Monday, July 14, 2008

Something To Like About Nicole Kidman


Turns out that Nicole Kidman does have some redeeming qualities. Apparently despite all the tabloids wanting to purchase photos of her new bundle of joy, she thinks it's wrong to exploit kids that way and so won't be selling any photos to any magazines.

Now, that is refreshing. You know that if Matthew McConaughey got $3M that for sure Nicole and Keith Urban were probably in about the $5M range. Giving up $5M guaranteed for just a few photos with you and the baby is tough to pass up. Combined with Brangelina's $1 Billion, the tabloids have spent a combined $4 billion on baby photos this year which is the equivalent to about 5 euros, maybe 6.

What Nicole and Keith are planning on doing is releasing a photo for free at some point in the future. Now, this of course is a double edged sword. See, if Nicole doesn't release one soon, then what will happen is that the magazines will want a photo and it will make them insane with drool and spittle flying from their mouths. They will curse the family who isn't greedy and promise to pay an outrageous sum to a pap who gets a first photo which of course will cause half the world of photographers to descend on Keith and Nicole trying to get the first photo.

I want to make it clear that although I prefer what Nicole and Keith are doing, if you are going to exploit your children, then I'm all for the Brangelina way because charities are going to be the one to have a great day or even a great year because of the amount of money Brangelina is going to contribute. The biggest problems I have are with couples who don't need the money, but are willing to sell their souls and exploit their children for a few bucks so they can impress their friends and feel a self-inflated sense of importance that their kid managed to make it in a magazine.

In a whisper, "They sold their photos, but just to Life & Style. Tragic. "

11 comments:

Mooshki said...

I wasn't sure if that was a J.Lo/Skeletor slam, so I googled "celebrity baby covers" and the first one that popped up was Denise Richards & Charlie Sheen on Kneepads, LOL!

notachance said...

Glad I'm not alone in thinking that Keith & Nicole are doing the right thing. Kudo's to them. Would love for this to be the "in" trend.....

As for AJ & Brad? I don't care if the money they sold their babies pics for is for charity or not, they are still "selling" their children for money and they should be ashamed. If they want to "raise awareness" for a charity, just donate some of your own millions and don't make the birth & pictures of your children an excuse for publicity.

Ernestine said...

Yeah, actually, I've gained a lot of respect for Nicole, too. Though I don't blame Brad and Angelina, because the demand for those first photos would probably lead to paparazzi violently pursuing that very first shot of the twins. I guess it's better to have full control over that situation. And I also think it's great that they're donating that money to charity. Very few celebrities of that stature are that generous.

Speaking of which, I hate J-Lo so much that I don't feel bad for saying this: her babies are extremely un-cute.

Big Sur Expedition 2008! said...

Nah, it's probably because the kid looks like her sister and so they need more time to figure out a way to push this kid as 'hers'.

I expected more cynicism from you, Ent. I'm disappointed.

lyz said...

....or maybe they haven't picked up the baby yet from the baby store....

PalsProtege said...

Sunday may have Kidman DNA but not the custodial mother's.

The Kidman's are still wiping the egg off their face after their wedding photos were left on the shelf.
They took the high road because that was the only path available.

adrian said...

I 2nd Lyz--if they actually had a real baby to photograph they would, but the model they wanted is probably on backorder.

Sexecution said...

I think that celebrities should sell the photos if the money goes to charity. If they keep it they are exploiting greedy idiots. We'll see what old Matty McBongo does. I haven't paid to see a movie of his since We are Marshall, but I could easily never pay to see his movies if he does keep the money as income, not to donate it. I guess if nobody goes to see his movies anymore - he'll be unemployable. See how easy it is?

Gayla said...

It's a wonder a tab hasn't gone under yet with all this baby pic money, and on that note I wouldn't even be surprised if Brad and Angie may sneakily be trying to accomplish just that and then giving the money to charity to nail home their point ("we don't want your money, we just want you to drop off the face of the earth, LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE and if that means running yourself out of business, then so be it").

Jamie's Girl said...

Brangelina are so disgusting. They still sold their kids. Gwyneth Paltrow did it right. She took her son Moses out in a park are for all the paps to take photos, then no one got the scoop. Nicole and Keith have already provided a photo to Australian AP to post, and no one wants to be the first to post it. Australian AP acknowledges they have it but won't post it.

Moonmaid said...

I like Nicole Kidman as a public person. I think she is a good actress, I am glad she is not married to that poisoned dwarf anymore, and I wish her well in her marriage and as a parent.

I don't really think she's ever done anything to incur the wrath of people speculating about whether or not she actually became pregnant. How ridiculous and who cares. Now her ex is fair game, because he is a complete pompous ass, who has treated her rather shabbily since they divorced ("I never was in love like this before," referring to wife #3, his stupid pronouncements about psychiatry and meds, his wierd behavior with his career and wife #3) and seems like a total ass. However, she has always taken the high road in her public life, so I say, let her live her private life the way she wants to.