After Sandra Bullock went through all that heartbreak with Jesse James (and arguably Ryan Reynolds, many people didn’t buy them as a romantic couple, but I did!) a lot of us were rooting for her to find a decent non-douchebag non-famous type. If this latest report is accurate that may have happened for her, hooray! OK! is claiming that Sandra has found love in the arms of a producer named Jonathan Komack Martin. Bullock’s rep issued a surprisingly specific denial that the two have been “best friends for 15 years” and that “he co-produced the ‘George Lopez’ show with her and is part of her and her son’s life. He is Ryan Reynolds’ producing partner and they are all very good friends. In addition, the recent photo of them was taken after being followed for two and a half hours to Palm Springs for a memorial.” So he’s just her buddy and they’ve been friends for over a decade, or did it recently develop into something more? Does the guy play for the other team? I’m getting that impression from the rep’s statement. Here’s more, thanks to Hollywood Life.

Is there a love triangle between Sandra, Ryan, and his BFF Jonathon? An insider says that she’s definitely moved on from Ryan and that she’s getting her mojo back by spending lots of time with the ‘new’ guy!

Sandra Bullock, 47, has a new lease on life — not only because she’s mom to son Louis, but also because she’s found someone who treats her right and makes her laugh, reports OK! Magazine.

On Jan. 22, Sandy and Ryan Reynolds‘s BFF, Jonathon Komack Martin, were snapped stepping out of a white Porsche to attend a private party in L.A. An insider says that Jonathon was “very attentive” and “didn’t leave her side all afternoon.”

So who’s this “new” guy?

From what we know, Jonathon’s the son of a TV sitcom producer and a successful Hollywood producer himself. And he’s actually not really new to the Oscar-winning actress; in fact, they were introduced 15 years ago and even co-produced together on the George Lopez show.

But whatever Sandy’s true feelings are towards him, her lips are zipped.

“She’s being extremely secretive, though, which is typical,” says the insider. “Even when probed, she won’t reveal much more than saying what a great guy Jonathon is.”

So how does Ry-Ry, 35, feel about his producer friend being stuck to the hip with his former rumored gf? “Ryan isn’t annoyed or angry about Sandy spending so much time with Jonathon, but it’s a surprise to him,” reveals the insider.

Unlike Ryan, who’s been busy dating 24-year-old Blake Lively, Jonathon’s been a dependable companion for Sandy to lean on.

“She’s been pretty down for months. But these days, there seems to be a spring in her step,” explains the insider who feels Jonathon’s kept her smiling. “Sandra can trust Jonathon and right now that’s what she needs most. She’s just been so let down in the past, she really needs a good guy who can be there for her.”

[Details from OK!, writeup by Hollywood Life]

I so want this to happen for Sandy, but it sounds like all they’ve got is the detail that this guy attended a party with her and was by her side, which was explained away in detail by the rep. Who knows what’s true or if OK! is only going by the paparazzi photos and doesn’t have any other source. I like that she’s got her private life on lockdown, and I like that she hasn’t jumped into another relationship and is focusing on being a mom. I don’t think there’s much to this story, but I would be happy if I’m wrong. Sandy deserves some good lovin’ and I still find her awesome. JJ didn’t taint her in my eyes.

Update: Sandra gave a really sweet statement denying this story to Gossip Cop. She said:

”For over a decade now, I have been so lucky to have Jonathon and Ryan as my friends, and I agree with the reports that they are both very handsome and a great catch!”

She continues, “But the only man who has stolen my heart is my son. And for now I wouldn’t have it any other way!”

[From Gossip Cop]

That was really nice, and I believe her. Oh well.

Jonathon Komack Martin and Sandra Bullock are shown on 8-1-11 at the premiere of The Change Up. She’s also shown at the same premiere with Ryan Reynolds. Sandra and her son Louis are shown today in LA, where she was taking him to school. Credit: WENN.com

Star Magazine has an inset story on their cover this week all about Sandra Bullock’s $20 million defamation lawsuit against her scumbag ex, Jesse James, for talking smack about her publicly. However, the story just says that Sandra could file a suit against Jesse if she were so inclined and that she could make it for around $20 million, according to some expert Star found. They only go so far as to quote a vague “source” who claims Sandra is considering it. My favorite part of this story is where Star speculates that Sandra won’t sue Jesse, also as they’ve speculated, because Jesse could potentially have some awesome dirt on her that he would bring out during a lawsuit. Isn’t this what we’ve heard all along? Like how can Sandy, “America’s Sweetheart,” have married a douchey neo-Nazi and still have kept her pristine public image? However, I think that Jesse was so butt hurt by getting rejected after cheating on Sandra that he would have already spilled Sandra’s secrets if he had any. Here’s more of Star’s story:

One month after shocking accounts of her husband’s wild cheating drove Sandra Bullock to file for divorce in April 2010, an emotional and repentant Jesse James appeared on Nightline and claimed, “I still have hopes of saving some sort of relationship with Sandy.”

Now it seems those sentiments were hollow, because the words Jesse has used over the last year to publicly describe his life with Sandra have been dipped in venom.

And his latest thinly veiled broad-side against her — when he sneeringly referred to how he had “married some Hollywood actress… I’m not what I became,” during a recent appearance on the reality series American Chopper: The Build-Off — could end up hurting him where it hurts the most: in his wallet!

An insider tells Star magazine that while Sandra, 47, “has consistently taken the high road by never talking about Jesse since their split, I don’t expect her to play the shrinking violet forever if his jabs have secretly been causing her emotional distress.”

And she has a powerful weapon at her disposal to strike back. Sources tell Star she could hit Jesse, 42, with a defamation suit, with one legal expert telling Star that “asking for $20 million in damages would not be out of the realm of possibility…”

Sandra “has every right to initiate a defamation lawsuit against her ex husband if she believes that any of the public statements he’s made about her have been defamatory,” noted NYC defamation lawyer Richard Ancowitz tells Star…

“I imagine that even the prospect of legal action would lead his lawyer to counsel Mr. James to keep his thoughts about Ms. Bullock to himself…”

“If Jesse keeps revealing personal information about Sandra, she could also stop him by suing for invasion of privacy,” Aaron Morris, a defamation attorney… tells Star…

Though Sandra’s rep denies that she is considering legal action, the legal source adds that she could also “go after Jesse for breach of contract if they had signed confidentiality agreements as part of their divorce.”

There is a possible consequence that could keep Sandra from taking action, the legal source tells Star. “It could open the door the defendant to disclose more embarrassing personal information as a defense against the claims. That information would then become public in the court record.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition, December 26, 2011 and via OK!]

This “lawsuit” is as much a figment of Star’s imagination as Jennifer Aniston’s pregnancy with twins, but it’s still fun to speculate about. You know that Sandra is just actively ignoring this guy and he keeps throwing jabs at her hoping to get some kind of response. She’s not going to say a thing about him and that hurts his widdle ego more than anything.

Sandra has been doing the press rounds for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, in which she plays the widow of a 9-11 victim. She’s only in the film for about 20 minutes, and the lead is the young boy who plays her son, Thomas Horn. She has a new interview on The Today Show in which she talks about her personal experience with the September 11 attacks (sad) and about hearing the last messages that victims left their families (double sad). Families shared the messages from their loved ones to help with research for the film, and Sandra called those “an incredible gift.” She does have a fun rapport with Matt Lauer and gives him crap throughout the interview, but it’s not enough to lighten the mood. Watching the press for this film just gives me the impression that it’s not going to do well at the box office given the subject matter. It may get some nods at awards time, though, especially for Horn.

These photos are from the 12-15 premiere of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and also feature Thomas Horn and Tom Hanks. Credit: WENN.com

Radar Online and Star Magazine got ahold of a paternity lawsuit against Justin Bieber by a 20 year-old woman who claims that her three month old son was fathered by him during a tryst in a bathroom following one of his concerts. This story takes the cover of Star this week, and it’s not a bad idea despite the fact that the lawsuit reads like fan fiction. It goes into unnecessary and ridiculous detail and just sounds like it’s completely fabricated. If it’s true it’s really good gossip, I’ll give Star that. Here’s more:

Teen pop icon Justin Bieber got a 20-year-old Californian woman pregnant during a backstage tryst and admitted it was his “first time,” she claims in a sensational lawsuit obtained exclusively by Star magazine.

Mariah Yeater filed court papers saying that her sexual encounter with the “Baby” hit-maker occurred on October 25 of last year, after he performed to a sold-out crowd at L.A.’s Staples Center.

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, the woman has filed a bombshell paternity suit against Bieber, alleging he is the father of her three-month-old baby.

In a hand-signed affidavit, sworn under the penalty of perjury, Yeater wrote that a security guard working for Bieber approached her and “asked if I wanted to meet Justin Bieber” before whisking her backstage.

She was 19, at the time.

Bieber’s rep denies the allegations, telling RadarOnline.com: “While we haven’t yet seen the lawsuit, it’s sad that someone would fabricate malicious, defamatory, and demonstrably false claims. We will vigorously pursue all available legal remedies to defend and protect Justin against these allegations.”

Mariah claims in her lawsuit, which was filed in a California court on October 31: “After waiting for a short period of time with several young women, Justin Bieber appeared and engaged me in conversation.

“Immediately, it was obvious that we were mutually attracted to one another, and we began to kiss. Shortly thereafter, Justin Bieber suggested that I go with him to a private place where we could be alone.

“I agreed to go with him and on the walk to a private area, he told me he wanted to make love to me and this was going to be his first time.

Mariah also told the court: “After walking away from the other people backstage, Justin Bieber found a place where we could be alone — a bathroom.

“We went inside and immediately his personality changed drastically. He began touching me and repeatedly said he wanted to f*ck the sh*t out of me. At the time I asked him to put a condom for protection, but he insisted that he did not want to.

“In his own words, he said that because it was his first time he wanted to feel everything.”

Justin then “quickly took off my clothes,” she said — and the pair had sex.

Bieber’s reps strenuously deny the woman’s claims, but Yeater wrote in her court declaration: “He was on top of me with my legs around him. At the time I was on top of some type of shelf. The sexual intercourse itself was brief, lasting only approximately 30 seconds.”

A court has scheduled a hearing on the matter for December 15.

Star magazine broke the exclusive story of the Bieber lawsuit and details are in the new issue — on sale Thursday.

[From Radar Online]

Bieber’s people are denying this claim, and I honestly expect that he’ll take a paternity test and be done with this. They tell TMZ “While we haven’t yet seen the lawsuit, it’s sad that someone would fabricate malicious, defamatory, and demonstrably false claims. We will vigorously pursue all available legal remedies to defend and protect Justin against these allegations.” This reminds me, though, of that photo that came out earlier this year of Bieber making out with a fan. Millions of teens all over the world are inexplicably hot for him and he’s a pubescent pop star with raging hormones. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s hooking up with groupies. We may think that he looks like a chick but there are obviously plenty of girls who would go there. Ewww, now I’m imagining Bieber getting his freak on in the bathroom.

Here’s Justin performing in Brazil on 10-10 and 10-5. Credit: WENN.com and Pacific Coast News

With that title I don’t mean to say that Jennifer Aniston is pregnant again, but that OK! is calling her pregnant again when that might not be the case. Their last “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant” cover, or at least the last one that we bothered to talk about, was in March of this year. At that time I did a composite of OK! Magazine covers declaring Aniston pregnant, and there were three others that I could find from 2010 and 2009. It’s been a whole six months since we ran that story, so I may as well include those older covers here again. They range in veracity from deliberately misleading to entirely made up, and include keywords like “exclusive,” “confirmed” and “revealed.” At least in this case they’re admitting pretty much on the cover (above) that the story is based on photo assumptions. They could be right too, as a lot of you have been wondering the same thing. I doubt it, though. Here’s more.

Living in NYC with Justin Theroux, Jennifer Aniston can’t stop smiling – and seems to be showing a bump

As fall begins chilling the New York City air, freshly minted Manhattanite Jennifer Aniston has swapped her tank tops for jackets, scarves and peacoats as she walks hand in hand — while smiling ear to ear — with beau Justin Theroux along the winding streets of their West Village neighborhood. But outerwear can’t cover up an obvious change in her svelte physique — a curvier, more buxom shape — and the suggestion of a bulge around the belly.

And so tongues are wagging: Is Jen pregnant at 42?

“She hasn’t announced it, but all of her friends seem to think it’s finally happened,” an insider tells OK!. “Whenever anyone hints around the question, Jen gets really giggly and shy. It certainly has all of her friends buzzing, and Jen seems to be loving it!”

If Jen is with child, it wouldn’t be surprising. As one close pal notes, she and Justin share a desire to start a family “immediately.”

“Jen would be an adoring mother,” her best friend, Kristen Hahn (a bridesmaid at Jen’s wedding to Brad Pitt) tells OK!.

“She would have boundaries, but the adoration would be big, big, big.” And solid, unpretentious Justin seems like excellent daddy material. “He’s a really good guy,” the friend says. “He makes Jen really happy and brings out the best in her. Justin’s down to earth and doesn’t handle fake people or situations. And he isn’t put off by Jen’s fame. He loves her and everything about her, and that includes that his life is now public.”

Also public are the couple’s displays of affection — unusual for Jen. She was never the clingy, hand-holding type, but with Justin she’s as demonstrative and dreamy-eyed as a sophomore dating the star quarterback.

“She’s glowing; every time you ask how she’s doing, she gets a schoolgirl smile and laughs,” another good friend tells OK!. “She hasn’t been this happy in a long, long time. You can really see what a difference Justin has made in her.

Aniston moved to New York, she’s in a new relationship, and she’s eating out a lot. Her routine is probably different, and maybe she doesn’t have time to work out like she used to. She looks fabulous as always, but she may have gained a little weight that we can barely notice, it happens. Those comments from Aniston’s BFF Kristen Hahn about what a great mother she would be came out over a week ago, and I’m pretty sure she was asked that question directly. It’s not like Hahn is the source for this article or anything. That said, I would love to see Aniston have a baby. I know it sounds cheesy, but she seems solid in her relationship and I think she would make a good mom. She’s always said she wants kids too, so I would bet she’s happily trying. Plus it was like a month ago that US ran their “Jennifer Aniston: Baby Countdown” cover story. That sounded to me like it was from her publicist. This story, not so much.

And here are some of the older OK covers calling Aniston pregnant.

March 21, 2011 “A Baby On My Own”

July 5, 2010: “Yes! I am Having a Baby”

April 19, 2010 “Confirmed: Finally, a Baby for Jen!”

October 5, 2009 “Exclusive: Pregnant at 40!”

9/26/11. Not looking pregnant at all.

9/28/11. Totally normal stomach. She needs a bra though.

9/30/11. Covered up a little, but still not looking pregnant to me.

Photo credit: Diane Cohen/Fame Pictures and Pacific Coast News

Sandra Bullock already has a baby, but that didn’t stop OK! Magazine from trying to move copies by making it sound like she’s going to have another one with her maybe-lover, Ryan Reynolds. In the article, the “insider” quotes just suggest that she could have a baby with Ryan if she wanted to and that medical intervention could help. Last week, Star claimed that Ryan was considering adopting Sandra’s current baby, Louis, whom she adopted early last year, and that they were also considering adopting another child together. So this just sounds like more fan fiction in that vein. I guess Sandra Bullock covers sell. You know that they don’t have any “insider” feeding them personal information about Bullock. She proved that when she dropped the adoption news bombshell at a time when her husband’s serial cheating scandal had been the biggest gossip story for months.

“Sandy would love nothing more than to give Louis a brother or sister,” a source close to the affable actor tells OK!. “And Ryan could be her ticket to having a child of her own!…

“Sandra is certainly not too old to try for a baby – especially with help from a fertility doctor,” says the source. “Can you even imagine how cute a child would be with Sandra as the mom and Ryan as the dad?”

Now, “She’s found the perfect person and she can’t wait to expand her family with him,” a friend tells OK!

Of course, the 34-year-old Ryan has something to say about that. And by all accounts, it’s “When do we start?” One of four brothers, he’s definitely a family guy.

“The main reason Ryan and his ex-wife Scarlett Johansson split was because he was desperate to have kids and she was eager to concentrate more on her career,” Ryan’s friend tells OK!

[From OK!, print edition, September 19, 2011]

It goes on, but you get the picture. I know a lot of you don’t like Ryan Reynolds, but I do and I’m hoping that this romance with Bullock is real and that these two have a long relationship. I get that people think they’re just good friends or that this is a publicity stunt, but it’s verifiable that they’ve been spending a lot of time together. They’re probably not at the stage where they’re talking co-adoption or anything. For as much as Reynolds is said to have played the field post-split with Scarlett, I get the impression that he’s a faithful one-woman type of guy and is looking to settle down. Things could be more serious between him and Sandra than we assume from the outside.

These photos are from The Change-Up premiere on 8/1/11, except for the last one, that’s from 5/31/09. (Credit: WENN.com)

I get that you guys think that I’m jumping to spurious conclusions or whatever by assuming that Aniston’s rep plants or at least signs off on a lot of these stories about her. When that junk is in US Weekly, though, it makes me wonder. They’ve run a ton of very in depth Aniston-friendly stories lately. US has even been touting the Aniston-camp version of the timeline of her relationship with Justin Theroux too, and at least at one point was trying to smooth over those homewrecking rumors that his ex girlfriend mom’s pretty much confirmed.

So two weeks ago US ran a cover story about how Aniston and Theroux were trying for a baby. That must have been a good seller for them because they have a very similar story this week about Jen’s Baby Countdown. It’s kind of ridiculous to me, but it’s standard tabloid fare. Here’s a little of US’ story.

Jennifer Aniston – in attendance [at an anniversary party for Ellen and Portia] “wasn’t drinking alcohol,” says one partygoer of the star, who is usually spotted at parties clutching a cocktail. “And she looked pregnant. People were noticing and talking about it like it was a fact.”

If the actress has her way, it will be soon. After six years of broken relationships, the star knows she’s found The One…

“She has been telling those close to her that this is the year she’s going to get pregnant,” says a friend of the 42-year-old actress…

“The plan is to get pregnant this summer, said the friend…”

“[Theroux] is 100 percent on board – the last few months they have been in baby-making mode.”

[From US Weekly, print edition, September 5, 2011]

Then they go on to give circumstantial evidence that Jen is either pregnant or really close to being pregnant. She slept late on her Hawaiian vacation, she skipped breakfast once “because just the thought of food turned her stomach,” and she quit smoking and drinking. Plus she’s supposedly gained a little weight. Then the article mentioned that she’s moving into a new home with Theroux in L.A. that they just bought. It’s all very Aniston-friendly and touts how great and perfect her relationship is.

Life & Style has another Aniston pregnancy story. They’re claiming “It’s Twins!” Only as Jezebel explains, the real article is all about how Aniston wants to get pregnant with twins. Typical, and very familiar.

In March I did a recap of past Aniston fake pregnancy cover stories, so given the latest rumors I would recommend that you revisit those for some sh*ts and giggles. (I would include them here but with the other two recent tabloid covers it could get confusing.) The Aniston pregancy rumors go way back, and she’s been pregnant or adopting or rumored to be pregnant ever since the triangle started.

So is this US Weekly thing a kind of nod to those covers, like an acknowledgement that the rumors only help Aniston’s career? She’ll tell you in interviews how much she wants kids, so I think the answer is “yes.” There are a couple of other possibilities. Either US is making this story up because Aniston pregnancy covers sell or she really is pregnant and her people are trying to prepare us. That would be a shocker after all the years of tabloids crying wolf.

Tabloid covers via Jezebel Other photos from 7/20/11 at the UK Horrible Bosses premiere. Credit: WENN.com

I haven’t been following the News of the World wiretapping scandal very closely, but what I have heard has boiled my blood. Private investigators hired by journalists working at the paper were hacking into the phones of countless people, including celebrities, politicians, murder victims, fallen British soldiers and their families, and missing persons, just to get their messages and record conversations for story leads. In at least one case they deleted voicemail messages to make room for more, giving the family of a missing 13 year-old girl false hope that she was alive and retreiving her messages. Two journalists went to jail when the news came out in 2006, but it was apparently much more widespread than it was first thought. It was despicable, and many people were outraged that Rupert Murdoch, the head of parent organization News International, wasn’t firing the editor of NOTW right away. (Reports have her trying to resign twice and getting turned down.) It looks like Murdoch had other plans though as it was just announced that Sunday’s edition of the paper will be its last.

Reporting from London— In a stunning move, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire announced Thursday it was shutting down the News of the World tabloid, Britain’s bestselling Sunday newspaper, because of an alleged phone hacking scandal that has triggered a major public backlash here.

James Murdoch, a senior executive at his father’s News Corp., said Sunday’s edition of the News of the World would be its last. In a statement, he said the company accepted responsibility for the distress inflicted by the phone hacking allegations and the paper’s breach of journalistic ethics.

“The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account,” the statement said, “but it failed when it came to itself.”

The statement acknowledged the gravity of allegations that the paper hacked into the cellphones of celebrities, politicians and even crime and military combat victims in its pursuit of scoops. Earlier this week, Britain was rocked by reports that a private investigator hired by the tabloid had illegally accessed – and deleted – voicemail messages on the phone of a 13-year-old girl who was kidnapped and later found murdered.

Such a practice, if it occurred, “was inhuman and has no place in our company,” the statement said — in effect concurring with an outpouring of public outrage over the reports that has swept the nation.

The closure will mean the death of a weekly newspaper that has been a part of the British media landscape for more than a century. The News of the World enjoys a circulation of more than 2.5 million, far beyond its closest rival.

But the elder Murdoch and News Corp. evidently felt that the hacking scandal had created too toxic of an environment for the company and that the News of the World had to be sacrificed.

News Corp.’s British subsidiary, News International, also owns other iconic publications, such as the Times of London and the Sun tabloid, which have been caught up in a boycott campaign by Facebook and Twitter users angered by the allegations surrounding the News of the World.

[From LA Times]

US Weekly reports that NOTW was the “largest-selling English language newspaper in the world.” This was the right thing to do. Can you imagine if you lost a loved one and there were people snooping in on your phone conversations and reporting details in the press? There were families of terrorist bombing victims and soldiers killed in duty whose phones were being tapped. How could any person with an ounce of compassion ever justify that?

Rupert Murdoch and his wife Wendi Deng are shown at Cannes in May and also in April. She’s 42, he’s 80. Credit: WENN.com

It’s safe to say that Hugh Grant has some issues with the paparazzi. In just the past few years, he’s hauled off and thumped one over the head with a tub of baked beans as well as kicking a photog in the crotch seemingly just for giggles. To be utterly fair, Grant’s got a pretty understandable reason to dislike the tabloids and their paps, for he was one of the thousands of public figures targeted within the huge wiretapping scandal involving the Rupert Murdoch-owned News of the World and The Sun. That particular scandal went down a couple of years ago, and it’s such a huge mess that we’ll probably not see the end of it for quite some time.

Hugh’s story picks up a few months ago when he was merrily driving along in his Ferrari (he calls it “my midlife crisis car”) and broke down on the side of the road. Shortly thereafter, a bloke stopped to help him but then pulled out a long-lens camera and commenced snapping away. At some point, Hugh realizes that this guy is Paul McMullan, a former News of the World pap and one of the key whistleblowers in the aforementioned wiretapping scandal. McMullan now bides his time running a pub, but that certainly didn’t stop him from selling the photos and story about finding a broken-down Hugh to the Daily Mail.

Hugh then later contacted McMullan and, unbeknownst to the former pap, recorded their conversation, which is now published in New Statesmen for all to see. Amongst many other revelations recorded by Hugh, McMullan actually thanks Hugh for breaking down on the side of the road and helping him make £3000 for the story, and also for being “a very good earner” for him in the past. McMullan goes on to claim that, in the past, Daily Mail was also just as bad about tapping cell phones as the two tabloids that got popped in the wiretapping scandal. He also bemoans the fact that the days of analogue mobiles have since passed, for that was a time when it was incredibly easy to use a cheap scanner and record the full phone conversations of Princess Di, Prince Charles, and the like. The entire article details a rather riveting discussion, which is well worth reading in full, but here are some relevant excerpts pertaining to McMullan’s former employ under NOTW:

Grant: Murdoch, yes . . .
McMullan: So I was sent to do a feature on Moulin Rouge! at Cannes, which was a great send anyway. Basically my brief was to see who Nicole Kidman was shagging – what she was doing, poking through her bins and get some stuff on her. So Murdoch’s paying her five million quid to big up the French and at the same time paying me £5.50 to f*ck her up . . . So all hail the master. We’re just pawns in his game. How perverse is that?

Grant: I suppose the fact that they’re dragging their feet while investigating a mass of phone-hacking – which is a crime – some people would think is a bit depressing about the police.
McMullan: But then – should it be a crime? I mean, scanning never used to be a crime. Why should it be? You’re transmitting your thoughts and your voice over the airwaves. How can you not expect someone to just stick up an aerial and listen in?
Grant: I’d rather no one listened in, to be honest. And I might not be alone there. You probably wouldn’t want people listening to your conversations.
McMullan: I’m not interesting enough for anyone to want to listen in.
Grant: But celebrities you would justify because they’re rich?
McMullan: Yeah. I mean, if you don’t like it, you’ve just got to get off the stage. It’ll do wonders.
Grant: So I should have given up acting?
McMullan: If you live off your image, you can’t really complain about someone . . .
Grant: I live off my acting. Which is different to living off your image.
Him Yeah, but you’re still presenting yourself to the public. And if the public didn’t know you . . .
Grant: They don’t give a sh*t. I got arrested with a hooker and they still came to my films. They don’t give a f*&@ about your public image. They just care about whether you’re in an entertaining film or not.
McMullan: That’s true . . . I have terrible difficulty with him [points to pap shot of Johnny Depp]. He’s really difficult. You know, I was in Venice and he was a nightmare to do because he walks around looking like Michael Jackson. And the punchline was . . . after leading everyone a merry dance the film was shot on an open balcony – I mean, it was like – he was standing there in public.
Grant: And you don’t see the difference between the two situations?
McMullan: You can’t hide all the time.
Grant: So you’re saying, if you’re Johnny Depp or me, you don’t deserve to have a private life?
McMullan: You make so much more money. You know, most people in Dover take home about £200 and struggle.

[From New Statesman]

All of these admissions essentially speak for themselves, and the paparazzo comes off looking like a huge douche. Of course celebrities (especially those like Johnny Depp, who would never sell wedding photos to a tabloid) don’t deserve to have their private conversations targeted by hackers. The argument always exists whether people who purposely seek out fame even deserve privacy, and to a degree, they necessarily give some of it up by not being able to walk down a street without having their photograph taken. And of course, they shouldn’t be stupid enough in this day and age to put nude photos on their cell phones, but they don’t deserve to be hacked.

Photos are from September and December, 2010 and March, 2011. Credit: WENN.com

I came across some of these hilariously bitchy (and true!) quotes from Jason Patric, 44, in the latest issue of OK! Magazine. (The one with the Bachelor split on the cover. Let me know if any of you care enough to have us report on that at some point.) Theses quotes are in an interview from over a week ago, but they’re new to me and are so good I just couldn’t pass them up. Patric, who you might remember from Lost Boys, is working on Broadway now and he really dished to NY Magazine’s Vulture blog. He ripped on how manufactured Lady Gaga is, called Ashley Judd a “lazy and arrogant actress” and talked about his relationship with Julia Roberts after she broke up with his buddy Kiefer Sutherland and the tabloids. There were a ton of good quotes in there, and he even brought up the Brangelina crap.

On how he supposedly decided against being a big star
I chose not to become a movie star for movie star’s sake at a time when there weren’t a lot of movie stars and that opportunity was presented to me. After the success of something like Lost Boys with Kiefer, I didn’t choose to keep making those movies. I mean, I made Rush when I was 24 years old. Shocks me when I look back it. I mean, 24 … kids are still in high school these days. Before I did Narc, I hadn’t worked in three years. I just didn’t find things I wanted to do. I had just produced Your Friends and Neighbors, which was exhausting and good, and I didn’t find anything worth working on for three years. That’s suicide in this business because you have to remain in the forefront of people’s minds and certainly onscreen, but I didn’t care about that. Early, the movies I was interested in, people’s work is what propelled their career. That has changed vastly, immeasurably. It started to change when I started and now it absolutely makes no sense of difference whatsoever. Doesn’t matter if you have talent. Doesn’t matter what you’ve done before and, frankly, the people with a lot of talent don’t give a shit if they make crappy movies for money because it’s actually more respected than their better movies.

On working with Ashley Judd on Broadway in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
I said I wasn’t coming back to Broadway unless I had more input and creative control. Look, you get to do Tennessee Williams on Broadway every twenty years of your life. And I loved playing the role and I loved the majority of my cast, but I had issues with the producers, I had issues with the director. I loved saying the words and working with most of the people every night. I didn’t like my leading lady. Ashley is just a lazy and arrogant actress. Let’s just leave it at that.

On Lady Gaga
This Lady Gaga is absolutely preposterous. This is, what? You take a shit in a Cuisinart and put some pasties and get Auto-Tuned and look who I am. Well nothing, you’ve been marketed, that’s all. If I was a musician maybe I’d get angry about it, but it’s just like, what? Again, just turn the page.

On his friendship with Kiefer Sutherland
I had not seen him in over twenty years, and about a year ago he called me and we had some drinks because he wanted to talk … he had just finished a show and he said I want to do some good stuff, I want to do some different stuff, good stuff that pushes me. He just wanted to talk to me because he said you always make unique choices. That made me laugh. And he wanted to talk about theater. We had a night talking, drinks, and I said yeah, well, if something comes up I’ll let you know, and eight months later I was like, You know what? Kiefer might be good in this thing. This year it will be like 25 years; we haven’t worked together in 25 years.

On the tabloids
Q: What about your mutual tabloid fame. You dated Julia Roberts right after he did, just after she was supposed to marry him, and then you two took off for Ireland.
All that stuff is made up, if you even go back there to all the archives you’re never gonna see any comment by me. It’s not like today, where Jennifer Aniston says this happens and Angelina says that and people give quotes. I don’t give quotes about anything. And everything that happened was all fake and bullshit and let them give quotes about whatever they want. Obviously people are gonna ask. They had a relationship that ended and I was with her for a little while and it ended. They’ve both been subsequently married several times and I think they’re fine. But we never had any issue, even back then.

Q: Do you guys ever goof about it now?
Oh yeah, we look at it is as a goof because we know all the bullshit of the tabloids and how all this is created and people Do. Not. Care. About it. The truth is, I don’t know these editors of these magazine, so they honestly think we care about Brangelina? We don’t. Not just me, nobody cares. No. Body. Cares.

[From NY Mag]

People care about Brangelina, just not the people in his circle in New York city. Patric said that he’s still single and might settle down at some point, but that he never really wanted to because he was so focused on his career. At least that’s how I interpreted his comments. He talks so much smack that it’s hard to know exactly what he means. Some commenters on this story are noting that he sounds bitter as hell, and I get that too. Maybe he’s always been like this though, which would explain why his career never quite took off. That would also explain why he’s trying to portray it as some sort of noble personal choice that makes him superior to the actors who “sold out” and are living the easy life. I’ll say something nice – It must be a bitch to deal with all the phonies and leaches in Hollywood, even for people who aren’t curmudgeons and try and be team players.

Jason Patric is shown on 3/6/11 and 1/18/11. Credit: WENN.com

Jennifer Aniston appears on the cover of OK! in what looks like a repeat of so many of their earlier covers. It’s all about Jen and the baby she says she might eventually have. Here are some other cover stories OK! has run in the past couple of years that are variations on this theme: (And OK! is not the only offender)

July 5, 2010: “Yes! I am Having a Baby”

April 19, 2010 “Confirmed: Finally, a Baby for Jen!”

October 5, 2009 Exclusive: Pregnant at 40!”

Without reading this latest article at all, I think it’s safe to assume that it’s a rehash of Aniston’s old quotes accompanied by some “insider” quotes about how she needs something more in life, and is making a change by selling her house at a ridiculously inflated price. (Note: I wrote that before I even read the teaser article.) We get the digital edition of OK! Magazine today, so if it contains any groundbreaking quotes or information I’ll update this story. As it is, it sounds like all they do is jump to conclusions, as is typical for so many tabloids. (And us.) Here’s OK!’s take on this:

Jennifer Aniston spent two years at her renovated $13.5 million Beverly Hills estate only to wake up one morning to realize that the Zen-influenced wide-open floor plan of her home was not family-friendly. “It’s no place to raise a baby,” she confided in a friend, when she put the expansive 10,000-square-foot property on the market for $42 million on Feb. 18. The actress, 42, is so concentrated on her future as a mom that she’s willing to make enormous sacrifices, like selling the house she loved so much, we report in the new issue of OK!, on sale everywhere Thursday.

“She felt the Beverly Hills home was too sprawling and unmanageable for a new mom,” explains another confidante. “She’s renovating her old Hollywood Hills home, where she lived when she met Brad Pitt, because she thinks it’s a smaller and a better-laid-out home for a baby. She’s keeping a baby in mind as she’s looking for a place in New York, too.”

[From OK!]

Well, if Aniston would just take a page from Cameron Diaz and say “motherhood is not in my future” the tabloids would stop this business – maybe. As it is, she told People Magazine that we should “relax, it’s [motherhood] going to happen” so it’s like she’s inviting speculation. At least we’re still talking about her, although I think that OK! is behind the times. They should have gone with a Charlie Sheen cover this week. Plus, Robert Pattinson may have just called his relationship with Kristen Stewart “traumatic.” They were running Twilight love story covers for months. You think they would be all over that.