Emma Stone has been a Louis Vuitton brand ambassador for years and the collaboration sucks. I say that with love – in the past few years, we’ve seen LV make custom looks for other brand ambassadors, and certain people (Ana de Armas, Zendaya) find a way to make it work. Some people don’t find a way to make it work and Emma is one of them. It’s like Margot Robbie and Chanel – it was always the wrong fit of actress and brand. Now, I understand why Emma initially signed on to LV – she probably thought she would get offbeat, cool clothes. Instead, it’s like they give her the fuggest stuff from every collection.

Anyway, here are some photos from the Poor Things premiere in London last night. Look what Louis Vuitton gave Emma – a slip dress with chest netting and what appears to be one of the worst-cut skirts ever. They topped it off with what appears to be a taffeta (?) robe. This is what passes for “high end.” As much as I hate this ensemble, the worst part of the look is Emma’s makeup – her makeup artist gave her Angry Baby Brows.

Bonus photos of Emma’s Poor Things costars Mark Ruffalo (with his wife) and Willem Dafoe.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

It’s fun and interesting to read through the coverage of Prince Harry’s incredible legal victory. There was a rush to call it a “partial victory,” but from where I’m sitting, the victory is substantial. A judge ruled in Harry’s favor, confirming that Harry was illegally hacked by the Mirror when he was young. While Harry only needed to “prove” one incident of hacking to win, Judge Fancourt found 15 instances (out of 33) where hacking was used in reporting about Harry. Judge Fancourt went even further than that, saying that the Mirror carried out “very extensive and habitual unlawful information gathering,” including widespread hacking which was used “very substantially.” The Mirror’s criminal behavior was “an integral part of the system.” Not only that, but Judge Fancourt name-checked Piers Morgan AND said that Omid Scobie was a credible witness.

In a significant part of the judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt lists times when Piers Morgan was said to have been aware of phone hacking.

Referring to evidence given by royal author Omid Scobie, he said that he found the evidence of Morgan’s involvement to be credible and it had not been countered by the Mirror Group.

Scobie, who has been at the centre of recent controversy around the naming of the ‘racist’ royals, had recalled an incident when he was a student intern at the newspaper group, working on its “3am Girls” entertainment desk.

In 2002, he told the court he had witnessed Morgan, the then-editor of the Mirror, discuss an article about Kylie Minogue and that he had asked how confident the journalist was about the story. He had been informed by the journalist that the source had been a voicemail, Scobie claimed.

Mr Justice Fancourt said that recollection was supported by evidence of an invoice from a private investigator related to obtaining Minogue’s mobile phone number and that of her then partner, James Gooding.

[From The Independent]

Let’s underline this point – Harry’s lawyers argued that Piers Morgan, then the editor of the Mirror, knew about the extensive use of phone hacking. Omid Scobie testified that Piers openly discussed hacking Kylie Minogue’s voicemails. And Judge Fancourt said that Harry proved that part of the case, that Piers knew and that Scobie’s testimony was credible. Meanwhile, Piers refused to testify, preferring to lie his ass off in print, claiming that he had no idea any of this was happening and Harry is the liar. Harry has every right to call on the Met Police to investigate this criminal behavior and I hope they do.

It’s going to be bad for Piers Morgan in the coming months. Here he is lying about having no knowledge of phone hackings.

A judge just found that he knew of these illegal phone hackings at the time of making this statement. pic.twitter.com/uYEXmF0o5U

— D (@dilemmv) December 15, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Piers’ social media.

What do King Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry all have in common? They all have bald genes and they all have their own stand-alone foundations. King Charles’s foundation is mired in controversy and financial shenanigans, and Charles has a long history of taking bags of cash and checks from Bin Ladens to keep his foundation afloat. William and Kate’s foundation is shady as hell too – millions out the door, mismanaged or spent lavishly to embiggen Will and Kate personally and finance their idiotic busywork. Meanwhile, the Sussexes’ Archewell Foundation is relatively modest, and they’re mostly handing out smaller grants to charities and NGOs. Guess which one of these foundations is being highlighted by Richard Eden to make the point that royal foundations are bad, bad, bad?

Egotistical royals should stick to helping existing charities instead of seeking to create their own, according to the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden. Establishing personal foundations leave the royals open to criticism, he suggests, and vulnerable to ‘generous donors with dubious motives’. Instead, members of the Royal Family should ‘follow the wise example of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Anne and serve as patrons of existing charities’.

Writing in the latest edition of his Palace Confidential newsletter, Eden takes aim at Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation, which is under scrutiny after an £8.8million ‘plunge’ in donations last year – yet still paid a vast salary plus bonus to Executive Director James Holt.

‘Charity begins at home when it comes to their most loyal lieutenants,’ notes Eden. ‘James Holt, who previously worked for Prince William and Catherine as well as Harry and Meghan, was rewarded for sticking with the Sussexes with a pay packet of $207,405 (£165,800), plus bonus of $20,000. Holt, a friend of Omid Scobie who is executive director of Archewell, certainly worked hard for Harry and Meghan, appearing extensively on their tawdry Netflix ‘reality’ series in which Harry revealed intimate conversations with other members of the Royal Family and Meghan appeared to mock Queen Elizabeth with her exaggerated curtsy.’

The Sussexes are not the only royals to have founded their own charities, of course. Established by King Charles, The Prince’s Trust and Prince’s Foundation (now The King’s Foundation) have become two of the best-known in Britain. The Prince and Princess of Wales have established their own Royal Foundation, which includes the Princess’s Centre for Early Childhood. Prince William also runs the Earthshot Prize for environmental initiatives.

In the newsletter, Eden writes that ‘in one of those “coincidences” to which we have become accustomed, just a day after Kensington Palace broadcast a charming video of the Prince and Princess of Wales’s children helping their mother volunteer at a “baby bank” in Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a similarly slick video of their own.

‘Prince Harry and Meghan’s video was to highlight the work they have done during the past year for their Archewell Foundation, which published its 28-page annual report. ‘What they were less keen to report, however, was the fact that their foundation suffered an $11million (£8.8million) plunge in donations last year.’

Tax filings in the United States, where they live, show that Archewell received $2million last year, compared with $13million in 2021. The Sussexes maintain that this sort of drop-off would be normal after a successful first year, that there is no suggestion Archewell is insolvent and that the charity account has plenty of reserves.

Eden concludes: ‘For me, the disclosures highlight the dangers of members of the Royal Family having their own charitable foundations, which can leave them open to criticism and at the mercy of generous donors with dubious motives. It may not be so good for boosting royal egos but it can achieve more with far less potential for controversy.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The thing is… um, I halfway agree with Richard Eden? Maureen might have some points, if only she would apply her half-witted opinions to every royal. The Royal Foundation is an exercise in ego, and Charles’s foundation is practically a criminal enterprise. Archewell is actually the exception to the rule – they’re not reinventing the wheel, Archewell is basically just a cash reserve which they parcel out to charities. Oh, and James Holt’s salary really upset all of Eden’s palace sources, didn’t it? There’s also no evidence that Holt is especially friendly with Omid Scobie either, that was just an unhinged jab.

This reminded me of the British media’s reaction to Meghan’s 40th birthday mentorship idea, where she invited people to give 40 minutes of mentorship to someone. Suddenly, royal experts were coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that “mentorship is bad, actually.” Now we’re at “charitable foundations are bad, actually,” just because the Sussexes are doing it.

Photos/screencaps courtesy of Archewell, WellChild and Cover Images.

As we discussed recently, the fix is in regarding Prince Harry’s lawsuits over royal protection when he’s in the UK. Harry is suing the government over his right to have and pay for police protection, and he’s also suing the Mail over their really grotesque coverage of the protection issue. Harry is going to lose his battle against the Home Office – even if he scores some small victory (which is unlikely), they still won’t give him protection, nor would they ever let him pay for it. Meanwhile, Harry is also the plaintiff in what feels like a dozen other lawsuits against British media outlets. Today, a judge handed down a ruling on Harry’s lawsuit against the Mirror. So, obviously, Harry’s father had to make a big, splashy visit to the High Court on Thursday, just to make it clear that the fix is absolutely in.

As royal visits go, the High Court has become more used to the sight of the Duke of Sussex than his father, the King. But on Thursday, less than 24 hours before Mr Justice Fancourt was due to hand down his ruling on Prince Harry’s claim against Mirror Group Newspapers, it was His Majesty’s turn to pay a first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice.

Rather than suing newspapers, though, the King was at the court to celebrate the relationship between the judiciary and the Crown, observing that the British justice system was the envy of the world. He also hailed the work of voluntary magistrates, asking: “What would we do without you?”

As he unveiled a plaque marking his visit, he said: “Thank you all enormously for the amount of effort you put into maintaining the system of justice that so many others seem to be envious of, I’ve discovered going around the world. So I cannot thank you enough, particularly the magistrates, the extraordinary work they do, somehow putting in these onerous duties on top of everything else – it is truly remarkable, and a wonderful system. I hope you get a moment or two before you have to rush back and administer justice. And finally, can I just wish you a very happy and I hope relatively peaceful Christmas and I hope you get a moment or two before you have to rush back and administer justice on our behalf.”

[From The Telegraph]

Real question: IS the British legal system the envy of the world? I understand that the American legal system used British law as a template, and many other nations have done so as well. I get the historical significance of that, and maybe a more accurate statement would be: “British law has influenced countless countries, democracies and republics.” But in the year of our lord Beyonce 2023, does anyone really believe that Britain’s system of justice is “the envy of the world”? As I’ve tried to make sense of Britain’s libel and defamation laws, I’m left bewildered by how the powerful press barons have rigged the system to their favor, largely to avoid accountability. This visit was also Exhibit Q of “should the king be cozying up to judges when his son is suing everybody?” It’s not about criminality, it’s about the appearance of criminality. The law should be above reproach, certainly. Except when judges want to hang out with the king and do him special favors.

Watch:
King Charles arrives at the High Court in London. No, he’s not in trouble but there to celebrate the ‘exceptional work” of court staff. The visit coincidentally comes 24hrs before the same court will rule on Harry’s legal case against Mirror Group Newspapers.. pic.twitter.com/FM6CsMie7Q

— Matt Wilkinson (@MattSunRoyal) December 14, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Page Six published a curious story on Thursday, all about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their feelings towards the left-behind royals. According to Page Six’s sources, Prince Harry and Meghan obviously have zero plans to go to the UK over Christmas, but Harry is planning to “reach out” over the holiday. This will actually mark the FIFTH Christmas Harry has spent away from the UK and away from the Windsors. Harry became a father and said he wasn’t going to take the Windsors’ bullsh-t anymore. Except Page Six’s sources say that “Harry and Meghan’s new strategy is reconciliation,” and that Harry is particularly aware of “the shifting sands of time,” especially as his 40th birthday approaches next year (no one from his family contacted him for his birthday this year, but sure). In case you need me to spell it out, Page Six’s stories are coming from palace briefings, because it looks like Katie Nicholl at Vanity Fair got one too. Some highlights from her new piece:

The Susexes aren’t going to Sandringham: Despite rumors that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle hope to travel to the UK for the holidays, Vanity Fair has learned they will not be coming to England to join King Charles and the royal family for the festive season. According to one royal insider, there is “no chance” of Harry, Meghan, and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, being invited to join the royal family because there is still so much “hostility” toward them.

The Sussexes & Charles haven’t spoken since his birthday: Last month, Harry and Meghan spoke with King Charles for his 75th birthday, with Archie and Lilibet sweetly singing “Happy Birthday” to the monarch in a video recording, which led to speculation about the possibility of a reunion. Yet VF has learned there has been little communication between the Sussexes and the king since then.

Charles would love to have his family together, but not really: The source added that while King Charles “would love” to have all of his family together at Christmas he is “nervous” about inviting Harry and Meghan into the inner sanctum. “The king would love nothing more than to have Christmas with his sons and all his grandchildren, but it’s not that simple and there is no chance the Sussexes will be coming. It would make things very difficult because there is still so much hostility towards Harry and Meghan, particularly from the Prince and Princess of Wales,” they said. “Charles is also deeply nervous about the risks of conversations being leaked by the Sussex camp, which is why there have been very few of them.”

Royal racists: One source who recently spent time with senior members says, “The king finds these suggestions about racism extraordinary and frankly unbelievable. It is all so far removed from the truth and what was actually said.”

Will & Kate are bitter: Sources close to Prince William and Princess Kate say they would not want to be in the same room as Harry and Meghan “let alone spend Christmas with them.”

The Middletons are coming to Norfolk: In keeping with a tradition they started shortly after their wedding, William and Kate will enjoy Christmas day with the royal family, and then a second Christmas at Anmer Hall with the Middleton family.

A Very Camilla Christmas: And in a break with tradition, Queen Camilla’s children Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Lopes, along with their families, have been invited to join the royals this Christmas. In previous years, Camilla has left Sandringham after Christmas dinner to host her own family dinner at Ray Mill, her home in Wiltshire. Camilla is very close with her children and five grandchildren. Her sister Annabel Elliot, who serves as one of Camilla’s personal aides, will also attend the celebrations.

Charles isn’t going to Scotland for New Year’s: Charles, who is overseeing an extensive refurbishment of Sandringham’s gardens, will also stay in Norfolk for New Year’s Eve. Usually, the king welcomes the New Year in Scotland, but sources say he will extend his Norfolk break and head to the Highlands later in January.

[From Vanity Fair]

LOL, “the Sussexes won’t be here because we didn’t invite them, we hate them, they leak everything,” said the palace courtiers, openly briefing Katie F–king Nicholl. Nevermind the fact that the Sussexes have never, ever asked for a Sandringham invite in the past five years. As for Will and Kate being too immature, too childish to even be “in the same room” with Harry and Meghan… completely on-brand. William would throw a hissy fit and rage-shriek all the way to Norfolk if the Sussexes were invited. Well, at least he’ll get to spend Christmas with his grifter in-laws. I wonder if Carole will try to get some money out of him.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Last year, Hugh Jackman was back on Broadway with the revival of The Music Man. He was nominated for another Tony Award and the revival was successful. His costar in the show was Sutton Foster, another well-loved stage actress. They had to do a million photocalls and appearances with one another, and they were very friendly and affectionate in front of the cameras. Perhaps away from the cameras too. In September of this year, Hugh and Deborra Lee Furness announced their separation. Now In Touch Weekly suggests that Hugh had Sutton waiting in the wings.

Movie superhero Hugh Jackman is separated from — but still married to — longtime wife Deborra-Lee Furness, but insiders say the Wolverine hunk has sunk his talons into his former Broadway costar Sutton Foster, who’s also got a hubby!

“Their romance is an open secret on Broadway,” tattles a snitch, who says Hugh and Sutton grew close when they costarred in the revival of the classic musical The Music Man for more than a year until January 2023. Another source insists the 55-year-old hunk “has been besotted with Sutton from the moment he met her. He followed her around like a puppy!”

And the leggy 48-year-old Tony Award winner, who also costarred for six years with Hilary Duff in the TV sitcom Younger, is “absolutely giddy around” Hugh, says the source. She even raved that meeting the 6-foot-2 movie muscleman was “the greatest thing that came out of the whole experience.”

During their time together on Broadway, the big shot Hollywood actor “had a lot of power and approval over casting and billing, but he always treated Sutton like SHE was the star — and she was moved by that!” notes the source. “He insisted that they share equal billing above the title of the show.”

Previously divorced Sutton confesses they became “really close” when they shared a rehearsal space for the show and admitted arranging to “come together” a half hour before every performance to bond. But they were then, and still are, married to others. She’s been wed since 2014 to second hubby, Ocean’s Eleven screenwriter Ted Griffin, father of their adopted daughter, now 6.

[From In Touch Weekly]

Wait, Sutton is married?? I really never paid attention to her at a gossip level, so this really is news to me. If all of this is true and Sutton and Hugh are, um, spending time together… I would imagine that Sutton has already separated from her husband too and they simply didn’t announce it. Also: I hate the way In Touch Weekly frames the whole “Hugh wanted Sutton to have equal billing” issue – what they’re describing is Hugh Jackman being a mensch and treating his female costar like an equal partner, and making sure she gets the recognition she’s due. He likely would have done that regardless of whether he had a crush on her.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Embed from Getty Images
Another day, another controversy surrounds one of Elon Musk’s companies. This time, the issue involves Elno’s S3XY cars. Tesla has had to recall nearly all of the cars that they’ve sold in the US in order to update its autopilot software system to make sure that drivers are paying adequate attention whenever they are using it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been investigating accidents that have occurred while being driven in autopilot. The report said that its investigation found that the system’s inadequate method of making sure the drivers are paying attention could lead to “foreseeable misuse of the system.” Tesla will be updating all of the recalled cars to routinely check to make sure drivers are paying attention. If they don’t respond properly, the feature may disengage. It could also limit the areas where basic versions of autopilot can operate.

Tesla is recalling more than 2 million cars sold in the U.S. due to issues with its autopilot software system, according to multiple reports. The electric car company will update the system to make sure that drivers are paying adequate attention when their vehicles are engaged in the autopilot function, according to the Associated Press, CNN and The New York Times.

The recall was disclosed in a letter by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to the car company regarding its ongoing probe related to accidents in which drivers were using autopilot. Among the models recalled according to the letter are Model 3/2017-2023, Model S/2012-2023, Model X/2016-2023 and Model Y/2020-2023.

Tesla did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment on the recall.

NHTSA found that many drivers are not taking adequate action to avoid crashes when the autopilot system is engaged and warning lights are triggered, the AP reported. After the software update, Teslas with Autosteer will routinely check on the driver’s attention level and may disengage the feature should driving conditions warrant, per CNN.

One such accident occurred last July in Virginia when a 57-year-old man was killed when the Tesla he was driving on autopilot crashed into the side of a tractor-trailer. The Fauquier County Sheriff’s Office tells PEOPLE that its investigation found no indication that the autopilot feature directly led to the crash but noted that the car had been on autopilot.

“The Tesla was in ‘autopilot’ mode, which is a lower level of automobile driving assist that requires active driver supervision,” the sheriff’s office told PEOPLE in a statement. “The vehicle’s electronic data recorder further indicates that the Tesla safety system was aware of something in the roadway.”

The sheriff’s office initially charged the truck driver with reckless driving, but the charge was later dropped when it was determined that the Tesla driver was traveling at about 70 miles per hour — 25 mph over the posted speed limit.

Earlier this year, Tesla announced a voluntary recall of 362,758 vehicles equipped with Full Self-Driving Beta (FSD) software. NHTSA announced in the recall that the FSD “increases the risk of a crash” due to several alleged bugs in the software, which Tesla was set to remedy with a free over-the-air update.

[From People]

On one hand, Tesla was marketing safe cars with the autopilot feature to its customers. I guess I can see how someone could have a sense of complacency with their $100k+ car, in which they assume that just because it was expensive, it *must* mean it’s safe. But the problem with relying on the warning systems is that people tend to tune that stuff out, like the lane assist feature that beeps when you cross over a line without using a turning signal. And, as experts point out, the recall doesn’t fix the problem Teslas have with spotting and stopping for obstacles in their path.

On the other hand, I cannot understand why, even with autopilot, the driver of a moving vehicle would not pay attention to what is going on! When I’m driving on the highway, I use the cruise control on my car all of the time. It’s adaptive, so it adjusts its speed whenever it senses a car in front of me, but I am always on alert to shut it off or do a hard break just in case it fails or the cars in front of me suddenly stop short. It feels like the autopilot system should have been thought out better rather than just rely on human beings to always do the right thing. As for what Tesla’s fearless leader has to say, he’s too busy being big mad about that Tesla scene in Leave the World Behind.

Teslas in line for the recall pic.twitter.com/q3OtUNsW2O

— celebitchy (@celebitchy) December 14, 2023

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tesla (@teslamotors)

photos credit: Backgrid, Getty and via Instagram

The High Court in London has ruled in favor of Prince Harry in his hacking case against the Mirror Group, the media company which owns the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror. The judge ruled that Harry proved several parts of his case – 15 out of 33 articles related to hacking or unlawful methods of newsgathering. The Mirror Group had asked for Harry to be awarded £500, while Harry was asking for an award of £440,000. The judge awarded Harry £140,600.

Britain’s High Court ruled that Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, was the victim of phone hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), publisher of the Daily Mirror tabloid, on Friday. He has been awarded 140,600 pounds, which is about $180,000 in damages.

The presiding judge in the case at Britain’s High Court, Justice Timothy Fancourt, said in a statement that he had awarded Harry the “modest” sum, as the case had shown the Mirror Group “only played a small part in everything that the Duke suffered” and “was not responsible for all the unlawful activity that was directed at the Duke, and that a good deal of the oppressive behaviour of the Press towards the Duke over the years was not unlawful at all.”

The judge said he’d found that only 15 out of the 33 articles that were scrutinized in the case were the product of phone hacking or other illegal information gathering.

“I consider that his phone was only hacked to a modest extent, and that this was probably carefully controlled by certain people at each newspaper,” Fancourt said. “There was a tendency for the Duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time, and his claims in relation to the other 18 articles did not stand up to careful analysis.”

He said he’d determined the award for the prince “in respect of each of the articles and invoices where unlawful information gathering was proved” and “to compensate the Duke fully for the distress that he suffered as a result of the unlawful activity directed at him and those close to him.”

In a statement read by his lawyer after the judgement, Mr Sherborne quotes Harry as saying that since the claim was brought: “Defamatory stories and intimidating tactics have been deployed against me and at my family’s expense.”

The prince wrote he has learnt patience is a virtue “in the face of vendetta journalism”.

“I am happy to have won the case, especially as this trial only looked at a quarter of my entire claim.”

“I respectfully call on the authorities, financial regulator, police to do their duty and investigate bringing charges against Daily Mirror Group,” Harry said in his statement. “Today’s ruling is vindicating and affirming. I have been told that slaying dragons will get you burned, but in light of today’s victory and the importance of doing what is needed for a free and honest press, it is a worthwhile price to pay.”

[From CBS News & Sky News]

“There was a tendency for the Duke in his evidence to assume that everything published was the product of voicemail interception because phone hacking was rife within Mirror Group at the time. But phone hacking was not the only journalistic tool at the time…” I mean, tabloid journalists were also stalking and harassing people, bribing people, hacking into email accounts, breaking into doctor’s offices and private homes and more. Sure, it wasn’t all “hacking” in Harry’s case – some of it was leaking from his father’s office as well. Harry’s statement is great – and I hope that this changes the view of years of hacking – this was criminal behavior. So much said in that simple statement. Anyway, I’m very proud of Harry. I thought everything was being lined up for a defeat for Haz.

“The court has found that Mirror group’s principal board directors, their legal department, senior executives and editors, such as Piers Morgan, clearly knew about or were involved in these illegal activities.”pic.twitter.com/0FOpXJL74v

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) December 15, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Obviously the current dominating story with Taylor Swift is her budding romance with Travis Kelce. But that’s no excuse to let up the attention on how she’s a certified billionaire, is breaking all kinds of box office and concert ticket records, and has earned a Golden Globe nomination in a brand new category for her self-distributed Eras Tour concert film. As a birthday gift to Taylor, Guinness World Records announced that Eras Tour had become the highest-grossing music tour of all time. It feels incorrect to call this news, since we know she owns us all at this point. So let’s call it confirmation of an inherent truth. E! News rounded up some more facts and figures about this milestone:

Taylor Swift’s uber-popular Eras Tour has officially broken the record for the highest-grossing music tour of all time, Guinness World Records announced Dec. 12.

The Grammy winner’s concert series has reportedly become the first to make more than $1 billion in revenue — specifically, it has earned $1.04 billion in just nine months after opening in March 2023, Guinness notes, citing Pollstar. (Bloomberg also crowned Swift personally a billionaire in October.)

Before Swift’s achievement at age 33, Elton John, 76, held the record for highest-grossing tour thanks to his farewell concert series, which ended in Sweden in July 2023 after five years, reportedly making $939 million.

So, while there’s only so far new money goes, it’s clear Swift is going the distance. And she has more shows left, returning to the stage in Tokyo in February 2024, before heading to Australia, Singapore and then Europe.

For fans not able to make the trek (or score a stub on Ticketmaster), Swift also brought the experience to the big screen in October with the release of her Eras Tour movie. The concert film has brought in nearly $250 million worldwide in two months and will be available to rent on Prime Video Dec. 13.

[From E! News]

Oh man, rub it in more, E! News. 33-year-old Taylor Swift + 9 months of touring = $1 billion whereas 76-year-old Elton John + 5 years of touring = $939 million. But it’s not like Taylor doesn’t work hard for her money. Later on the article quoted some parts of Taylor’s TIME Person of the Year interview where she talked about her training for the tour:

“I knew this tour was harder than anything I’d ever done before by a long shot,” she told TIME magazine in an interview published Dec. 6. “Every day I would run on the treadmill, singing the entire set list out loud. Fast for fast songs, and a jog or a fast walk for slow songs.”

The “Anti-Hero” singer then had three months of dance training, “because I wanted to get it in my bones,” she added. “I wanted to be so over-rehearsed that I could be silly with the fans, and not lose my train of thought.”

[From E! News]

I love when artists talk shop about preparation and processes. And I especially love it when the method turns out to be “practice, practice, practice!” There’s often a magical notion out there that someone successful simply has something ineffable that makes them destined for achievement. Sure, people can have an “it” factor. But success comes down to doing the work, even when it’s repetitive or unglamorous. Even when it’s spending three hours everyday running on the treadmill while singing. And since I haven’t been on a treadmill in REDACTED years, that is the (one and only) reason why I am not as successful as Taylor Swift.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: The Grosby Group/Backgrid and Getty

This past weekend, I watched Jennifer Garner’s new holiday movie, Family Switch. I thought it was cute and laughed at a lot of the scenes that Ed Helms was in. Was it kinda dumb? Sure, but I always love a good Freaky Friday switcheroo. I even liked the boring 2020 Vince Vaughn slasher flick, Freaky. I didn’t find it scary at all, so it was a win/win for me. Speaking of scary, something that Jen Garner finds scary is the Met Gala. In a recent video for Vogue’s “Beauty Secrets” series, Garner shared some of her favorite beauty products and explained why she’s only been to the gala once, back in 2007. That one frightening experience was enough for her.

No more Met Galas for Jennifer Garner. The actress explained in Vogue’s “Beauty Secrets” series why she has only attended the annual event “exactly one time” in 2007.

“I found it a little scary, so I haven’t been back,” the “13 Going on 30” star admitted while applying makeup in the candid video Monday.

However, she clarified that had a great experience at the “Poiret: King of Fashion”-themed evening in a “magical red Valentino gown” as the designer’s date.

“That was really, like, majestic and special,” Garner, 51, recalled.

Garner isn’t the only celeb who has sworn off the annual Anna Wintour-helmed event at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Gwyneth Paltrow, Demi Lovato, Amy Schumer and more have all said the A-list event “sucked” in various ways.

The Golden Globe winner previously reflected on the night out in a 2018 Instagram post highlighting her strapless, floor-length dress and up-do.

“You will never appreciate using the bathroom alone until you’ve been sewn into a dress,” Garner captioned the throwback red carpet photo.

“#TrueFriendsHelpYouPee,” she concluded, tagging producer Nicole King Solaka in the social media upload.

[From Page Six]

I didn’t realize how many celebrities were against going to the Met Gala! I can understand why people would consider it to be a scary or intimidating experience. There’s a lot of rules, pressure to dress within the theme, and opinions about whatever outfit that you end up wearing/having to wear. It’s really fun for us to pick through the good and especially the bad fashion, but probably not a lot of fun for most of them. And socially, a lot of stars have talked about how awkward it is or how it’s like a cool kids club and they were lonely not having anyone to talk to. It sounds like for so many attendees, the night is basically, “Fashion, but make unfun.” Jennifer’s red Valentino dress from 2007, however, was stunning. I’m a sucker for that color red, though. Also, she is correct. When you’re stuck in a fancy dress that requires a lot of effort to put on and take off, true friends do help you pee.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Joy Scheller/Avalon, screenshot from YouTube, Getty Images for Netflix, Mediapunch/Backgrid