View Full Version : Vanessa Hudgens Nude Scandal! Uh Oh.
Apparently it's been confirmed that Vanessa Hudgens (for those of you who have no children or unaware of the craze- she's the star in High School Musical) has taken a naked photo and it's leaked out to the public. Has anyone heard Walt Disney Co. comments or know if this will put her career with Disney in jeopardy?
EUROPACL
09-07-2007, 04:29 PM
Disney didn't seem to mind when Lohan was doing lines off of toliet seats during Herbie Fully Loaded.
Very true. We'll see what happens.
whjoyjr
09-07-2007, 07:43 PM
Disney didn't seem to mind when Lohan was doing lines off of toliet seats during Herbie Fully Loaded.
VH can say goodbye to her Disney Career and HM3...
Peter Pirate 2
09-07-2007, 08:04 PM
It's not even an issue. She's an adult, she had relatively innocent nude photo stolen and she's a huge part of the HSM franchise. In Hollywood any publicity is good publicity so she's got no worries (nor should she).
pirate:
lts862
09-07-2007, 08:07 PM
I just read that Disney "stands behind" VH and accepts her apology. They aren't going to throw away a multi-million dollar money making machine away. HSM is pulling in $$$$ for Disney and the loss of VH would probably seriously hurt the future HSM movies and projects.
EUROPACL
09-07-2007, 08:09 PM
VH can say goodbye to her Disney Career and HM3...
I don't doubt it...Disney has a long history of cutting loose "stars" after they get a certain age or demand a certain amount of money. This really is just low hanging fruit...it's going to be easier to cut her now.
whjoyjr
09-07-2007, 09:04 PM
It's not even an issue. She's an adult, she had relatively innocent nude photo stolen and she's a huge part of the HSM franchise. In Hollywood any publicity is good publicity so she's got no worries (nor should she).
pirate:
We will find out in a year, but I will say right now, VH will not be part of HSM3 (if it gets made).
HSM2 did fantastic numbers on premier night, but the question is, does it have the legs that HSM did. At least in my house with 2 tween daughters, it does not.
agnes!
09-07-2007, 09:23 PM
My DD liked the dancing, but she also said the first one was better. She *really* didn't like it when everyone was so mean to Sharpay. They all lied and behaved just like her (at her worst).
agnes!
whjoyjr
09-08-2007, 05:57 AM
Maybe VH wanted out of her Disney contract, and staged the "leak" of the photos?
Peter Pirate 2
09-08-2007, 07:54 AM
See Disney's statement...It's already over. It's not an issue.
pirate:
speedyf
09-08-2007, 11:08 AM
Supposedly...the pictures were taken with a cell phone cam and her cell phone was "hacked" and someone released the pictures.
I've also read the speculation about her releasing the photo herself and how it's the "norm" these days to release some kind of scandalous photo or video to move out of being casted as a kid/teen and move into being casted as an adult.
Who knows?...but, it seems that Disney will stick by her based on the released info from Disney.
Speed :teleport:
wdwdancerwannabe
09-08-2007, 11:41 AM
My husband said that he read somewhere that she was replaced by "some girl from the Cheetah Girls"....
Anyone?
disney100666
09-08-2007, 02:25 PM
if you want some other rumors and what not, the Teen Board has a few threads going on including the HSM thread.
GiGi30
09-08-2007, 02:39 PM
I kind of feel bad for her. I mean, on one hand, she should know that as a celebrity, things like that can find their way into the public. But, she is an adult, and to take the pictures for personal use and have them exploited is really sad. If she were doing this on websites for fun, it would be different.
EUROPACL
09-09-2007, 03:07 PM
Is it just me or is the story that she took these herself with a cellphone cam and in the mirror not making sense? If you look at the pics the mirror is to the left of her and there is no phone/cam in her hand.
DancingBear
09-09-2007, 04:04 PM
How many times did you have to look at the picture before you noticed what was or wasn't in her hand?
GiGi30
09-09-2007, 04:12 PM
I noticed that as well. :lmao:
Peter Pirate 2
09-09-2007, 06:12 PM
No cell camera's have timers?
pirate:
EUROPACL
09-09-2007, 06:38 PM
How many times did you have to look at the picture before you noticed what was or wasn't in her hand?
:rotfl2: :rotfl2: I studied them over and over again before I figured out she even had arms.
No cell camera's have timers?
I really don't know I know none of the ones I've seen have them...but there might be...still dosen't account for the missing mirror that you see in these types of shots.
I was looking around online and found this:
The Walt Disney Co. is sticking with the 18-year-old star of its wildly successful "High School Musical" franchise, despite her "lapse in judgment" in posing for racy photos that were leaked to the Internet.
Vanessa Hudgens apologized Friday for the photos, which show her smiling as she posed naked and in underwear in a bedroom with a red curtain behind her.
"Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment," said Disney Channel spokeswoman Patti McTeague. "We hope she's learned a valuable lesson."
She said negotiations were ongoing to land all the actors, including Hudgens, for a "High School Musical 3" feature film.
Hudgens' publicist, Jill Fritzo, wouldn't say anything about who took the pictures and how they slipped out onto the Internet.
beachblanket
09-09-2007, 07:04 PM
I don't doubt it...Disney has a long history of cutting loose "stars" after they get a certain age or demand a certain amount of money. This really is just low hanging fruit...it's going to be easier to cut her now.
You've got that darn right - here's the textbook example:
During her high water mark "biggest Disney star ever who can do no wrong" period:
http://www.beachpartymoviemusic.com/images/Img224.gif
Followed by the "grown up child star no longer useful to Disney ends up slumming into tacky drive in movies" phase:
http://www.beachpartymoviemusic.com/images/Img80.gif
Which in turn ended up in the "beach party fad is over, Walt is dead, Disney won't take me back for anything so this will have to do" ending:
http://www.beachpartymoviemusic.com/images/Img127.jpg
Is anyone questioning the possibility of her being a minor at the time the photo was taken?
DancingBear
09-10-2007, 08:20 AM
According to Wiki she turned 18 on December 14, 2006; from the story this sounds like something she did fairly recently.
Debbie6221
09-10-2007, 09:56 AM
If you have seen the pix she looks like she is under 18 in them to me. I know I am just judging her by the appearance but she looked a lot different to me then she does now. I think (JMHO) that she did them before HSM fame and when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb and what goes along with it! My guess is she was 16 at the oldest.
Another Voice
09-10-2007, 10:11 AM
...when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb...
There is not a single person in Hollywood who thinks this was a "leak", an "accident", or the result of being "naive".
EUROPACL
09-10-2007, 10:14 AM
If you have seen the pix she looks like she is under 18 in them to me. I know I am just judging her by the appearance but she looked a lot different to me then she does now. I think (JMHO) that she did them before HSM fame and when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb and what goes along with it! My guess is she was 16 at the oldest.
You would think her lawyers would have gotten them pulled pretty fast if there was a Child Porn reason available.
Debbie6221
09-10-2007, 10:17 AM
There is not a single person in Hollywood who thinks this was a "leak", an "accident", or the result of being "naive".
I have to disagree with you. You could be absolutely right but IMHO I feel that if she was going to leak pix I highly doubt she would have picked ones from when she was that young. It would make more sense to me if they WERE actually pix for Zach Efron but these were obviously not. Unfortunately, I think there are more current ones out there ready to pop up.
Debbie6221
09-10-2007, 10:29 AM
You would think her lawyers would have gotten them pulled pretty fast if there was a Child Porn reason available.
I don't think at this point she will want to admit how old she was! That would be a whole other problem. I think she wants us to believe she did them when she was older but she looks awfully young to me.
I know.... it sounds now like I studied the pix!:rotfl2: I actually just had to see them to believe them.
Another Voice
09-10-2007, 10:38 AM
...but IMHO I feel that if she was going to leak pix I highly doubt she would have picked ones from when she was that young.
There's a phrase about town - the best creative writing in Hollywood is on IMDB - it's the height of the men and the age of the women.
There isn't a single actress in Hollywood that wants to be known as looking older. "Young and legal" is about as polite as I can make the term. This actress has gone as far as she can go doing cutey movies-of-the-week for the pre-high school set. She and her management have decided to go after the big roles with the big paychecks in the time honored why of Hollywood starlets. Just enough "denability" so all the moms in the red states don't start bakesales to have her banned, hot enough to give her crediability as a "serious" actress (i.e., one willing to do anything for money) in Hollywood.
DancingBear
09-10-2007, 10:52 AM
If you have seen the pix she looks like she is under 18 in them to me. I know I am just judging her by the appearance but she looked a lot different to me then she does now. I think (JMHO) that she did them before HSM fame and when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb and what goes along with it! My guess is she was 16 at the oldest.So you think these were taken before December, 2005? And yet her people don't bother to mention that fact in their explanation?
So you think these were taken before December, 2005? And yet her people don't bother to mention that fact in their explanation?
I think you meant December 2006, which is when she turned 18.
That being said, it is possible that the pics were taken before that date (albeit almost a year later) and they haven't surfaced until now. This whole thing about celebrities and their Sidekick photo album being hacked is nothing new. The exact same thing happened to Vida Guerra (a model) and Paris Hilton.
Debbie6221
09-10-2007, 11:56 AM
So you think these were taken before December, 2005? And yet her people don't bother to mention that fact in their explanation?
I still don't believe they would want people to think she took those pix as a minor. I think it would make her look worse. I believe the pix were taken from her old computer or old cell phone but I am probably thinking like a Mom instead of like a publicist!
I wonder what Zach's reaction has been to all of this????
Why do I care?????????????
I still don't believe they would want people to think she took those pix as a minor.
That's assuming she in fact was a minor at the time, which is still up in the air.
EUROPACL
09-10-2007, 12:05 PM
I wonder what Zach's reaction has been to all of this????
I don't think Zach would be intrested in the pics at all....now if you had some Jake Gyllenhaal or Lance bass pics he might be more intrested.
DancingBear
09-10-2007, 12:06 PM
I think you meant December 2006, which is when she turned 18.Nope, I meant December 2005--Debbie6221 said she thought Vanessa was 16 tops at the time.
Debbie6221
09-10-2007, 12:36 PM
I don't think Zach would be intrested in the pics at all....now if you had some Jake Gyllenhaal or Lance bass pics he might be more intrested.
:sad2: Be nice!
DC7800
09-10-2007, 01:05 PM
Is it just me or is the story that she took these herself with a cellphone cam and in the mirror not making sense? If you look at the pics the mirror is to the left of her and there is no phone/cam in her hand.
I was wondering the same thing and, of course, the fact that this picture release looks about as much like an "accident" as when Britney and all the other celebs just happened to have "wardrobe malfunctions" in front of the paparazzi.
It also seems to say all sorts of things about Hollywood (none of them good) when such an scandal is somehow seen as a prerequisite for "serious" work for a young, otherwise attractive actress.
And of course, we already have had a playmate walking down mainstreet as Cinderella.
MJMcBride
09-11-2007, 03:05 PM
And of course, we already have had a playmate walking down mainstreet as Cinderella.
yeah baby.
why do we care about this again?
yitbos96bb
09-15-2007, 12:03 AM
If you have seen the pix she looks like she is under 18 in them to me. I know I am just judging her by the appearance but she looked a lot different to me then she does now. I think (JMHO) that she did them before HSM fame and when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb and what goes along with it! My guess is she was 16 at the oldest.
Um... No... Let's use some logic on this...
If she was a minor, then it would have made this entire thing very easy for her to deal with. Posting the picture would be a crime and nearly every site would have taken it down immediately. The Justice Department under Bush has been prosecuting child pornography very zealously (so there is ONE thing that I think he administration is doing) and there would be arrests of people right now. All she would have had to say was she took it of herself when she was underage and the photo, much like the under age Traci Lords videos, would for the most part disappear. It would have made the handling of this very easy for her.
Now as to you saying she looks 16... Well, how many times have you seen this girl in person as a normal girl... without makeup, or with a little makeup in casual attire. I'm pretty willing to bet the number is 0. She looks different in the pic BECAUSE SHE HASN'T BEEN MADE UP FOR TV. Remember, they DO use heavy amounts of makeup for film and TV, plus since HDTV captures a lot of blemishes (much to Cameron Diaz's horror) most Hollywood people going on camera for Awards shows get made up as well. This is the reason you think she looks younger than when you have seen her on tv.
Lets use logic before we accuse people of crimes.
yitbos96bb
09-15-2007, 12:05 AM
Nope, I meant December 2005--Debbie6221 said she thought Vanessa was 16 tops at the time.
Debbie doesn't know what she is talking about.
ChrisFL
09-15-2007, 07:10 AM
Um... No... Let's use some logic on this...
If she was a minor, then it would have made this entire thing very easy for her to deal with. Posting the picture would be a crime and nearly every site would have taken it down immediately. The Justice Department under Bush has been prosecuting child pornography very zealously (so there is ONE thing that I think he administration is doing) and there would be arrests of people right now. All she would have had to say was she took it of herself when she was underage and the photo, much like the under age Traci Lords videos, would for the most part disappear. It would have made the handling of this very easy for her.
Now as to you saying she looks 16... Well, how many times have you seen this girl in person as a normal girl... without makeup, or with a little makeup in casual attire. I'm pretty willing to bet the number is 0. She looks different in the pic BECAUSE SHE HASN'T BEEN MADE UP FOR TV. Remember, they DO use heavy amounts of makeup for film and TV, plus since HDTV captures a lot of blemishes (much to Cameron Diaz's horror) most Hollywood people going on camera for Awards shows get made up as well. This is the reason you think she looks younger than when you have seen her on tv.
Lets use logic before we accuse people of crimes.
the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image
yitbos96bb
09-15-2007, 01:28 PM
the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image
IT'S STILL ILLEGAL IF SHE IS UNDER 18!!!!
Are you seriously suggesting a nude photo of an underage person would be anything but illegal? Call it Pornography or nude image or whatever, its STILL ILLEGAL! Case closed. She was 18, her reps would be forcing its removal if she was under age.
rwrocksme
09-17-2007, 06:17 PM
I wonder what Zach's reaction has been to all of this????
:surfweb: :scared1: :love: :faint:
EUROPACL
09-17-2007, 06:33 PM
the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image
False...time to clean your harddrive.
ChrisFL
09-17-2007, 07:16 PM
False...time to clean your harddrive.
what are you implying? I've seen the picture, I have no idea how old she is in it, I can clean the browser cache just the same however
EUROPACL
09-17-2007, 07:33 PM
what are you implying? I've seen the picture, I have no idea how old she is in it, I can clean the browser cache just the same however
I was implying that you didn't know that nude photos of underage childern are illegal.
ChrisFL
09-17-2007, 08:37 PM
I was implying that you didn't know that nude photos of underage childern are illegal.
I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such
So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.
whjoyjr
09-17-2007, 08:49 PM
I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such
So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.
Remember Traci Lords?
EUROPACL
09-17-2007, 08:59 PM
I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such
So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.
Calm down and take a deep breath it was a joke.
...and if you look back you will see that point was brought up...if she was under 18 her lawyers could have had them kept out of print.
raidermatt
09-18-2007, 06:33 PM
They could force them to be taken down, which I saw at least one site claim they were asked to do, though they didn't give the exact reason.
scottnorth
09-22-2007, 01:34 PM
Friends,
A simplified synopsis from a law enforcement perspective. (please visit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website for a better understanding) The Supreme Court of the United States has maintained their ruling that nudity does not equal pornography. This concept applies to all ages under the somewhat famous quote arising from the high court's decision: "nudity, without more." In other words for something (a picture, video) to cross the line into pornography, it must be sexually exploitive of genetalia or depict or suggest sexual activity. Even when a person who is under the age of 18 is shown nude in a movie or a picture, it does not, in and of itself constitute pornography.
Here are two examples:
1. Brooke Shields starred in a mainstreem movie titled "Pretty Baby" in the 1980s, Brooke portrayed a child prostitute and appeared in the nude throughout this film. This film is considered educational and artistic and enjoys the protections afforded by the United States Constitution.
2. Just yesterday, on ABC (Disney), America's Funniest Videos aired a clip of a young female (3 years old or so) with a coin stuck inside her buttcrack. They showed her naked butt and her chest area. Surely most of us (aside from the truely depraved in our society) would consider this a cute video and not as some sort of sexual turn-on.
I have to agree that if Huggins were under the age of 18, her picture would not continue to be posted on certain legitimate websites for a variety of reasons, the first being the consent to her photograph being taken in a private area. If her picture is simply contains "nudity, without more," and she was under 18, her parents would have had to consent to the photograph being taken and consent to its release.
Unfortunately, there are many situations in society where children are exploited sexually behind closed doors from family members, friends and as well as from smut peddlers via the internet.
If you would like to learn more about protecting children from sexual abuse, I urge you to visit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website, a collaberative effort between Federal, State, and Local law enforcement.
-Scott
EUROPACL
09-22-2007, 08:07 PM
No offense to your "law enforcement perspective" but I'll stick with the plan of not having naked photos of kids on my computer.
DancingBear
09-22-2007, 10:44 PM
The Supreme Court of the United States has maintained their ruling that nudity does not equal pornography.The Supreme Court doesn't make rulings about what constitutes pornography. You mean obscenity.
scottnorth
09-23-2007, 10:42 AM
EUROPACL & DANCING BEAR,
I agree with both of you.
-Scott
nickeymouse
09-25-2007, 05:44 AM
Did any one hear about Hanah Montanna...
The rumor is she's pregent!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :scared1: :scared1:
yitbos96bb
09-25-2007, 09:10 AM
Did any one hear about Hanah Montanna...
The rumor is she's pregent!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :scared1: :scared1:
Did you hear that she's... really a man, BABY... Shagadelic...
Seriously, no, she isn't pregnant. Her dad is WAY to redneck, so if she WAS, I have a feeling we'd be hearing a Billy Ray Cyrus went achey breaky on some kid. The article was a fake one. It actually impresses me to hear how well her parents are raising her and that her dad isn't letting her go wild with the money, etc. He acts like a parent should, unlike Britney's or Lindsay's parents did for them (and don't get me started on the absenteeism of those who spawned Paris Hilton, they aren't fit to even be called parents.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20058394,00.html
Here is the denial.
nickeymouse
09-25-2007, 01:33 PM
Did you hear that she's... really a man, BABY... Shagadelic...
Seriously, no, she isn't pregnant. Her dad is WAY to redneck, so if she WAS, I have a feeling we'd be hearing a Billy Ray Cyrus went achey breaky on some kid. The article was a fake one. It actually impresses me to hear how well her parents are raising her and that her dad isn't letting her go wild with the money, etc. He acts like a parent should, unlike Britney's or Lindsay's parents did for them (and don't get me started on the absenteeism of those who spawned Paris Hilton, they aren't fit to even be called parents.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20058394,00.html
Here is the denial.
Sorry!!! Just a rumor!!! Thank Mickey it's not true!!!!!:goodvibes :goodvibes
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.