Cele|bitchy |
- Solange Knowles thinks Kim Kardashian is too “lowbrow & tacky” for Beyonce
- Kristen Stewart wants Robert Pattinson’s sparkle-baby for real now
- Chris Hemsworth’s giant arms make his baby look like a doll: adorable?
- Tom Cruise’s lawyers warned NBC not to run Scientology expose
- Star: Prince William “regrets missing out on so much because he was tied to Kate”
- Taylor Swift wants to date Patrick Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver ain’t having it
- Angelina Jolie banned her children from listening to Rihanna’s filthy music
- Ralph Lauren’s Chinese-made Olympic uniforms cause controversy: ‘too French’?
- Tom Cruise was verbally abusive, yelled at Katie for 4 straight days over CO$
- Kristen Stewart’s Comic-Con outfit: unflattering, busted & completely typical?
| Solange Knowles thinks Kim Kardashian is too “lowbrow & tacky” for Beyonce Posted: 13 Jul 2012 08:14 AM PDT Ever since it became clear that Beyonce isn't going to ignore Kim Kardashian outright, and that Beyonce might even be somewhat friendly with Kim, Beyonce's stans have been going a little bit crazy. At first they were just mad at Beyonce. Now they're looking for reasons why Beyonce and Kim aren't really friends. The tabloids have been playing along, of course. Last week, The Enquirer claimed that Kim gave Blue Ivy some diamond jewelry and had it engraved, "From Auntie Kim". Which is super-inappropriate and presumptuous. And STILL, Beyonce didn't come out and publicly disassociate herself from Kim! Maybe this will work – the Enquirer claims that Solange (Beyonce's little sister) is now trying to convince Beyonce to dump Kim:
[From The Enquirer, print edition] You in danger, Solange. You do not get to tell Beyonce who she should be friends with! I mean, should I believe this? It sounds like typical sister sh-t. Like, sisterly gossip and "OMG, I can't believe that hooker! Did you see what she was wearing… girl, she was a MESS." Besides that, is Beyonce's rep really going to suffer that much if she continues to have a loose friendship and association with Kim? For real? PS… I kind of love Kim's pink kicks. Photos courtesy of WENN, Beyonce's Tumblr, Fame/Flynet.      |
| Kristen Stewart wants Robert Pattinson’s sparkle-baby for real now Posted: 13 Jul 2012 07:37 AM PDT Maybe I'm showing my age (better than showing my ass), but when I was growing up, all of the younger celebrities that I admired were childless. It was part of the deal those days – 20-something actresses and singers weren't all that interested in settling down and having babies. I can't imagine being 13 years old today and looking up to someone like Kristen Stewart (who is 22), and hearing about how she wants a baby. I'm not getting all judgmental and "celebrities should be role models" about it, I just can't ever remember being a kid and admiring some really young celebrity who was into babies. It's a zeitgeist thing – Generation X was all about having babies in their 30s. Generation Whatever (what is this generation called? I forget – but Generation Whatever is a great name!) is all about teen pregnancies and getting married at 21 and that stuff. Anyway, Us Weekly says that Kristen Stewart is all about babies. SPARKLE BABIES.
This seems suspiciously well-timed to go along with the early stages of Breaking Dawn Part 2's promotion, sure. But it could also be for real. I've always said – it will be interesting to see what happens with Kristen and Rob once the franchise is over. At this point, I do think they'll stay together for another year or so afterwards, but after that… God knows. And can we please stop talking about Sparkles and Kristen as if they'd ever do the film of 50 Shades of Grey? I hate to put it in these terms, but both of them are "too good" for that project. Incidentally, both Kristen and Sparkles got questions about 50 Shades while at Comic-Con, and they're responses were of the "JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL" variety. Sparkles was asked what he would do if a copy of 50 Shades was right in front of him, and he said, “I would just sit there and lick the pages." When Kristen was asked if she, Sparkles and Taylor Lautner have a 50 Shades book club, she said “That would be disgusting.” And back to the casting stuff – people, please. It's going to end up being cast straight out of the CW. No actor of any kind of serious profile wants this mess. Stop mentioning Michael Fassbender or Ryan Gosling or anyone of that caliber. It's going to be someone like Ian Somerhalder or Jared Padalecki (I had to look him up). Photos courtesy of WENN.    |
| Chris Hemsworth’s giant arms make his baby look like a doll: adorable? Posted: 13 Jul 2012 06:47 AM PDT And now for another chapter in our ongoing saga, "P0rn For Women: The Chris Hemsworth Edition". In today's episode, we're looking at new photos of Chris, his wife Elsa and their eight-week-old daughter India Rose out and about in Santa Monica yesterday. As you can see, Chris seems to be the Official Baby-Holder when the family is out in public. As you can see, Chris Hemsworth's arms are so deliciously epic, his baby girl basically looks like a tiny doll. I do love the tender way he's carrying India – you can tell that it's not just for the cameras. This is a man who dotes on his baby publicly and privately. Aussie men are just… the best. I have to wonder – how is it that Chris and Elsa keep getting pap'd so consistently? Are they going to become the new Garner-Afflecks? Only somehow different, because judging by the comments, most of you can't stand Elsa Pataky and most of you flat-out adore Chris. So will this be his new thing? He gets pap'd all the time for the Arms & Babies Show? Fortunately, Chris does have a real career – he's got sequels to Thor, Snow White and the Huntsman and The Avengers in the works. Plus several more actions flicks. I fully expect Chris to be considered A-list at any moment, and part of that billing will be his "buff, wholesome, family man" image. These photos are doing wonders. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.    |
| Tom Cruise’s lawyers warned NBC not to run Scientology expose Posted: 13 Jul 2012 06:23 AM PDT
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Last night, Rock Center with Brian Williams aired a 10 minute segment featuring two very high ranking ex Scientologists, former second in command Marty Rathbun and former Scientology spokesperson, Mike Rinder. (That video is above.) Rathbun and Rinder detailed the harassment, stalking, abuse and disconnection from family members that they endured after leaving the church. It was an incredible look into how the church intimidates members in order to maintain a culture of fear. One of the best moments was when they showed an 1998 interview that Rinder himself did with NBC in which he claimed that Scientology doesn’t make family members disconnect from people who leave the fold. (That’s at 7:30 in the video above.) Now the shoe is definitely on the other foot, and Rinder admitted that his 1998 self looked “like a sleazeball” and that he was lying back then. (We’ve covered these type of stories in the past, so rather than recap them, I’ll just include these links to Rinder’s story and Rathbun’s story.) After learning all this about how they treat people who leave, how easy is it to believe that Tom freaked out and screamed at Katie for days when she dared question Scientology? Getting back to NBC’s coverage, they later ran about a four minute background on the history of Scientology and the beliefs of practitioners. (You can watch that segment here) It was a way of legitimizing the cult by drawing comparisons to other religions. It’s worth noting that Rathbun and at least 60 other parishioners call themselves “Independent Scientologists” and still practice apart from the Scientology organization. Die hard Scientologist call people who practice independently “squirrels.” Rathbun was harassed for nearly a year by a team of Scientologists who rented a house across the street from him, wore T-shirts with his head superimposed on top of a squirrel, and called themselves “squirrel busters.” (You can read more about that here, and watch videos of them here. His experiences are also covered in the video above.) Needless to say the “church” of Scientology wasn’t pleased that this story was about to air, even though NBC attempted to be fair and did include all of Scientology’s ridiculous claims trying to discredit their sources. The most telling part for me was at the end of the “What is Scientology” segment. Correspondent Kate Snow described how she’s been inundated with letters and emails since they started working on this story:
