Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Of houses, baby landings and the funniest trailer...

A little bit about a lot of things…

First, if you haven't noticed, some of those gals from Nashville have the funniest senses of humor. One that immediately comes to mind is sweet ole Hazel and her yak fest on local radio and her weekly vent on CMT.com. Make no mistake as to who she was aiming her June 2nd's comments. She also made a lovely remark about Kidman sitting quietly backstage while Keith played the Opry. Silly me, but hearing tales from people that were there, Ms. Hazel was being a tad bit sarcastic in her description of the demure, beautiful Kidman.

Nicole's one true love had THE Hollywood party this past weekend. Seems everyone that was anyone who wasn't working was at the big house. Everyone except Nicole. Did she expect to be invited? No, probably not. And while there really isn't very much going on to get her on the cover of People to counter Tom’s big bash, she had to do something to show she is still a contender and not just his ex wife. So what did Nicole do? She announced to the world that she put her properties in Oz up for sale. Does she have any place to live over there now? The story is that Keith and Nicole and fetus Urban are looking for something closer to her parents and her sister. Funny, but if they wanted to be so close, why not still live in the same country as they do? Seems that Antonia (not the surrogate) and the parents have been MIA lately. But they aren't really needed as such until they go back to Oz and do the “we are very happy and content as a new family” snaps. Just something to note, but wasn't it around the time that Keith found out he was going to be a daddy that they last announced they were selling property? There is something weird about the timing.

Speaking of the baby, which no one except those of us who are keeping watch are doing, it does indeed look as though this child will be an American born on U.S. soil. I still think Los Angeles but the lure of Nashville is calling. Now when she is born will we get to see her right away, or will she be like Suri and Halle Berry's daughter and invisible to the public? A prediction, as much as we have studied these two fame whores, that kid will be on the cover of People within hours of its birth along with its parents.

Keith will be playing the corporate shareholders meeting of Wal Mart on June 5th. Joining him will be former tour "mate" Carrie Underwood. Now I am not going to get on a rant about Wal Mart. I don't shop there and I won't because of their labor practices, but they are one of the worlds leading retailers of music, so I understand why he would play the gig. I mean he can still look himself in the mirror after dining with Rupert Murdoch. And he often flies in a private jet while playing those benefits for the environment, so he made his peace with his conscious long ago, didn't he? Kidman has no soul so we can't expect too much there.

If you are going to the CMA fest formerly known as Fan Fair, Keith will be making a "surprise" appearance on June 6th. In 2005, he owned that show and I just wonder if he will pull out the guns this time, too. Do go because soon he won't be out and about much, as he will be under house arrest adapting to his new role as famous daddy.

Finally, if you have been to the movies recently, you may have seen it. If you are going to a movie soon, get there in enough time to see the preview for the epic. Apparently there is a game to see how many seconds it takes before she moves her face. In the next few weeks we will be talking a bit about how it wasn't just her bad acting, but it may be Kidman trying to keep her youth that just might have ruined her career.

49 comments:

maclen said...

yeah, I also figured kidman had a heads up on the tomkats housewarming shindig... and what better way to counter cruise but announce the Oz house they bought when they were still married is up for sale... you see... she's also announcing she's getting past the cruiseter... 7 whole years after the fact. Yeah, and the trailer...waxen bloated face, with equally immovable inflated lips... the comments are already flying... cant wait for it to come out! And it seems like kidman has gotten back into movie mode... supposedly only a month and a half before the expected date... seems she's holed up getting ready for her probable role in Nine... news just out it starts up around Aug-Sept. No time to waste when she's rid of the kid inside her...as her history with kids is dismal. I forsee no late night feedings or diaper changing for her, but hopping from one movie set to the other , trying to recharge her dead movie career... but then we've already noticed it for at least the last 10 to 15 years.

stillhopefull said...

If he was smart, he really NEEDS to be able to put all efforts into his music. If he wants any kind of career, he really needs to come up with a hit. However, I do think this past year of touring was purley and ego fix, as it has produced absolutly not one new thing. I am of the opinion that had he taken time off from the first tour, he may be ready with some new music and a rested voice right about now. It seems that he is just treading water right now as fast as he can to keep up. Like he has forgotten what it takes to stay in the race...new music that people want to hear, not praising someone who needs put on a pedastul, but the ones who put money in your pocket by purchasing what you have to sing to them....I truly think that is what is missing. If both of these people were solid in their beliefs of one another, he could write his songs as if he was singing to each individual girl out there just as he always had before the bbp came along.
I would be so proud of my man if he could write something that make women just want to melt. Guarenteed there would be no jealousy...only admiration!!!!

doublewide said...

i had to sit thru that heinous trailer to see the new Indiana Jones movie....

the blogger is right. her quest for youth might just be her undoing.

i can hear the song "she's come undone" playing in the background.

and didn't i read somewhere that hugh jackman had to alter or change something because of her inability to move her face?

realitycheck said...

Oh Umyths, your disdain for Nicole Kidman really has erased all good judgement hasn't it?

Lets start with the Hazel blog. It was clearly not directed at Kidman. For those that have been paying attention to artists like Carrie U and Taylor Swift, these ladies need to pay attention to their image. Carrie is becoming a Barbie doll complete with plastic hair. Taylor, coming off of that wacky ACM performance, needs a makeover stat. Seems like she thought she was playing the MTV awards. Miranda is a hit and miss girl with some outfits getting a thumbs up and some like the gold lame that just begged the question "What was she thinking"? That makeover post-debut album worked, but hasn't completely stuck. Kellie i don't really pay much attention to, but from what Ive seen, her looks and wardrobe choices don't catch my eye one way or another.

And Umyths do you ever encounter people that don't have a negative thing to say about Nicole? I'm not talking praise for the woman, just a neutral attitude? How convenient.

On to Tom's party. The man needed one because his career is tumbling fast. Last i heard Valkryie was being pushed back yet again. And there seems to be buzz about another movie concerning this same subject which is being described as more authentic (Cruise cant do accents remember).
Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that Kidman would never be at this "housewarming" party, aka "the trying to still look relevant" bash. And we also know Kidman would never hold a 500 person blowout just because she bought another house. If that isn't flaunting wealth i don't know what is. Is this mansion the new love of Cruise's life? Will he be jumping on couches in every room? Give it a rest Tom!

Another thing...You call Kidman a fameho...well what is Cruise and Katie needing two police escorts just to go to dinner? Did his popularity just skyrocket overnight? Me thinks not! Absolutely ridiculous.

As for her selling her homes, this is a time of change for her. As it would be for any mom expecting a new baby. Nicole isn't like most people. She can afford to sell properties whenever she likes, and buy something on the spur of the moment without having divested her current holdings. The baby is almost due and probably after talking it over, both with Keith and their real estate/financial advisors they've decided to sell. Does anyone care? Not really and i dont think they should. Just as no one should care Cruise bought a mansion. Umyths are you upset she hasn't found a new place in Oz so you can bash her for not living in Nashville? Don't worry I'm sure you will do just fine mocking her, KU, and the new baby in Music City. I really don't understand why the skeptics think LA for the birth. They are based in Nashville and last i heard they have hospitals there too!

Wal-Mart...well i think Wal-mart has previously flourished because of the downturn in the economy in this country. That is to say where Wal-Marts are prevalant, people buy everything there because its so cheap. I know a few people myself that at one time had no choice but to buy everything including groceries there. Now prices everywhere are rising and the competition is stiffening. Wal-Mart isn't the deal oasis it used to be. Lets hope changes are on the horizon. But lets face facts. Wal-Mart is one of the largest if not the largest brick-and mortar retailer of country music. The South is Wal-Mart country and country music central. Garth Brooks used to have an exclusive deal with them. They've sponsored many artists and had them give concerts in their parking lots. I dont think any country artist would turn down dealing with them. What about all the exclusive Wal-mart CD/DVD release packs. Where is there an artist that said "No i wont deal with them because they are Wal-Mart?" If you are going to judge Keith for this you've got to judge most of country music.

Now last but not least the trailer for "Australia". What do you expect seeing it before the Indiana Jones sequel. Fans, mostly guys, have been waiting 20 years for this thing. They aren't going to be into a film that is sentimental and unapologetically romantic. Thats the very opposite of the Indy franchise. Now I saw the trailer before the Sex and The City movie. Totally different reaction. All i heard were positive comments, including a group of women behind me that said they were definitely going to see it, and disappointed it wasnt going to be released until November. Were there any negative comments? There might have been but i didnt hear them. Certainly no booing. And to compare there was equally positive reaction towards Mamma Mia! and Nights in Rodanthe. Dead silence for the new Uma Thurman rom-com and a comedy about a drama teacher putting on a raunchy sequel to Hamlet.

not anon said...

I watched the trailer in High-definition. Not for the faint of heart :) Baz had to use a soft filter on her close-ups. What I found more interesting was the way her looks morph from scene to scene. In some scenes her face is more immobile than others. Her lips even change plumpness.

As far as the crowd reactions for the trailer - I'd lay odds the woman want to see it because of Hugh not Nicole.

maclen said...

Definately some digital enhancements and manipulation to correct her facial malpractice...your right, not anon... her lips change from simple earthworms to repulsively engorged bloodworms the next. As I predicted before, her lips will definately take top billing in this film..

doublewide said...

for the record i have encountered a number of people who are neutral on NK.....they just don't care about her. and i have encountered people (non-ku fans) who don't think she can act worth a quarter, and don't think she's one bit attractive. they say she is ruining her looks. and these peeps couldn't care less about keith either. so it's not just the skeptics. the woman is a joke.

wastedemotion said...

RC-
Your lips are moving but all I seem to hear is blah blah blah blah. You can only say the same thing so many times before it gets old....you've become like your idol....a one trick pony.....give me something new.

notachance said...

Would I have preferred that Keith married someone who is not afraid to admit or show their flaws? Absofuc*inlutely. But, that's not what we got, so we need to find some kind of balance (thanks Keith) with his choice of a mate. It's pretty clear that he does love her, maybe needs her a lttle too much, but as time goes on I think he will find a different balance from today - as we all do in our marriages - and we will begin to see a, yet again, different man emerge from him, especially with the addition of a child. He does have the thunderbird tat and that may very well be his karma - taking life's experiences and re-awakening to a new & different Keith. Not necessarily better, but different. If he is able to do that then he has accomplished something not many can.

It is his life's journey - no one said it all had to be for us.


And of course that child will be born here, it must have dual citizenship - and to keep Nashville happy I'm sure one of the many fine hospitals there is already got a room decorated for her.

doublewide said...

It is his life's journey - no one said it all had to be for us


this is true. but i think the marriage is a contractual one or at least started out that way. whether or not he loves her, i don't know. i just don't appreciate the deceit. trying to sell an image to the public. i know to an extent, pretty much all celebrities do this. but this hand holding, pap calling, photo opp-ing stuff is overboard. the whole "aussie power couple" spectacle is pretty sickening.

keith really needs to get some new and decent music out there pretty soon. i hope he does and i hope he loves being a father. maybe the poor child will have at least one good parent....who knows maybe NK will surprise us all.....but i have my doubts. she's going back to work way too soon after giving birth, IMO

notachance said...

As for her returning to work "way too soon", that is still all speculation. No one knows for sure what the plans are, nor when the baby is actually due since there have been so many conflicting reports. If she delivers this month, then August/September is not that far-fetched.

I do believe that the child will be with her no matter where she is, at home or on the set and that Keith will continue on the same path he is now - continuing to tour and scheduling his tour dates around being with her every 13 days or whatever it is. He will still be the one doing the work in the relationship, that much I can see. Do I like it? No, but it is what it is.

Am I resigned to less than stellar music from him? Pretty much. I've found others to fill that need. I've gone through all the emotions that come with the untimely "death" of a loved one, which is how I think of this. The grieving part is over and I've moved on. Not sayin' things don't still bother me, but for the most part it just rolls off my shoulders now.

p.s. Going to the Sex in the City movie tonight - can't wait to see/hear reactions to the OZ trailer....

inittowinit said...

RC said: Another thing...You call Kidman a fameho...well what is Cruise and Katie needing two police escorts just to go to dinner? Did his popularity just skyrocket overnight? Me thinks not! Absolutely ridiculous.
----------------------------------

Well, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are they famehos? Probably. But this blog has nothing to do with them. Yes, Kidman is a fameho. So are many others (but not to the great extent as she IMO). Countering the skeptics' claim that she's a fameho with examples of other people doing some of the same, doesn't excuse her behavior. You need to come up with some REAL arguments rather than regurgitating the same stuff over and over.

notachance said...

"You need to come up with some REAL arguments rather than regurgitating the same stuff over and over."

So init - just exactly WHAT argument would one use in regards to the famewhore one? RC pointing out other instances of this syndrome is exactly how she should argue her side. The skeptics however, do not ever seem to point out other instances of their argument to support their case. I believe that is how you argue your side - you offer supporting evidence.

------------------------

So, I went to see Sex in the City last night (was pretty good). Watched a bunch of trailers and what I found about the Australia trailer is this - Baz Luhrman needs to get over his infatuation with NK. If they had actually pieced together something that told something of the story, as did the other movie trailers, rather than be more about his fixation on NK then I think it would've been much better. I really came away from that trailer not knowing what the movied was going to be about other than it being "Australia" - it felt very chopped up and not in a timeline. Hugh Jackman was basically non-existent in this trailer and that's a shame because this is a woman's movie and he needs to be played up far more than NK.

To all you skeptics who can't see past the immovable forhead of hers - that is not the real story of the trailer getting the groans (which did not happen last night). At least try to be objective. Her use of Botox will not be the reason the movie wouldn't do well (although I do believe it will have a good showing, mostly because Americans are fascinated with OZ), it wouldn't do well because the director didn't do his job well.

Aside from that - I am looking forward to Mama Mia, that trailer certainly MADE me want to see it.

wastedemotion said...

notachance-
Americans fascinated with OZ? Really I dont know what on Earth makes you think that. I've never gotten that impression ever. Thats like saying people are gonna go see Kung Fu Panda cause they're fascinated with China! People will go see Australia b/c they like Hugh, or Nicole, or they're looking for a chick flick.
As to your comment that:
"The skeptics however, do not ever seem to point out other instances of their argument to support their case. "
What other instances would suuport their case....Im not sure what you were getting at....this blog is about Keith and Nicole, this blog is about the change that has occured to Keith because of Nicole. The writters of the blog and some of the comments are going to point those things out and as far as I can see they've done that through various blogs....pointing out Nicole is a famewhore, is pointing out how she's changed Keith. Saying Tom and Katie are famewhores too doesnt make an argument, it just points out they are the same as Nicole....nobody ever said they werent. So where was the argument?
Also for the record if I was famous and was taking my two year old I'd ask for multiple escorts....the paps have been known to do some crazy things.....I dont fault Tom at all for wanting to make sure they're safe.....does having two escorts make him a famewhore? Not IMO.

notachance said...

This blog is not so much about how NK has changed Keith, but moreso about NK being a famewhore. That is pretty much the basis for everything around here. The comments to every blog always end up with that as the culprit.

Has her fame changed Keith? I don't think it was her fame that changed him, I think it was the fact that HE craved that fame and found it with her and he changed himself for that fame. He chose to sell his soul to the devil, he's not a moron, he was not duped into anything. Anything that has happened to him in the past 3 yrs has been HIS doing. Quit blaming her for this whole thing when he's a grown up capable of making his own decisions.

I blame him - period. He chose his wife, this life, this path - whether you want to believe that or not.

notachance said...

And one more thing - pretty much anyone I've ever talked to about Australia has said they have ALWAYS wanted to go there. So don't say people are not fascinated with OZ.

inittowinit said...

The diff. b/w Tomkat and NK is that they ARE famous. Nearly all of her movies have flopped. Few care about her anymore. She's become like Paris Hilton - famous for being famous. She is a fameho because she calls the paps and lies in mags to keep her name and face and pregnant belly "out there". She married Keith for the same reason. As long as she can circulate attention, she's still famous. What has she really had to TRULY make her famous recently - nothing; her movies failed. She's only had the fact that she married a famous musician and had an elaborate wedding, bought expensive homes, and had her husband sing odes to her. She has gained many new fans from bunnies who think all is bliss. There was a goal. Now, I do believe that Tom has goals alone as well, but again, that isn't the point of this blog. So, Nota, THAT is my argument for why she's a famewhore - it's so obvious (to anyone with half a brain) that she has paps on call to just happen to be where she wants them to be to get a shot and then she acts coy - but oh, don't take the wrong shot or you just may get beaten up. RC pointing out that there are other incidents of a "syndrome" as you say, is NOT an argument for her "side". That would mean one could argue intelligently that Keith Urban was never an addict because other people abuse drugs too. LMAO. Get real and again, as I said before, come up with some legitimate points to ponder.

wastedemotion said...

Nota-
Did I say people werent fascianted with OZ....nope I just said whatever gave you that idea b/c people I've encountered in life have never mentioned that....so I ask how many people did you poll to come up with the conclusion that Americans are fascinated with OZ? Cause I could poll my close circle of friends (as Im sure you did) and come up with the opposite conclusion. So until you accurately poll ALL of America, dont try to say America is fascianted with OZ.
How long have you been a fan of Keith? You dont think Keith was famous enough on his own....you think he needed her to gain fame?! Dont worry I do blame Keith for his demise....but I do blame her too.

notachance said...

I happen to think Keith was famous enough and was on a steady climb to even more, but it's Keith's opinion of himself that is in question. He obviously wanted something else, some other kind of fame and saw that with her.

--------------

"That would mean one could argue intelligently that Keith Urban was never an addict because other people abuse drugs too."


Hardly. Not to mention apples to oranges.

inittowinit said...

Inittowinit said..."That would mean one could argue intelligently that Keith Urban was never an addict because other people abuse drugs too."


Nota responded.....Hardly. Not to mention apples to oranges.
-----------------------------------

How can you say that's not a fair comparison? RC's rationale for WHY NK isn't a famewhore is because TomKat does the same thing. That makes her not a famewhore? Geez, I wasn't comparing addicts to being a famewhore. I was pointing out the STUPID LOGIC behind her rationale. You can't say that someone doesn't have a certain lable (addict, famewhore, prostitute, etc.) just because other people are doing it! That may make it "fashionable" but it certainly doesn't make it "flattering" nor especially does it EXCUSE the behavior, nor take away that label, as RC was trying to do.

CJ said...

notachance, Baz didn't direct the trailer for Australia. Nicole Kidman herself did. I guess the "magic man" went missing because she didn't want to share the screen time. I don't know what they were thinking having her advertise their movie. Her other producer projects haven't done very well. Sounds like the Oz trailer can be added to the list.

notachance said...

>>init - the comparison of Keith not being an addict because others abuse drugs does not make sense. People can abuse drugs and not be addicts. However, stars drive their own PR machines hence they are their very own famewhores.


>>cj - Baz & the editor made that trailer, not NK. If that movie fails because it turns out to be a shrine to Nicole, then you can thank Baz for that and blame him for the failure - not her. He obviously has no objectivity when it comes to her, otherwise he would realize who would be going to see this movie.

cricket said...

I think it's going to be a case of who won't be going to see this movie

wastedemotion said...

nota-
Do you happen to be on Nicole's payroll cause you sure like to twist things.....
Do you honestly not get inits point?! Cause I sure as hell do and it's 10x more vaild than yours.

CJ said...

If "magic man" held back his performance I will blame him for doing so. If NK is frozen and calls in a poor performance, as usual, I'll hold her accountable. If the movie bombs I will hold the director accountable because he shouldn't have allowed his actors to give bad performances. However, I'll also hold the producers accountable because as the top dogs on the ladder it should be their final thumbs up or down (if they are truly involved in the project as good producers are) on what gets released and they should either make sure it's good or at least be proud of it even if it bombs. The trailer however was produced by NK, therefore she gets to accept blame for the choppiness, incohesiveness, and failure to convince movie goers to go see her movie - because that's the whole point of making a trailer in the first place.

inittowinit said...

>>init - the comparison of Keith not being an addict because others abuse drugs does not make sense. People can abuse drugs and not be addicts. However, stars drive their own PR machines hence they are their very own famewhores.
-----------------------------------

Well crap, Nota, you're like talking to a brick wall! Yes, some people abuse but aren't addicts. But some people also call the paps once or twice and aren't famewhores. Again, it was a fair comparison to RC's stupid logic, just as it's fair to compare you to my teenage son. He's egocentric, has tunnel vision, and can argue that the sky is purple, while making no sense at all. The difference being...I love him and still enjoy his company.

-----------------------------------
wastedemotion said...
nota-
Do you happen to be on Nicole's payroll cause you sure like to twist things.....
Do you honestly not get inits point?! Cause I sure as hell do and it's 10x more vaild than yours.

-----------------------------------
Thank you, Wasted!

maclen said...

Yeah, I find the "fantasy" element in this film to be pretty lame. You try it in an actual fantasy film and it bombs and then try to transplant it to an aussie western set during WW2 makes it completely asinine. But then kidman's obbsession with remaining a "girl"... the innocent and naive engenue in film certainly has doomed her to perpetual miscasting. Anyone who believes "Australia" has any interest whatsoever in the US is still living in the 1980s. Despite what the kidmaniacs, who will no doubt rejoice that Australia may gross somewhere between 10 to 11 mill in OZ...or a couple of 100 grand in Guam, peru or what not...it's failure in the US will be it's downfall. Because the US is the standard... it was it's paltry gross in the US that doomed the british novel movie version Compass, stillbirthed the sequels and a big reason New Line ended up being swallowed up by the parent company. Failure in the US dooms any award chances despite the nickels and dimes it picks up in brazil, Turkey or Istanbul...

hesaweiner said...

I'm not facinated with Oz. I don't think most Americans are either, just a bunch of bunnies and some Americans. Probably more Americans desire places like Greece, Italy etc. more so than OZ.

maclen said...

hesaweiner said...
"I'm not facinated with Oz. I don't think most Americans are either, just a bunch of bunnies and some Americans. Probably more Americans desire places like Greece, Italy etc. more so than OZ."

Certainly America's interest in anything Aussie tapped out decades ago after the likes of Yahoo serious and crocodile dundee...catchphrases such as "throw another shrimp on the barbie" simply sound quant and all the like will sound very outmoded...and I dont expect kidman for sure, or jackman who has not had any bigscreen success outside of wolverine in the just ended X men francise... to have the appeal to bring it back. Thats like expecting a film set in an Americen civil war period like cold mountain to be a smash in Australia... it didnt happen, and the same wont happen with this one.

marcia said...

it's funny to read the opinions of this woman on her board---NKU---and on this site----polar opposites!!! would love to know what kind of a woman she really is and what kind of marriage keith has really found himself in. have to disagree with the 'famewhore' theory though----if that was the case we'd be seeing pix of the 'happy, expectant couple' all over nashville and beyond yet they are hard to locate. maybe they really are cherishing their privacy and trying to lead somewhat of a normal life.

maclen said...

Well as I suspect, marcia, as the recent news items about how the film "Nine" has now found a lead actor...production seems to be scheduled to begin Aug-septish... and as I now tend to believe kidman is signed onto that film.. for she is now at the moment holed up and prepping for that role. Which is why she has not been seen since the orbs award show. As for the orb, he at the moment has hitched his horse onto chesneys tour... trying to support his recycled single. As I once commented, kidman is getting back into movie set mode... which is certainly, I believe the root of all her current woes... multiple movie saturation of lesser quality films glutting and clogging their chance of sucess, to the determent of family development and quality time... ie: cruises adopted kids... and I have no doubt it will be continuing problems for her current career and family...take two...

inittowinit said...

Make no mistake, Marcia, Kidman is a famewhore and in many ways, so is Keith. He married for fame - she married for fame, but both for different reasons. Every move she makes is calculated. She likes controversy and to stir skepticism. There are reasons why she is out of the spotlight and just at the right moment, back in. Notice how at the awards, there was ONE photo of Keith alone, several of them together, and many of her by herself. How many other wives did you see photographed alone? And she isn't even a country artist - doesn't even understand what her husband does (she actually said that once!), nor can she even stay awake at his performances! In the beginning, she attended his shows and wore her I-Pod the whole time! Yep - getting those pics taken at the COUNTRY awards - she's a famewhore!

Urban Myths said...

If you can stand two idiotic videos of the woman...

Fugly in the Wind:
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62381/index.html

Unifem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG5RTiszA14

maclen said...

Yeah, couldnt watch the videos, Urban Myths...kidman's PR is too generic. So what's up with her new love object in that etonline piece? Wasn't a pr talking point last year that "she fell in love" with the kid in the movie? Did she already lose interest in pushing for the kid in the movie and simply replace him with a puppy? Reminds me of the poor kid who played her son in the Invasion... neglected and forgotten... missed out on a movie premiere... his mother had to organize a local premiere for his friends because the studio and kidman lost interest in that travesty of a movie. Kidman has the motherly instincts with an expiration date of day old bread.

inittowinit said...

Maclen, I recall that story well about the premiere, or lack thereof, for the Invasion. That was sad and I'm glad the Mom went public with what she did. It was a slap to Kidman.

I dont' believe she fell in love with anything or anyone but herself. She won't take home any puppy. Would they seriously hire staff daily to tend to the dog while they are away? IMO this was something she said once again to make her look like she has a "nuclear" family. There's nothing nuclear about her, other than perhaps noxious fumes.

yingyang said...

maclen said...
Yeah, couldnt watch the videos, Urban Myths...kidman's PR is too generic. So what's up with her new love object in that etonline piece? Wasn't a pr talking point last year that "she fell in love" with the kid in the movie? Did she already lose interest in pushing for the kid in the movie and simply replace him with a puppy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you could not watch, how'd ya know she's getting a puppy?

Regardless, Ain't seen Hide or Hair of that little thang,
Could NK be a Liar??????

the unifem was so poorly done.
loved the way she said "can't wait, only a few more weeks" Yeah!
if only.

I don't think you could pay me to be NK for even 1 minute

CJ said...

Haven't watched the clips but...

There was a leak a couple years ago that KU was getting NK a puppy from a neighbor "to keep her company while he's out on the road". It never happened. Oh, and did you know KU has a dog? An Australian Shepherd. Well, he used to. Not sure what happened to the pooch after NK entered the picture. Zoe, Where's Lil Urban these days? My guess is with a band or road crew member.

Nobody in their right mind brings home a puppy and a baby at the same time. Oh wait... right.

maclen said...

yingyang said...
"If you could not watch, how'd ya know she's getting a puppy?"

The link to the etonline video also has a little written piece about the video...read the little blurb but did not watch the video...

cj said...
"Nobody in their right mind brings home a puppy and a baby at the same time. Oh wait... right."

Considering that kidman will not be looking after much for their care... it's pretty much the same for her, I'd gather...

ZOE said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJ said...

Anyone going to watch the greatest KU fan on gac tonight?

realitycheck said...

cj, this is a little late, but Lil Urban was a stuffed animal sent by a fan to KU from Australia. He's not real. LOL

CJ said...

I may have the name wrong but I saw a real Australian Shep running around stage during sound checks and heard sound techs telling Keith to control his dog on several occasions.

Karolyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karolyn said...

"Yeah, I find the "fantasy" element in this film to be pretty lame."


So they said about Titanic. It did pretty well, I heard.


A fictional love story told within the frames of true events, such as war, can be very powerful (Gone with the Wind). This is not a "western". It cannot be labeled in that way.

It has many elements. It is a love story, a romance. It is an adventure story, with war elements, and for the most part it is set in the Australian outback. I also think it will tell the story of how poor and struggling people in Australia lived in those days.

It will show the great beauty of Australia, and I'm sure those images alone will seduce many.


"Anyone who believes "Australia" has any interest whatsoever in the US is still living in the 1980s."


It's the story and the emotional intensity and beauty that will carry this film. I don't think Americans will say "Oh, I hear it's a great romance and adventure movie but it's set in Australia so I'm not interested". That's ridiculous.



"it's failure in the US will be it's downfall. Because the US is the standard... "

The standard of what? Mediocrity and superficiality, perhaps?

The US market is fast becoming less important as markets in Asia are getting stronger.

Make a high quality film that appeals to European- and Asian audiences and you don't have to rely on the US.

That's a good thing. Too much dependence on the US market tend to ruin the artistic quality of films.

The Golden Compass performed poorly in the US, but nevertheless grossed 372 million dollars. It cost 180 million dollars to produce.

This film was a success, and the fact that it was a flop in the US does not change that fact. The numbers speak for themselves.



"Failure in the US dooms any award chances despite the nickels and dimes it picks up in brazil, Turkey or Istanbul..."

"Turkey or Istanbul"? Istanbul is situated in Turkey. The ignorance and delusional grandiosity of many Americans can become pretty revolting, not to mention comical.

Imahick said...

Karolyn said: "Turkey or Istanbul"? Istanbul is situated in Turkey. The ignorance and delusional grandiosity of many Americans can become pretty revolting, not to mention comical."

Can you be more arrogant and self absorbed? Honestly, the bashing of other posters disturbs me. If you can't stay on topic, don't bother. I can't abide the snootiness and superiority of some.

As far as Australia, I don't think it will do that well in North America. It looks boring. The trailer was poorly constructed. Maybe if they can make one that is less disjointed, it might draw some in.

I went to a movie with a group of people none of whom are anti-NK, and all of them said that that the trailer for Australia looked boring and they really couldn't tell what it was about. None of them wanted to see it.

maclen said...

Hey Imahick, the kidman kooks are so drearily thick and lacking in any sense in whimsey or creativity...a trait they share no doubt, or probably even emulate of their plastic princess... that they would actually have the stupidity to take my "brazil, Turkey or Istanbul..." comment quite literally. But then I love it when I can get under the skin of those parasitical, brown nosing groupies who flail in their, as Ive once commented, hyperventilating indignation and oh so comically stern and no doubt totally steadfast defense of their shallow and mediocre kidman. But as they say, "birds of a feather... althought its not to be taken literally... so dont go look for a flock of birds, kidman kooks.

Karolyn said...

"Hey Imahick, the kidman kooks are so drearily thick and lacking in any sense in whimsey or creativity...a trait they share no doubt, or probably even emulate of their plastic princess... that they would actually have the stupidity to take my "brazil, Turkey or Istanbul..." comment quite literally. But then I love it when I can get under the skin of those parasitical, brown nosing groupies who flail in their, as Ive once"


I find it hard to believe you could judge me and say I'm a Kidman "groupie", especially since I never even mention her in my comment. Not even once.

Maybe it is your own fixation with her that makes you project things. ;)

I'm no fan of hers, or anyone else. I don't like blind idolatry. Neither am I obsessed or delusional, thinking that I know her and have the right to decide how she should live her life, or who she should marry, or what films she should make.

Forgive me but the obsession with Keith and Nicole here is quite disturbing, and sometimes it seems like people here are out of touch with themselves and with reality.


I dislike her recent obsession with plastic surgery, as most people do, but I don't hate her for it and I don't feel entitled to tell her what to do, and I won't mock her on the internet.


"commented, hyperventilating indignation and oh so comically stern and no doubt totally steadfast defense of their shallow and mediocre kidman. But as they "


Again, I never defended her. You read what you want to read, it seems. ;)

I did defend the movie "Australia", since I believe it will be a very good movie, and I felt it was being attacked unfairly.

I like Luhrmann's films, he's an outstanding director, and I think Hugh Jackman is extremely handsome and a powerful screen presence.

I don't see any reason to dismiss the film when I haven't even seen it yet. People here do it only because their fixation Nicole Kidman is in it. I think it's a little immature. Give it a chance and keep an open mind.

If it disappoints you AFTER you have seen it go ahead and say so. You will have a lot more credibility.

Imahick said...

As far as giving the movie a chance, I don't go to every movie that comes to the theater. I have to have a reason to go. If there is an actor in it that I really enjoy, that might pull me in. But usually, it's a combination of how the film has been promoted and the trailer that captures my interest.

The subject of this movie is not "calling me." And I am not a huge fan of Hugh's, although I think he is a good actor. NK is not someone that draws me either, although I think she can be good in some roles. The trailer was disjointed. It did nothing to get me interested in going and spending my hard earned money. I don't go to many movies...so I can't see myself going to this one, based on what I know.

Karolyn said: "I find it hard to believe you could judge me"

As far as judging you, Karolyn. Pot ... black. That's all I have to say. You've said some pretty unflattering things about the posters on here, knowing nothing about us beyond reading a few posts. I think you need to re-read your own post and heed your own advice.

ZOE said...

imahick said: "As far as judging you, Karolyn. Pot ... black. That's all I have to say. You've said some pretty unflattering things about the posters on here, knowing nothing about us beyond reading a few posts. I think you need to re-read your own post and heed your own advice."

Well said imahick!