Cele|bitchy |
- Kristen Wiig: “I’m happier than I’ve ever been, and I feel very lucky right now”
- Is Adele’s pregnancy further along than people think? Is she due in September?
- Cory Monteith & Lea Michele in LA: genuinely loved up or super-posed?
- In the wake of the TomKat divorce, is the media finally calling Scientology a cult?
- Vanessa Paradis makes first post-split appearance in Paris: lovely?
- Does Katie & Tom’s settlement include ‘restrictions on the subject of religion’?
- Scarlett Johansson must have dumped Nate Naylor, now she’s with a random beefcake
- Gabrielle Union says her career “took a hit” after the homewrecking rumors
- Mick Jagger & David Bowie had an intense, sexual & emotional affair in the 1970s
- Jessica Biel says Justin dresses her because “he has better taste than I do”
| Kristen Wiig: “I’m happier than I’ve ever been, and I feel very lucky right now” Posted: 10 Jul 2012 09:01 AM PDT
Kristen Wiig covers the August issue of Marie Claire. Isn’t that amazing? Who would have thought that the “Terget Lady” from “SNL” would cover a (sort of) fashion magazine? I certainly never would have believed it years ago, but Kristen is a great chameleon who has finally gone full mainstream after co-writing and starring within Bridesmaids. With all of the new opportunities that have come her way in the wake of the movie’s success, Kristen has departed “SNL” after seven years. Interestingly enough, she’s now dating Strokes drummer Fabrizio Moretti, who was hot and heavy with Drew Barrymore years ago and also dated Kirsten Dunst for awhile too. Supposedly, Fabrizio and Wiig are now quite serious together, and it’s obvious that she’s smitten with the guy. Here are some excerpts from the interview:
[From Marie Claire] That’s funny that she idolized Justine Bateman, who was the greatest smartass ever on “Family Ties.” Justine has also done some great (relatively) recent work on shows like “Californication” and “Arrested Development.” Maybe Kristen and Justine should team up and make comedies together now that Kristen is so successful. Regardless of who she surrounds herself with, I think that Kristen will do great in movies as she’s already proven, and there’s no reason that she can’t go back and visit “SNL” like so many other alumni do on a regular basis. Here’s a photo of Kristen and Fabrizio in NYC on 7/7. I’m sure he’s a very charming guy, but his name always reminds me of air freshener.
Photos courtesy of Marie Claire and Fame/Flynet    |
| Is Adele’s pregnancy further along than people think? Is she due in September? Posted: 10 Jul 2012 08:27 AM PDT
I'm in a weird mood today and I'm having difficulties doing simple functions for whatever reason. I swear, I've been counting on my fingers. Like, one piggy per month. February, March, April, and on. I'm trying to figure out if this British tabloid report could possibly be true, because it seems like their timeline and math is all wrong. As we've previously discussed, Adele is knocked up. Her baby-daddy is Simon Konecki, who may or may not still be married (no one really knows and I'm not taking Adele's word for it). Us Weekly reported last week that Adele and Simon were probably engaged, or going to be engaged at some point in the near future. Us Weekly also said something about Adele already being about four months along, which would put the date of conception around (counting on fingers) February-ish. Now the UK tabloid Heat claims that Adele is due in September. Which means that she's already about seven months along right now? For the love of God.
We don't have any photos from the May event, but you can see one here. She definitely looked like she was trying to "hide" something in her mid-section, so maybe there's something to this. If she was only three months along at that point (??), she wouldn’t have been showing that much. If she's due in September, that means she conceived in (counts fingers) late December, maybe? And she was in her first trimester at the Grammys? Sure. I guess. If she is further along than we expect, it wouldn't bother me. BUT! It does mean that Simon knocked her up when they had only been dating for a couple of months. Which happens, for sure. But it still makes me concerned for Adele. She's got such awful taste in men.
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Cory Monteith & Lea Michele in LA: genuinely loved up or super-posed? Posted: 10 Jul 2012 08:00 AM PDT
Here are some new photos of Lea Michele and Cory Monteith in Hollywood yesterday. I think they were going out to eat. How long have they been together now? The rumors about them started shortly after the awards season, like early March or so. So… maybe they've been seeing each other for the better part of four months, if not longer? Does that surprise you? It surprises me. Although this is far from the first coupled-up, loved-up candid photo op from the two of them, they haven't really been in-our-faces about it either. They just seem to be dating in some sort of half-public, half-private way – not pushing it in the tabloids, not setting up endless photo-ops, but not hiding it either. I kind of like the way they're handling it. As for Lea's casual outfit… I dislike the jeans. I loathe the shoes. And I kind of want her sweater. I love those kinds of sweaters. Don't even start with the "Does she have a bump?" questions though. Although my first instinct was to "Bump Watch" her, let's not go there. Lea has some issues with dieting and stuff, and I'd like to think that she can gain a few pounds without everyone thinking that she's pregnant. She looks fine. She looks healthy. She just needs to throw out the shoes. So… are Lea and Cory going strong? I would say so. My guess is that they'll make it for a while longer. Maybe even a year or more.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| In the wake of the TomKat divorce, is the media finally calling Scientology a cult? Posted: 10 Jul 2012 07:19 AM PDT
I’ve been reading about Scientology for years, and following websites like Xenu.net, RickRoss and more recently anonymous. A lot of Internet-savvy people know about how dangerous and destructive a cult Scientology is, but there are so many more well informed people who just consider it another weird religion. For instance my dad reads the entire newspaper cover-to-cover every day (and he’s also online but not all day like I am), but when I tried to talk to him about Scientology he used the old “all religions have strange beliefs” argument, which is true they do. (I hope I convinced him otherwise.) It’s not what Scientologists believe or how they go about practicing their beliefs, it’s the fact that they trap members, drain their life savings, and cut them off from friends and family in a very methodical and scary way. Scientology’s power structure and the way that followers are abused, exploited and trapped in servitude are what makes it a cult, not whatever belief system they may have. If you’d like to know more about cults vs. legitimate religions, the FAQ on cult expert Rick Ross’ site has a good explanation. Also here’s a link to some characteristics of cults and thought reform/brain washing. The part about halfway down, on “Marks of a Destructive Cult,” describes Scientology to a T. As the Tom and Katie divorce news spread, outlets started looking at Scientology and asking defectors about their experiences in the cult. We heard some very scary stories of families getting split up, children forced to work long hours, people disappearing suspiciously, and people being sent away to Scientology prison camps. Some outlets, like People Magazine, ran ridiculous whitewashed stories comparing Scientology to Catholicism, which definitely has its own issues but that’s not the point. Most took a more skeptical view of the cult and did run some of the very sensational but true stories about what goes on in The Cos. Kudos to Radar Online in particular for their ongoing coverage of this story. Anyway it looks like all the focus on Scientology may have encouraged Tom to settle with Katie earlier rather than drag it out. In their joint statement just prior to reaching a settlement they made the announcement that they were “committed to Suri’s best interests” but more than that, they were committed “to each of our respective beliefs.” The divorce settlement was actually predicted by high-ranking defector Marty Rathbun, a former auditor of Tom Cruise’s who runs a blog detailing all the latest happenings with his old cult. Rathbun reveals how Scientology head David Miscaviage has a very predictable code of conduct for dealing with issues in the church, and claims that Cruise’s moves so far have been textbook. Miscavige is a close friend of Cruise’s, was best man at his wedding, and even went with Cruise and Holmes on their honeymoon, I shit you not. Here’s Rathbun’s predictions, and these were written on Sunday well before the settlement announcement. He called it.
[From Marty Rathbun's Blog] That’s really interesting how they get positive testimonials from people to use against them later. Rathburn also points us to this story from Miscavige’s former longterm personal secretary, who describes how she was systematically cut off from her husband, and was imprisoned in a Scientology work camp when she refused to divorce him. As more stories like this come out, it’s got to be a PR nightmare for this cult. How can they ever spin this other than attacking the people who are coming out publicly? That’s getting old. The Village Voice has a breakdown of Rathbun’s points along with some of their own findings on this case. They note that the next step will be shaming the media for even daring to question Scientology’s role in the divorce. I bet they’re right. Look at how People Magazine covered this story, it sounds just like the playbook Rathbun mentions. So did Katie get a nice hefty settlement and primary custody of Suri in exchange for helping this story fade from the gossip world? I bet she did. I also bet she’s never going to talk about Scientology publicly, as some outlets claim was stipulated in the divorce, and in no way do I blame her. She has a daughter to think about, and the very real possibility that her own daughter may be turned against her. Cruise already did it to Nicole Kidman with their two older kids. The damage to this cult has already been done, though, and there’s no stopping the flood of information that’s coming out about Scientology.
Katie is shown on 7-6 and 7-8-12. Credit: WENN.com and Fame |
| Vanessa Paradis makes first post-split appearance in Paris: lovely? Posted: 10 Jul 2012 06:09 AM PDT
Here are some new photos of Vanessa Paradis in Paris… at some point. The photos are dated from the weekend, but WENN has thrown them up like they're new, so I don't know. She was at the Paris Cinema Festival for the premiere of her new film, Je Me Suis Fait Tout Petit. CB and I were debating what was different about Vanessa – I think VP has gained a little bit of weight (like, two pounds) and she got a great blowout. Maybe it's just makeup? We don't know. VP looks good, though. This was Vanessa's first public appearance since everything was announced with the official split and the subsequent "Team Depp says Vanessa is a ballbuster and that's why Johnny had to bone Amber Heard" campaign. The tabloids are still trying to figure out how long Vanessa and Johnny have been having problems – The Enquirer claims that Vanessa thinks Johnny was boning Amber Heard back in 2009, when Johnny and Amber first filmed The Rum Diary. Us Weekly has made it sound like Vanessa and Johnny have basically been split up since 2010. Basically, it's a mess.
Also: Here are some photos of Lily-Rose Depp shopping with a nanny and a bodyguard in West Hollywood over the weekend. Lily-Rose is 13 years old – she turned 13 in May. I'm not trying to be harsh or judgy, but I do have to say… my mother would have never let me out of the house in this outfit when I was 13 years old. The exposed bra is one thing – and maybe I would give this a "meh" if it was just the exposed, red bra (why does a 13-year-old need a red bra, though?). But the exposed bra with the booty shorts cut all the way up that high? No. I'm not saying it's Johnny's fault and not Vanessa's or vice versa. Maybe they're co-parenting successfully and they're just tired of fighting Lily-Rose on her clothes, because God knows, teenagers can put up one hell of a fight. And considering Vanessa and Johnny's on-going drama, maybe the parental debate over their daughter's clothes has fallen through the cracks. But one of them needs to put their foot down about this, right?
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| Does Katie & Tom’s settlement include ‘restrictions on the subject of religion’? Posted: 10 Jul 2012 04:30 AM PDT
Here are some photos from yesterday of Katie Holmes taking a trip to NYC’s Children’s Museum of the Arts, and Suri (as always lately) looks less than thrilled about the photogs greeting their cab at the curb. At least she’s not all cooped up in the apartment all day though, right? Suri’s doing normal kid things now in the closest sense possible — hopefully the paps will become less interested as soon as this divorce story cools a bit. After yesterday’s revelation of a quick divorce settlement between Katie and Tom Cruise, many media outlets hope to be the go-to for details of the agreement. People kicks things off by quoting yesterday’s TMZ story (already covered by Kaiser) in regard to Katie achieving “primary physical custody” and an allowance for “generous visitation” for Tom as well as a slightly weird pro-Tom note at the end:
[From People] As such, People keeps its account short and sweet for the benefit of Tom — now it looks like it was all Tom’s idea for Suri to live with Katie when it’s been beyond clear that Katie was dead set on keeping custody. See how that works? Now here’s where it gets sketchy. Almost immediately, Radar Online claimed to have an exclusive about how the custody agreement included a requirement that Suri’s bodyguards and nanny would accompany her during all visits with Tom, thereby insulating Suri against any and all talk of Scientology. According to this take, Suri wouldn’t be allowed to be exposed to CO$ parties or churches either, and the source insisted that “Katie made sure that this was ironclad in the agreement.” This sounds much like the outcome that most of us (including Katie) were hoping for in regard to Katie keeping Tom from proceeding with Suri’s indoctrination into the CO$. Not so fast though. People quickly re-upped with word from one of Katie’s lawyers, Jonathan Wolfe, that various reports concerning the settlement are not to be believed: “There are numerous inaccuracies in the reports regarding the purported contents of the agreement reached between he parties. The agreement is confidential and its terms will not be disclosed.” So does this mean that Katie’s attorneys are telling us that Suri won’t always be protected by her nannies against Scientology while she’s with Tom? Or maybe that’s just what Tom wants us to believe because — let’s face it — this entire divorce story makes his cult look even worse than it already did. TMZ also presents its account with some interesting details as well. This story is probably the most accurate of the bunch:
[From TMZ] Meanwhile, The Mail quotes a lot of Radar’s (presumably debunked) story but adds that Tom agreed to pay “a substantial sum” over and above that dictated by the prenuptual agreement and that “included a ‘goodwill’ payoff to help bring talks to a speedy conclusion.” So the spin there is that Katie was motivated by money, and perhaps this was one of the rumors that her attorneys wanted to shut down. My theory is this — much like yesterday’s carefully-worded joint statement, Katie’s lawyers may have already agreed ahead of time to make another blanket statement in an attempt to quell inevitable speculation over the settlement details. This agreement might have been part of the deal along with a non-disclosure agreement on the part of Katie. I sure as hell hope that Tom keeps his side of the bargain, whatever it is, and I hope Katie gave up nothing. Will we ever know the true details of the settlement? Probably not, but the media will surely continue to discuss the matter. As CB has mentioned already, part of the necessary fun of this TomKat scandal is to go back and study their body language throughout the relationship. Here’s an amusing photo that I just found from 2009, which I like to imagine as the precise moment when Katie may have realized that she married a madman.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet      |
| Scarlett Johansson must have dumped Nate Naylor, now she’s with a random beefcake Posted: 10 Jul 2012 04:28 AM PDT
These photos are cracking me up for several different reasons. First of all, Scarlett Johansson is on another glorious beach vacation – she's like the new Jennifer Aniston, I guess. ScarJo's last vacay was in February, and she spent most of the time wandering around Mexico in bikini while her boyfriend Nate "The Most Beautiful Man" Naylor looked boring and curmudgeon-y. So what's so funny about these pics of ScarJo on vacation on a yacht in the Taormina Sea (off the Italian coast)? Well, for one thing, ScarJo isn't with Nate Naylor. Did she finally have enough of that hipster famewhore? Perhaps. Radar still claims that Scarlett and Nate were over in late February, and that's when Scarlett went on a "date" with Bradley Cooper…? But the dude in these photos isn't B-Coop. It's some unknown beefcake who doesn't even have the media training to A) NOT point at the paparazzi like an eager beaver and B) NOT look like he won some kind of boob-lottery by getting to spend this much time in close proximity to ScarJo's rack. So… I guess Scarlett has a new boyfriend. This one doesn't look like a keeper, though. We'll see. Also: Scarlett's lost weight, right? When she's all stretched out, she looks really small. In other ScarJo news, you know how they're making a sequel to the wildly successful Avengers? It's a franchise now! And Scarlett is apparently asking for the BIG paycheck to do the next film. The New York Post reports that Scarlett might get $20 million to play Black Widow in the sequel. Of course, this mess originates in the British tabloids, I think – which means it's probably not all true. I would imagine Scarlett is looking for a big payday for the sequel, but I don't know if she or her people think she's worth $20 million for what amounts to a supporting part with extra jiggle. UPDATE: ScarJo’s rep says this dude is her bodyguard. Sure. I don’t know why that’s supposed to be read as some kind of denial, though. It’s possible he’s her bodyguard AND her lover.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet. |
| Gabrielle Union says her career “took a hit” after the homewrecking rumors Posted: 10 Jul 2012 04:23 AM PDT
A few years ago, the Alicia Keys-Swizz Beatz situation began blowing up all over the urban blogs, but for the most part, "legit" mainstream media outlets and blogs ignored the sketchiness of Swizz's multiple baby-mamas, his deadbeat-daddying, the shadiness in which he and Alicia started up while he was still married. It was a mess, and it got "white-washed" rather effectively. I bring this up because while I've written one story about the current Gabrielle Union-Dwyane Wade situation, for the most part it's been a repeat of the Keys-Beatz thing. Now, I'm not saying Dwyane Wade is as shady as Swizz – he's not! Hardly anyone is as shady as Swizz. I'm just saying that for the most part, the mainstream media is taking Gabrielle Union's side and looking the other way as urban blogs report story after story about all of the drama with Dwyane Wade's ex-wife. The basic gist of the "scandal"/scandal: Miami Heat baller Dwayne Wade was married to Siohvaughn Funches, and they have two kids together. Circa 2009, Dwyane met Gabby, split up with his wife and began shacking up with Gabby. The order of these events is up for debate – Funches claims that Gabby "homewrecked" her marriage, and Funches filed a lawsuit against Union too (although the case was dismissed). Gabby maintains that she and Wade didn't start up until he and Funches were already over and legally separated. Pro-Gabby sources also make Funches out to be some kind of nutjob, and I believe that Dwyane has primary custody of the two kids too. Pro-Funches sources still claim – to this day – that there was definitely an overlap between the marriage and Wade's relationship with Gabby. So… I still don't really know. In the Union interview I covered back in April, she said, "I think people mistook me taking the high road as an admission of guilt. Dwyane and I made a decision very early to not react to the negativity. And I kept feeling like the truth would come out. The problem is, when it did, nobody cared. What I discovered on social media is that people don't read the entire story." Well, Gabby has a new little interview with T.T. Torrez – and my radar is still up about Gabby. I've always liked her and I've always thought she was beautiful, but I wonder if she's handling this on-going situation the right way? When Gabby gets the question about Siohvaughn right off the bat, Gabby kind of goes off: Gabby says, in part, "It's hard. Aside from loving him, I want to protect myself. I've built my life, I built my own brand, I built my career, and my career took a hit from that madness. Because some people refuse to see the truth even when it's presented to them time and time and time again. So I love him, but at some point it's about self-preservation, and I needed to protect myself. I pay for family. I pay for my mama and my daddy and my sisters and her family. D doesn't write those checks, I do. So when something is starting to affect how I make a living? No, no, no, baby. Let me figure out a way of not only protecting our home, Dwayne and I have with the kids, you have to put them first…and then I have to take care of my family… Fortunately, by taking the high road…and not engaging in the back-and-forth craziness, I was able to do both." Part of me thinks that Gabby should get credit for not going full-blown LeAnn Rimes about the situation, you know? Because this could be so, so much worse. Instead, I'm left vaguely unsettled, like there's some wording or phrase that rubs me the wrong way but I can't quite put my finger on it. I think one of the things that bugs me is that Gabby seems to really have an inflated sense of her own career, her own "brand", you know? She acts like she's Angelina Jolie, like she's one of the top stars out there and… she's really not. She works consistently and all that, but she's not a superstar or an A-list actress or anything. In previous interviews too, she was talking about how she's so super-famous, it was so "easy to track" where she was and what she was doing, and that was somehow "proof" that she didn't have an affair with Wade. Ugh.
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Mick Jagger & David Bowie had an intense, sexual & emotional affair in the 1970s Posted: 10 Jul 2012 04:15 AM PDT
Yesterday, we discussed the possibility that Angelina Jolie and her "hypnotic" vadge played mind-games on Mick Jagger. The story originates in a new biography of Mick Jagger, although I don't know if this biography is any way "authorized" – considering the dirt, probably not. The book is called MICK: The Wild Life and Mad Genius of Jagger, and in the excerpts yesterday, sources claimed Jagger was infatuated with Angelina in 1997, and he was always trying to call her and he was prepared to leave Jerry Hall for her. This apparently went on for years. Anyway, the NYDN has even more excerpts from the book, and these excerpts are all about Mick's emotional and sexual affair with… David Bowie. For real? You can read the full NYDN story here. Here are some more highlights:
The excerpt goes on and on – Angie Bowie wanted to fool around with Mick but she "missed her chance" because she was having a giggle fit. Marianne Faithfull, Mick's ex-girlfriend, had an affair with David Bowie for a few months in 1973. One of the various sources claimed, however, that "Mick and David were really sexually obsessed with each other. Even though I was in bed with them many times, I ended up just watching them have sex." Oh, and both Bowie and Jagger had affairs with Bebe Buell (Liv Tyler’s Mom) who also boned "Elvis Costello, Rod Stewart, Jimmy Page, Aerosmith's Steve Tyler, Todd Rundgren, and Prince." Once Bowie and Jagger realized they were both sleeping with her, they tried to lure her into orgies. For the love of God. IT WAS THE SEVENTIES. This is what everyone did in the '70s. Let's face it. If your parents were in their 20s in the 1970s, they were probably doing all of this. Trust me. Update by Celebitchy: Here’s Mick and David doing “Dancing in The Street” circa 1985. I used to love this video! I’m getting a kick out of watching it again and imagining them sleeping together.
Photos courtesy of WENN. |
| Jessica Biel says Justin dresses her because “he has better taste than I do” Posted: 10 Jul 2012 04:14 AM PDT
Jessica Biel covers the August issue of InStyle Magazine to promote two big projects coming up soon. One, she's got a supporting part in Total Recall. Two, she's going to marry Justin Timberlake come hell or high water. It doesn't matter than he screws around. It doesn't matter that he's rude. It doesn't matter that she can't trust him alone on a film set and she has to drop everything to run to him so he won't screw around on her again. Jessica Biel is going to get married, damn it. So the InStyle interview reads more like a giant self-justification for why Jessica has decided to marry JT.
First of all, don't you love how Jessica has just completely stopped with the "Our relationship is private" line? That used to be her go-to line whenever anyone asked her "Hey, I heard your boyfriend is trying to dump you?" Or "Hey, is it true that banged Olivia Munn?" Now that she's engaged, she'll gush about Justin. As for her self-justification for WHY she's marrying him – he dresses her like a Barbie doll? He doesn't trust her style? He inspires her because he's so fun? And she thinks about raising their babies in Colorado? Yeah, right. I have to ask… were the bangs Justin's idea? Because they're awful and they don't suit her at all.
Photos courtesy of InStyle and WENN. |
| 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 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment