ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 329
Jul 23 07 8:05 PM
As I reported exclusively on Friday, Britney's photo shoot with OK Magazine was supposedly a disaster. Click here for the background. Still more details are coming out of the debacle, from multiple sources - all of them painting a picture of a Britney on the way down. Again. Because in addition to the rumoured public peeing and the public manual self-exploration and the unprofessionalism, I hear Britney also allegedly made away with $20,000 worth of clothing from the shoot. Apparently her excuse is that the items were gifted to her, but considering that the shoot was never complete, that the magazine was supposedly scrambling afterwards to reschedule for usable photos, donating to someone who can clearly afford it probably wasn't high on their list of priorities. In fact, my magazine insiders insist that it was made clear to Britney and her new assistant (repeatedly described to me as "the blonde with the big cold sore") several times in no uncertain terms, not because there was fear at the beginning that they'd rip off the shoot but because both are so dumb they have to be told everything more than once. As for the magazine's next steps - the shoot was never rescheduled and what they have is barely barely up to standard. I'm told they spent the weekend deliberating whether or not to scrape together the best among the shit and hope it looks great in editing or to turn the entire story around and expose Britney for what she is - even though it would irreversibly damage their relationship with her but at this point, what's left to salvage? If they do go that route, the article will be scathing and scandalous. And groundbreaking too. Especially for OK Magazine, known of late for paying celebrities for exclusives, obviously slanted to kissing star ass, not unlike the obsequious People Magazine - can you imagine the fallout if they actually have the balls to tell it like it is? We'll see. At press time, a final decision has yet to be made. Will keep you posted. Meanwhile, check out Britney and her boys and her cousin Allie's replacement out for a boat ride the other day. You will note, at just 25, she looks terribly terribly old, non? The lines around her mouth and eyes? Sadness. And then there's this - Britney getting lippy vs the paparazzi. Word is she didn't appreciate them following her around when she had stopped to change a diaper and felt they were getting too close. But here's the thing, before you start pontificating on the importance of privacy and intrusion - remember, this is a girl who routinely uses the paps to send her own messages, who relied on them to inform her of the whereabouts of her own mother when she told the woman to stay the f*ck away from her kids (!!!???!!!), who has used the camera to campaign against mom for public favour. So really… is she really in a position to complain? Please. By the way, definitely TURN DOWN your speakers. Low classy language, chicken fried mouth… it's not the kind of thing you want blaring around the office. My favourite line, as her baby cries in the background, Britney says to an overweight photographer: "You need to f*ckin' jog, you f*ckin' p*ssy. Yeah, run. Run bitch." Click here for the clip - how long before sad smut spirals out of this column?
Interact
Posts: 13643
Jul 23 07 8:29 PM
Posts: 2561
Jul 23 07 10:16 PM
I am here to testify that Dianetics is a phenomenal remedy for at least one widespread affliction: insomnia.
-Laura Miller, 'Stranger Than Fiction'.
Posts: 2436
Jul 23 07 10:43 PM
Posts: 217
Jul 24 07 12:52 AM
Jul 24 07 2:03 AM
marconi wrote: If OK! wants to make a crapload of money, they will publish what really happened. They would be stupid not to.
Posts: 6326
Jul 24 07 2:32 AM
Jul 24 07 7:57 AM
ruby wrote: marconi wrote: If OK! wants to make a crapload of money, they will publish what really happened. They would be stupid not to. But you know if they did, they'd be sued - regardless if it was the truth. Britney's "people" (does she have any left at this point?) would be screaming "defamation" or something equally lame and untrue.
No, I actually don't think so. Britney's people would scream and stomp their feet, but her rep is already ruined. It wouldn't be worth it dragging it through the courts when OK could prove their case so easily.
Posts: 15251
Jul 24 07 8:36 AM
Jul 24 07 10:04 AM
Jul 24 07 10:15 AM
Posts: 1902
Jul 24 07 2:58 PM
Posts: 1035
Jul 25 07 3:50 AM
Posts: 1562
Jul 25 07 12:56 PM
gigglemuncher wrote: It's official. She's the craziest and saddest of them all. She must still be on the crack if she believes her mother is the one with the problem and not her, and this letter does not help her case. She's nutters, no denying it. (Even if it was meant to be funny on her part.) http://x17online.com/celebrities/britney_spears/queen_b_sends_a_message_to_x17.php http://www.dlisted.com/node/12169
Posts: 1959
Jul 25 07 1:03 PM
Posts: 2069
Jul 26 07 3:58 PM
Posts: 5796
Jul 26 07 4:07 PM
Posts: 3569
Jul 26 07 4:17 PM
Jul 26 07 5:22 PM
Jul 26 07 6:17 PM
KidLawless77 wrote: Ya know, at this point, it seems that Britney really wants K-Fed to have custody of those kids. Why else would she knowingly violate a judge's order? Also, if the kids are ordered to go to him, it looks better than if she willing gave them to him. I hate to say it, but I think she views those little boys the way she views her pets-cute for awhile but when they cease to be fun, off to another home.
I think you're absolutely right, KL. Why doesn't she just hand the kids over to him, though, if that's the case?
Share This