and age.

I agreed with almost what you said up to this point...I mean, I also think that the way media describe celebrities is sometimes inspired by what most of the fans  want to know about them,  being a famous actor brings with the fame and the wealth also some unconfortable things, and one should be ready to bear them... Anyway, the way an actor decides to spend his\her summer time should not be influenced by the fear of the intrusion of some fans...I guess he has decided to work in this play because he likes acting and he believed in the project. He didn't need money, good for him, but if money was the reason one decides to be an actor...well Los Angeles wouldn't be so crowded a city! He seems very kind with fans, stops after every play to sign playbills and so on (maybe sometimes he'd prefer just to go home), so I guess that he has allowed fans to be part of his life in some way; but (actually I don't know and don't want to know the details of the episode we are talking about; as I undestood it, it was just creepy...) there have to be some boundaries....

[nickelette424]

 

I appreciate what you're saying and I believe that you're right when it comes to actors previously being allowed privacy by the public. However, whether we like it or not, times have changed.

I think people are quick to blame the media and paparazzi but as a member of the media myself I think it's difficult. As much as actors are people, so are the media and paparazzi. They have families to support and a job to do. I accept that sometimes they may cross a line in the way in which they get photos or stories, but at the end of the day if the public really had an issue with what the media was doing they wouldn't buy the newspapers and therefore support it. What I'm saying is that the public perpetuate the problem of increasing media intrusion through lack of objection and buying newspapers to read the stories the journalists have uncovered through occasionally dishonourable means.

You say that the fans follow the example of the media- I would argue it was the other way round. The fans are prepared to intrude into celebrities' lives and therefore the media can sell newspapers by obtaining stories through obtrusion.

With regards to your second point, I  agree with you that intrusion isn't what actors want but as I said, it has become a part of the profession now that actors must deal with whether we like it or not. It is difficult for the actors because as I say these people are often not legally doing anything wrong, but asking all fans to respect a person's personal space or exercise common decency won't do anything. People are selfish in this world and they will do anything to obtain what they want, and if that is pictures or signatures from a famous celebrity then they are often prepared to invade privacy for that.

Let's also not forget that, despite Jim saying that he doesn't like the fame that comes with acting, Jim would not be a multi-millionaire if he didn't have the fame. I remember Jim saying in an interview with Ellen that he once bought his sister a car outright. He is able to afford property developments and rich luxuries only because of his acting and because people are fans of the show. Would TBBT have risen to such popularity without Jim? I doubt it. Jim owes his success to TBBT as much as TBBT owes it's success to Jim. I'm sure if you asked Jim "would you rather have millions of dollars in the bank and a few fans chasing after you or have a modest income and no intrusion?", Jim would answer the former.

I agree that fan behaviour is inappropriate but as I say, it is part of the job and if Jim doesn't want that he can quit acting and live off the fortune he has already made. Let's be clear- this particular case of intrusion has come as a result of Jim's appearance in a stage play, not as a result of appearing in TBBT. Jim already receives a $24,000,000+ salary per year, so appearing in this stage show was always going to be something that he did out of choice rather than necessity. If he doesn't like the intrusion, then he doesn't have to appear in stage shows which perpetuate that intrusion.

I'm certainly not condoning intrusive behaviour by fans here- I'm just saying that there is more than one side to the story and there are certain things which cannot be helped in this day and age.

this to me is such a horrible notion.  He enjoys acting and had a passion for theater.  I understand the ways of the world these days,  but he's not "asking" for it.   And this idea that he should just dealing with someone essentially stalking him because he didn't need to do this show is just ridiculous.   Jim should just suck it up and deal.   People shouldn't be inconsiderate assholes, and others shouldn't rationalize their behavior. 

[CaffeineBuzz]

this to me is such a horrible notion.  He enjoys acting and had a passion for theater.  I understand the ways of the world these days,  but he's not "asking" for it.   And this idea that he should just dealing with someone essentially stalking him because he didn't need to do this show is just ridiculous.   Jim should just suck it up and deal.   People shouldn't be inconsiderate assholes, and others shouldn't rationalize their behavior. 

THIS. Precisely this ^^. Is it part of his job to expect and learn to deal with his fame, when in a work setting, and within reasonable limits? Yes. Is it part of his job to let inconsiderate albeit maybe harmless and well-meaning people with boundary issues intrude into his personal life and space? NO. There is no excuse and rationalizing to be had here. It crosses a line, end of story. Sent from my C6616 using Tapatalk

[kerrycec03]

THIS. Precisely this ^^. Is it part of his job to expect and learn to deal with his fame, when in a work setting, and within reasonable limits? Yes. Is it part of his job to let inconsiderate albeit maybe harmless and well-meaning people with boundary issues intrude into his personal life and space? NO. There is no excuse and rationalizing to be had here. It crosses a line, end of story. Sent from my C6616 using Tapatalk

agree!!  I am stunned that some think a famous person should just have to deal with intrusive behaviors as if its part of their job.  Again, on their job locations of course, during inteviews, appearances, absolutely.  BUT when they are not on the clock, and enjoy their personal lives HELL NO.  I am still disgusted by some peoples lack of respect on their personal lives.  While innocent to some, its the behavior of a stalker and actually can be criminal.  And should be to certain degrees. 

 

Most of us don't have to deal with this.  When we clock out, we are done.  These celebrities do deserve the same level of privacy.  And I find it comical that some are worried about Jim returning to IG while we have others behaving in these ways.  Every invasion probably makes him less and less likely to share any snippet of his personal life on social media....and I don't blame him.  While he may have been polite, its still was uncomfortable I'm sure. 

I just wish some would take a minute to think before they act (aka stalk).  Its like the insane amount of tagging of these people that goes on on social media.  Ok, no need to tag them in everything. 

 

Sorry, this stuff really bothers me. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by kerrycec03

[stardustmelody]

I respectfully disagree with you Stewie....    Being nosy and gossipy and intrusive was not part of what any actor signs up to "accept" as their fate.   Many never even expected to succeed to a great level.   When they do, it always astonishes them, but they thought they would remain anonymous actors doing local and regional work.   Not everyone expects to be a "famous star".   Jim was perfectly content just doing local and regional stage and likely would have been happy just working Broadway where his fame would have been limited and the intrusive lifestyle would never have come to him.

Saying that a person has to learn to "deal with it" is ridiculous.   That just says our society is perfectly content being people who have no morals and no values.   I refuse to accept that.   While I agree there has been a big decline in values and morals, I still say that a person ALWAYS has a choice as to whether to do something they know is going to make someone else extremely uncomfortable or not.  They have a choice as to whether to camp out and try to snap compromising pictures or even innocent photos by trespassing or loitering or not.   When you loiter and trespass that crosses the line.  When you feel you are owed a right to know about every detail of a person's life just because they entertain you and you enjoy their performances, that is crossing the line.  That is sick behavior and obsession beyond normalcy.   It is beyond idolizing even.   It is sick and I refuse to believe that the vast majority of fans condone that kind of behavior. 

Sure there are sickos out there who will violate common decency...but I would prefer to think those are fewer rather than greater.

Working for the media is fine, but then stick to news, not gossip and anything that intrudes on their lives.   Actors are more than willing to give media their due time with interviews, photo opportunities, etc. through proper channels.   They don't sign on though for the guy hiding in the bushes, or the person loitering across the street from their home or apartment, or some that have done things even far worse.   I realize everyone has a job to do and my advice is to find a job that doesn't have you have to compromise yourself in a way that you have to resort to such behavior.  There are plenty of news media organizations out there for the entertainment business that would NEVER cross such lines.

Bottom line is everyone in society, whether they be a political figure, a royal, or a celebrity because of sports, acting or music, should be given privacy times and times to not have to deal with intrusive paps/media and fans.   

 

[Stewie99]

this to me is such a horrible notion.  He enjoys acting and had a passion for theater.  I understand the ways of the world these days,  but he's not "asking" for it.   And this idea that he should just dealing with someone essentially stalking him because he didn't need to do this show is just ridiculous.   Jim should just suck it up and deal.   People shouldn't be inconsiderate assholes, and others shouldn't rationalize their behavior. 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means saying that because Jim is acting in a stage play he is 'asking for it'. I respect Jim as an actor and certainly wouldn't want anything bad to happen to him, so if this is what you infer from my post then I apologise but you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I just believe that people will always do that and whatever you say there are always going to be people who do that, so criticising them won't help matters.

[MadFede]

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means saying that because Jim is acting in a stage play he is 'asking for it'. I respect Jim as an actor and certainly wouldn't want anything bad to happen to him, so if this is what you infer from my post then I apologise but you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I just believe that people will always do that and whatever you say there are always going to be people who do that, so criticising them won't help matters.

I agreed with you at first, but I agree with all the others when they say that it is unacceptable to see certain behavoirs... In my opinion it just creepy knowing that there are people who stalks Jim, but in general every celebrity(and for me is more wrong when these people are not crazy teens that maybe can be understood because of their young age, but they are adults with families themselves..) but sadly it is true what you said... there will always be these people, and no matter what can happen to them - if the celebrity takes some kind of measure against them (I don't know if it's right this phrase grammatically...)- they will be always trying to approch Jim or whoever in this very wrong and creepy way...

why are there this kind people??? I always ask myself what kind of problems they have...if they have something more intellingent to do in their lives... a photo is ok... but staying under his house and waiting is just wrong...

Edited July 28, 2015 by MadFede

[phantagrae]

I've always been torn over this issue.

We used to talk about this a lot on the TXF board I go to because they have a very strict "no papparazzi pics" rule.  People might know where to go or share in PMs links to pap pictures of David Duchovny or his family walking down the street or walking through the airport or whatever, but such pictures and links to such sites aren't allowed to be posted on the boards, or even to be discussed, really.

We've had the "stars sign up for this when they become public figures" discussion at length.

Now, the thing is that many people are curious as to where DD might be going from the airport, or how grown up the kids look or whatever, but most people don't want to support some website or publication that intrudes like that.

But there was always a difference between papparazzi pics and those taken by individual fans.  If you see DD at the coffee shop, you might snap a pic, especially in this day and age of selfies and social media ("If you don't have a pic, it didn't happen").

I think there's a difference between standing on the other side of the street and taking pictures of Jim, and getting all in his face, like that one person did at the airport that time--was that TMZ or some other pap site or something?  I don't remember.

His home in NYC isn't exactly a secret nor in some hidden gated community, so anybody can walk by there or go see the building, etc., without being labled a stalker.  And if you're there, taking a pic if you see him is also, IMO, not stalkerish.  Even talking to him on the street isn't in and of itself on the level of being a stalker.

If someone were trying to get in on his private life, or were to approach Todd or Jim's mom or sister, getting on his property or into his building or something like that, that's stalker behavior.  How and when fans approach him will always depend on the situation and the fan and the opportunity.  And just because someone has gotten Jim's autograph at the stage door doesn't mean that they've hit some kind of fan encounter quota and are barred from seeing him ever again.

I think that Jim's being a kind and friendly person does tend to draw us all in, and if we had a chance to talk to him, get his autograph, pose for a selfie, whatever, most of us would want to do something along those lines.  So I would hesitate to vilify this person over this incident.  I doubt she chased him down the block in order to talk to him, though she undoubtedly waited for a chance to see him.

In the realm of a possible once-in-a-lifetime chance to see him, I don't begrudge a person making the most of it.  I don't believe in approaching a star while they are out with friends or family at dinner or walking with their friends or whatever, but we've all seen the pics of Jim and Todd out with the dogs (from some time ago) and nobody was screaming "STALKER!" over those.

I think there are times when our excitement over a chance to see him may push the boundaries of how much is too much, but I don't think this person is a stalker.

[kerrycec03]

Ok....seriously....

 

Were they waiting outside the persons residence for a siting...YES

Did they have cameras & videos ready without permission...YES

Then when that person saw the celebrity, did they run across the street to stop and speak to them when that person was clearly doing their own private activities...YES

I am not implying that this was done in an ill fashion (and I totally understand excitement) BUT by no means was this in a public style format.  It was clearly an invasion of privacy especially when this celebrity has made themselves available to the general public practically daily on a professional site (aka a theater and street signings post performance)...

 

This wasn't a situation of running into somebody and you and I both clearly know that.  Also, the area of NYC we are talking about is NOT a touristy area.  In fact its a very private area and yes, the streets are open to the public, but this isn't the same as seeing a celebrity in the middle of Time Square for goodness sakes...

 

I'm stunned and outraged...

 

Just curious, would you think differently if somebody did this to Mayim while out with her kids on a quick walk outside her residence...because basically Jim was doing the same thing with his dogs...

 

And yes, of course he was polite but clearly this wasn't an "accidential" meeting....

Edited July 28, 2015 by kerrycec03

[stardustmelody]

Agree, Kerry....totally agree with what you are saying.  And for the record...think about if you were in their shoes....say you were having a bad day and someone came running across the street with camera, etc. when all you wanted was some down time and peace and quiet?  Is that fair just because he happens to live in one of the largest cities in the world and it  happens to be on a street and yes all streets are "public"?   No... and while I am sure the person meant well and no ill will, it is still just wrong.  Same with people who interrupt him when he is having a private time at a restaurant and insist on a photo.   I am sorry, while fans think they should seize the moment, they are still interrupting and intruding.   You are not only disrupting the "public" figure, but "private" citizens as well.   Fans should use the public places he offers himself to, such as signing autographs at the backstage door, or viewing his photos when he posts on IG, etc.   He offers interviews, photoshoots and other means for fans to get what they need to hear and see from him.   But intruding on his private life is a no-no.   It is disrespectful and while he is polite and kind, he has to be...otherwise he knows it gets in the media that he was a jerk.   It doesn't make it right just because he was sweet about it...it just means he was gracious.   But give him the private space he needs when he is on his off-time and not in a public forum.

As Kerry said, he gives plenty of opportunity for fans to snap a photo and get his autograph and say a word or two daily...that is where fans should gather...not in places where he is trying to live a private life.

Edited July 28, 2015 by stardustmelody

[Such a Hag]

Ok....seriously....

 

Were they waiting outside the persons residence for a siting...YES

Did they have cameras & videos ready without permission...YES

Then when that person saw the celebrity, did they run across the street to stop and speak to them when that person was clearly doing their own private activities...YES

Were they covertly filming across the street... YES

 

Anyone who thinks this was a meeting of happenstance  - I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

 

Sorry - a line was crossed IMHO.  Not a dangerous, fear for his personal safety line - but a line nonetheless 

[pegcarr]

I have read the comments above about visiting Jims apartment building with interest as I found myself outside it when I was in New York in May.   How did I get there?  Despite not being in the main touristy areas of New York he lives on very historic Gramercy Park.  In most of the guide books I looked at while planning my trip Gramercy Park was mentioned and was on self-guided walks which took you through Washington Sq Park, Union Square, Gramercy Park and to Madison Square Park. 

It made me a bit uncomfortable while I was planning (was I crossing a line) and then I thought that if I didn’t know he lived there I would do the walk (a great thing to do after the Highline) so I went.  I did not know the exact address (deliberately did not look it up) but it was obvious from previously seen pictures which building it was.  Although it was under scaffolding it is a beautiful building and I imagine people stop and stare at the architecture with no knowledge of who lives there. So I had a wander around the outside of the park and looked at all the buildings.  It is a lovely part of New York but still busy with lots of people walking about.  This I think is different from driving up to a secluded part of town to hang outside a stars home as you would have to do in LA..

I don’t think I would have taken photos if I happened to see Jim.  I wasn’t walking around with my phone out to take pictures and by the time I would have recognised him he would have been gone.  I might have smiled and said hi if he was walking towards me.  I wouldn’t have waited for him to come out of the building but can imagine that you might get caught up in fan over enthusiasm in the moment and we don’t know if this particular encounter was before or after they went to the show and stage door.  Misguided but not stalking in my opinion.  Now if they waited outside all day or went back every day that is another matter.  So I find myself agreeing with parts of all the above comments.

[MsTeller]

Agree, Kerry....totally agree with what you are saying.  And for the record...think about if you were in their shoes....say you were having a bad day and someone came running across the street with camera, etc. when all you wanted was some down time and peace and quiet?  Is that fair just because he happens to live in one of the largest cities in the world and it  happens to be on a street and yes all streets are "public"?   No... and while I am sure the person meant well and no ill will, it is still just wrong.  Same with people who interrupt him when he is having a private time at a restaurant and insist on a photo.   I am sorry, while fans think they should seize the moment, they are still interrupting and intruding.   You are not only disrupting the "public" figure, but "private" citizens as well.   Fans should use the public places he offers himself to, such as signing autographs at the backstage door, or viewing his photos when he posts on IG, etc.   He offers interviews, photoshoots and other means for fans to get what they need to hear and see from him.   But intruding on his private life is a no-no.   It is disrespectful and while he is polite and kind, he has to be...otherwise he knows it gets in the media that he was a jerk.   It doesn't make it right just because he was sweet about it...it just means he was gracious.   But give him the private space he needs when he is on his off-time and not in a public forum.

As Kerry said, he gives plenty of opportunity for fans to snap a photo and get his autograph and say a word or two daily...that is where fans should gather...not in places where he is trying to live a private life.

What drives me even crazier are the stories of when a celeb is having a bad day (as we all do) and accidentally snaps at someone (as we all have) and now the person is labeled a stuck-up jerk for life. I hate to admit it but I have had my moments (though I later felt terrible) and I have snapped at store cashiers and cable company reps and random strangers who have stepped on me while I am riding the bus. I am so thankful that unlike famous people there are not pages of "unpleasant encounters with MsTeller" on The Internet. Every time I read these I try to have some empathy for the person who is a human being with normal moods and feelings and who has to constantly deal with rude or even mentally unbalanced strangers intruding on their lives and their space.

[phantagrae]

I think that you cannot compare this encounter with someone coming up on Mayim while she's out with her children.

If he wasn't with family or friends or eating in a restaurant or doing anything else explicitly private, but simply walking dogs on the street, is that considered private time with family?  Yes, it's a person moment doing a mundane task, but I don't think it's quite the same as intruding on dinner or family time.

And, yes, Jim's been signing autographs every day, but he is flying by very quickly and that's a different kind of encounter.  I am by no means advocating hunting him down on the streets of New York, but I can understand the temptation and, again, I don't think this person should be vilified as people have been doing.

Was it a lapse in judgment? A manufactured opportunity?  Perhaps.  But I don't think it meets the criteria of stalking and evil intent.

I think there was video of him simply exiting his building and getting into a car (to go to the theater for the matinee show), and I don't know that that's all that outrageous to film.  It's not like he was in his underwear or doing something private.

There was also the encounter with him while he was walking his dogs, and I'm not sure of the events of that moment other than she was apparently waiting to see if she could talk to him.

Again, I don't think this was as massive an intrusion as people seem to be making it out to be.  Maybe Jim didn't appreciate it, maybe he politely put up with it--heaven knows he's put up with worse--I haven't seen or read about the actual conversation, so I don't know what it was like.  We do know that he has posed for selfies with fans in all kinds of random places, like Target, so I don't know that he would care too much about talking to a fan while he's out pooping the dogs.

What drives me even crazier are the stories of when a celeb is having a bad day (as we all do) and accidentally snaps at someone (as we all have) and now the person is labeled a stuck-up jerk for life. I hate to admit it but I have had my moments (though I later felt terrible) and I have snapped at store cashiers and cable company reps and random strangers who have stepped on me while I am riding the bus. I am so thankful that unlike famous people there are not pages of "unpleasant encounters with MsTeller" on The Internet. Every time I read these I try to have some empathy for the person who is a human being with normal moods and feelings and who has to constantly deal with rude or even mentally unbalanced strangers intruding on their lives and their space.

That girl on IG who was pestering him to acknowledge her went to see the play and got all pissed because he wouldn't pose for a selfie with her at the stage door signing.  As I understand it, she posted some ugly stuff about him, but then later took it down.  That to me is stupid and assinine.

I think it's the jerks who approach celebrites when they're out with friends and families who are the ones who get rejected or waved off, and then go online to complain about it.

When David Duchovny was on Broadway several years ago, he would spend tons of time signing autographs for fans and posing for pictures with them after every performance, but there was one evening when his mother and other family members were there.  Because they were going out afterward, he only signed for a few minutes and then left with his guests.  So one jerk tries to get him to stop and pose for a photo or something and when David declined, that person was going on twitter or wherever and labelling David a stuck-up jerk.

With celebrites I think it's less a matter of bad mood and more a matter of when and how they're approached and what they are doing at the time.  I think Jim has mastered the blank expression when it comes to papparazzi popping out of the woodwork outside restaurants, etc., but he still seems to be okay with fans approaching him in random places.

[hummingbird]

I personally don't think that going outside the house of a celebrity just to see where he/she lives is wrong... Or even hope to see them near their house... It's just out of curiosity and I believe it's kind of normal for a fan wanting to do that... 

But the pictures that this person posted are, to me, the clear result of a creepy "find Jim Parsons"!

This person has been waiting outside his house for God knows how much time just to take pictures and videos, and I think Jim was quite uncomfortable in that situation.

Not to mention the "chat" they had when he was walking the dogs... That was quick because he didn't want to talk.

Just my humble opinion...

[stardustmelody]

Stalking rarely is meant to be with malice in mind, when it starts out.  It mainly starts off as obsessive adoration for someone...even if not a celebrity...often with a strong curiosity and hope for a chance encounter.   But does it mean it is right?  No.  It is still stalking.

Now what Peg described above is NOT...it is sightseeing...looking at historical buildings and her intent was NOT to know where he lived or to run into him, but to enjoy the beauty of the craftsmanship of the architecture.  That is quite different. She was making it a New York experience part of her trip...seeing the sights.  If she had run into him by accident, that too would have been different.  It isn't even a wish or desire to see him specifically that brought her there...but  it was looking at tourist guide information that brought her there that never even mentioned him in the description.

I even believe that if fans want to walk by and snap shots of the building and other buildings and park because it is part of the beauty of New York, that is fine, as long as their intent is not bent on definitely meeting or seeing him as a result.   Accidental encounters are one thing...but deliberate encounters are quite another.

Now in this woman,  had a specific and deliberate intent on trying to capture him on film and to also flag him down when he was outside of his home.  She waited hoping to catch him on camera and to be able to see him specifically.   She wasn't taking photos of the beautiful buildings and park, etc.   Her intent was clear and she "camped out" to make sure she got a photo.  That is stalking...even if she meant no harm to him.   It is creepy, as many others have said.   When it is making others feel creepy...it is clearly stalking.   I am sure she would never label herself as a stalker, but she had the behavior of one.   

 

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by stardustmelody

[phantagrae]

No, stalking is a pretty specific crime--you don't take someone to court for standing outside your building and snapping pictures of you, or even for flagging you down to talk to you.

That is NOT stalking--I don't think any court would qualify it as such.  I think that labeling it as stalking is a bit of hyperbole.  Stalking isn't a one-time fan encounter, even if it means hanging around oustide his building hoping for a sighting.

Stalking is the persistant pursuit of an individual, marked by a delusion of an ongoing personal relationship, or obsessive behaviour bent on controling or interfering with that person's life, like an ex-husband or boyfriend who keeps following a woman around or whatever.

Celebrities have had stalkers break into their homes or follow them from town to town or even attack them.

What this fan did, whether or not it was inappropriate, was NOT stalking.

[CaffeineBuzz]

No, stalking is a pretty specific crime--you don't take someone to court for standing outside your building and snapping pictures of you, or even for flagging you down to talk to you.

That is NOT stalking--I don't think any court would qualify it as such.  I think that labeling it as stalking is a bit of hyperbole.  Stalking isn't a one-time fan encounter, even if it means hanging around oustide his building hoping for a sighting.

Stalking is the persistant pursuit of an individual, marked by a delusion of an ongoing personal relationship, or obsessive behaviour bent on controling or interfering with that person's life, like an ex-husband or boyfriend who keeps following a woman around or whatever.

Celebrities have had stalkers break into their homes or follow them from town to town or even attack them.

What this fan did, whether or not it was inappropriate, was NOT stalking.

Yes it is stalking. Had it been a chance encounter I would cut her some slack. But that's not what this was. This was deliberately standing outside his building with camera at the ready. This was taking photos and video of him, without his consent or knowledge in an environment where he should have been able to let his guard down. This was deliberately ambushing him in his own private time and forcing a conversation with him. There doesn't have to be evil intent for it to qualify as stalking. Innocent though it may appear TO YOU, it was a complete invasion of privacy, it was inappropriate and I can guarantee you, though he seems to have handled it graciously, it most definitely would have unsettled/annoyed/creeped him out if he was aware of the full circumstances that lead to that "chance encounter". Her own son, by her own admission, stopped filming cause he was uncomfortable with the situation. That right there, tells me all I need to know about what really went on here.

[phantagrae]

Yes it is stalking. Had it been a chance encounter I would cut her some slack. But that's not what this was. This was deliberately standing outside his building with camera at the ready. This was taking photos and video of him, without his consent or knowledge in an environment where he should have been able to let his guard down. This was deliberately ambushing him in his own private time and forcing a conversation with him. There doesn't have to be evil intent for it to qualify as stalking. Innocent though it may appear TO YOU, it was a complete invasion of privacy, it was inappropriate and I can guarantee you, though he seems to have handled it graciously, it most definitely would have unsettled/annoyed/creeped him out if he was aware of the full circumstances that lead to that "chance encounter". Her own son, by her own admission, stopped filming cause he was uncomfortable with the situation. That right there, tells me all I need to know about what really went on here.

So because she waited to see him--on one occasion (she's not living on the street outside his house--she's a stalker?  I don't think that a one-time incident makes her a stalker.

Again, it may have been inappropriate, but it is not stalking.  I think people are putting on their "OUTRAGED!!!" hats over something that doesn't rise to that level.

I'm not saying that it was a good thing to be hanging around outside his building or whatever, but I'm saying that hanging around and waiting for a chance to see him does not equal stalking.  That's a popular word to use because it seems to make the behavior seem more easy to denigrate, but it is far from real stalking.

[CaffeineBuzz]

So because she waited to see him--on one occasion (she's not living on the street outside his house--she's a stalker?  I don't think that a one-time incident makes her a stalker.

Again, it may have been inappropriate, but it is not stalking.  I think people are putting on their "OUTRAGED!!!" hats over something that doesn't rise to that level.

I'm not saying that it was a good thing to be hanging around outside his building or whatever, but I'm saying that hanging around and waiting for a chance to see him does not equal stalking.  That's a popular word to use because it seems to make the behavior seem more easy to denigrate, but it is far from real stalking.

Ok let me put it bluntly. As someone who has had a stalker, so I am familiar with the behaviors, this is stalking. And it is creepy, and unsettling, no matter what her intention was or whether it was the first time. It may be an isolated incident for her, who knows, but it is what it is: inappropriate. And if calling this person out on it and labelling it for what it is allows her to objectively look at her actions and refrain from doing it again, then that's a good thing. Cause being stalked, even seemingly innocently is creepy. And that creepy feeling stays with you long after the incident is over. And to gloss over this incident like it was okay is tantamount to saying come one, come all, its open season on camping out on Jim's lawn cause apparently its ok if you're just a fan of his. Come on. Stalkerish tactics are wrong regardless of the circumstances or context.

[kerrycec03]

Here is the definition of a stalker...and yes this person waited not once, but twice outside his building (watched him go back inside and stayed out there waiting for him to come out again)... i believe that is stealthy hunting behavior. And several of us have repeated 900 times that we know that no ill will was going on and to quabble about if it was stalker or not is Moot... It was creepy and an invasion of privacy especially when this person went there with one thing in mind (after seeing that person twice the day before)... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phantagrae]

Ok let me put it bluntly. As someone who has had a stalker, so I am familiar with the behaviors, this is stalking. And it is creepy, and unsettling, no matter what her intention was or whether it was the first time. It may be an isolated incident for her, who knows, but it is what it is: inappropriate. And if calling this person out on it and labelling it for what it is allows her to objectively look at her actions and refrain from doing it again, then that's a good thing. Cause being stalked, even seemingly innocently is creepy. And that creepy feeling stays with you long after the incident is over. And to gloss over this incident like it was okay is tantamount to saying come one, come all, its open season on camping out on Jim's lawn cause apparently its ok if you're just a fan of his. Come on. Stalkerish tactics are wrong regardless of the circumstances or context.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it rises to the level of stalking.  I'm sorry you had that experience, but would you have considered your stalker to be stalking if you only encountered him once?

I'm not saying that her behavior was something that we should all do.  I'm just saying that calling her a stalker is a little over the top.  Yes, by all means, tell her that it wasn't the right thing to do and talk about how we should all have boundaries, but don't go around saying she's a stalker because of this one incident.

[CaffeineBuzz]

You know what? As Howard would say to Raj in Lunar Excitation: That's it. I'm out. (i need to find that gif and insert it here - note to self) Its someone else's turn to have a go. Good luck and god speed.

[kerrycec03]

You know what? As Howard would say to Raj in Lunar Excitation: That's it. I'm out. (i need to find that gif and insert it here - note to self) Its someone else's turn to have a go. Good luck and god speed.

Hahah So AAOG ends this week and then Jim is back to LA... He is probably so exhausted Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk