Saturday, February 17, 2007

A Skeptic's View of Mr. Urban/Ms. Kidman

Bunnies we are here get used to us...

I am a skeptic. But what does that mean? That means I don't believe everything written about Keith Urban is true. I believe that the media manipulates situations. I believe that both Camp Urban and Camp Kidman spread false rumors or lack the desire to deny a false story. Why? Because they want to sell you something. What? Keith Urban the commodity, Nicole Kidman the star, and their fairytale love.

On an Australian message board in November 2005 this situation was called a sideshow. Yep, like the circus or a traveling band of freaks this "relationship" has taken over Keith Urban's very successful music career. Those of us who saw this were labeled skeptics. Being a skeptic is not easy. I want to believe Keith Urban is happy. I want to believe he found a woman he can share his world with but overall the reality just isn't true. Skeptics hear about parties, wild times, other women. Some skeptics know Keith personally or know Nashville/music business/Hollywierd. But skeptics were never sold on Kidman. Let’s face the harsh reality, Nicole Kidman for almost 10 years was Mrs. Tom Cruise. Talk about the University of Life learning. She learned how to manipulate the media. She learned the value of PR. She learned that reality can be totally different from what one reads about. She was hardened and seasoned to be a manipulator. It is my contention and many other skeptics that she manipulated Keith.

Unfortunately, we skeptics had our doubts confirmed when Keith entered rehab on October 19, 2006. Too much for him? I believe it was. I believe that he is becoming his own person again. We have seen in the last week while very careful not to reveal too much, there is a message that Keith is in charge again. That doesn't mean that skeptics are leaving the arena any time soon. When Kidman is gone, I for one will look at the message a bit less darkly. Until then all you bunnies and fairytale believers, we will remind you…

You can look at a glass as half full or half empty but always remember to look at who is holding that glass.


Anonymous said...

Bravo! I was a skeptic before I even knew the meaning of the word (as it pertained to Keith) or before I knew any other skeptics...from the very first rumors that KU/NK were seeing each other, I believed (as I still do) that the relationship would be the worst thing ever to happen to him and that he was "in way over his head" getting involved with the likes of her. Nothing that has happened in the last 18 months has caused me to doubt my initial misgivings one bit...if anything, they have become stronger and even more certain. For Keith's sake, both personally and professionally, the sooner this "relationship" is history the better!

Anonymous said...

I must admit that when this relationship first began, I believed in it. I knew it was a mistake (being an actress myself in "Hollyweid") and knowing facts about the real Ms. Kidman, but I hoped it wouldn't last.

Keith does not have the capability to live that kind of a lifestyle and I knew what it would do to him.

I also knew Kidman was more wrong than right for him.

As time went on, I began to see more & more what the "skeptics" were seeing. And it continued.

In retrospect, no matter how much positive PR was put out there, their actions spoke much louder than words...volumes in fact.

My observations:

They met in January '06, Nicole gave Keith her contact information, he never called her.

From January to September, he was seen with the infamous brunette on a few occassions.

Their first "date" was in July '06 and yet, they were engaged by October...3 months? For someone who was in two long-term relationships, doesn't this seem a bit odd? And for someone else who was devastated by the break-up of a 10 year union, to agree to marry someone in such a short time makes no sense.

Keith met Nicole's children for the first time in December, once, at a dinner for Isabella's birthday. As far as I can tell, the next meeting with them was in the spring, and then not again til the wedding. I cannot say for sure, but it certainly seems that no time was spent with these kids since Nicole herself hadn't spent any time with them in between these time frames. We all know she spent every holiday with Keith from Nov - April.

Why would you agree to marry someone who has yet to establish a relationship with your kids?

Why would you agree to marry someone who has yet to allow you to establish a relationship with their kids?

In all of her free time, Nicole toured with Keith, showed up in Nashville with Keith, all the while, telling everyone how private she wanted it to be.

Keith, who never showed up anywhere with anyone in public in order to keep his private life private, all of a sudden starts showing up at industry events with Nicole.

Almost every single PR stunt with Keith & Nicole corresponds with big Tom & Katie news.

Immediately following a slip in an interview where she states she still loves Tom, she announces her engagement to Keith - 6 months after the fact.

At the same time People Magazine prints this and the media jumps all over it, Keith abruptly leaves the recording studio, and does not return for several days and starts pulling a diva attitude at events such as the ACM Ride when asked about it.

We all know word was out that Tom & Katie planned to marry in July originally.

Two people who insisted they would not discuss their relationship b/c they were private people, all of a sudden, announce their plan to wed a full week before the event. They allow everyone involved to talk to the media about it, agree to sell pics to the tabs, send beer out to the paps, and make sure they are seen tooling around town before their big day. They wouldn't announce their coupledom or their engagement but they announce their wedding?

Paps just happen to be waiting at the airport on their very private honeymoon destination and also, get pics of them hanging out at their very private bungaloo.

The first set of pics to be published of the happy couple look far from happy. In fact, they look like they have been together for 48 years instead of 48 hours.

Days later, we get new pics of the happy couple actually looking happy.

The honeymoon lasts a whopping 4 days total. With all of the money these two have and control over their careers, wouldn't you think they would take a nice long break?

As soon as they arrive back in Nashville, we get pics abound...going to Target, going to the gym (on a holiday when the gym is closed and when he has his own private gym in his house), at a July 4th celebration (pulling the diva attitude with the photographer and roping himself off from the rest of the establishment), etc.

In pretty much every pic of them since, they are walking 10 feet apart, one behind the other.

In every pic of them EVER, they only look like a couple when they know there is a camera on them...ever see the pics of them together when they don't realize someone is watching? They look like they would rather be anywhere but with each other.

Ad these observations only span up until the summer of 2006.

There are many more to be made since that time.

I believe Kidman did not count on her husband falling apart so soon. I believe she has had enough with him but the timing for a divorce is not right yet.

This marriage is already over and it is only a matter of time before she ends it.

And she will be the one to end it.

The post-rehab Keith is no better off than the pre-rehab Keith...I find this very telling...he should have been in a better place after marrying the woman he loves and he wasn't. If the substance abuse was an excuse then, by all accounts, he should be in a better place now...and yet, he still isn't quite himself yet.

This is obvious in recent interviews and performances.

Keith will not be the Keith we knew until this marriage is over and he can call his life & his career his own. Until he regains back his own identity, Keith URBAN, not Keith KIDMAN, and when he can be free of the inner conflict (the real problem) of being forced to live a life that is contrary to his nature, then the "old Keith" will re-emerge.

It is this inner conflict that has been wearing him down and manifesting physically.

That is what we have been seeing gradually getting worse over the past 18 months.

When Keith URBAN comes back, I'll be waiting.

There is a sad misconception that the "skeptics" are not "true fans"...we are...we are just not blind worshippers who cannot see beyond the infatuation some have had for Keith.

We do not own rose colored glasses that shield us from the startling comparison between the Keith in 2004/early 2005 and the Keith in late 2005-2007.

Look at the clips of performances, look at the pictures, look at his EYES. Compare.

If you do not see the difference, if you do not see the drastic changes, then you are not being honest.

Here's the difference between the "skeptics" and the so-called "true fans"...

The "true fans" are the ones who see what they want to see.

The "skeptics" see what is THERE.

Anonymous said...

Can I just say BRAVO.....very thought out, accurate and articulate post!!! There are MANY of us out there that feel EXACTLY what you just expressed!!!

Anonymous said...

That is a great blog and an even better response. Thank you for saying it all so well!

the bunny hunter said...

Yep, I think that summarizes everything in black and white for our fairytale couple! Very nice post. It's like you read my mind!

Anonymous said...

4:39 PM, you said it all!

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more. The blog is bang on and all these posts have reflected exactly what I think.

I don't blame the "true" fans, because it's a lot rosier picture to think he is happily married to the love of his life. I tried that route, but ultimately, I couldn't hang on to the fairytale. There were too many things happening...too many continue to believe.

But as a skeptic, I am also a "true" fan. I just don't believe the fairytale anymore.

Anonymous said...

Thanks 4:39 PM for putting it so well what so many of us feel. Spot on

Anonymous said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying what the majority of us "skeptics" have thought and felt all along. Just because we're skeptical doesn't mean we're not true fans. I just don't walk around with blinders on.

And I'm still waiting for him to call "his wife" by her name.

Anonymous said...

"And I'm still waiting for him to call "his wife" by her name. "

He obviously can't remember it, that's why he had it tattooed on his arm, silly!

Anonymous said...

adding my kudos to the blogger and the 4:30 PM response - you nailed it!!!!!

blue star said...

Keith has no more than a passing relationship with his wife's children because he never intends to co-parent them. And his wife certainly isn't home checking their Algebra or making sure they floss every night...

It's clear to me that Nicole K never makes a single move that does not advance her own best interests, whatever they may be. And if her children or her husband suffers, she will count that as unimportant and incidental annoyances.

If Keith's career lags because he lost his senses and married her, he has only himself to blame. And he will. But it will still hurt.

the bunny hunter said...

Interesting you should say that. In one of his recent interviews, he says he wants to be a better husband, son, brother, and I think he even said uncle. Why didn't he say step-father?

Anonymous said...

Very well said everyone. As a skeptic I am also very much a "true fan".

Anonymous said...

In regards to "Mrs. Urban" and her children with Tom. Why doesn't she see them more often? I can't see her having her own when she can't take care of what she has now! Pity.

Anonymous said...

WOW.. well said 4:39

The first time I saw them together I thought isn't that convenient. Two Aussies..

I want Keith to be happy and truly in love but I don't see this relationship being that.

Everyone of his accomplishments have been over shadowed by her PR machine. Maybe he thought he wouldn't lose his identity..boy was he wrong.

He seems to be taking back more control over his identity and I am so happy for that.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the bigger and better Keith..he's got it in him, he just has to realize it.

Anonymous said...

4.39 pm. Can I please just add my 'Bravo' to what you said, far more articulately than I ever could.
I too am a 'true fan' who can see that the man has faded before our very eyes since he got involved with her. I welcome the day when he becomes the Keith Urban that he has been in the past and can be again in the future.
I've only ever wanted the best for him, and knew this marriage spelt 'disaster' from the outset.I want Keith happy and full of life again, not have it drained out of him by the woman he was foolish enough to marry.

music said...

"Interesting you should say that. In one of his recent interviews, he says he wants to be a better husband, son, brother, and I think he even said uncle. Why didn't he say step-father?"

Very good point! And I think he did add uncle to his list of roles he wants to excel in. The omission of "stepfather" from that list confirms that he doesn't consider that role a priority in his life. Probably because he has no real relationship with those kids.

Anonymous said...

And notice he did not say father either .... he knows the children should not be part of this relationship ...

nodding in agreement said...

4:39 adding yet another BRAVO!

It takes effort to consider ALL the facts and be willing to see them for what they really are. The monkey/bunnies believe the "fairytale" because it's easier. This doesn't make you a "true" fan - just a naive one.

I want to see Keith take control back of his life in ALL areas, he never will as long as he's Mr. Kidman.

Anonymous said...

"Being a skeptic is not easy. I want to believe Keith Urban is happy. I want to believe he found a woman he can share his world with but overall the reality just isn't true. Skeptics hear about parties, wild times, other women. Some skeptics know Keith personally or know Nashville/music business/Hollywierd."

Now this is funny!!

Anonymous said...

"I've only ever wanted the best for him, and knew this marriage spelt 'disaster' from the outset."

Ummm...there is no such word as "spelt" honey!

Anonymous said...

As usual...the bunny posters have nothing to add to the topic, so attack other posters over such silly childish issues as a spelling error. Now that is funny.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like another E! poster obsessed with spelling and grammar. Get over it and contribute something worthwhile instead.

Anonymous said...

They can't contribute anything. That's why all they do is attack and bash. They think that makes them clever and better fans.

They are just all so very pathetic.

Anonymous said...

How awful, I made a spelling error by writing spelt, rather than spelled. Horrendous of me, I know! Give me a break. Is that all you have? A criticism of a spelling error?
And for your information. annonymous bunny, there is such a word as spelt.Look it up in the dictionary you use for bedtime reading. If you're gonna bash me, at least get your facts right. What you should have said is that I used an incorrect word, not that there is no such word.
As usual, you have your facts wrong, and really dont know what you're talking about. What a HUGE suprise there.
I am not your honey by the way.....darlin'!

Anonymous said...

Spelt - a wheat, Triticum aestivum spelta, native to southern Europe and western Asia, used chiefly for livestock feed.

skeptic -someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs.

Shrew - A woman with a violent, scolding, or nagging temperament; a scold.

Bunny - Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a pretty, appealing, or alluring young woman, often one ostensibly engaged in a sport or similar activity: beach bunny; ski bunny.

Delusions - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness

Anonymous said...

Bitch - NK

Anonymous said...

"Bitch - NK"

Jealous - feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages