Enough said....UM thanks you both...
From Ted's Awful Truth today...
Punchgate
Everyone else might be keeping their attention on Nicole Kidman's barely there bump, but we’re also concerned with a more damning, just as suspicious matter. The fact that N.K. still hasn’t owned up to her involvement in that unforgivable (and as yet, still unexcused) bodyguard attack from March. We can’t believe the whole mess has vanished into thin air, just the way Kidman & Co. want it to, right? Another just as curious disappearing act is the photog agency itself, Flynet, which posted the disturbing body-goon bash vid. The Flynet photo guys were prolly thinking the whole sad sitch was a blessing in disguise, since nothing gets your name more press than having an A-List actress involved in a brutal beatdown. But flynetonline.com hasn’t posted a damn thing, pics or otherwise, on its blog since May 9.
'Course, the agency is still selling photos to other websites, including a recent one of Miss Kiddy and Keith Urban leaving a Nashville Starbucks, but its own HQ seems left for dead. What gives, babes? Did you get some superunder-the-table payday from Nicky to shut your mouths and say buh-bye to your site? Wouldn’t be surprised if Kid-hon's picked up a few tricks from her marriage to Tom.
And from Lainey:
Granny Freeze in Vogue
Gran on the cover and the in the pages of Vogue, shot before she started showing, not that she’s showing much now. You’ll recall, she announced her pregnancy 30 seconds after Keith Urban fertilised her botoxed eggs. A brave move for someone who’s suffered so many miscarriages. But as they say in the article, Nicole Kidman is fearless.
So here she is, looking not human at all, the airbrushes at Vogue and the dexterity of her surgeon joining forces for the most plastic photo spread, like, ever.
Hundred bucks to the first reader who can spot a wrinkle. On HER. Not on Hugh Jackman.
I win. See?
My favourite part of the article? When she’s asked about all the rumours that there’s a prosthetic:
Casually dressed in a tight black pullover and jeans—punctuated by the trademark red soles of her black Louboutin heels—Kidman remains strikingly thin for a woman seven months pregnant. So thin, in fact, that I've heard people say they don't believe she's actually with child. When I mention this, she gives the laugh of one who's learned not to be fazed by all the silly things people think.
"Just look at how I'm sitting here with my legs apart"—her knees splay out at a 45-degree angle. "This is the way you have to sit when you're pregnant."
And aren’t you an Oscar winning actor?
Just asking…Click here for more photos and to read the full article. Let me know if you spot that wrinkle.
39 comments:
Glad to see Ted's not letting it drop. I wonder why he didn't mention her longtime driver appears to be missing in action.
Here's the latest from Perez Hilton:
Exquisite!
Nicole Kidman looks stunning on the cover and in the pages of the new issue of Vogue.
She's sooo happy about the pregnancy, it's real, and even asks the reporter to touch her tummy!
Click here to read the interview and look at the Annie Leibovitz-shot photos!
Three months ago he would have made a snarky comment like - and the award for best airbrushing goes to:
Funny how he was making headlines in the press in OZ just a few months ago for picking on Nicole. Now she's exquisite. Why the change in attitude - it's not like he met her in person.
Can you say "pay off?" There is no doubt in my mind that Hilton has made a deal. Like you said, he was brutal toward NK in the past, and me thinks Wendy / Catherine gave him an "inside" baby gender tip and a promise of more exclusives for a reprieve from the negativity.
And Flynet definitely got paid off. That was a brutal beating ... and it just faded away. There is no other explanation for it.
Although I do think she's pregnant, the fact that there is/ was speculation about it tells you just what the media think of NK. They all know that she is fully capable of pulling off a faux pregnancy. I love how she "proves" she's pregnant by sitting with her legs apart? She is a real prize.
She's made a career out of having her legs apart. That doesn't prove anything other than the fact she's a slut and most people already know that. If she could keep her legs together she wouldn't have gotten a career. It sure as hell wasn't because she has any acting talent.
Yes, hilton is now on the kidman bandwagon... 20 whole days without a post on kidman and now he's drooling all over her...never doubt that anyone with attention and monetary ambitions in the city of bright lights or as it's far more accurate description... "shilltown", cant be rolled for either one or the other... 20 days and that lesson is over, class....
... and just as this new vogue spread, where kidman does look as waxen and as stiff as ever... btw... after perusing the pics at dlisted, I just had to hightlight this one...
http://www.dlisted.com/node/26648/images/nickyvogue4.jpg
..looks like make up on this photo shoot must have been having a hard day of it...or the photoshop artist got way too carried away.... the wig placement on this photo makes kidman's forehead look even more laughingly bigger! Now actually this vogue cover gives me another opportunity for a kidman lesson in atrocious movie publicity... this movie promo, coming as it does 5 whole months before the film will be released in theaters is just another effort in futility... as you all will recall a year ago, kidman and daniel craig did a Invasion promo cover for W magazine in Feb '07... which was actually the original release date of Invasion. But the film was was a heaping and steaming mess... the studio ordered reshoots and the film didnt come out till 6 months later...( almost identical to the 5 months for her next movie Australia...ooohh anyone else feel shivers at the similarity?) Well, once again I see history repeating for the always predictible, unchanging and irreversibly inept team kidman... who couldnt schedule a fasting or a bingeing party at a victoria secret photo shoot.
Once again Ted proves he's an idiot. If what happened was so damaging she could stop an entire site, this incident would be all over the mainstream news. And interestingly enough the photos that the skeptics think are so damaging to NK are still there posted on the home page. Why is that? C'mon Ted if you know so much why wont you come out and say it. Be a hero and stop this grave injustice! He gives no new details, just brings the "story" back again and again. Sorry Ted but you doing that isnt going to accomplish anything. Maybe Matthew McConaughey had the site halted for showing him with his man-bag. Thats just as likely!
Nothing's new with Lainey. She's treated like a queen here because she hates NK. So there's no need to comment on her latest Nicole-bashing babblings
As for the Vanity Fair article, what would have been an appropriate response from her? Should she have gotten into a "Yes i am!"...
"No you're not!" shouting match with the interviewer? I'm not surprised she laughed at the mention of it. The rumors would only matter if she was really faking this pregnancy. Which she's not. Those that still think so just have blinders on.
Perez...he's right she does look gorgeous. But i don't believe he's struck a deal. We've had many pics of KUNK lately on gossip sites but none of them showed up on Perez. The last entry was the claim he knows the sex of the baby. If she had struck a deal why weren't those latest photos of them out and about, especially The Kiss, posted on Perez? He is the go-to gossip site and more people would see it there than anywhere else.
Looking at some of his other recent postings, he thinks Charlize Theron looks gorgeous in a dress that makes her look idiotic and he's praising Lindsay Lohan. Its his site, he has a right to be wishy-washy about who he likes today. What the skeptics need to realize is that everyone has their own opinion, and no one is going to start hating Kidman because a blogger says you should.
Umyths do you not feel this blog is doing enough? Hoping the rest of blogland will pick up the slack? Step it up and give us the real goods on NK. You know that proof that you promised....oh you still don't have that yet? Big surprise.
Well maclen, if you know your history you would be aware that Vanity Fair did a cover with Nicole several months ahead of Moulin Rouge's release and then another the month it came out. I doubt this has anything to do with "Team Kidman" as much as it does with the promo staff and Baz the director. NK has a good relationship with VF and has given them some stunning covers over the years.
If youre going to bring up the cover for The Invasion then you have to know there are other covers with stars from movies that underperformed. Fools' Gold and Speed Racer are two that come to mind. So Nicole is not alone in that regard and there will always be more you can add to the list of bombs that got magazine covers.
The cover shot happens to be a great one. NK should wear that color more often, it's the most complimentary for her coloring - yet she almost never wears it. My daughter is a red head and green is definitely her color as well.
As for Ted, I do applaud him for keeping the story alive because I do think that NK's people squashed that whole thing. Or maybe even Keith's people squashed it. The photog, I'm sure, was paid handsomely and signed quite the confidentiality agreement. What I don't quite understand is why NK would keep the bodyguard around - he should've been retired just for appearances sake.
Riiiiiiight Reality Check. So you don't believe people are being paid and bought ALLLL the time in Hollywood. You don't think the pap who was beaten didn't prefer the scent of a large wad of cash over taking it to court. You don't think it's mysterious how Flynet virtually disappeared. As Dr. Pilthy would say; Get Real. There is so much shit flying in Hollywood, half of it from people trying to fineagle money rightly or wrongly from Stars. Where did the guys travelling in the car that Lindsay Lowhore commandeered, including the guy who's foot got crushed when she ran over it, disappear to ? They were going to sue for having their lives put at risk as she hijacked the car. Can we just say Big Fat Check.
The only people who really pursue and take the big stars to task are those who have been truly aggrieved,need a moral victory or are faking/magnifiying a claim and are willing to try it in court (Lowe case ?)
If they are seeking damages and redress and the damages are already going to be paid WITH INTEREST, why the need to go the court. Especially when up against the machinery of, in NK's case, a supposed superstar. Wake UP already.
What the supporters need to realize is that everyone has their own opinion and no one is going to start loving Kidman because a blogger or anyone else says you should.
worriedmonkey...puuuhhhleeeze! Flynet did not "disappear". They are still in business selling photos and there site is fully functioning. They just havent updated it. Nicole has the power now to stop them from posting on all celebrities? Why would she give a damn about pap photos of other stars? If the photogs were so wronged why don't they have their day in court? Their so-called account of what happened that day is so one-sided they wouldnt know the truth if it hit them in the head with an anvil. Flynet and/or the photogs have something to hide and dont want it to get out. IMO its because they dont want people to know what the photogs did that was less than kosher.
cj, the fact the skeptics wont change their mind doesnt bother me. But the criticism of this couple, and NK in particular, has gone to such ridiculous proportions. All opinions are allowed to post here...
PS. If that beaten-up photographer was faking it, he would have subjected himself to felony charges of
extortion, defamation and perjury because NK and co would likely have sued his ass to high heaven to protect her perfectly lovely reputation. No they settled and she remains an accessory if not the instigator to
assault, battery and theft,
I think the photographer, whose silence was purchased, may be relaxing with a nice Campari and soda, looking at his new camera equipment on a yacht somwehere in the Meditteranean. Unless anybody else knows where he is.
I dont dispute that the bodyguard beat the pap up. But whats in question is what happened before the video started, and how involved NK really was in all of this. The skeptics immediately said NK ordered the attack, like she is a member of the Mafia. And that she stole a camera, etc. None of that is known to be true. We dont even know if she was in the vehicle. But the skeptics assume the worst and make Nicole and Co. 100% guilty and the Flynet photog 100% the victim.
Here's a delightful article re the new Vogue cover & interview just for you RC:
http://dlisted.com/taxonomy/term/28
"Nicole Kidman totally has her own personal Photoshop wizard, CGI artist and cartoonist to make her look stunningly frozen for photo shoots. She looks like she was made from a mixture of wax and Tommy Girl's crusty sperm. Anyway, the interview is all pretty basic and boring, but Vogue did manage to ask her ass about the rumors that she's faking her pregnancy.
Nicky just laughed at the question and said, "Just look at how I'm sitting here with my legs apart. This is the way you have to sit when you're pregnant." You know the pillow fell out when she spread her legs. Please, my legs are always spread. Does that mean I'm knocked up? Shit, probably.
Visit Style.com did read the rest of the interview. And here's more of Nicky looking like a wax mannequin in an exhibit at the Natural History Museum."
Don't you just love it???
Preach all you want RC, it won't change our minds. You are wasting your time!!
Intestingly, the name of hiltons blog piece when kidman's "sensational" Vanity Fair piece... "Headline Of The Week (Weak)"
Filed under: Baby Blabber > Headline of the Week > Australiastic > Nicole Kidman... and highlighted her so called claims of losing Cruise's kid.... well, I'm not very surprised the new Vogue piece, incidently titled..."Days of Thunder...I mean Heaven, ( unfortunately cruise is dragged throught the usual kidman desperate and needy pr opportunism) ... the article of course is simply a rehashing of the already planted and leaked stories of severe moringing sickness, (nauseating temperment, no doubt)...never being apart from the orb... (she orders him to fly to her movie sets) and the sensational revelation that "she has to sit with her legs spread open, which proves she's pregnant... ( by that reasoning she must have been preggo in about 90% of her movies) Yes sir, regurgitating the mundane and the tired old stories will save this movie...for sure...
RC-
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....seriously let me turn the tables back on you....
"RC do you not feel your childish rants about this blog is doing enough? Hoping the rest of the supporters will pick up the slack? Step it up and give us the real goods on NK. You know that proof that you promised....oh you still don't have that yet? Big surprise!"
You complain about UM but the crap you complain about could easily be turned around on you.....everyone is entitled to an opinion (YOU SAID IT) like it or not, the skeptics do not like Nicole, that is an opinion, and this is a place to share that opinion. There are plenty of sites out there to show your support of Nicole.....this isnt one of them.....
When this blog was started it was stated that "Urban Myths" is about exposing the nasty truth about Nicole Kidman. And im wondering when they are going to start. The posters who comment here are free to express their opinions. But the people behind this blog are supposed to be giving us something much more substantial. Where is it? Mirroring the skepti-haters opinions in the blogs is just pandering to the core audience.
zoe, i could care less what dlisted posts. I dont care what the celeb sites have to say even if its positive. I form my own opinion and dont rely on people whose employment is through gossip.
wastedemotion, "blah blah blah"? What a brilliant argument!
maclen, those stories of morning sickness were not plants. Hugh Jackman in an interview has said she was sick. So go ahead and claim she paid him off but we know what the truth is.
Also you must not know how Perez works. If Perez thinks it s a big story its always filed under "Headline of the Week (Weak)" If theres babies involved its always filed under "Baby Blabber". And if a celeb from Australia is involved its also always filed under "Australiastic". Don't try to twist the obvious to make a point. Especially when those of us with clear heads can see right through it.
Are you sure your head is clear....Im pretty sure it is clear....clear in the clouds.
You seem to only accept what your spoon fed, cant you even for one minute consider Nicole might not be the saint you think she is. Hollywood is all about the payoff and if you dont see that your blind. It's all about who you know, and how much you pay them.....dont be such a know it all....I still think you need a stiff dose of reality.
Blah Blah Blah was not my argument....you like usual avoided my argument and I can only assume it is because you know Im right, and you have nothing to defend yourself with.
So a critique of the vogue mag photo shoot certainly reveals the true intent of the film. As is so obvious, the baz... not having made a movie since moulin rouge 7 long years ago, evidently had no luck in hustling lalaland in backing or financing a film. So he fell back on his homeland to come through with the scratch for a feature film. And of course what was the first attempt? Something called "Eucalyptus" starring those well known, yet not surprisingly Oz unpopular kidman and crowe... and also unsurprisingly, that film fell through, seems crowe avoided the curse of starring alongside kidman...but not after a couple of delays and words of disgruntlement from crowe about creative disagreements" and "personality differences". But wait, another attempt at an aussie epic, again with crowe and kidman... this time on something called Australia...yet naturally crowe high tailed and ran from a certain debacle... so aussie hugh jackman was simply set in his place. And now, with the release of the vogue "Australia" promo piece with photos, the true intent of the film is revealed... it happens to coincide with the recent Aussie based stories of how this movie is... or will be... such a "boon" for Australian "tourism"... and as it shows in the stiff and wax figure of kidman set in various OZ settings... this film is simply an Australian travelogue masquerading as a "hollywood classic epic"...as in, "Come to Oz and see our wallabys, boomerangs and the sights of our new travelogue..Australia! And will no doubt be treated as such by movie goers come this Nov...
RC- practice Self Editing
so this is supposed to be a film that is a tourist boom to Oz? Based on something that happened sixty years ago- hasn't Oz changed?
Ted is the greatest
Perez is all about being Perez
and many have given up on him.
"Tara said...
so this is supposed to be a film that is a tourist boom to Oz? Based on something that happened sixty years ago- hasn't Oz changed?"
Braveheart gave a boost to Scotland tourism when it was released, and that movie was based on events in the 13th century! lol ... "hasn't Scotland changed?"
Ah.. events surrounding the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, etc did not happen recently, but yet they contribute to tourism$$$ in their areas. "hasn't the U.S. changed?"
Uh most people are having trouble filling their gas tanks.....doesnt Hollywood realize that?!
I dont think anyone will be jumping on a plane to boost the tourism for OZ anytime soon, especially just because of this movie.
wastedemotion your point has been made 50,000 times already. And i have stated my opinion on it time and time again. Just because i didn't directly address you doesn't mean my point hasn't been made.
sonora excellent point re the tourism campaign! Also one must realize that this movie takes place not in Sydney or any of the other major cities on the east coast but in Darwin, in the Northern Territory. When one thinks of visiting Oz i can guarantee you this area is not what pops into the majority of travelers minds. There are Aussies themselves that have never ventured out there. And while there is a gas crisis in Oz as well there will always be people that can afford to travel.
RC....the master of avoidance.
Braveheart boosted intrest in Scotland,but Mel Gibson can act.That's the difference between Braveheart and Australia.Nicole Kidman can not act.She can't even manage to look human. People can just go to a shopping mall and look at a mannequin with no expression for free.Why bother paying $10.00 to look at one on the screen for 2 hours. Granted the mannequin doesn't have her huge ass forehead to laugh at or her gigantic fish lips flopping around but still it's just as entertaining as a Kidman flop.
" cricket said...
Braveheart boosted intrest in Scotland,but Mel Gibson can act.That's the difference between Braveheart and Australia.Nicole Kidman can not act."
Wow, just imagine how many more awards she can win if only she can act.:) So far, she has "only" won:
2003 Oscar Best Actress
2003 BAFTA Best Actress
2003 Golden Globe Best Actress
2002 Golden Globe Best Actress
1996 Golden Globe Best Actress
1988 Australian Film Institute Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini Series (for her role in "Vietnam")
1990 Australia Logie Award Most Outstanding Actress (for "Bangkok Hilton")
Many more awards listed here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000173/awards
Oops ... wait a minute. Here come the skeptics with their "Nicole paid off all the voters to win those awards". :)
I happen to agree that "Oztralia" will be a boon to tourism down under. If marketed correctly with some great incentives they could make it cheaper to vacation there than here for Americans. And if Baz marketed this film to the Oz gov't. for the tax breaks, etc. in that vein and it works, then all you skeptics will be eating crow.
I also happen to think the movie will do well in spite of NK being in it. Our country is in a bad time, and in bad times sweeping epics with feel good stories do well.
wasted, don't pretend you don't already know my opinion. You do. Get over yourself. Your inane comments don't cancel out the fact that i bring the facts to the table when i post here. So does Sonora. And that irritates the skepti-haters to no end. I'm sure the one thing you all didnt count on is people like us continually coming to post here. Get used to it.
We all know the skeptics hate the fact Nicole is in an elite group of actors that have won an Oscar. And the main argument is that she won out of sympathy. Well she was nominated twice. Thats no accident. And we cant forget how many Golden Globe's she been nominated for...seven. She couldn't possibly have garnered that much sympathy or paid off enough voters that many times.
Nicole didn't pay off anyone to win those awards- it all had to do with who she was married to and who she was dumped by.. notice as the years have gone by and her connection to
her former husband has weakened what
awards and nominations has she had?
Thats right none.
Lassie won an Oscar too
The Hollywood Foreign Press have such members many well know tabloids and fashion magazines as members. While the golden globes throw a nice party the award is pretty much given to anyone- thats why there are so many awards given they want the movies in their perspective countries.
>>We all know the skeptics hate the fact Nicole is in an elite group of actors that have won an Oscar
Please don't speak for all skeptics. I couldn't care less about NK's Oscars etc. I didn't care much for her to begin with, as I stated one time here. It's okay for those of us to say we just don't like her.
You can bring your facts and state your opinion, but unless she makes a great movie, OR a movie that I really like It won't make a difference to me if she wins 20 Oscars.
RE: OScar winner Nicole.
NK knows how to do the emoting that makes her look like a 'serious' actress. But I, for one have always seen the machinations and never been moved by her.
Her best role still: ToDie For, where. as many have already suggested, she is playing a role not too dissimilar to her own character . In other words, I believed her.
She was shrill and annoying, camp and over the top - as was the style - in Moulin Rouge.
Many actresses could have been Virginia Wolf in "the Hours" and won an Oscar. It was that kind of a showpiece role. Had Oscar written all over it. Qute apart from the Hollyweird sympathy vote.
Apologies to the reviewer whose name I can't recall, who noted, of her performance in "Margot" that her face, or skin has become her greatest limitation. (I'd also argue that her lack of depth is a major limitation.. she's always 'acting' ).
And RC, regarding your point about still waiting for the big dirt to be dished on La Kidman, Maybe it won't come as a huge eruption but in a series of small
but collectively damaging misteps.
But here's a pretty big one.
Remember this little chestnut:
"I have nothing in my face. I'm completely natural".
Hmmm..... Bald-faced (pun intended) lying in an era when public sympathy would be gained by being frank and upfront is indicative of someone completely out of touch, foolish and untrustworthy.
And condescending. Many many people loathe her. LOATHE her. Are not indifferent but are actively repelled and sense in some instinctive way that she is awful.
I don't think Keith or her millions has anything to do with it except that many feel she doesn't doesn't either. More; that she's not someone who everyone wants to cheer on and see happy and successful ( she wore out THAT temporary post-divorce welcome mat).
I;m not sure she's even "Our Nic" so much in Oz anymore.
Most of us who love/loved Keith ( and despite his
shenanigans and challenges he was generally forgiven them) who have loved to see him end up with someone good for him,someone relatable-to.
Times will prove how happy he truly is with her. I do think the child ( little boy I've been guessing)
will make his life. Let us pray that if/when they split up ,she doesn't use or alienate the child from it's father.
By the way, I believe at the time of the photog incident it was reliably reported that The Bodyguard got out of the car in which he was traveling with NK and then confronted and accosted the photog.
Wast he photog being provocative, driving dangerously. It's possible. Or was he not one of those paphqcks approved by NK.
Who knows ?... but I do observe that the climate of secrecy and spin and just pure plain bullshit that surrounds Nk is on a par more with a shady politician than a mere, Oscar-winning actress.
Don't notice this crap going on around Judi Dench or Cate Blanchet or yikes, Brangelina.
Whatever you think of Angelina, she short-circuits the gossip hounds by being the first to cop to anything they judge her for....
Shit doesn't stick because she admits it and also shows up. Even the fact that she makes
gun-toting action flicks, which is kind of weird since she is a supporter of violence- afflicted refugees and is generally pro-life, is not glommed on as proof she is a hypocrite.
One reason; she does not appear to be an uber- control freak which is a common perception of NK and her goons... where appearance is ALL.
I used to like her NK's (original) face. She used to seem rootsier and funnier too but then all this weird ass coy behavior and her
absolutely contrived and peculiar syntax when speaking mushroomed ( and I used to be a journo so I very much doubt the interviewer is misquoting her).
She is not eccentric, she is convoluted and that speaks to me of manipulation, the need to convince and fakery. Kind of like........... bad acting. At that, she is a true award winner.
“Tara said...
Nicole didn't pay off anyone to win those awards- it all had to do with who she was married to and who she was dumped by.. notice as the years have gone by and her connection to her former husband has weakened what awards and nominations has she had? Thats right none.”
You need to do some fact-check!
Number of Oscar/Golden Globe/BAFTA awards and nominations since winning Oscar Best Actress:
Nicole Kidman (2002): 2 Golden Globe nominations for “Birth” and “Cold Mountain”
Helen Mirren (2006): 0
Reese Witherspoon (2005): 0
Charlize Theron (2003): 1 each in Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nomination for “North Country”
Halle Berry (2001): 1 Golden Globe nomination for “Their Eyes Were Watching” in the made-for-TV film category
Julia Roberts (2000): 1 Golden Globe nomination for “Charlie Wilson’s War”
Gwyneth Paltrow (1998): 1 Golden Globe nomination for “Proof”
Helen Hunt (1997): 0
Frances McDormand (1996): 1 nomination each Oscar, GG and BAFTA Best Actress for “North Country”; 1 nomination each Oscar, GG and BAFTA Best Supporting Actress for “Almost Famous”
Susan Sarandon (1995): 2 Golden Globe nominations for “Igby Goes Down” and “Stepmom”
Jessica Lange (1994): 0
Holly Hunter (1993): 1 nomination each Oscar, GG and BAFTA for “Thirteen”
Emma Thompson (1992): 1 BAFTA nomination for “Love Actually”; 1 GG nomination for Best Actress in made-for-TV movie/miniseries
So Nicole is on par with almost all of the recent Oscar Best Actress winners. The “exception” might be Hilary Swank who won the Oscar in 2000 (“Boys Don’t Cry”) and 2005 (“Million Dolllar Baby”). However, since Hilary’s 2005 win, she has had 0 nominations/awards.
Interesting that “who she was married to” could not get himself an Oscar award and you want us to believe he got his wife/ex-wife and Oscar? LMAO!
"woriedmonkey said...
... Don't notice this crap going on around Judi Dench or Cate Blanchet or yikes, Brangelina."
That's because those women are not married to a country music superstar with some delusional fans who go around different blogs to spew their hatred and openly wishing to split them apart.
Sorry Sonora,
you can't pin NK's self-aggrandizing lies, media
whoredom and lack of taste and judgment on the fact that she's married to superstar keith or the presence of fans who wish they weren't together. She's totally responsible for how she manipulates the press.
You can have bodyguards, be hugely famous and incredibly wealthy and not come off as an imbecilic
fibbing prat.
.... although it is probably harder.
How hypocritical of you to say that in your most recent 2 posts, worriedmonkey.
Whatever happened to some of the skeptics who insisted that they wouldn't care for NK one way or another, except that they hate what they perceived to be "what she is doing to Keith and his career". In short, if she weren't dating, and now married to Keith, they wouldn't go around posting their "hate mail".
This blog itself is an example of the "hate NK" crap resulting from her being with Keith. So of course you won't "notice this crap going on around Judi Dench or Cate Blanchet or yikes, Brangelina." Show me a few examples of what YOU had posted bashing NK BEFORE news of her dating Keith hit the press.
The fact is her long-time friends and associates are still with her. That itself tells me the kind of person she is to be able to maintain and nurture long-time friendships. And don't even use that silly line of "she paid them off". lol ... as if billionaires like the Murdochs and George Miller, or mega-millionaires like Russell, Naomi, Baz, Hugh and his wife, needed some extra cash from her. And her long-time friends are not just the Hollywood type. She is known to still have close friendship with people like her childhood neighbor Annette Overton, whom she has been friends with since they were 4 years old.
oh god snora... just stop already.
Post a Comment