Nicole Kidman & Keith Urban reject million dollar deals for Sunday’s photos


We have long proclaimed that the amount of money celebrities are being paid for photos of their new babies is absolutely ridiculous. Many of them are supposedly competitive with one another, and get angry with other celebs get more money. Which is just disgusting. Not surprisingly, those same celebs are the ones that never mention donating the enormous sums – leaving us to believe that they probably pocket several million dollars.

Luckily, Nicole Kidman has more class than that. She and husband Keith Urban have chosen not to sell photos of their first biological child, Sunday Rose Kidman Urban, born last week. The couple hasn’t yet decided if they’ll release photos to the press, but if they do it’ll be free of charge.

Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban have rejected deals worth millions of dollars for first pictures of their newborn daughter Sunday.

The star couple have yet to decide whether to release a photograph officially but, if they do, it will be free, a source close to them said.

“They don’t think it’s appropriate to make deals. They are still deciding how they feel about – if and when they will release a photo at all. But they realise there is enormous interest from the public and they are grateful and appreciative of that,” the source said.

“… Nicole and Keith have been enjoying their first few days at home with the baby – Nicole is thinking about things like breastfeeding right now.”

[From the Sydney Morning Herald]

Good for her. I thought the way Jennifer Lopez and Christina Aguilera bartered over the price of their baby photos was really disgusting. And although Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will likely end up with the most exorbitant price ever, it’s widely assumed that they will donate the entire amount. I think either donating the fee or doing it for free is the only way for celebs to debut their babies with class.

Many celebs that have gone the free route have simply not gone out of their way to make a big deal out of their new baby’s photos – and let the paparazzi get a few snaps. The idea of profiting off new babies is absolutely abhorrent, so let’s applaud the celebs who still have some class.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

92 Responses to “Nicole Kidman & Keith Urban reject million dollar deals for Sunday’s photos”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Syko says:

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that their actions will set a precedent?

  2. geronimo says:

    Celebs with a bit of self-respect and perspective. How refreshing.

    Got to say even donating money from the sale of new born baby pics to charity is slightly questionable. JMO.

  3. nag says:

    I was wondering.. if the parents donate the profits to a charity, and it is declared by the taxation dept, do they get a return from the donation? In Australia I think it is the case. If this is the case, stars who donate the pics probably claim the donation and receive some money back for the donation.

  4. Rose says:

    Really? It’s not ‘questionable’ to the charities who benefit.

  5. geronimo says:

    Not for the charities, no, but that’s not my point. Bidding wars for pics of new-born babies and turning something so personal into a cynical commercial transaction is dubious.

    Not a dig at particular celebs. Just have a greater degree of respect for those celebs who understand the interest in their babies but choose not to go down the commercial route and just release pics free of charge to all the media sources.

  6. xiaoecho says:

    nag…you’re right, except their accountants do it for them so they don’t have to know the grubby details.

    brangelina are supposedly donating 10 million to charity of their 26 million haul for the baby photos but no doubt their people will claim on that donation so they’re not donating even that much

    geronimo…pimping is pimping, that’s why it’s distasteful — sell, sell, sell

  7. Cory says:

    I have always said this, if you are donating the money to charity, then let the magazine itself do it, don’t get the money as income, get tax advantage and not even show any accountability but get all the credit.

    Infact I prefer Jlo and Aguilera who take the money and we know that they are greedy and classless unlike those who pretend they are giving to charity but get enormous PR boosts. Can’t Brangelina cut back on their private jets and lavish lifestyle and donate to charity instead of selling their kids?

    Kudos to Nicole and Keith, Salma, Julia Roberts, Tom and Katie, Halle Berry etc. They too could have taken money and gave it to charity while showing off for the world to laud their generosity but they chose not to milk their babies for PR.

    Selling your children’s pictures to the highest bidder no matter what the cause, is WRONG. Why not give the pictures to a magazine, no pomp, no bidding, just kindly and ask them to donate to your favourite charity. But if you take the money and give it to charity when you have a movie coming out, it is still disgusting but veiled. Like eating a well cooked toad.

  8. RAN says:

    Finally… a celeb with class.

  9. brad pitt says:

    Finally! A celeb who doesn’t pimp out her baby..refreshing

  10. bros says:

    i say, why not squeeze whatever you can out of these bottom feeder gossip mags and give it to charity. its unlikely these magazines have large charitable giving budgets, so its kind of like a forced donation. if an organization is willing to put a million on the table and you can shift it to buying rice and school supplies to kids in some hurting country, why the hell not? that million is just going to waste and will go to paying for some less worthy celeb antics and most certainly turn into gucci purses and jewelry instead of an aide donation.

  11. RAN says:

    In defense of geronimo (who doesn’t need my help, just thought I’d weigh in), I also see the donations as ‘suspect’. These celebrities can make all the announcements they want (that they’re donating money to charity), but unless a spokesperson for the charity actually acknowledges the donation, how in the world can these people be believed? In this situation, we don’t have to wonder. These two people aren’t pimping their kids.

  12. Cory says:

    Bros, good points from your post but you are forgetting that you are pimping your children at the end of the day. If you did it quietly, it would be a neccessary evil, but the bidding process and all the PR gain makes it tacky.

    Getting glory out of the sordid business and raising your profile at the expense of your kids is tasteless. That is why we do not sleep with 80 year old billionaires in order to donate money to charity. Mind you Angelina could raise more money that way.

    Better still, cut back on the lavish lifestyle and give the excess to charity. Hard earned money not your kids’ photo op money. It is just wrong at many levels.

  13. Jack says:

    At last, someone not selling their babies images. All credit to them. :D

  14. geronimo says:

    It’s the lack of transparency, the sniff of double-dealing that causes the problems. Let the magazines make the donations direct to the charities, let the charities publicly acknowledge it, let the donations appear in their annual reports so this whiff of double-dealing can be circumvented and put to bed.

    If a celebrity couple sells its baby’s pics to a magazine where the FULL proceeds are going to charity, where there’s NO benefit – tax relief or otherwise – to that couple, then it’s a fine and admirable gesture. Otherwise, where there’s a lack of transparency over exactly how much of the donation ends up in the charity’s koffers, it will continue to look dubious and will continue to cause scepticism over the motivations of the individuals concerned.

    Smoke and mirrors. It’s the looking like one thing on the surface while actually being something quite different underneath that bugs me.

  15. Dingles says:

    Charity or no charity, I’m just pissed that some already overprivileged chick can be handed more money than I’ll ever see just for getting knocked up.

  16. Nan says:

    It’s awesome seeing a celebrity who won’t pimp their kids(s) out for cash. I know Angelina says she donates all of it to charity, but in 2006 they reported that Brad and Angie COMBINED gave 8 million dollars to charity. Well, 6 million was given for Shiloh photos – so that leaves 2 million that they personally donated – FAR FROM THE 1/3 of their income that they BRAG about donating. So sick of them!
    Keith and Nicole – I hope you set a precedent for all these greedy celebrities! You show a great deal of class and integrity – CONGRATULATIONS on the birth of your daughter!

  17. Mindy says:

    Do people really care about photos of celebrity kids? I sincerely doubt it. I, personally, have no desire to see the Brangelina twins – I couldn’t care less about them and their over-rated parents. (besides, they always donate through their own Jolie/Pitt Foundation since it works out financially beneficial for them) How refreshing to see a couple who had a child, and don’t want to pimp it out for cash. A lot of truly WONDERFUL actors/actresses have had children without acting like they’ve just given birth to christ. As humans, people are too obsessed with celebrities – many of them are famous for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except spreading their legs, going to rehab, or dating someone famous. Many actors seem to think they’re better than everyone else and by pandoring to them offering big bucks for photos simply perpetuates this myth.
    Keith and Nicole seem to have their heads on straight – I have a lot of respect for them and think they show a lot of class.

  18. wtf says:

    This is the best slap over Angelina’s face! Ever! And I love it. he he.

    We all know who have a class in Hollywood and who doesn’t.

    I don’t give a damn if A and B gave the money from their baby’s pic’s to charity or not! They use the word “charity” for an excuse and it makes me puke. People who really donate money for causes like this don’t shout about it.

    Those two are long departed reality. I pity the kids.

  19. Bodhi says:

    This article is about Nicole & keith, not Brad & Angie. That being said, I seriously doubt that Nic & Keith’s choice is a “slap in Angie’s face.” She has a ton of other stuff to think about.

    And what is this “finally a celeb with class” bullshit? There are TONS AND TONS of celebs who’ve had kids & not gotten deals from a magazine.

    Have Brad and/or Angie (or their “camps”) said anything about the pictures yet? The kids are only like 2 days old. Hell, the B&A might not sell the pics, who knows?

  20. Zoe says:

    Bros, you’re right. Sorry Cory, wrong. Take the money and MAKE SURE it’s spent in the best way possible to help the highest number of people. Would YOU trust the Enquirer to do that? Also, if you’re a savy investor, and by all accounts the JPs are, then they can invest it and make even more to give away responsibly or to form an organization of their own. It’s not pimping your kid unless you keep the money. Besides, most celebrities probably feel like they’be earned the money just by garnering so much attention. You bet your ass their publicists, agents, studios, et al are making a TON of money off their offspring, so why not them as well? Put it in a fund for the kids to do with what they choose when they’re older (school, charity, whatever). JMO

  21. bros says:

    yah, i dont get this “its pimping out your kids” argument. what is so particularly noxious about selling a photograph? is it doing harm to the infants? psychological damage, as being in a true “pimp ‘n’ whore” type of arrangement would be? the whole analogy and word choice is very dramatic and overblown. most ordinary parents take their newborn’s pic and send it out in a baby announcement. the baby suffers no emotional damage at present or in the future. celebs are in the position of everyone wanting and being interested in their (massive scale) “baby announcement” and its facilitated by the magazines. and sometimes there is a fee involved for letting a certain mag do it over another. and sometimes the parents pocket it and sometimes its put to other uses. I see this as pretty ordinary baby culture behavior, just blown up to celebrity proportions, and when that happens, of course there is money involved.

    I think people are being really dramatic when they howl about pimping the babies. how ridiculous.

    im also sure some of these celebs would rather they broker some kind of deal than have a suri cruise-type of “scandal” on their hands where everyone is speculating etc. (which has already begun with the whole assistant rumor) and avoid helecopters circling their house to see if the babies actually exist. esp. brad and angie, who attract so much speculation and ire-it would be worse than a suri situation.

  22. geronimo says:

    Oh God. Should have known this would deteriorate into a ‘saints by Jolie-Pitt comparison’ meltdown.

    It’s not the selling or otherwise, it’s the way it’s presented. Sell the pics, don’t sell the pics, give them away for free, keep the money, spend it all on designer crap, donate some of the money to charity, donate ALL the money to charity – just be honest about it and quit with the ‘I’m better than you because I choose this route’ crap. PR is as much at the heart of NOT selling as it is OF selling. They’re all doing it, one way or the other.

  23. CandyKay says:

    I think it’s pretty funny that people on a gossip site get all high-handed about the sale of any kind of celebrity picture.

    Those pictures would never be taken if it weren’t for the army of gossip consumers – and I’m including myself here.

    Nicole and Keith made the decision that’s right for them about the sale of baby photos, and that’s great. But what they’ve condemned themselves to is a nonstop paparazzi dash for the first photos of Sunday.

    That means the cash involved will go to some truly unsavory and aggressive photographer type. Is that more noble than giving money to any kind of charity?

    Incidentally, once those paparazzi photos appear, I predict that they’ll be featured on this website – and that all of you will click on them. I probably will.

  24. Cory says:

    Zoe, they already earn sinful money as it is. They don’t have to sell their diginity and their children’s privacy. That is why those who don’t are called classy. I will always remember the first picture of Pax meetinghis siblings and sleeping, now that was tacky. For a million or less?

    Of course they are not giving these pictures to enquirer, they are giving them to People magazine which they will be dealing with all the time, I expect them to have goodwill and donate. Inface ask them to make a donation before they get hold of the pictures.

    When the money is given to B& A, they get a tax write off since it is income. Actually my biggest quarrel is using children for PR. Charity or no charity, these children are using for PR. Where did the rest of the money go from Shiloh and Pax and other family photoshoots which they pay them for?

  25. km says:

    Y’all are being sucked in…she is not selling these pictures out of the best interest in her daughter. If it was, there would not be all this hoopla about NOT selling them and how wrong they think it is! If the best interest of thier daughter was first and foremost, they would shut the hell up and NOT acknowledge the situation at all by just taking care of their new baby!

  26. kate says:

    good for them! i am so sick of the celeb-baby circus. who cares? i laughed my ass off when people magazine (i think) recently had the 10 best dressed babies. um…they may be wearing little gucci onesies but they’re still sitting in poo.

  27. Zoe says:

    CandyKay, totally right. The dirt bag photogs will get the money (and we, by extention, will be paying them for their tactics).

    Corey: it’s JP’s fault that the government gives tax incentives to support giving? Should they lobby congress to change that so that, when they give MILLIONS of dollars to a charity, people don’t blame them for getting a tax break?? That’s absurd. Hopefully the rest of that money you refer to was invested somewhere to make more to give. And if it was spent on a jet or something, fine, IT’S THEIRS.

    CandyKay is right, celebs only make the mad attacks on them worse if they don’t just hold still and let them get their damn picture taken. Better to sell the pics, get the money (and CONTROL how it’s spent, AND reap the tax benefits in order to have the option to give MORE) than to let some scummy magazine get it. It just makes sense.

    They should do something good with it, not pretend to take the high, moral road, just because they aren’t offered as much as others are for the pics.

  28. Kaiser/ Hippacrat says:

    My Spidey sense is tingling. Perhaps the reason there will be no Kidman/Urban baby pics is a sinister conspiracy, not Botox-drenched “class”.

  29. Zoe says:

    Kaiser: ha!

    BTW Cory: “Sinful money” ?? ’nuff said.

  30. guest says:

    It is better for sure to give the money to charity than to keep it. However I agree that the cheque should be given at the time by the magazine and the readers should be told what charity it is going to. For example brad and angie have the money given to their own charity. That is OK but then they give it out a year or two later like they just gave a million dollars recently and act like this is a new donation when actualy it is from the money from baby pictures. In this case they also have to give no money out of their own pocket. so they sell their babies and then act like they are also giving money from their own pocket which they are not. If they matched the money from the magazine then that would be something I could admire. also notice that when they sold the pictures of Pax they did not say the money was going to charity. It is now assumed that the money is going but who knows if it really is it is all very vague but makes them look good.

  31. Trace says:

    CandyKay – so true, so true! People need to get off their high, moral horses.

  32. Ron says:

    Say whatever you want abut Nicky Kidman, but she is truly the sweetest and classiest lady in Hollywood. I love the fact that she has taken away the power of tabloids with this. Good for them!

  33. wtf says:

    @ Cory:

    I agree with you 101%! And you put it exactly as it is. Well said!

  34. Danielle says:

    I’ve always liked Nicole Kidman. She might’ve played the victim in the past but she’s always tried to do the right thing. It has to sting a lot that she never gets to see her adopted children anymore, so whatever she wants for Sunday’s future, that’s her business.

    And to the person who said she shouldn’t have even responded to it : What? And leave her fans in wonder? She does have fans that care about her and want to see the baby. So she simply let them know that they’ll see her when Nicole’s ready to give pictures out.

    A lot of you don’t understand that a new mom is highly instinctual and combined with hormones that can make her think anything is a threat to her baby. So I say give it a month or two and unlike most money-driven celebrities, she’ll show the world her pride and joy because it’s her pride and joy..not her meal ticket.

    It could always be worse. She could ask for the money and donate it to the church of Scientology. :D

  35. Diva says:

    I’d rather the parents have the money than the mags or the paps. And if all or some goes to charity, better they get the write off than the mags or the paps, too.

    I like Kidman and Urban, but they’re creating MORE PR for themselves by ANNOUNCING they’re not taking money. This is just as slick and calculated as any other Hollywood couple and their baby!

    The fact is, most of us want to see these babies. We’re curious what they look like and the simple truth is most of us like to look at babies, it’s natural. So, SOMEONE is going to make alot of money off these kids, and if it were my kid, I’d sure prefer it was me, I would be the one who did the work!

  36. Linda says:

    IMO, selling a photo of your infant is PIMPING out the child when the money made from that said photo is NOT set aside in a trust for that child. It’s the kids money – just like when normal parents have baptisms, birthday or graduation parties and kids receive money – most parents I know take that money and put it into a college fund – they don’t take the kids money and donate it or live off of it.

    BTW – I truly think this is the most brilliant PR move Nicole has made in a very long time!

  37. Cory says:

    Where did my post go? Urrrgh……….
    I was just saying, where did the money from the Africa photo shoots go? Kenya and Namibia, they were paid for them. I think charity is an excuse to appear less tacky. It is true that we will not know where the money goes. Besides, no one killed Jayden James when we did not see him for months after Britney failed to pimp him out. Now one will kill the Brangelina kids if we did not see them and we only had a photo of them. Sometimes we don’t see Shiloh for months, no one asks ‘where is Shiloh’?

  38. wtf says:

    @ Cory:

    The schizo B&A “fans” probably eat it, he he

  39. Kaiser/ Hippacrat says:

    Jesus, Haters, give it a rest for one fucking thread. We get it. You hate Angelina. This post is supposed to be about how Nicole is so classy, she realizes that no magazine will pay half of what The Brange is getting for new baby pics. (Awkward…)

    As I said, my Spidey sense is tingling. I suspect pics of Sunday will appear (surprise, surprise) right before Kidman has to promote her film Australia. Oh, wow, Nic. THAT’S CLASSY. Will you haters still think it’s pimping when the pics are released to distract from Kidman’s wooden performance and frozen face?

  40. G. says:

    If I were a celeb with a new baby, I’d make a site for myself and post the pics on there. Then, no magazine gets it and if I earned any money I could do whatever I wanted with it.

  41. marla says:

    @ kaiser/hippacrat
    You are no better than the so called “haters”, why complain about people hating someone, when you are spreading hate yourself? that makes no sense. Take some of your own advice, you are living up to the name of hippacrat. Even though this is my first time posting, i am a lurker and you do alot of bashing yourself. If the angelina threads bother you so much, take a break from the board it might do you some good. Nicole is a beautiful woman on the inside and out.

  42. Mairead says:

    Kaiser, behave! :o

    I know that my initial reaction was “well done” as I find the whole selling children’s photos for huge sums a bit distasteful.

    The point about the magazines donating the money to charities of choice at source is interesting. But tax legislation may not be that simple. If there is tax-breaks for charitable donations then the magazine/paper etc. will be the ones to avail of it (rather most celebs getting that kudos than Rupert Murdoch, the Bailey brothers etc say I).

    OR is it still classed as an income for the celeb and they still can claim the rebate for it?

    But either way, as there is a celeb baby-boom at the moment whatever the celeb decides to do, it keeps their names current and presumably maintains their bargaining power with the studios, which is what matters in the end :wink:

  43. Scott F. says:

    Yeah, kinda noticed that myself. Apparently the way to respond to someone ‘hating’ on your idol is to hate theirs right back. And what’s with all the botox references? If you’re gonna criticize someone for botox, you’d better start taking shots at 3/4ths of Hollywood.

    Lets just be honest, ANY celeb that donates to their own charity is building a tax shelter. Do you realize what their tax bracket is like? They literally give away more to the government than they get to keep. How can one get around that? Take a portion of the cash you’d be losing to taxes anyways, and donate it for write offs so you owe less.

    If you donate cash, it’s like being able to use the money twice. You were going to lose it to taxes anyways, so you donate it for PR purposes, PLUSS it takes away a chunk of your tax debt.

    That’s why I think so few people give a lot of credit for charitable donations. The Brad and Angie types try to make it look like they care, but unfortunately they’ve made it such a central tenant of who they are as people, that their lifestyle no longer meshes with their image.

    Paul Newman on the other hand gave away more than 100 million over the years, and you didn’t hear about him jet-setting around the globe and picking up native children like beanie babies. That’s class. Younger celebs could take a page.

  44. Bodhi says:

    Beanie babies? I was thinking little dolls in native clothes, but both are pretty good! ;)

  45. geronimo says:

    Mairead, if you never receive it as income, it’s never yours to pay taxes on or claim a rebate on. The mag would make the donation in the name of the celebrity.

    Personally, couldn’t care less if the mag also gets kudos or tax breaks for it; the charity gets its money and the celebs can walk away with their heads held high.

  46. Zoe says:

    Scott F.: (sorry, don’t know how to do quotes) “The Brad and Angie types try to make it look like they care, but unfortunately they’ve made it such a central tenant of who they are as people, that their lifestyle no longer meshes with their image.

    Paul Newman on the other hand gave away more than 100 million over the years, and you didn’t hear about him jet-setting around the globe and picking up native children like beanie babies. That’s class. Younger celebs could take a page.”

    This is from

    Q. To which charities does Newman’s Own give the profits?

    Actually, Newman’s Own, Inc. makes no gift to charity, but Paul Newman, who receives all the profits and royalties from Newman’s Own, Inc., distributes all of that personally to the charities of his choice.

    So do you think Paul Newman is just trying to make it look like he cares, but he doesn’t? Isn’t he just using the money twice and making himself look good, to boot?

    AJ “jet-sets” around the world because that’s part of her JOB with the United Nations Refugee Agency. She’s been doing it since 2001 and has met with refugees in over 20 countries. I’d hardly call that glamorous jet-setting.

    As far as collecting “native children like Beanie Babies,” that’s a pretty twisted way to refer to her children.

    Really, they are followed night and day, it’s not like they’re shouting their every move from the rooftops and saying how great they are. They’re raising awareness about important issues. What’s so wrong with that? I just don’t get it… isn’t it so much better than just laying around a pool all day? Or crotch-flashing or whatever? Baffling. I’d give my eye teeth to be in a position to affect the kind of change the JP’s are able to. Why not be supportive?

  47. drm says:

    I have to say I agree with Geronimo, its not a fight to see who is ‘better’. Take the money, don’t take the money, donate, don’t donate, buy yourself another plane/boat/house with the proceeds…WHO CARES??? It their children, their pictures and their decisions…and ultimately their money to do what they please with. It isn’t a ‘sin’ 8O

  48. Scott F. says:

    Oh come on! Her ‘job’ at the UN? Sorry, being a glorified PR person isn’t really a ‘job’. You even say it yourself, her job is to show up somewhere and ‘bring attention’ to a crisis. What good is this doing exactly? I’m pretty sure most Americans knew about Iraq before she went there.

    And the whole deal about, ‘isn’t it better than lounging around a pool all day?’ – no, it’s not. I’ve said it before, there is a reason that I give AJ and BP shit while I don’t pick on wastes of air like Lindsay Lohan – because she doesn’t try to LOOK like she gives a shit.

    I’m sorry, but my respect and admiration is reserved for the middle school teacher down the street with 2 kids, making 30 grand a year, that’s been on 4 missions in the last 5 years. That’s sacrifice.

    Don’t try to act like you’re out to save the world while owning as much land as some of the countries you visit. If you really want to help, then roll up your sleeves and actually help. If your commitment ends when your pen leaves the check, then you obviously don’t care as much as you’d like us to believe.

    If you’re not willing to break your back building a well in some crappy African village, then just drop the application for Sainthood off at the front desk and get back to making movies.

    The next time you hear Jolie, or some other Hollywood type talking about how the refugees they meet ‘have so little’, and if we could all just ‘give a little bit of all the extra things we don’t really NEED’, ask them how many people they could feed if they sold just ONE of their houses.

  49. guest says:

    Here is the deal. Either it is OK and ethical to sell your child’s pictures or it is not. What you do with the money is not important. For example let’s say that we believe that having an affair with a married person is not ethical. Then is it alright to have an affair if you make money off it and give it to charity. No the act is still the same not ethical. Selling baby pictures is just not ethical regardless what is done with the money. You can’t make a wrong right by using the money for a good cause. Also what does that mean for the family. Pax was only important enough for 2 million, Shiloh for 4 million, the twins for what 11 million. What about the next adopted baby – less or more. It sets up stuff in families that will affect them later on. Knox willl always be the most important son in the media and worth the most money. Really sad that the acts of the parents have set this up. Even in best dressed tots Shiloh mentioned not Zhara not mentioned. I really feel sorry for these kids they now have a price on their heads and it is not ethical. If you are a proud and happy parent release a picture for free and donate some money to a charity in their name – the same for each child. They make millions a film I am sure that they could afford some.

  50. Zoe says:

    go to and see how much AJ’s done. It’s not easy work going to all these countries and seeing all those kids being fucked over. Rolling up her sleeves and breaking her back by digging a well in some African village as you say would be a total waste of her assets (so to speak). She is absolutely using her power in the most effective way possible, yes, by drawing our attention to these kids. And by the way, it isn’t exactly lip service (again, so to speak) to ADOPT these children as her own. I’d say that commitment goes beyond her pen leaving a check. That’s about as big a commitment as I can think of.

  51. Kaiser/ Hippacrat says:

    Yes, Zoe, I agree. And good call on the Paul Newman stuff.

    Yeah, Scott, you’re full of shit. All-or-nothing charity is a sketchy ideal, and very few people actually manage the “all” aspect. Do you go on other websites decrying Bill and Melinda Gates for living in a $100 million WA property while doing foundation work?

    And once again a thread about someone else has devolved into a Brange-hatefest. :(

  52. Scott F. says:

    Last comment, I promise. I get that this is totally off topic.

    So, adopting these kids is a huge favor for them and their countries? Let me paint a little picture for you, so maybe you can understand my problem with that statement.

    AJ – “Hey there little guy! Aren’t you a cute one? Now, I know that your country sucks. Your people don’t have enough food, housing, medical supplies, electricity, schools, and water – but we’ve got a solution!”

    Kid – “Oh God! That’s so great! You mean you’re going to bring us enough food to eat?”

    AJ – “Well… no.”

    Kid – “So you’re going to open new schools and hospitals? That’s good, my brothers and sisters get sick very often.”

    AJ – “Not exactly.”

    Kid – “So you’ll be using your millions to hire workers to build new low income housing? We get so very cold and wet here at night. Thank the heavens we were sent you to save our people!”

    AJ – “Well, actually, we decided the most efficient way to help you and your people is to just take you to a country that doesn’t have all these problems to begin with!”

    Kid – “But, what about the millions of children we’re leaving behind? Tomorrow, there’s just going to be another orphan that fills up my bed, and nothing here will have changed! With your money you could have easily fed my entire village for years! You could have given us indoor plumbing, or schools!”

    AJ – “Ummm… yeah… Brad honey, can you have them fire up the jet? This kid is really starting to depress me.”

  53. Megan says:

    Scott F and Cory, thank you for putting several points across. Infact I can say that you have opened my eyes to certain things.

    My view is that Brad and Angelina realised that doing charity took the heat off them and their adultery, so they decided to milk it for its worth. The media is making money off them, so it decides to indulge them and also milk the situation.

    Maybe they care, who knows but the way the do their things makes me cringe sometimes. Like the recent birth and the doctor giving press conferences. That was cheap. Not that I expect a higher standard from Brangelina. Brad was never even interested in charity till recently. They give 100k and they let every one know. These people are not raising awareness, they are raising Brand Brangelina like someone said.

    Good question, ‘What has changed in Namibia since Shiloh was born there? Iraq, Vietnam etc. Angelina has a serious problem and I am afraid those children are going to get hurt in the long run. In the short run, they are lucky they were saved from poverty. But they too deserve privacy and diginity. Why pimp them out at every available opportunity?

    6 children in two years from a woman who said she would never have kids spells disaster. Clearly she switched one addiction to another. Her children are special needs kids and deserve more attention. I am yet to see the changes she has made to the world aside from becoming more famous herself. Brad Pitt’s brains seem to be on leave for the last three years. Angelina is calling the shots. She is also selfish and cares only for herself. What happens when she gets tired of child collection? What then?

    As for seeling pictures for charity, how cheap, use your hard earned money like other celebs and give to charity. At least Paul Newman does not seek sainthood for his charity. Ayerton Senna gave over 280million to charity and people only discovered this after his death.

    Brad and Angelina are by no means the biggest charity donors, yet they carry the charity flag.

  54. daisy424 says:

    I wasn’t going to get in on this one, but my eye is twitching and my fingers are itching.
    WTF?? I think it’s time for a cocktail.

  55. Megan says:

    ….It’s not easy work going to all these countries and seeing all those kids being fucked over….

    Then she has houses all over the world and hops from country to country in privat jets. After seeing all those people who are suffering. Forgive me for being underwhelmed by her kindness.

    On her adoption, how many people would kill to easily adopt a child like she does. Hop into a country, pay and walk out with a child. Again, sorry am underwhelmed.

  56. Zoe says:

    @ Scott F: Funny, but, I think a bit misguided and facile.

    1. it’s not her job or anyone else’s to “save” entire countries or villages for that matter.

    2. It’s far more complicated than that to give money overseas. Ever hear of military juntas? The proper channels are important so that the money doesn’t just get ripped off and used for weapons which unfortuanately will probably be aiming at our military.

    Her job is to go to the countries personally, yes, to learn about them first hand, but mainly to raise awareness about the issues (sorry, but if your school teacher went, no one would care). Then take that photo op and all her power as a hunted celeb to various government agencies to try to get REAL solid funding and infrastructure set up through the proper legal channels in the actual country, so that the money can go toward sustainable growth.

    Whatever, at least she and other celebs are TRYING to do something. That’s my real point. I’ve never heard her or Ben Afflek or Matt Damon or whoever be anything but humble about their involvement in this kind of stuff. Why the hating? I’m outie.

  57. Megan says:

    Wow, Scott, F, that is so true, adopting one child and spending millions on them and leaving the others to suffer does not really make sense. OK I am starting to see many things here.

    People also forget that thousands of couples want to adopt but never get a chance so in my view, Brangelina adopting is more advantage to them than Zahara, Pax or Mad. PR wise too. Besides, if I was given 2 million for every child I adopted, and it was just as easy I would adopt as many as I can.

  58. Mairead says:

    I could have sworn that it was Nicole Kidman and yer man’s phisogs (faces) at the top of the page.

    Lord, my glasses prescription needs changing :roll:

    (geronimo, the reason I asked is that say if one person transfers a property into the name of another, with no money changing hands, it’s still treated as potential income for the original owner and potentially they may need to pay tax on it. I was wondering if something similar happened with donations?)

    Scott, I agree with your admiration for those who dedicate themselves quietly to public service. But as regards to your disdain for those who contribute financially but don’t necessarily do the physical work themselves, to be honest, I think you’re being unfair.

    I’m taking it personally because of my job, but I refuse to feel bad about helping people improve their environment by giving advice, providing information or where possible distributing grant aid just because I’m not out doing the physical work myself.

    On a micro-level everyone donates their time or money basically because it makes themselves feel a bit better, because it’s the right thing to do. To say that because one person picks up the hammer shouldn’t entitle them to feel more self-important than those who donated the money to buy the hammer.

  59. Leah says:

    Wow… that’s refreshing to hear. I think that the reason so many stars are getting pregnant is because of the money they make from it – tabloids, photo ops, “baby debut photos” – and it’s disgusting.

    Nice to know one couple isn’t into it.

  60. geronimo says:

    Mairead, no, no asset gain.

  61. Megan says:

    In the UK atleast, when you donate money, you extend your basic rate band by the gross amount of the donation. The basic rate is taxed at 22% and the higher rate is 30% so if you donate 780k, the gross amount is 1m so your income is taxed at 22% instead of 30% saving you some money. If some one donates on your behalf, you don’t get any deduction unless it is your employer.

  62. countrybabe says:

    Good for Nic. I always knew she had class.
    Geromino are you talking about your beloved Angelina? After all she even sold Pax’s photos and she adopted him. In fact it was the first thing she did.

    I agree with Cory.
    Why don’t Ange and Brad give the whole amount to charity. At the end of the day aren’t they just taking the money as well adding it to their salaries, then giving what they want to charity 10 percent etc. So they can say they gave part of their salary to charity for that year.

    Megan you are right as well. Did you notice that the last time Brad Pitt gave then money to Iraq he said he hopes this will encourage others to give. That signals to me that 1.He’s not going to do it forever.
    2. They want the credit for starting it but want other people to fit the bill money.

  63. Idna says:

    Vote Obama 08!
    Anyway this bitch is pretty.NIcole kidman always looks flawless.

  64. Linda says:

    Another thought here – isn’t it extremely hypocritical of these parents who do pimp out their kids images to these magazines for millions of dollars to then scream at the paps when they take pictures of them.

    After all, if you want privacy for your children, then you wouldn’t be selling their photos to the highest bidder.

  65. Diva says:

    So, I wrote a pretty benign and harmless post more than 5 hours ago and it’s awaiting moderation…

    What’s up with that?

  66. Anastasia says:

    KandyKay hit the nail on the head. Nothing to add to that.

    And Kaiser, you’re scaring me. Get out of my head! LOL.

    I think it would look bad and really awkward, considering the babies were born at about the same time, if Nicole’s baby fetched way way less than Angelina’s babies (and she would fetch much less). So of course they’re going to play it as “yeah, we’re just too damn CLASSY to do this!” Suuuure. And I’m the Queen of England.

    They’ll just wait until the kid is older and a bit more photogenic and the A&B babies have had their moment in the sun to sell the pics. Trust.

    And again, KandyKay’s post should be required reading in this thread. Great points.

  67. janepitt says:

    Scots comments were so dead on that all I can say is perfect responses. So many people are blinded by Brad and Angelina’s staged charity donations that always coincide with the opening of a film. What amazes me is that they seem to forget that Angelina was born a child a privilege and has always lived that way. Her behavior is typical of someone who feels entitled.

  68. a says:

    Thank you for your three posts, Scott F.

    You spoke out clearly about what issues I have with the charity brand of Brangelina. I am not their movie fans and am not concerned about their triangle affairs.

    Working in media, I do have big problems with Angelina’s “Tomb Raider approach” to save the world. I guess it’s because I am NOT an American but living in the parts of world she claims she is saving. And I am always surprised by how the American society could admire her because she picked children from their native society.

    Last time when I was in cinema watching “Sex and the City”, I looked Charlotte’s Chinese daughter, I thought to myself, Oh my god, it’s a trend in Hollywood now to adopt foreign kids like picking handbags.

    The debate with Brangelina’s charity is actually more sophiscated than their fans could imagine.

    People always said at least they are doing something good. Well, sometimes, good intention could bring even bigger harm. Check out the French revolution and the Chinese cultural revolution.

    To save one individual kid is great. But rich people who want to help need to understand to reserve a society and its culture for more kids to grow up and live in is even more significant.

    Anyway, I appreciate your posts very much. Thanks.

  69. Sandra says:

    I have read and seen tons of celeb interviews. They talk about the atrocities, the places they have been, thru media outlets we hear about their donations. I wish the celebs would give website adresses for more info or no.s to call to donate in their tons of press. I am sure some have at some time- but not enough that i remember it. You just talking about it and going places is not helping me know what to do individually. If i really wanted to affect change- i would mention that info every single chance i got. Photo op’s with congress doesn’t give me a clue.

  70. Zoe says:

    my comments are also “still awaiting moderation” :?:

  71. Kate says:

    Nicole is a totall class act. I love her.

    As for “donating the money”…

    You can’t really know if people are actually gave the money to charity, or did they keep some of that to themselves.

    Moreover, perhaps some of them say nothing of what they would do with the money, so when they donate it it’s REALLY giving and not another publicity maneuver.

    I do think some of them are begining to treat children as addition props for their career and attaining the higest price goes more to their sense of competition and ego, rather than actually understanding they treat the children as another chip of self promotion.

    Yes, I am referring to Brangelina, but others do it as well.

  72. Cory says:

    From Media outlets, Nicole was offered 5 million, Brangelina 11million for twins. Nicole did not bid and sell to the highest bidder to give to charity, she humbly declined. I am not her biggest fan but she doesn’t seem the kind who would start competing with Brangelina for prices of her child’s pictures.

    Dare I hope that people are going to start seeing through Brangelina and their fakeness?

  73. geronimo says:

    Countrybabe. Can you read? I was one of the few people on here who actually WASN’T talking about Jolie in any of my posts. If anything, I was condeming the whole business of selling baby pics, regardless of whether or not the celebs get paid for them, or whether or not the proceeds go to charity.

    Unlike you, I can actually manage to comment without the need to hate on ANYONE. But you’re so fucking fixated on AJ that any objectivity went out the window a long time ago.

    This thread is just pitiful.

  74. daisyfly says:

    It’s funny how stories, no matter how benign, always lead back to Jolie-Pittdom. Bah.

    First thing’s first. Kudos to Nicole for not jumping on the Coverpage baby boom. Good luck with the “the baby looks like an alien/looks like Lenny Kravitz and that’s why you haven’t seen it” rumors that will now spark because of it.

    To those that donate their money to charity, regardless of what anyone says, a hundred dollars, a thousand dollars, a MILLION dollars donated to a charity in need is a Godsend. $8 million dollars to one’s own foundation, plus money and time donated elsewhere is nothing to laugh at, or mock. How many of us have gone to Pakistan or Iraq of our own volition and spent time there, leaving behind our own children, to fight for causes? Like or loathe Angelina, she does what so many other celebrities tell US to do, but refuse to do it themselves. Getting your hands dirty, while “signing checks” is far more admirable than simply “signing checks”, and a hell of a lot more admirable than criticizing it while sitting at a desk in a comfy chair.

  75. janepitt says:

    Angelina getting her hands dirty is a joke.

  76. Zoe says:

    @ Daisyfly: “To those that donate their money to charity, regardless of what anyone says, a hundred dollars, a thousand dollars, a MILLION dollars donated to a charity in need is a Godsend. $8 million dollars to one’s own foundation, plus money and time donated elsewhere is nothing to laugh at, or mock. How many of us have gone to Pakistan or Iraq of our own volition and spent time there, leaving behind our own children, to fight for causes? Like or loathe Angelina, she does what so many other celebrities tell US to do, but refuse to do it themselves. Getting your hands dirty, while “signing checks” is far more admirable than simply “signing checks”, and a hell of a lot more admirable than criticizing it while sitting at a desk in a comfy chair.”

    Exactly! So well put. How could anyone argue with that?? I don’t get the hate here.

  77. Kaiser/ Hippacrat says:

    From Lainey Gossip:

    “A big deal was made the other day that Granny Freeze Nicole Kidman would not be selling her baby photos. So was it an honourable decision – that somehow the photo-opp loving Gran would suddenly be picture shy? Or was it more case of no one caring?

    Word is, Granny wanted no less than $3 million, refusing to suffer the indignity of being paid less than lesser celebrities. Unfortunately, the market value for Granny’s baby pics more or less matches her current box office appeal – which, as you know, is sh*t. Rumour has it, no publication was willing to pay her asking price… so instead, Gran had it “leaked” that she eschewed the role of parental pimp.


    The Freeze knows what we say. And more than anything she will want to “prove” that she had a Sunday. Just because she won’t get paid for them, doesn’t mean they won’t exist. There will be candids. And soon.”

  78. bri says:

    you are my hero…I’ve been saying the exact same thing about A & B for years!!! All this “adopting” business is so self-serving it’s sickening!!! Instead of taking that 1 impoverished child away from everything he/she knows and loves, why not make all their lives better. Build a school, donate a hospital, buy vaccines…do what needs to be done to help heal people. If B or A donated their incomes from just one movie, they could easily improve the lives of thousands. I might have more respect for them. As for Nicole and Keith, I think they’re playing a dangerous game, but truth be told, I really don’t care about what their kids look like…I have my own to think of.

  79. Megan says:

    Kaiser hippacrat, are you the administrator of Lainey gossip, you quote it a lot and it is also pro Brangelina. What has Nicole done to you to hate on her? She simply was not cheap like your idol and none of those fabricted stories can change that. Neither will calling her names.

  80. Megan says:

    Celebitchy, you have not reported the demonstrations against Brangelina in Nice. Residents even stormed the hospital because of the mayor’s star struck actions

  81. Celebitchy says:

    Megan this is the first I’ve heard of the demonstrations in Nice. Today is a crazy busy gossip day and I have not heard that story yet. I will look for it, but comment with a link next time if you want me to cover something.

  82. daisy424 says:

    Ahem, Megan, I goodled what you claim, here is what I found;
    Nice, FRANCE, Mon 14 Jul 2008, 00:00 GMT
    An angry demonstration appeared outside the hospital in Nice, France where Angelina Jolie gave birth this week to twins. The demonstration was regarding a stabbing victim, who’s body had not been released to the muslim family, who wanted a traditional funeral. The body is being kept at a near by medical centre.

    Please girl, where did you get your info??

  83. Elizabeth says:

    Maybe they rejected offers because the kid is ugly.

    Just saying…

  84. Lizzie says:

    That’s funny how people just cannot stop talking about Brad and Angie’s babies. Did you’ll forget this pole is for Nicole and Keith. Maybe that’s why they wouldn’t see their babies pictures. Not too many interested.

  85. COLLIN says:


  86. voice says:

    Who care !the poor need money. Whoever giving money. I think they are angels. who is not. They are selfish like Nicole Kidman

  87. nieman says:


  88. HENRY says: