Page Six lied about the Sussexes’ crowd at the ‘Cookie Queens’ Sundance screening

On Saturday night, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex attended the first Sundance Film Festival premiere event for Cookie Queens, the documentary they executive produced about Girl Scout Cookies and the girls who sell them. On Sunday morning, Harry and Meghan were back in action, attending an early-morning premiere at Sundance. Meghan even spoke ahead of the screening, and she and Harry chatted with some of the entertainment reporters at the early-morning “red carpet.” More on that in a moment. Soon after the Sunday morning screening, Page Six bizarrely claimed that the screening was poorly attended, and that the half-empty theater was just further evidence of the Sussexes’ declining popularity:

The Sussexes couldn’t sell out Sundance. Although Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attended the Park City, Utah, bow of the new documentary they produced, “Cookie Queens,” Sunday morning, there were plenty of open seats at the Eccles Theatre.

As the film began, roughly 150 unoccupied spots remained in the balcony, plus some scattered chairs on the ground. That number ultimately tightened to about 60, as lucky wait-listers slowly filled empty places reserved for high-paying pass-holders (the coveted express badge costs $6,900), who mostly passed on the visiting royals.

“Cookie Queens,” which was enthusiastically received by the Park City crowd, is an adorable heartwarmer that follows several precocious Girl Scouts from all over the US on their quest to sell as many cookie boxes as possible.

A ticket to a starry and exclusive Sundance screening is typically a hot commodity. They are extremely difficult to get into. In the same theater the night before, at the mobbed premiere of Olivia Wilde’s “The Invite,” starring Seth Rogen, Penelope Cruz and Edward Norton, staff had to turn away about 100 actual ticket holders — as seats there are not assigned.

In an uncommon move at Sundance for an executive producer, Markle, 44, spoke onstage before the film. She suggested the mountain town might be hungover from boozy Saturday parties. “Thank you so much for being here bright and early,” she said. “I know some of you probably had late nights last night, so extra thanks for the effort.”

Before the lights went down, Harry, 41, walked around hugging people who appeared to be involved with the film.

“My husband and I and Archewell Productions, we are so proud and privileged to be able to support and uplift ‘Cookie Queens,’” the “Suits” alum added.

[From Page Six]

So, all of this was a lie. It was picked up by Tom Sykes and some of the British outlets, because that was the whole purpose of Page Six’s lie. The Sunday morning screening was actually sold out, as were all of the other screenings. Page Six’s lie was so egregious, even Matthew Belloni – Puck News’ entertainment/media guy and a pretty big deal – tweeted out the absurdity of the lie. It was also abundantly clear that the Sunday screening was well-attended by entertainment reporters – Deadline, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter all sent their biggest reporters to the screening and they all got exclusive footage and/or comments from Meghan. Why did Page Six lie about something so easily proven false?

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

31 Responses to “Page Six lied about the Sussexes’ crowd at the ‘Cookie Queens’ Sundance screening”

  1. SarahCS says:

    Because someone tells a blatant lie then the others repeat the lie and that drowns out the people pointing out it’s a lie. They make enough noise and casual observers shrug and assume another ‘failure’ by H&M on top of the string of failures they’ve already heard about.

    • Beth says:

      Especially ridiculous as it hadn’t even been made public that the Sussexes would be attending, no doubt for security reasons (they’d gone to that special screening elsewhere the night before). It really was fantastic to see a packed house at 9.00 am on a Sunday morning!

    • Miranda says:

      And they get that lie out there first, because the BM basically has a form letter-style article ready to go, proclaiming the failure of anything remotely involving the Sussexes. It’s always the same article, hitting all the same “nobody cares about Meghan and Harry” beats. They just fill in the name, location, and date and publish it like, while the event is actually still in progress.

  2. Tuesday says:

    It’s a stupid lie anyway, because the doc was always going to be well received, even without the Sussexes. We LOVE Girls Scouts and GS cookies in the US.

    • Margaret says:

      They are also comparing a documentary about Girl Scouts selling cookies to evening premiers of movies with A listers. Of course there would be more people waiting outside to try to get into evening premiers of movies than 9am matinees on a Sunday. It’s fantastic that Cookie Queen’s got a packed house. I bet everyone involved is thrilled with the interest it has generated!

  3. anna says:

    it’s just cruel and we know this and why/how they are doing this. they are in the middle of the lawsuit and will do anything not just to discredit them but also to hurt them and punish them for the lawsuit.

    • Josephine says:

      All of these old white dudes are showing that they are truly the soft, weak, snowflakes while screaming into the abyss about everyone else being soft blah blah blah cancel culture blah blah blah they won’t let me sexually harass women anymore blah blah blah.

      Such a pathetic group.

  4. Mightymolly says:

    Don’t bother lying about things that can be disproven with a screenshot. 🤦‍♀️

  5. Hypocrisy says:

    Lies like these just make me support the Sussex’s more.. whatever streaming service picks up this movie will have a new subscriber.

  6. Beth says:

    Bizarre indeed. Especially as it hadn’t even been made public that the Sussexes would be attending, no doubt for security reasons (they’d gone to a special screening elsewhere the night before). It really was fantastic to see a packed house at 9.00 am on a Sunday morning!

  7. They lie because that’s all they have. They make stuff up to spin a false story about the Sussexes to keep the haters and derangers happy. Glad there are others who are disputing their lies!!

  8. Amy Bee says:

    This is why when I speak about the British press I include Page Six. So dumb.

    • Beth says:

      Murdoch’s minions strike again – they’ll never get over Harry forcing an eight figure settlement, legal costs, admission of UIG and an apology out of them last year (bit the bullet at the eleventh hour to avoid being dragged into court) ☹️

  9. Tina says:

    I’m glad Matthew pushed back but I was surprised because Puck news is often really shady about the Sussexes.

    • Rax says:

      Puck is often anti Harry and Meghan but if a journalist (not a royal propagandist) witnesses something with their own eyes they are more likely to push back against lies.

      • jais says:

        Yeah, it’s funny. Bc there were journalists in the room! Even they’re like yeah no, it was sold out. What an epic blunder by page 6. Egg on face fr.

  10. Shiela Kerr says:

    Those gutter rats are becoming the Sussexes PR machine. More and more folks will be pointing out their lies and unfair reporting.

  11. Debbie says:

    The thing about the waning popularity stories that’s odd to me is how they can write that premise when the BM never acknowledged the Sussexes popularity in the first place. How can they be losing support and popularity when the BM and their ilk never acknowledged the Sussexes had support to begin with.

  12. Talie says:

    Anytime this stuff happens, it actually helps them in a weird way by showing how sick and demented the hatred of them is. Puck has leveled plenty of criticisms at the Sussexes over the years, but they’ve kept it to business – when the people reporting on business can see this bizarre campaign play out, even they get to a point of exasperation.

  13. Jais says:

    What morons. To lie about something so easily disproved. Instantly makes you think about anything else they’ve lied about in regards to the Sussexes. Which is clearly a lot.

  14. Mel says:

    Page Six is the NY Post , the post is owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns the Mail. Their lies make sense… to them.

  15. Gabby says:

    Their bitterness over losing access to the Sussexes on top of having virtually nothing to report about the actual heir to the throne is showing. Will they report on the 2-minute standing ovation this film got?

  16. NoBS Please says:

    This move in the anti-Meghan and Harry playbook is now being used systematically by their media haters: whenever M&H do something which is fantastically well-received (eg this Sundance screening, or Meghan’s Balenciaga outing), they make up some obscure fake criticism and blast that all over their front pages.

    With the Balenciaga show it was Meghan’s video which showed that she killed princess Diana herself by driving around Paris, where princess Di was killed. Now this fake nonsense about whether the Sundance viewing was a sell-out.

    It’s a strategy that works for those not paying attention.

    • Julia says:

      It’s doubly weird because there are multiple documentaries on the Sundance website that aren’t sold out for all screenings but Cookie Queens is sold out and we are supposed to think it has failed because someone thinks they may have seen some empty seats in a video. Totally insane!

  17. Giddy says:

    I have to know, were Thin Mints served to the crowd? Because yum!

  18. Sharon says:

    How petty. It’s the Girl Scouts!! The tabloids have no shame.

  19. QuiteContrary says:

    I said this elsewhere, but I cannot wait to see this doc. (Former GS and GS troop leader here, who hated cookie sales, but loves the cookies — a case of hating the game, not the player lol).

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment