Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Celebrity Gossip!
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Media Whores
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83
Dammit. It just occurred to me that Star Jones is completely a sassy loud black girlfriend with a big booty. How ironic. Still, there really are demure genial well behaved black girlfriends out there that are not being fairly represented. Even though Im not one either-- they very much deserve a voice.
I can't stand the View. I wish the whole show would leave and take Oprah with them.
Me too, bustygirl. Me too.
I pine for the days of Donahue.
Please don't judge me but I am really enjoying this whole Star leaving the View thing. She's not on today's show. Barbara just made an announcement about her not coming back.

Raisingirl, I miss "Caller, are you there?" - I loved that part of Donahue.
AHHH! Yes yes yes, Catsoup. Oh, such a flashback. I'm sure I have old videotapes of his show somewhere... Maude, I loved Phil something fierce.
Yep, apparently after Star made her announcement on-air yesterday, the brass at ABC told her, "Don't come back tomorrow. You're done."

I agree with those who'd just as soon have The View be done--let the whole lot of them go! What an annoying hen-party; I'll take the Maury Povich show types over those ladies any day.
The View is an interesting concept badly executed. You know how you'd watch Politically Incorrect (when the guests were intelligent and had a good rapport) and it always seemed to cut off just as the discussion was getting interesting? If The View was more like that, it could have had a shot at being relevant; yeah, you'd have to cut stuff short to allow for guests, etc., but with the same people in and out every day, you can revisit and readdress recurring themes and issues. The inclusion of Elisabeth Hasselbeck is so annoying not b/c she's a conservative, but because she comes across (okay, just from that one clip) as a vacuous moron. Was she chosen just to make everyone else look better or simply b/c she's conventionally cute? Probably both.
i actually liked The View in the days of Lisa Ling, pre-Star's gastric. there did sometimes seem to be a cohesiveness there, and at least all of them had the occasional thought in their heads. maybe it happened when Meredith Viera left? i've never been a fan or her or anything, but she did occasionally bring issues to the table.

and that Sandra Bernhard clip seemed to be completely unrehearsed and weird. most celebrity guest chat show segments are completely rehearsed beforehand -- the host practices how to set up the questions (vital in the case of commedian guests as their interview is basically an extension of their routine), and the guest knows in advance what the questions will be so they can have some normal response in their head rather than, "uh, gee, i dunno..." again this is doubly vital for commedian guests as the interview is basically a comedy routine and timing has to be perfect.

but from looking at that clip, it just looks completely unrehearsed. everybody is saying something different. barbara walters keeps jumping topics with every question. Sandra doesn't seem to be getting them right and keeps saying weird shit, which the others drown out in their effort to somehow jump all over her. it's like there was no rehearsal. weird.
That's the thing, though - if you had hosts at the top of their game, the lack of rehearsal could work to everyone's advantage, something fresh on tv for once.

Britney nude on the cover of Harper's
my first thought: she's trying to do a dami moore.
my second thought: whyyyyy?

/nothing constructive to post
and a third thought...holy photoshopping batman!
Ewww. She looks freakishly like Katie Holmes!
That dark hair just looks wrong on her. Now she looks like she's trying to be a cross between Angelina Jolie and Heather Locklear (that's who her expression reminds me of). Why does this girl think that this kind of stuff helps her image? She's got enough PR problems, stuff like this just stirs the pot.
That is so odd...and so sad. She did go totally Demi-Moore-dark brown as opposed to just a more natural light brown, ya know? She's so unoriginal.
britney's not got the right skin tone for that 'do. It was ok short, but long... nah. me no likey.

and what divalla said... it's not original, and it doesn't do her any favours. The picture also lacks demi's proudness (that's not a word) and it looks a little... tacky.
I heard Brit's hair was a wig - guess not?

Woody Allen = still creepy. Not exactly gossip, but whatever.
I wish Brit had gone a more natural looking light brown, much like her first CD cover. That would have fit her much better.

sigh... she's a lost cause.

I honestly think she looks great.
I love woody allen...and I can't wait for that movie to come out.

But I agree, Britney does look gross with her new hair. And her picture is soooo totally airbrushed (not that it's a surprise)
Britney's cover shot is just horrible. I would have expected better photography, especially for a nude on a fashion mag (although, it is loads better than the last nude cover I recall, with Tom Ford in Vanity Fair). There is nothing artsy or classy about it, and she has nothing to promote right now, other than her pregnancy and her need for "privacy." Seems like a bad choice for a cover girl.
That picture of Beyonce is badly photoshopped - you can see that her breast is completed full inside the dress outside of where she supposedly has fallen out, so the proportion is way off and the nipple is misplaced - that is why it looks so weird. It's a fake.

I agreee that Britney's hair is too dark for her in that picture - think how pretty she would look with 2 shades lighter. She just never quite gets it right.

I just watched video of Barbara Walters give the smackdown on Star Jones the day after she left - nasty!

OMG! I don't know if this was already discussed, but I just found out Anna Nicole-Smith is pregnant. What a nightmare! And she started a website w/ a $4.99/month memebership which will be a video diary of her pregnancy and of the baby.

I was tickled yesterday when I heard Rush Limbaugh got busted in an airport w/ Viagra he didn't have a prescrition for.
So what is Star Jones going to do now that she's not on the View? After getting married, losing weight, and becoming extremely cocky in the process, it seems like leaving the show is the last step and she now has nothing of her old self to go on, so I just can't see her career going anywhere after this.

I didn't articulate that very well but hopefully someone knows what I'm trying to say.
Maybe she'll go back to practicing law.
re: britney's highly-original bwah! cover shot ... and i suppose this was a PR-sanctioned move? her people are just as stoopid as she is. hysTERical!

i recently watched manhattan again and took much more note of the creepy factor. but i still soaked up every second. longtime woody fan who makes no apologies.
She was a lawyer?? I had no idea. Wow. How old is she?
Oh Tampon...she'll divorce big gay al of course. I highly doubt anyone would hire her to practice law anymore. She's a tainted duck.
I suddenly feel crazy - I think the Britney shot is nice. Maybe it's photoshop, but she actually looks healthy and pretty... I'm actually totally surprised that everyone hates it so much.

i second plynn....maybe it's cos i'm on bit-bit's side, but i think the nude shots are great. i think it's fantastic to see her actively presenting herself to the media as something other than the white trash mom we've all come to love to hate.
Is it just me, or--how did they make her look like (2) sizes smaller than real life on that cover?
When she was on the Matt Lauer interview, and in "real life" photos, she doesn't look like that!

*slinks off to buy some photo-enhancing software for self*
I swear I feel so indifferent about Britney Spears, I think she wore out any cares from me when she did that "Chaos" show (is that what it was called?). The only things that get any kind of a rise from me is her treatment of her son. Her sitting him on her lap while driving incident, carelessly driving with him in a forward facing carseat (I know, not illegal but unsafe), the fact that she's always wearing a hat in the sun but never has one on her baby (or socks). These things just baffle me, other than that I just couldn't care less about her.
She's a mess, and it wouldn't hurt if she just stopped trying so hard!
fwiw, i agree, the britney cover shot is nicely done (altho i also agree it was photoshopped to hell and back again). my ridicule is entirely based on it being obvious and derivative. oh, and plus the fact that i hate her, of course. hee.

completely OT: i DESPISE when parents let their kids go barefoot in public, unless it's the park, beach, etc. it's a huge pet peeve of mine. my standard baby gift always includes sockies and/or itty bitty sneakers.
word, mando. i don't think she looks all that bad on the cover (relatively speaking - it's all smoke and mirrors with britney anyways), but it's just such a ridiculous idea.

i'm wondering if maybe the photo was taken before the matt lauer interview. while it seems like a desperate attempt at damage control, you never know.

ETA: which is why i thought that maybe the hair was a wig - wasn't she seen in public awhile ago with brown hair as well?

ETAA: ABC's Star Jones Bio
it's not unlikely that brit would look like she weighs less naked than she does in ill fitting clothing (like she was wearing in the matt lauer interview) people never seem to realize that wearing clothing that is too small or fits improperly can make even the slimmest person look 20 lbs heavier. people at the mall in my hometown, especially, have a hard time with this concept.
surly I hear ya, most of the girls/women where I live completely misunderstand what "less is more" means. It does NOT mean that if you wear less, you look more better...LOL!!!
monthly magazines have a lead time of several months. i doubt this was done "in response" to the Lauer interview -- in fact, it was probably planned to come out at the same time, as part of the same media push to prove Brit is normal. you know, the one that's backfired so miserably.

it's probably why she looks smaller, as well. she would have been much less far along than she is now when that photograph was taken. it would also explain the wiglike hair -- this photograph was most certainly taken before her recent haircolor change. though i'm wondering if the new do was planned to coincide with this magazine's release.
oh, absoLUTEly photoshopped the hell out of. and i also totally agree with the fact that she is not a well educated mother and hasn't been taking any steps to MAKE herself a well educated (about mothering, i mean, not phd-educated) mother. but i'm also kind of horrified at the hate and disgust that is constantly pushed on her. i can't think of a male celebrity trainwreck that has been as publicized, and no one seems to want to help her. all the junkie celebrities go and take time off for "exhaustion" and then everyone says how brave they are for facing their problems, and the anorexic celebrities get pity and support, but just because britney is, well, no kinder way to put it, but....uh, stupid? nobody wants to help her change.

i like the photos because they seem to be saying, fuck you world, i'm not as ugly as you keep saying i am.

apropos of nothing, though, doesn't the one in the bathrobe kind of hearken back to that horrible statue on the bearskin rug!!?
dooce has always been a fan of britney and writes about her thoughts here.

even though i'm not a britney fan, i do agree with a lot of what dooce writes about the situation. britney seems so emotionally young, but with a lot of power and money at the same time. she's doing her teenage rebellion thing, but in front of everyone in an embarassing way. she seems so uncentered and flailing, which makes me more interested in watching her than i would be otherwise. she's the opposite of graceful, but, then again, why not. why does she have to look like every other celebrity, or put on a facade, just to please my sense of what a "star" looks like? i don't need to think that stars are "just like me" but it is very interesting to watch someone famous behave differently from the norm.

i go back and forth between thinking she should be left alone and thinking she should get a giant clue.
Whoa - check it out. ABC took down Star's bio already (I linked to it earlier for Hellotampon). Well, that bridge is certainly burnt.
I can still see the embers!
All the way to HELL, baby!
I don't mind so much the barefoot baby thing, babies don't really need feet covering especially in warm weather. But c'mon, Brit, put a diaper cover or shorts on the kid already. It's kind of disconcerting to see a baby with just a shirt and diaper out and about in public. Mom needs to cover up on top and baby needs to cover up on the bottom.
My view on Britney:

I really beleive in my heart-she is tryign to be a normal Mom. I respect that she always has her own kid, carries the kid,etc. I think she is mimicking Moms she saw growing up-and not accepting the fact that her celebrity status, locations, and $$$$ make it very difficult to say the least. She is far from a healthy balance. Rumors are she is moving back to Louisiana, which may be worse. She may be hawked and harrased more in a small town.

Just my 2 cents...
One of the problems with Britney (and so many other celebs) seems to be the belief that having a nanny is akin to being a neglectful or at least disinterested mother. So they take their babies everywhere! I mean, Sean Preston should be elsewhere when Britney goes to Starbucks or steps out in NYC. Having help does not mean you're a bad mom. I wish babies weren't so in vogue right now - for their little sakes.

(Of course, the fact that we haven't seen Suri clearly does not mean that TomKat understand this concept! That's a whole other story...)
Well, you know their excuse is that they couldn't get the price they wanted for her pictures. Uh huh.

There is no baby and they're just waiting until they can pull a Lindberg baby thing and then search for the kidnapper...A man came in through the window wearing a mask and carrying a big bag and he put the baby in the bag and then crawled back out the window. Yeah, that's what happened.
Yeah, I was all for that No baby conspiracy for a long while. But then I saw photos of Katie with distinct after baby fat on her.

I think she was pregnant, I just think she had that baby sooner then we realize.

And it is almost creepy that this overly public couple who wanted their whole love affair photog'd the whole step of the way, haven't had their baby out in public at ALL. That does seem a little odd.

You see them at all these premieres all over the world but never the kid.
charli, you've got a good point, that is realllyyyy strange...TC is just really weird too. Katie is going to wake up about 5 to 10 years from now, and she is goind to be sick to her stomach of TC controlling her life.
charli, you've got a good point, that is realllyyyy strange...TC is just really weird too. Katie is going to wake up about 5 to 10 years from now, and she is goind to be sick to her stomach of TC controlling her life.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.