Scientology is in the spotlight, as Williams mentioned. We’ve heard Marty Rathbun predict Cruise’s every move in the divorce, down to the PR blitz that Scientology is conducting now. The latest? “Someone” told the LA Times that “Scientology officials stayed out of ‘Kate’ Holmes – Tom Cruise divorce.” Maybe they did, but it’s not like Cruise hasn’t internalized every single Scientology concept by now. It’s not like he wasn’t calling up Miscavige for personal advice. “Kate” Holmes, really? How much more transparent can they be? Everyone knows that’s Tom’s pet name for her. It wasn’t enough to give her a whole new life and separate her from her friends and family, he had to rename her too. Well now she’s taking all that back, and Cruise’s cult is getting exposed by the mainstream media. Finally. I’m just waiting for 60 Minutes to do something on Scientology*. You know it will be epic. Oh and after I wrote this story I found this other fluff piece on Scientology in the LA Times, as pointed out by The Village Voice. *60 Minutes did do a report on Scientology in 1997. Transcript is here and video is here. It was about the way that Scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network. This photobomb is awesome, right? Update: The photo above is from the Super 8 premiere in June, 2011. As you can see from where Tom is standing, the crowd would have been right behind him. So that’s a random guy photobombing in the image above. Photo credit: WENN.com    |
| Star: Prince William “regrets missing out on so much because he was tied to Kate” Posted: 13 Jul 2012 06:11 AM PDT Earlier this week, I covered some highlights from this Star Magazine story. The excerpts were from Hollywood Life, and there was some weird wording and I didn't quite get the gist of who was saying what about Duchess Kate and Prince William. Now that I've read the whole Star story, I think it's worth covering in full – Star sat down with journalist and royal biographer Nicholas Davies – you can read his (sketchy) Wiki page here. Arms deals! Mossad! Iran-Contra! Sounds like Davies is less of a "royal biographer" and more like a rogue MI6 agent. Anyway, he's quite a character. He's also a conspiracy theorist about Princess Diana's death, so… I mean, that should help you in determining whether or not to take him at his word. Star uses Davies' quotes to fill in a story about William and Kate's lack of spark, and how their "honeymoon is over". Just so you know, I though Prince William came out of this sounding like a massive tool, and I have no problem believing that's what he's really like.
[From Star Magazine, print edition] Ugh. Doesn't Will sound like such a d-bag in this story? And in what world is 30 years old "too young" to be married? And what about all the times William and Kate broke up and he hooked up with other women? I guess that doesn't count for "sowing his royal oats" because he was "tied to Kate". Basically, it feels like the royal press is already working on a pro-William storyline in case this marriage doesn't work out. Before you yell at me – I think William and Kate will stay married. For a while, at least. I think Kate will have a baby and then… anything goes. I think Kate has already shown William that she's perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to his infidelities, both past and future. And here's something else that the pro-William contingent needs to consider: Kate is already working her own press machine, and she has been for years. If the royal family ever tries to push Kate aside, she and the Middletons have The Mail on speed-dial. It could get very, very messy. PS… It also occurs to me that all of this talk about "they don't have time for sex" is maybe the precursor to explain away a pre-Olympic vacation? They're totally due for a vacation, y'all. Photos courtesy of WENN.    |
| Taylor Swift wants to date Patrick Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver ain’t having it Posted: 13 Jul 2012 06:08 AM PDT Taylor Swift is on the hunt for a new guy to write songs about, y’all. Or rather, she’s looking for a new boyfriend, if you will. Have you ever noticed that it’s always about Swifty being the pursuer, not the other way around? Kaiser once framed the issue in terms of Taylor being quite “predatory” in nature, but maybe I’d be the same way if I were a rich, successful country singer who could have her (temporary) choice of any boy in the room. I mean, a girl needs artistic inspiration. Now two of this week’s tabloids have it on special authority that Taylor now has her sights set upon Patrick Schwarzenegger. Let’s start off with In Touch’s story:
[From In Touch, print edition, July 23, 2012] Meanwhile, Maria Shriver will have none of this nonsense and fears that Taylor will break Patrick’s heart. LOL.
[From Enquirer, print edition, July 23, 2012] Obviously, the danger here isn’t that Patrick (who’s a good-looking kid, no doubt) will fall helplessly in love with Taylor, who will mercilessly kick him aside like yesterday’s brunch leftovers. Nope. Instead, what would happen is that they’d have a semi-passionate affair for a few weeks, and then Patrick would get tired of the cling factor and dump Taylor over the phone. Finally, Taylor would include the requisite humiliating song on her next album and move onto the next guy. So Maria has the right idea about discouraging this romance. Will she be successful? Who knows. But no one messes with Maria; that is, except for Arnold. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet         |
| Angelina Jolie banned her children from listening to Rihanna’s filthy music Posted: 13 Jul 2012 05:29 AM PDT I don't have kids. I don't have nieces or nephews. I used to occasionally babysit my super-Christian neighbor's kids (the kids were like 6 and 8), but that family moved away (Sidenote: the mother was so conservative, she didn't want her kids to watch The Sound of Music. I really thought that movie would be okay for little ones, wouldn't you?). So… my familiarity with children is pretty limited these days. I can't even imagine raising a little one in today's hypersexualized, danger-around-every-corner world. When I was growing up, "parental controls" were some new-fangled thing for the TV that only a few parents went to the trouble of initiating. Nowadays, you're got kids surfing the internet, downloading R-rated music, watching True Blood when they get home from school, and the most violent thing of all – watching the news. So why should it be any different for celebrity parents? So it is with Angelina Jolie (because apparently she's a single parent and Brad Pitt has no involvement whatsoever). Star Magazine claims that Angelina went on a parental-blocking craze after Pax started singing Rihanna's "Birthday Cake". LOL.
[From Star Magazine, print edition] I can remember vividly the first time I ever heard Salt 'N Pepa's "Push It" when I was a little girl on my first sleepover. I didn't understand the lyrics and I remember thinking, "What needs to be pushed?" My point? Most kids don't understand the lyrics to half of these songs that their parents are worried about. Of course you have to put on those parental blocks, and of course you should monitor their internet usage. But don't freak out because your kid memorizes some inappropriate lyrics. Chances are, they have no idea what they mean. Also: I totally think Pax will end up in musical theater. Or as the lead singer of a garage rock band. PS… In my mind, Empress Zahara knows all the words to Adele's 21. Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.    |
| Ralph Lauren’s Chinese-made Olympic uniforms cause controversy: ‘too French’? Posted: 13 Jul 2012 05:28 AM PDT This post is going to be an unholy blend of fashion, politics, economics and the Olympics. At some point, I simply feel bad for the young athletes who work for years and years to represent their country at the Olympics, only to become pawns in an international political game that has little to do with the true spirit of the games. Of course, I also feel bad for the athletes because they're being forced to wear these awful Ralph Lauren uniforms. A few days ago, the new uniforms were revealed on the Today show, and ever since then, no one can shut up about how awful they are. These are the "uniforms" that all of the American athletes will wear to the opening ceremony – everyone in berets and double-breasted navy blazers with giant gold buttons (Duchess Kate just had a small orgasm). The girls will wear white skirts cut awkwardly below the knee. The boys will wear white slacks. Everybody gets a scarf or an ascot. I mean… it's awful. But! It's not like Congressmen have suddenly turned into fashion critics – although they really should, because these uniforms are FUG. No, politicians and pundits are yelling for other reasons. First of all, these uniforms are being called "too French". Because of the beret. And I'm guessing the multitude of scarves and stuff. That was the knee-jerk reaction – like, people saw "fug Olympic uniforms with berets and scarves" and they immediately went to "French". Which is totally unfair to France, because I don't see their athletes in BERETS. But then Congressmen were like, "Ugh, where were these uniforms made? PARIS?" And Ralph Lauren was like, "Er, actually they were made in China." So now it's become an even bigger thing.
Obviously, I think the "too French" criticism is just dumb, Yes, the berets are ugly, but it has nothing to do with looking "French". As for the Made In China criticism… it's fair game. Ralph Lauren is one of many, many American designers who outsource their manufacturing to China (and other countries with lenient labor laws). My take: unless Congressmen are willing to criticize every company that outsources manufacturing to China (coughWalMartcough), they should take a pill. Ralph Lauren is already selling The Olympic Collection online too – go here to see it. I kind of want the Team USA Vintage Mockneck. GAH! I want the tote too. Images courtesy of Ralph Lauren.    |
| Tom Cruise was verbally abusive, yelled at Katie for 4 straight days over CO$ Posted: 13 Jul 2012 04:50 AM PDT Naturally, this week’s tabloids have gone crazy (again) for the TomKat divorce, but I’ll get to that in just a moment. Here are some photos of Katie Holmes heading to Suri’s gymnastic class in NYC with a little friend in tow, which provides for a quick transition to his week’s Star (which we’ve already discussed for the Katie is too skinny and Nicole Kidman offered support angles), which poses the theory that, despite the divorce settlement, that nothing has really been settled in Tom’s eyes. Further and over the past two weeks, Tom’s “devastation has turned into anger and a sense of real injustice about the way he is not being portrayed in the media.” What’s fueling Tom’s fury even more than the sudden divorce? The fact that Katie’s spent the past few weeks doing normal things with Suri and being photographed doing so. This is pretty rich coming from the King of the Weekend Photo Op, but here’s Star’s take:
[From Star, print edition, July 23, 2012] Star also has added some bizarre details about how Katie has “quietly reestablished contact with many of her old friends,” and one of those “friends” just happens to be Chris Klein. Supposedly, Chris is “the first person she thinks to call when she is alone and can’t sleep,” and Chris is all “eager to meet up in person when Katie is ready.” LOL. I bet that Chris really would be excited if this really happened, but there’s no way in hell this went down. Right? Meanwhile, The Enquirer has devoted two feature stories to the TomKat divorce. The first story is about Katie’s mid-June trip to Iceland, which is the last time she and Tom saw each other and endured an uncomfortable last supper together. This story goes on to discuss how (as Kaiser covered) Tom had his goons place duct tape over hotel security cameras — and the overriding theory is that Tom didn’t want anyone to know that he and Katie were sleeping separately and having problems. The second story is a lot more fun though because it’s the “Tom is a Monster” story that we covered yesterday that has Tom threatening to sue. Kaiser pointed out that it didn’t make much sense for Tom to get upset and “pushback” over allegations that Suri slept for five months in a small, windowless room — indeed, it seems silly because the full story itself is out now, and that’s the very least detail over which Tom should have freaked out. Here is the tabloid masterpiece in question (although I’ve cut out some filler paragraphs):
[From Enquirer, print edition, July 23, 2012] It certainly sounds like Katie was experiencing the classic “walking on eggshells” syndrome that any verbally abused spouse would immediately recognize, and she was dealing with an egomaniacal tyrant who was used to everyone obeying his every wish, so I’m sure Katie felt that she was merely one of his pawns. Of course, I feel that any woman who felt it necessary to to use burner phones in order to file for divorce must certainly be afraid of her husband. So these allegations of verbal abuse come as no real shock. Meanwhile, there are a few other TomKat stories floating around out there that are worth mentioning. First up is a TMZ story that claims that a quick divorce settlement did not occur to keep Katie quiet about Tom or CO$ because “Tom has nothing to hide” and “people are just making this stuff up.” Further, Tom is very disgusted with “the media firestorm which is replete with bogus information.” Of course. There’s also a rather unbelievable tidbit (which originated in a British tabloid) about how Katie allegedly wants to change Suri’s name to “Scout Cruise Holmes.” Who makes this stuff up? Let’s shift this discussion back to the the Enquirer’s story though — I fully believe that Tom was a verbally abusive little “monster” to Katie. Remember, he made a formerly vibrant 33-year-old woman look like this. Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, Fame/Flynet and Enquirer          |
| Kristen Stewart’s Comic-Con outfit: unflattering, busted & completely typical? Posted: 13 Jul 2012 04:30 AM PDT These are some photos from the Comic-Con press conference/red carpet thing for Breaking Dawn Part II. Do these photos make you sad? This is the last time all of the Twilight people will be in Comic-Con together for anything sparkly-vampire-related. The end of an era (The Sparkle Era). Kristen Stewart kept up her Comic-Con streak of "picking the weirdest, cheapest looking outfit and throwing it on with a hideous pair of shoes." I don't even get this BCBG & Fluxus ensemble. Is it retro? Is it so much "the future of fashion" that I can't even comprehend what I'm seeing? Or is this just something awful that Kristen wore because she's tired of this damn franchise and she literally has no more sh-ts to give? I will say this about Kristen – I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have that kind of natural wave and body in my hair. I live a charmed life with my hair, for sure (Indian hair!), but I would love some waves like this. And Kristen doesn't even care! Who else do we have? Sparkles, of course. I think he looks nice. His hair is nice length, and he looks relieved that this is his last Comic-Con for the franchise. Like a weight has been lifted from his shoulders. And there's little Taylor Lautner, looking slim and happy. I'm also including the two people who are saddest to see the franchise end – Kellan "Kellan LUTZ!" Lutz and Ashley "I'm like Angelina Jolie, right?" Greene. Posing together, of course. Also pictured: Makenzie Foy (eyeroll at the spelling of "Makenzie"), who plays The Chosen Sparkle-Child, the honeymoon baby of Bella and Edward who gnaws her way out of her mother's womb. That's the price you pay, ladies, for having sex. Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.    |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Cele|bitchy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
