In nearly every interview over the past six months, Katie Holmes has been talking up her role as Jackie Kennedy in The History Channel miniseries The Kennedys. It was going to be The History Channel’s first big miniseries project, and they spent a lot of money on the production, and they really got some good cast members – Greg Kinnear as Jack, Barry Pepper as Bobby, Tom Wilkinson as Joe Sr. Anyway, the whole thing has been cancelled by The History Channel. It’s been filmed, but THC just announced on Friday that it will not air… on their channel. There is a possibility that they will end up selling the miniseries to another channel.

Which brings me to a question… can we blame Katie Holmes for this? The talking out of the side of her mouth is so not Jackie. Neither is Katie’s general Joey Potter acting style. BUT… I just watched the trailer for the miniseries, and while Katie doesn’t really look good, she doesn’t look devastatingly bad either. Of course, it also seems like whoever cut the trailer was trying to avoid showing many scenes where Katie had to “act”. Also, what’s with the funky accent work all around?

Here’s more about the cancellation:

Ambitious miniseries was set to air this spring; stars Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, and producer Joel Surnow were told today of cancellation. In a surprise move, A&E Television Networks has canceled plans to broadcast The Kennedys, the ambitious and much-anticipated miniseries about the American political family that was set to air this spring on the History channel.

“Upon completion of the production of The Kennedys, History has decided not to air the 8-part miniseries on the network,” a rep for the network tells The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. “While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.”

The multi-million dollar project—History and Lifetime president and general manager Nancy Dubuc’s first scripted miniseries at the network and its most expensive program ever—has been embroiled in controversy since it was announced in December 2009. Developed by Joel Surnow, the conservative co-creator of 24, along with production companies Asylum Entertainment and Muse Entertainment and writer Stephen Kronish, the project drew fire from the political left and some Kennedy historians. Even before cameras rolled, a front-page New York Times story last February included a sharp attack from former John F. Kennedy adviser Theodore Sorensen, who called an early version of the script “vindictive” and “malicious.”

History and parent A&E said at the time that the script had been revised and that the final version had been vetted by experts. Indeed, the script used in production had passed muster with History historians for accuracy. Despite the controversy, History was able to recruit a big-ticket cast to the project, announcing in April that Greg Kinnear (John F. Kennedy), Katie Holmes (Jackie Kennedy), Barry Pepper (Robert F. Kennedy) and Tom Wilkinson (Joe Kennedy) would co-star. The actors and CAA, which reps both Kinnear and Holmes, were told this afternoon of the cancellation. Surnow also was told today.

No advertisers had registered complaints or concerns with the miniseries, confirms an A&E spokesperson, but the content was not considered historically accurate enough for the network’s rigorous standards. So an air date, which had not been announced but was planned for spring, was scrapped.

“We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series, but ultimately deem this as the right programming decision for our network,” a rep tells THR in the statement.

The miniseries is still scheduled to air in Canada on March 6, and will still be broadcast internationally. But the U.S. cancellation no doubt is a disappointment in an otherwise blockbuster era for AETN president and CEO Abbe Raven and Dubuc, both of whom championed the project. AETN, owned by a consortium comprised of Hearst, Disney-ABC Television Group and NBC Universal, enjoyed its most-watched year ever in 2010, with its six Nielsen-rated networks posting combined year-over-year viewership growth in each quarter. In addition, History is now a Top 5 cable network in all demos, fueled by hit original series such as Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers.

The Kennedys cancellation somewhat mirrors the fate of The Reagans, a miniseries that was to air on CBS in 2003 but was scrapped when advertisers threatened to boycott after conservatives raised concerns about depictions of former president Ronald Reagan being insensitive to AIDS victims. The Reagans later aired on Showtime.

THR has learned that producers of The Kennedys might make a similar move to bring the miniseries to a pay cable channel. UPDATE: A rep for Showtime says nobody at the network has yet seen The Kennedys. In addition, producers Asylum and Muse have issued a statement: “Although we regret this does not fit into the History Channel’s plans, we are confident that television viewers in the United States will join viewers from around the world in having an opportunity to watch this series in the near future.”

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

I wonder how much money this miniseries is going to end up losing in the long run? Do you think they’re just going to hope they end up breaking even? The History Channel spent big money to make this, and something must really suck if they’re pulling it.

Photos courtesy of WENN. Poster courtesy of Dlisted.

I am by no means a fan of Jennifer Aniston as a celebrity or a movie star, but I do have some goodwill left for Jennifer Aniston The Television Star. I’m one of those people who always hopes that Aniston will stop with the boring, repetitive and tragic romantic comedies and find a really great, well-written television show. The quality of television in general is constantly debated, but personally, I think we’re living in a pretty great television moment. The networks are still finding their footing, but they’ve managed to put out some really solid sitcoms and one-hour dramas over the past few years. And don’t even get me started on all of the great shows on cable television and specialty cable, like HBO and Showtime. There are so many talented and creative people working in television these days, and it’s become the breeding ground for actresses of a certain age (above 40) to shine.

So, anyway, Aniston was on last night’s Cougar Town season debut episode. I watched Modern Family before Cougar Town, and then I switched over to watch the last half of L&O: SVU, and then switched between that and a rerun of NCIS on USA. Because I’m awesome. Anyway, it looks like there were millions of people who did exactly what I did – waited for Modern Family, enjoyed it, then switched over to something that didn’t involve middle-aged cat faces desperate to make us laugh at their dumb foibles. According to the just-released ratings, 12.6 million tuned in for Modern Family, and then more than 4 million left ABC for the premiere of Cougar Town. Cougar Town finished third in its timeslot. Yikes.

So, is this a case of “Aniston fails again”? Her last four films have underperformed or out-right bombed at the box office, and now she’s even sinking television shows? Well, she maybe deserves some of the blame, because ABC did feature Aniston very prominently in the commercials, and the show leaked a lot of “behind the scenes” details about her appearance to the tabloids. They manufactured a lot of buzz for her appearance, and it’s not like people didn’t tune in because they didn’t know she was going to be on. However, I think Cougar Town lost viewers because the show sucks. I know some of you like it, and that’s your prerogative, but when I catch a few minutes here and there, I’m always left wincing. Wincing at the crappy acting, wincing at the sh-tty writing, wincing at the frozen, puffy, waxy faces. The show is a train wreck, and even stunt-casting isn’t going to save it.

Us Weekly put up this clip of Aniston’s appearance. YIKES. The cat-faces must stop.

When news came out yesterday about Michael Lohan’s impending nuptials to Kate Major, Lindsay Lohan responded with a chic: “I’m gonna vomit…I so didn’t need that info … Yuck!” Now PopEater has an interesting little backstory on Lindsay’s past relationship with her father’s soon-to-be bride: apparently, Kate Major used to be employed by Lindsay. For real. According to PopEater‘s gossip guy, “Kate first met Michael Lohan because she used to be Lindsay’s assistant! I know first-hand that Kate was once a key member of Lindsay’s entourage, serving (either paid or unpaid) as a driver, confidant, an all-purpose factotum.” One of PopEater’s sources adds: “Kate was really close with Lindsay when she was in rehab at Cirque Lodge in 2007. Kate drove her back to Los Angeles from Utah and was the one that brought in the first-person post-rehab interview for In Touch. They hung out and partied a lot together after that. But Lindsay stopped returning her calls when Kate started getting closer to Michael Lohan. Kate used to go out to the Hamptons and hit events with him and his girlfriend [later reputed fiancee] Erin Muller. She had a picture on her desk of the three of them at a white party out there. It’s also weird that Kate’s saying Michael went down [to Florida over Easter] to meet her father because she used to say Michael knew her dad from college or something.” Ew. That is gross.

Meanwhile, in other Lindsay news, her BBC documentary was not a hit with British audiences. The Guardian reported that the child trafficking documentary got 224,000 viewers, or a 0.9% share. Basically, people would rather watch A League of Their Own and some random Gene Kelly movie rather than sit through Professor Crackhead’s musings on trafficking. However, that BBC project is the gift that keeps on giving, because commenter Susette put up this fascinating link in yesterday’s Lohan post – it’s a column/article from The Guardian about just exactly how cracked-out Lindsay was while shooting the BBC documentary. Full piece is here, and here are some of the worst/best highlights (believe me, it‘s worth it):

[The] production company’s plan was for Lohan and the crew to be in situ for a planned raid by Indian authorities (with the aid of a charity), ensuring she was there for the rescue of a number of children who had been trafficked and placed into forced labour. After protracted negotiations, Lindsay agreed to do this, so first class flights were booked for her, her bodyguard, and her assistant. Meanwhile, the crew travelled to India and waited for Lohan to make her entrance. At this point, according to a BBC source, the hokey cokey one might have regarded as inevitable started, and Lindsay began backtracking on her commitment, causing flights to be repeatedly cancelled and rebooked as she kept producers in the dark as to her plans. Alas, despite myriad ignored messages, she failed to pitch up in India before the raid, which went ahead without her in a way that, say, a Roberto Cavalli fashion show would never dare to.

It was at this point that Lindsay took to Twitter, in tweets later described by the BBC as “misinterpreted”. “Over 40 children saved so far,” read one of these communiqués. “Within one day’s work … this is what life is about … Doing THIS is a life worth living! Oh, and I’m talking about being in India.”

Mm. Intriguingly, Lindsay was not even in India at the time these messages were tweeted – a fact on which BBC3 declined to comment, saying only that police raids are not scheduled. On the contrary, say local police and magistrates – the raids had been planned for two months and Lindsay’s implication that she was there was somewhat resented. However, Lindsay finally agreed to travel to India, arriving the day after the raid.

According to a BBC source, the cost for acquiring three last minute first class travel tickets was by now in excess of £30,000, though the BBC press office say this figure isn’t correct and that anyway the film was delivered by the production company at a fixed cost. They do not dispute the fact that they knowingly allowed her to travel without a work visa, a decision which might now see Lohan blacklisted from travelling to India.

Still, once in India, by all accounts Lindsay behaved obligingly, though whether you regard her spending no more than two and a half days in India justifies the title “Lindsay Lohan’s Indian Journey” is a matter for you. Thereafter, though, things began to fall apart once more.

Realising a serious treatment of the subject would require Lindsay engaging with a serious authority on child trafficking, the producers worked to set up a filmed interview between her and Unicef in New York. Despite some rumoured misgivings about the choice of celebrity advocate, Unicef agreed. Lindsay having also agreed, a camera crew was duly dispatched to New York … and once again, the hokey cokey started. Indeed, despite repeated entreaties to Lindsay to reconfirm she would be honouring her obligations on this issue about which she professes such passion, Lindsay’s studied vagueness continued right up to the minute of the meeting, whereupon Unicef confirm to me that madam stood the lot of them up.

Why? Well, the magic of the internet allows us to establish that Lindsay was disporting herself at Milan fashion week at the time. In the end, hasty arrangements were made for her to ask the questions of Save the Children in London, and in the documentary a partied-out looking Lindsay can be seen doing that before suggesting people should help via “Twitter? There’s Twitter …”

[From The Guardian]

The Guardian person goes on to basically slam every person even vaguely connected for the monstrosity of the documentary, and points out that it wouldn’t have been SO bad if it was just some other know-nothing starlet. But because it’s Lindsay, a noted “flake” and druggie, the BBC should have known what they were getting into, and people should be fired and we should all be ashamed. But before the conclusion, The Guardian offers a review of the documentary by someone named Amelia. Amelia describes a pivotal scene that sums up The Problem With Blohan:

A shaven-haired girl is explaining that her parents would beat her unless she went out every day to earn money, but it’s hard to concentrate on what she’s saying because what’s happening behind her is so distracting. Lohan is rubbing her already-red eyes, spreading mascara around the place, twitching her eyebrows.

“Um. Um. Oh my God,” the film star says, her lips wobbling uncontrollably. A disembodied hand pops into the screen to pass her a tissue. “Um. How did she feel? Um. How did they treat her?” she asks, beginning to sob.

The small girl turns to look at her in bemusement. The translator gives an embarrassed laugh and says to the girl: “She’s crying for you. Why don’t you comfort her?” So we watch as the puzzled child dutifully strokes Lohan’s long mane of golden hair.

“Oh my God! Oh my God!” Lohan says, with a husky gasp. “Sorry, I’m having a moment.” Mercifully, the camera is then switched off.

One could write thousands of words about the matter, but in that single vignette is distilled everything that is arse-about-tit about this level of celebrity-led documentary.

That about sums it up for me too. Ridiculous.

Lindsay in LA on April 6, 2010. Credit: Pacific Coast News.

Now for the most horrible dresses that should have never seen the red carpet, ever. It wasn’t even halfway through the E! red carpet show when I realized how horrible it was. Some of these women are so beautiful, and it’s totally pathetic how epic the FAIL was. Like Zoe Saldana up there. She’s styled by Rachel Zoe, and both of them should have known better. I don’t care who designed it. You don’t show up at the damn Oscars with bathmats sewn to the bottom of your Oscar dress. Period. The end.

I don’t even know why Nicole Richie was there. But I know she looked like a 50-something Connecticut housewife hostessing a key party in 1975. Ridiculous.

This dress is so ridiculously fug, I don’t have words. And I think Diane Kruger is a gorgeous woman with the most delicate, fragile beauty. Why would she do this to herself?

Ah, Rose Boobs Theron. That is who she is now. Never Charlize. Always Rose Boobs. This dress is in such bad taste!

Amanda Seyfried is a little mini-Uma Thurman, but this washed-out, bad-bodiced dress does nothing for her or for me. Amanda has boobs! Why would dress like you’re flat-chested? And why the horrible pale color if you’re already so pale? Eh.

Can I just do “no comment” with Miley Cyrus and her mom Trish? This sh-t is horrible. I know people like this exist, but why would you invite it to the Oscars? Between Miley hunching over the entire time, to her talking like she was chomping down on her cud, to Trish’s whole “Real Housewives of the Trailer Park” look, the Academy needs to stop inviting these people.

I hated Vera Farmiga’s dress with a passion. It looked so, so cheap. It looked like the worst poly-blend fabric (in a cheap color) that was chemically stiffened to make her look fat. It’s Marchesa. The name says it all: cheap knock-off.

Now, I didn’t hate Maggie Gyllenhaal’s dress, per se. I might have liked it, or appreciated how unusual and interesting it was if she wore it to a premiere rather than the Oscars. But it wasn’t the right dress for the occasion, and it’s not “pretty”. Which is fine, not every dress has to be princess-style. But the fabric seemed off, didn’t it? Like it was shower curtain fabric.

Suzy Amis (wife of James Cameron) was fighting for worst dressed of the evening. I’m not going to comment on how deathly she looks, because I really do worry that she’s actually sick, but beyond that, the dress is just terrible.

Now, I didn’t really have a hate-on for Carey Mulligan’s dress. The top part was lovely. But I didn’t like the mullet-style for a formal Oscar gown (short in front, long in back). I’m sure it’s high fashion, but to me, it seemed off.

Oh, Sarah Jessica Parker, you crazy bitch. I get the feeling that SJP will literally wear anything if it has the “Chanel” label inside. You could hand her a dress made out of towels, chicken wire and bedazzles, and if it said “Chanel”, SJP would think it was high-fashion. Needless to say, this was a horrible look. She looked dumpy and pregnant, her hair was a train wreck and she seemed drunk and desperate.

Haha, let’s enjoy Elisabetta Canalis while we can, because she’s not going to around for much longer. The dress was meh – it would have been prettier on a different woman (like, say, Zoe Saldana), and it would have been nice if was wrinkled to hell by the time she got on the red carpet. But my favorite part of this look is the f-cking attitude. Did everyone notice how Canalis pouted and looked pissy whenever no one was paying attention to her? She really looked like a f-cking brat. Also, Clooney was badly styled, and he looked drunk, tired and old. Probably from putting up with Canalis’ bullsh-t.

I didn’t really hate Anna Kendrick’s dress either, it was kind of lovely, especially for such a young girl. But the color was off, I thought. It washed her out and she just seemed to fade away.

I love Faith Hill, but I hated this dress. It looked so age-inappropriate and situation-inappropriate to me. Black lace? Really?

CB liked Kate Winslet’s dress, but I thought it looked so cheap. The corset was a different color from the skirt, and both colors sucked. What was with the weird puckering or pleats around the waist? Meh. But her hair and makeup look good.

Seriously, wasn’t this one of the worst red carpets ever?

I don’t think Jon Gosselin is capable of being by himself for more than five seconds. The father of 8 has already found a replacement for girlfriend Hailey Glassman – his one time “soul mate.” What’s weird, though, is that Hailey, who was the other woman in the high-profile Gosselin divorce, now has the nerve to act like a victim/woman scorned. Seriously – she was having an affair with a married dude. What did she think was going to happen – they would ride off into the sunset in their matching Ed Hardy activewear?

Is Jon Gosselin once again finding solace in the arms of a new woman?

According to Internet reports, Gosselin is already dating again – having hooked up with a woman named Morgan he met while skiing in Utah. “He’s a guy who doesn’t like to be alone,” says a source close to the father of eight. “He has a girl that he likes, but they have been taking things very slow.”

Also moving slowly? Gosselin’s plans to settle his differences with ex-girlfriend Hailey Glassman, who allegedly trashed the Manhattan apartment they shared, according to his attorney Mark Jay Heller, and whom Jon is accused of shoving during a pre-holiday argument.

No Meeting, So Far
Despite reports to the contrary, Glassman and Gosselin have yet to meet, says her lawyer Stephanie Ovadia. Perhaps that’s because considerable bitterness remains between them.

Says the Gosselin source about Glassman: “Jon feels much better without her. He felt that she was sucking him for all his money and not being faithful to him. He is happy to be done with her.”

For her part, Glassman is attempting to take the high road, having recently moved to a new apartment in New York’s Murray Hill neighborhood. “I’ve been through way too much for a 22-year-old, and the amount of stress and pain I’ve endured is unfathomable,” Glassman tells PEOPLE.

“[But] in life, you need to be an optimist, I’ve learned. You have two options: You can either be sad and depressed and pity yourself, or be the best you can be. Like Robert Frost says, ‘If I could sum up life in three words, it would be ‘Life Goes On.’ ” (The poet’s exact words were, “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: It goes on.”)

Still, Glassman can’t resist taking one more potshot at the fallen reality star: “Congrats to the new girlfriend and I wish [Jon] luck with his move to Utah. I mean, I’m not sure if he remembers he has eight children back in Pennsylvania.”

And in what might be a reference to her former boyfriend’s now-canceled TLC series, Glassman adds: “Remember Jon – those eight little people you hung around with while you were running your legalized sweat shop?”

Says the Gosselin source: “He will always love his kids. His kids are what keep him going.”

[From People]

I think it’s rich that Hailey is throwing Jon’s children in his face. I’m sure his kids were the first thing on her mind when she starting fooling around with their father, while he was still married and living with their mom. Whatever. They’re both gross, class-less a**holes. As much as Jon makes me want to take a “Silkwood” shower, Hailey is 10 times worse. The only good thing about Jon getting a new piece is that the old one, hopefully, will drop off the radar forever. As for Jon, what a difference a couple of months makes. Not long ago he was proclaiming his undying love for Hailey, and her family, and even said he was going to convert to Judaism. I don’t think the man is capable of telling the truth about anything. How he managed to find a woman dumb enough to go out with him after all this is beyond me. Maybe they don’t have TVs or magazines or the Internet in Utah.

Jon Gosselin in LA on November 12, 2009. Hailey Glassman on December 16, 2009 in NY. Credit: INFphoto.com

Though I’ve grown to have a vague dislike of both Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker as people, I still think they’re gifted actors. SJP does her thing with the Sex and the City films and that’s her niche, while Matthew Broderick seems content to be a film and television character actor and a respected stage actor. I sometimes forget just how good Broderick is – but I love him in some of his smaller roles, like his guest appearance on 30 Rock a few years ago, and his supporting performance in You Can Count On Me. So, given that, this latest news is disappointing.

According to Gatecrasher, Broderick has been sucking hard during the previews for his latest play, The Starry Messenger. Apparently, Broderick was completely unprepared during the previews, and he repeatedly flubbed his lines and stopped the play. Paying audience members left the play in droves, and the opening has even been pushed back:

Theatergoers must have wanted to “shoot the messenger” during the first preview of Matthew Broderick’s new play on Monday night. The Broadway veteran put on such a poor showing at “The Starry Messenger” that some fans left in a huff.

Producers may have taken notice of the subpar performance, too: they announced yesterday afternoon that the show will officially open a week later than planned, on Nov. 23.

The reason for all the fuss? Broderick clearly wasn’t prepared for the preview, and had to stop the play to ask for his lines numerous times during the show. And not that anyone’s counting, but, well, okay, they are: An audience member confirms Broderick flubbed 10 times in the first act alone.

A theater insider tells us that Broderick – who has starred in “The Producers,” “The Foreigner” and “The Philanthropist,” among others – is notorious for studying scripts late in the game. But fans weren’t very forgiving after Monday’s performance. Several members of the audience took to talkinbroadway.com, a theater Web site used by Broadway regulars, to air their grievances.

“Broderick should be fined for this sort of thing,” one angry user wrote. “The theater, the producers, Kenneth Lonergan (the director) and Broderick should be ashamed to have let an audience in for this.”

Another Broadway fan who hadn’t even seen the show chimed in: “For God’s sake, they are charging good money for this, and it is indeed unconscionable to use these as rehearsals. I only hope they do cancel this week of performances because I, too, have a ticket, and I don’t want to endure this either.”

Perhaps audience members were being a bit harsh. It was just a preview, after all, and a source close to the show says that a recent casting change may have led to the play’s rocky start. Merwin Goldsmith replaced Jonathan Hadary just this past weekend.

But our insider says Broderick’s flubs were more than just a few butchered lines. “It was an overall mess,” said the source. “He kept apologizing under his breath after he forgot a line, and everyone in the audience started to feel awkward.”

It’s a bad start for Broderick and his “Starry Messenger” run, which comes right after some unkind critical notices for Sarah Jessica Parker’s hubby. Several outlets panned his performance in “The Philanthropist,” which ran from April to June. While one review commented on his “dullness,” others even got a little personal, dissing the sideburns he grew for the part.

[From Gatecrasher]

Ugh… if I paid for a ticket, I would be totally pissed too. What’s up with Broderick? Too many late nights staying up with the new twins? We know that barely two months after their twin girls were brought home, SJP went to work on SATC 2, working hellish hours as both the star and producer. While some suspect that the nannies are pretty much raising those babies now, some thought that Matthew was probably picking up the baby-bonding slack. But he signed on for this play knowing that SJP was still at work on SATC. I’m going to go relatively easy on Matthew and say that his lack of professionalism is probably due to the new babies and he’s simply exhausted.

I’ll admit, I stopped following the Gosselin drama a couple of weeks ago. I find both Kate and Jon to be abhorrent people, and the whole drama with Jon and his latest girlfriend(s) was just sad and depressing. I just read CB’s summary from earlier today about this Star Magazine reporter, Kate Major, and her claims that she was “dating” Jon. As it turns out, Kate Major’s a liar, and now she’s unemployed. Star has a little one sentence update on their site saying this: “Star Senior reporter Kate Major resigned this morning, Thursday, July 23, citing a conflict of interest between her reporting duties for the magazine and her relationship with Jon Gosselin.” Except that Jon’s friends have run to Radar to claim that he’s “distraught” with the notion that he and Kate Major are dating, and that “she just wanted to put herself in the spotlight.” Dur. What did Jon think, that he just had young girls flinging themselves onto his Ed Hardy jock?

Jon Gosselin says he never had a romantic relationship with Star magazine reporter Kate Major and was tricked by her, sources closes to the situation told RadarOnlne.com exclusively.

Major suddenly resigned from Starmagazine Thursday.

Major, 26, announced to the world Wednesday night that she was romantically involved with the 32-year-old Jon & Kate Plus 8 dad. She was at dinner with him last night with Michael Lohan and two couples and Major and Jon had been to dinner Saturday night in New York City.

Meanwhile sources close to the situation told RadarOnline.com that Jon is distraught over Major’s claims that they were romantically involved.

He told a close pal that despite her public proclamation, he never slept with her and never was romantically involved with her.

“Oh my God, I can’t believe she did this to me,” he told a source. “What do I do? She’s totally (bleeping) me over?”

In a statement released Wednesday night, Major said they were romantically involved. “I didn’t mean it to happen, it just did,” she said. “I went to do a story on Jon and ended up falling for him.”

That statement caused the scandal to explode in national news coverage and, the source said, infuriated Jon. Major was unavailable for comment Thurdsday and her father said, “No comment. I don’t want to be involved in this whatsoever,” when a RadarOnline.com reporter asked him about his daughter’s relationship with Jon.

Jon said he went to dinner with Major on Saturday night because she wanted to get details for a story she was writing. But her announcement last night that they were romantically involved completely caught him off guard, the source told RadarOnline.com.

“She just wanted to put herself in the spotlight,” the source said. Jon has been dating Hailey Glassman, 22, who said she had no knowledge of a romantic relationship between Jon and Major.

Major resigned suddenly on Thursday as the controversy over her alleged relationship with Jon grew. Her access to Jon seemed to put her into position to become the perfect Deep Throat for the magazine, on a story that has taken a reality TV family with mediocre ratings and turned them into one of the hottest subjects in the entertainment news world. Major did not say if she would continue working for Star in a freelance role.

[From Radar]

It’s so shocking to think that a Star reporter would have a fishy relationship with the truth! I’m clutching my pearls and dropping my monocle as I type! What the hell was going through Kate Major’s mind? That she was going to be the new Kate Gosselin? That she was going to be famous, just like Jon Gosselin is famous? Here’s a tip for all future “girlfriends” of Jon Gosselin: he’s only famous in the way huge, industrial, environmentally-catastrophic accidents are famous. Jon Gosselin is like Chernobyl. You don’t want to date Chernobyl.

UPDATE: Argh. I hate these people. Now Radar has another interview up, this time with Michael Lohan. He’s talking about how Jon and Kate Major slept over at his house, but Lohan plays coy about whether they slept in the same room. Then Michael says this: “Let me ask you a question: If she was using him why did she resign from the Star?” After reading the full text of a Michael Lohan interview, I feel like I need to take a damn shower. As for whether Jon and Kate Major are really “dating” or “banging” or whether she’s “delusional”… I seriously have no idea.

Photos are from 7/18/09. Credit: INFPhoto.com

The initial interest in Victoria Beckham and Lauren Conrad’s attempt at fashion has started to wane. Famous L.A. boutique, Kitson, has nixed Lauren’s line of predominantly knit jersey clothing. As the celebrity allure has plunged so have the sales. The store owner begged her to promote her collection. After Conrad’s reps failed to make an attempt at saving the line it was dropped from the celebrity-frequented store.

Sales were lackluster,” Kitson owner Fraser Ross told us. “Initially it was great.” Ross tried to get Conrad to do a personal appearance in the store but said her people couldn’t figure out a date. “They need to realize it’s no different than selling your album, your TV shows, your movies. You have to keep promoting it.

[NY Magazine]

Victoria’s Beckham’s 2008 menswear line is also struggling. The collection, dVb, will not even make a holiday debut at Kitson. A rep for the fashion line confirmed that while everything is currently running on schedule, there will not be a launch at the boutique. Kitson is having trouble selling Victoria’s brand of overpriced jeans and this could explain why they’re not planning to carry an additional line from the Wag.

New rumors say that her men’s collection is a “disaster.” Her name is being pulled from marketing for the jeans in a last ditch effort to encourage sales. Meanwhile, her rep states that it will still be called dVb by Victoria Beckham.

We contacted Kitson — the first place in L.A. to market the duds — and they told us they have “nearly 600 pairs” of the jeans left over from their original stock from April 2007. And even some of Posh’s favorite stores — like Maxfield — have dumped the line into their second-tier stores, and major department chains, we’re told, have had “dismal sales.”

[TMZ]

This is what I don’t get about celebrities. They think because someone dresses them in trendy and stylish garb they should design clothing. That’s like me deciding to write a screenplay because I blog. I guarantee every scene would feature Jake Gyllenhaal shirtless and sweating.

Victoria Beckham is shown fixing her hair when out to dinner with her husband at Il Sole on 7/14/08. Credit: WENN. Lauren Conrad is shown at the ‘Paws for Style’ charity event on 7/15/08. Credit: L. Gallo / WENN

Jessica Simpson’s career – and life in general – seem to be headed for the $4.99 bin at Walmart. While her younger sister Ashlee’s career has gone reasonably well in the last year, Jessica’s has tanked since she divorced Nick Lachey. To be fair, Ashlee’s career never hit the sane high point as Jessica’s, and she seems to have established a slightly lower profile, but more stable image. Instead of working her way out of her career slump, Jessica has been in a string of B, C, and now D movies. Her latest effort, “Blonde Ambition,” is an all-time low: the studio that made it has decided not to even waste anymore of their time and money by releasing the movie to theaters. Instead they’re saving themselves the embarrassment and making “Blonde Ambition” a straight-to-DVD release. So that pretty much puts it in the same ranks as ‘Honey I Blew Up the Kids,” and the even better ‘Honey We Shrunk Ourselves.” Congrats, Jessica, you are our generation’s Rick Moranis. It was only a matter of time.

Maybe Jessica Simpson should stick with reality television – her latest attempt at big screen success won’t even make it to the big screen. Blonde Ambition, as Us first reported in August, is going straight to DVD.

A January 22 release date has been confirmed for the romantic comedy costarring Luke Wilson. “The movie is absolutely horrible,” a source told Us in August. “It’s just a bomb, mainly because of Jessica’s acting.”

“It’s definitely a theatrical release,” Simpson’s rep insisted at the time. It’s now selling for less than retail.

[From Us]

It’s really unfair to do that to Luke Wilson’s career. You know he was only in your movie as a pity actor Jessica. I never thought I’d say this, but you should take a piece of advice from the Paris Hilton School of Celebrity. Some people are famous for their talent, some for their brains, and some for their bodies. And some are famous just for being famous. Your career was going best when you did a little bit of reality TV and made a lot of appearances at clubs and trendy restaurants. Your most valuable asset is your fame, not your talent. Work what you’ve got left.

Here’s the “Blonde Ambition” trailer. Viewer discretion is advised. Because it sucks.