Nicole Kidman is Camera Shy

first

first! love nicole kidman, it’s good she finally had her wish to have a biological child

new new video pictures http://hudgensboy.skyrock.com

*** sake, get a grip!!! she is not shy when it come to films, and she can get all nakid for that n now she cant even look at one camera. fukn celebs just smile, it dnt hurt aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

she is shy in real life, the fact that she is naked in some films doesn0t mean she isn’t shy! she is a professional, and the character isn’t the same as the actress herself!

i agree she should wear darker colors, but even tough i like her dress here. It is very feminine!

I’m shocked that Keith let her go out by herself (MY WIFE IS IN FEAR) she was such a basket case last week when she got a little more attention then she wanted. Why hide your face just look up before you trip and smile nice for the camera. She has a habit of always looking down. So Shy wonder how she manages to do the nude shots in the movies she does. Split personality depends on her hormones.

Excellent points CJ - she is the true manipulator!

people are so stupid. Some critize her because of botox and now because she supposely has wrinkles! Kids grow up!

well it seems i’m the unique here who likes the look. I like the dress and the color. Nicole is the most elegant woman is hollywood these days.
I hope the paps leave her alone for a while!

All these people changing names to spew hate — I sure hope that your private life isn’t as miserable and screwed up as you present yourselves to be.

Idiots — she is not hiding her face! She is shielding her eyes from the paparrazzi flashes.

If you don’t know what you are talking about — and you all definitely don’t even know the first thing about Botox but have heard about it so you want to sound like you do — then just shut up. You make yourselves sound soooo ignorant.

well said nr 21!

Now, this is a real woman with real acting talent. America gets obsessed over the wrong people and definitely for the wrong things. I am impressed.

nr 24 is the owner of the truth! he knows everything!

i hate these paparazzi, why they have to follow people everyday?
Nicole is not acting, she is scared and i would be also if i was in her place!
Her necklace is divine!

She looks so old!

She doesn’t look pregnant

she was covering her face from the sun. you can clearly see it in other pictures posted somewhere.

She is obviously covering her Botox-free forehead.

She’s not the only celeb that does that. Sometimes they cover their face, sometimes they don’t. I read somewhere that they do it to reduce the value of the photo. She’s is very media savvy but knows that being photographed too much is not a good thing. She can;t control the paparazzi but she can devalue their shots. More often than not, she has always walked with her head down when the paparazzi are too close.

What is she wearing?!

She’s pretending to be camera shy. If her PR team hadn’t called the paps, they wouldn’t know she was even at that restaurant. She’s a publicity hound and she has a receeding hairline to boot.

If you don’t believe she is the master at the PR game.. you need to grow up and start living in the real world unlike Nicole.

By Joe Hagan and Merissa Marr

The Wall Street Journal

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 04.06.2006

At the Academy Awards, celebrities smile as they parade down the red carpet before a phalanx of cameras. Behind the flashbulbs, a delicate new game is under way between the stars and the vast gossip industry of TV shows, magazines and Web sites that feeds upon them.

It has always been a relationship built upon animosity and mutual need. But tensions have grown with the explosion of media running paparazzi photos of stars canoodling or emerging from shops in frumpy track suits.

Now many stars, including Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Jessica Simpson, are fighting back. They are hiring their own photographers to capture supposedly private rendezvous, tipping off reporters to their whereabouts and developing relationships of mutual back-scratching with editors.

The result is the flowering of a genre: fake paparazzi journalism, or the staging of “unstaged” moments. It is an art form that benefits both stars and the press. Stars get to participate in the framing of their image, and magazines appear to give readers a glimpse of the real celebrity untouched by public-relations varnish.

When Paltrow gave birth in 2004, she knew there would be a high bounty on the first photo of her newborn daughter. A staple of the celebrity press, the actress and her husband, Chris Martin, leader of the band Coldplay, decided to take matters into their own hands and tip off a photographer they knew, Steve Sands.

Sands took what appeared to be surprise shots of the two emerging from the hospital in London with the baby and sold them to People for $125,000, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. Larry Hackett, managing editor of People, says he knew that Sands had been tipped off by Paltrow. But he didn’t see the need to inform readers about it.

Pictures such as the one of Paltrow help the stars stay in the limelight — but on their terms. “When celebrities do this, it’s a way for them to deliver news that they want delivered,” says Bonnie Fuller, the editorial director of American Media Inc., which publishes Star and the National Enquirer. By strategically sating the demand for images, stars may be able to tame the paparazzi mob — although in Paltrow’s case, photographers continued to stake out her home.

The current strategies hark back to the Hollywood of the 1940s and 1950s, when studios, movie stars and the press worked hand-in-hand to create and maintain screen icons for worshipful fans. Today, the coverage of the stars has exploded. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, circulation of US Weekly stood at an average of 1,662,000 in the six months ending in January of this year, up 12.7 percent from the same period a year earlier. Circulation at Bauer Publishing’s InTouch climbed 15.5 percent to 1,178,000, and at Star it rose 12.3 percent to 1,460,000.

The magazines are lucrative. US Weekly sells a million copies a week on the newsstand at $3.49 apiece. The magazine turns an operating profit of $50 million a year, says a person familiar with its accounts. People, which has a circulation of 3.8 million, brings in by far the most revenue and profit of any of the 154 magazines owned by Time Inc., a division of Time Warner Inc.
Network TV programs like Access Hollywood, cable channels like E! Entertainment Television Inc. and Web sites have added to the coverage. All these outlets compete for photos documenting the daily lives of a small cast of celebrities. These stars, in turn, seek to control their images without appearing to, because doing so would ruin their mystique.

Magazines have generally played along. In 2003, Jolie tipped off US Weekly that she would appear in a park one afternoon with her adopted son, Maddox, according to two people familiar with the situation. The actress recently had divorced actor Billy Bob Thornton. These two people say US Weekly knew Jolie had green-lighted the photo, which softened her image by showing her maternal side. The magazine didn’t tell readers about it.

Hackett of People says Jolie, who does not have a publicist, is among the most sophisticated manipulators of the press.

Even images that are clearly taken with a star’s consent may conceal deeper ties between the star and the media. Simpson, a pop singer, had a close relationship with US Weekly, but it became contentious after the magazine broke the news that she was breaking up with husband Nick Lachey.

Simpson formed a business relationship with OK! USA, a weekly published by London-based Northern & Shell PLC that sometimes pays celebrities for access and lets them approve magazine layouts. The deal with Simpson requires the star to appear in the magazine a certain number of times in exchange for payment, according to the magazine.

In the old studio era, too, celebrities and the press were co-conspirators in crafting storylines that were often distant from reality. A famous instance was Rock Hudson, who despite being secretly gay was publicly married to Phyllis Gates.

People magazine, introduced in 1974, combined celebrity coverage with the journalistic heritage of parent Time Inc. For years People was the only publication of its kind. “There was a lot more access then,” says Susan Toepfer, a former deputy managing editor at People who is now editor in chief of Quick & Simple. “When I was writing about celebrities in the ’70s and ’80s, you could spend days with them.”

But magazines soon discovered that so-called write-arounds, stories written without the cooperation of the star and using anonymous sources, were more popular.

Celebrities and their handlers began forcing reporters to sign agreements to avoid certain topics or demanding approval over writers and cover layouts.
The arrival of Fuller at US Weekly in 2002 raised the tensions even higher. She pioneered the photography-heavy coverage popular today and paid for paparazzi photos depicting the stars in an unflattering light. A recent example was the image of singer Britney Spears driving down a freeway with her baby in her lap.

The photographers’ onslaught has put stars in a tough spot. If they ignore the magazines, they let such pictures define their public image. But sitting down for formulaic interviews and staged shots won’t necessarily satisfy the magazines’ **** for juicy stories.

The answer is manipulation so subtle it’s hard to say if there’s any at all. In January, when rumors swirled that Jolie was pregnant with the child of Brad Pitt, Jolie arranged for an employee of the charity Yele Haiti to take a picture of her with her growing belly.

Jolie then let Yele Haiti sell the picture to People, according to Hackett, the magazine’s managing editor. A person familiar with the situation says People paid $400,000 for the picture.

By arranging the Haiti photo, Jolie reaped several benefits. She ensured the picture was flattering. In diverting the money to charity, she put a twist on a tactic used by stars in which they arrange to be paid for wedding or baby photos with the proceeds going to charity.

“I would probably say at least 80 percent of what you see in terms of Hollywood coverage is something that was not necessarily born organically,” says Janice Min, editor in chief of US Weekly. “This is how celebrities survive.”

botox, your arguement would be made a lot better if Nicole’s name was mentioned anywhere in that article but I don’t see it anywhere!! I see Gwenyth Paltrow, Jessica Simpson & Angelina Jolie.

Unless her name is attached somewhere in an article it has nothing to do with her.

Botox #45 Did you just learn about this? Blah blah blah — you act like you are onto something no one else is aware of and so are spiteful about it.
We all know about these situations, but apparently you have not figured out that they are one-offs to make the paps GO AWAY. You notice that they mentioned the paps did not leave Gwyneth alone, contrary to what she wanted after her baby’s picture was taken.
The REAL stars do not want the paps in their faces 24/7. The Lindsay Lohans of the world do. The REAL stars will give a special photo — of a child, out first time with a new lover — to specific outlets that they trust for the purpose of taking the bounty off their heads. The Jennifer Anistons of the world will tip off the paps if they go to a restaurant just to have their names in the press.

Nicole Kidman, whether you like her or not, is one of the world’s biggest celebrities, and does not NEED the press, nor is she giving a special photo op. Nowadays, the paps don’t stop no matter what, even after the first shots of a milestone are taken and distributed. They hunt celebs and if they didn’t have cameras, they would be arrested for stalking and harassment.

And most paps are now not even professional photographers, but criminals with cameras stalking prey and practically mugging the celebs for a quick buck. It’s not the same thing as a quietly staged photo op.

BOTOX–
you made me hate myself for reading your very long post only to find out that there wasn’t anything about nicole..how can you even said that she is the master of PR when what your trying to show to justify your point is irrelevant..

remember the truth–
you are right nicole is really one of the world’s biggest celebrities..that’s a fact…

Nobody even knew Margot at the Wedding existed! If TGC was such a hit, why did they cancel the trilogy?

I don’t think that this is manipulation. Perhaps she did not want her picture taken. Perhaps she is tired of this…it has been nonstop for over a week. Those who thinks she looks old…maybe she had bad morning sickness this am or maybe she was just tired, as is MANY pregnant women. I agree that she has looked better, but she still looks good for a 40 year old women and if she did infact get botox or have surgery and she colors her hair, why does that bother people? Tons of people, men and women, do the same thing every day. Look at how close that photographer is…if I wasn’t scared, I would at least be very irritated. Let the lady have a little breathing room.

One other thing…some of the posts are saying that they should stay home if they don’t want pics taken. The first couple of days after the news broke, they were seen out and about more. They evidentally have been staying in more because there are not near as many sightings as before. I don’t know that they would have leaked the story this early but it seems that they told family and friends over the holiday and it was reported that one of her “friends” leaked the story. Some friend. I wonder how much that friend was paid for telling this. I feel for them and hope that when they do return to the states here shortly (due to Keiths tour starting up again) that the pappirazzi (spelling?) and reporters here are considerate and show respect to them. Maybe the news has been out lon enough that it won’t be such a media circus.

@ 53 From where do you have the information that the trilogy is canceled?????

shy my ass……she loves the attention! I thought she was afraid?!?! UGH! What a drama queen. Keith was doing better when he was a crack head!

She looks pretty and will be a great mother

Keep drinking the koolaid kids! :(

She would leave her kids for months to prepare for a movie role, she will do the same to this baby. This woman is not a good mother. Poor baby.

#68 - says who?

Beautiful woman!