This year’s Us Open marks the 20th anniversary of Andy Roddick’s only major/Slam title. In 2003, Roddick won the US Open as a 21-year-old. He was the last American man to win a major title, although obviously, plenty of American women have picked up Slam titles since then (Serena, Venus, Sloane Stephens, Sonya Kenin, hell, even Lindsay Davenport returned and made some Slam finals post-maternity leave). But it’s a blight on American tennis that Roddick is the last American man to lift a big trophy in 20 years. It speaks volumes about the ostrich syndrome of the USTA and how the American tennis intelligentsia is far behind their European counterparts when it comes to training boys/men for the modern sport.

Still, Roddick is a mensch and he’s enjoyed his life after his 2012 retirement. He and his wife Brooklyn Decker have two children, multiple animals, multiple homes and multiple lucrative businesses. A-Rod appears on Tennis Channel and does recaps and commentary, and he’s insightful and funny and he still follows the men’s and women’s game closely. GQ decided to give Roddick a lengthy profile about his life and career and this was an excellent read, although it’s very long-winded. Some highlights:

He downplays the significance of his US Open title: He’s citing how many American women have won majors over the last two decades. “No one’s benefited more from one win,” he says. “Ever. Had an American man won the next year, you wouldn’t be here.”

His coach Brad Gilbert advised him to ditch his visor: He takes off his baseball hat to show his bald head. “If I would’ve known it would’ve ended like this,” he says, “I would’ve worn the visor a lot longer. I texted Brad and was like, ‘F–k you, man. You took away my best hair years.’”

His life changed after he won the US Open: “You’re 21 and you’re like, ‘This is awesome. I’m super famous.’ There’s a certain amount of like, ‘Oh, I hate being famous…’ But then you go to the restaurant where everyone is. Like, Shut up. You don’t actually hate it….[Lacoste] was the big pay day. I barely did anything that wasn’t required contractually ever again.”

His idols: “These guys—Connors, McEnroe, Chang, Courier, Andre, Pete. They were everything to me. And so it’s like, ‘It’s on you. Don’t f–k up what they built.’ If I couldn’t replace their tennis, I could somehow keep people in the building.”

He never wavered from the work: “The work was non-negotiable. I never viewed myself on the same level ability-wise as a Roger, so I always had this insecurity where if it got away from me…”

On Roger Federer: “I love Roger. I do. I love him as a human being.” But after so many losses to Federer—21 in 24 matches—Roddick admits that he developed an insecurity. “I didn’t show up at the track every morning like, ‘F-ck Roger! To me it was like the sky. You’re not always looking at it, but you know it’s there.” For a diehard competitor like Roddick, what bigger challenge was there than trying to beat Federer and Nadal and Djokovic? Though as Roddick admits, “Maybe it went from a challenge to obsession at some point.”

How he hooked Brooklyn Decker: He had his attorney call her agent, which she thought was shady. “The only thing I will say in my defense,” Roddick says, “is I didn’t do it all the time. The shooting of the shot was a one-time thing.”

The heartbreaking loss to Federer in the 2009 Wimbledon final, 16-14 in the fifth, after which he made a charming speech on Centre Court: “It’s not about me in that moment. Pete doesn’t go anywhere. He doesn’t leave his living room. And he made the trip. You gotta have a little respect for history.” Still, he was distraught. “I was sad for me,. But I was sad for them [my team]. I was the only chance that Stephen Little had of winning Wimbledon. And I know he hurt, and the people there hurt, as much as I did in that moment. I remember this part f–ked me up during my Hall of Fame speech. I didn’t have kids while I was playing. And then I did by the time the Hall of Fame comes around. And I’m like, these grown-ass men gave up how many parts of their lives and children’s lives to try and win a tennis tournament? I knew the sacrifice that was being made, but you can know something and you can also not understand it fully until later.”

People started coming up to him after the 2009 Wimbledon: “Every person in the store was like, ‘Andy, man, tough one.’ As if we knew each other. And it was awesome. I’m like, Oh my god, this has been the water cooler conversation for like three days.”

Whether he would have traded his “everyman tennis player” vibe for the Wimbly title: “Probably. Because I would like to think that I could get over myself enough to build that bridge with the fans anyway. Had I won Wimbledon, I don’t think I would have one single regret. I’m not disappointed I didn’t win ten slams. I’m disappointed I didn’t win Wimbledon. You can have seven of ’em. I just wanted one.”

He likes the young crop of American men: “There is a healthy jealousy between the players. They’re not all just slapping each other on the back. They want to be better than the other guy. They actually talk about winning slams.” And who would he pick as the one to do it—the one to break American men’s 20-year curse? “I don’t know. This isn’t a cop out. I would probably lie to you if I had a strong feeling, ’cause I wouldn’t want one guy to get the spotlight and have to deal with that. But I honestly don’t know that one is head and shoulders above.”

If he could change anything about his career, he wouldn’t have worked so hard. “I always operated out of, ‘If I’m not as talented as these guys, there’s no chance they can win the day as far as training or effort.’ If I could go back and change one thing in my career it would be to do less of that sh-t. I remember my last year on tour. I see this guy floating around and he’s like #25 in the world. He’s the happiest guy I’ve ever seen. And I’m just like…I just want one more look at the basket. I’ll do anything. And then there’s relief when you win, not out and out joy.”

The moniker “One Slam Wonder.” “I’m like, ‘F–ck, I won 32 times.’ I won two out of my last four or five tournaments. What would be a defining moment in someone’s career, it doesn’t matter if I win ten more of ’em. If it’s not a major, it would affect people’s perception zero.”

[From GQ]

There’s also some heartbreaking stuff about the death of his agent Ken Meyerson and his father. Basically, Roddick burned himself out with his intensity and grief, but his marriage, charity work and fatherhood brought him back to the land of the living. As for what he says about the new crop of young American guys – he’s not being diplomatic about it, he really doesn’t know. A lot of hopes are pinned to Taylor Fritz (a white guy, handsome, with an influencer girlfriend) meanwhile Frances Tiafoe and Tommy Paul both made Slam semifinals in the past year, and Paul seems to have #1 Carlos Alcaraz’s number. I hope Andy doesn’t dwell on the losses, but yeah… you can tell that the Wimbledon losses still hurt, especially 2009.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GQ Sports (@gqsports)

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, GQ.

For weeks, we’ve heard from unofficial sources that the Duchess of Sussex would not join Prince Harry for the Invictus Games Opening Ceremony, but she would arrive in Dusseldorf a few days into the games. Well, now it’s official. Harry and Meghan’s spokesperson confirmed the news to Omid Scobie and a few select journalists: Harry will be in Dusseldorf for the entire Invictus Games and Meghan will join him probably on the 11th or 12th. The Sussexes released the photo, above, although it doesn’t look super-recent? I don’t know! Hilariously, I checked the Daily Mail to see what spin they were using for this (old) news and this is seriously the headline: “Meghan WILL join Harry at Invictus Games in Europe… after claims she won’t join her husband at UK charity event on anniversary of Queen’s death.” The Daily Fail Brain Trust can’t comprehend how planes work, and that a husband and wife would travel separately. Ask Will and Kate, I’m sure they’ll explain it.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will both be attending the Closing Ceremony at this year’s Invictus Games for injured service people in Germany, it was confirmed on Thursday, amid claims she will not be in the UK with Harry on the eve of the anniversary of the Queen’s death.

Close friend and confidant of the Sussexes Omid Scobie posted the news on social media, adding that while Harry will attend the entire games, Meghan will ‘join him later on’ and stay for the Closing Ceremony, before returning to the US. Mr Scobie said: ‘A spokesperson confirms that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are ‘delighted to be attending’ the Invictus Games 2023 in Düsseldorf next month. Harry will be there from the start and Meghan will join him later on in the competition. They’ll both be at the closing ceremony.’

It comes as it emerged this week that Prince Harry will be returning to the UK on the eve of the anniversary of the late Queen Elizabeth II’s death. Meghan is expected to miss the opening ceremony of the sporting event for wounded military personnel and veterans being staged in Dusseldorf from September 9 over eight days. But she will fly to Europe and join husband Harry shortly after the event – which will see participants from across the globe taking part – begins.

[From The Daily Mail]

They’re all humming with excitement that Harry will be solo, however briefly, when he makes a breezy visit to the UK ahead of the games. I don’t think it’s even occurred to anyone over there that Harry probably has some interviews lined up to promote Heart of Invictus AND the games themselves. Perhaps something with Gayle King, or maybe Hoda Kotb or Savannah Guthrie? I’m sure at least one of the American morning shows will send an anchor to Dusseldorf, right?

A spokesperson confirms that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are “delighted to be attending” the @InvictusGamesDE 2023 in Düsseldorf next month.

Harry will be there from the start and Meghan will join him later on in the competition. They’ll both be at the closing ceremony. pic.twitter.com/Qq96zdGXRg

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) August 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Instar, Backgrid, Archewell.

Last week Kaiser covered The OG Supermodels being Vogue’s September cover girls, and y’all had definite thoughts about the photos. The general consensus seems to be that something is a little off with the cover shot, whether it’s photoshopping… or some other factors. While weighing in on the topic in a blog post for Cup of Jo, former Editor-In-Chief of Lucky magazine Kim France admitted to her role in an infamous photoshop fail: Jessica Simpson’s appearance on Lucky in 2010. France recounted some of her “reasoning” to Yahoo Life:

Photoshop on a body-positive story, because of course: Jessica Simpson spoke about “finally loving her body” for the Sept. 2010 issue of Lucky, according to the cover that the singer and former reality TV star appeared on. However, her image next to those words didn’t depict Simpson in her true form at all. It’s a revelation that the magazine’s former editor-in-chief Kim France made in a blog post on Aug. 15 when reflecting on the prevalence of photoshopping on covers (after suspecting that there had been retouching on the latest issue of Vogue).

Jessica was size 14 then, quelle horreur: “When the cover film came in, we could see that [Simpson] was about a size 14 — which is considered normal by many rational standards, but not by glossy magazine standards, not in 2010, and not by a long shot,” France wrote for Cup of Jo. “I’d like to be able to tell you that I fearlessly insisted we put her on the cover anyway, looking the way she actually looked. I did not. … We made her skinnier — much skinnier than she actually was.” France tells Yahoo Life that “it was an estimation” to label Simpson a size 14 at the time. Nevertheless, she says, “You simply didn’t see larger or even average-shaped women on covers back then, unless they were Oprah.”

Lip service: “Jessica Simpson has undergone a noteworthy personal style evolution, inspired, she says, by coming to terms with some serious body issues over the course of the last year,” reads an excerpt from the magazine. “She stopped fighting her hourglass silhouette, for instance, after realizing that ‘we all obsess over looking like the perfect Barbie type, and that’s not always what’s beautiful. It’s about making peace with yourself.’” It was a minimal and contradictory effort when paired with the admission of retouching. “That cover line is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the whole cover, and I obviously really regret it,” France says. “I think the idea of body positivity at the time was more a question of lip service, as opposed to now, when it seems to come from a more sincere place.”

They simply had no choice: To this day, France maintains that she had no choice but to alter Simpson’s appearance. “Once we had shot a size-14 woman for the cover, that cover wouldn’t have made it out the door and past the bosses unless she was slimmed down,” she wrote. “And so I did that, to an insulting degree.” She went on to write, “Jessica Simpson herself was said to have hated the cover, and who could possibly have blamed her?”

[From Yahoo! Life]

Ok here’s where I’m struggling: this editor is hemming and hawing about how no one would approve a (gasp) size 14 woman on the cover in 2010, so they just had to photoshop Jessica… but, um, who booked her for the cover?! Doesn’t it seem like the so-to-speak problem was entirely of their own creation? “When the cover film came in, we could see that [Simpson] was about a size 14,” but they’d seen her before the photo shoot! How were they possibly caught off guard here? Booking Jessica in the first place was the moment where they were taking a stand, only it seems they missed their own memo.

In the blog post where Kim France shared this story, she revealed she was fired a few weeks after that issue hit the stands. Then she went on to reflect on what she’d have done differently in hindsight, and her conclusion was “to not book somebody that size in the first place.” Yikes. Now see, when I look back with hindsight, my thought is that there was so much worse to come in the decade, that seeing a size 14 woman on the cover of a magazine in 2010 would not have been the unfathomable upheaval she makes it out to be.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim France (@kimfrancenyc)

photos via Instagram, Lucky Magazine and credit WENN

Patricia Clarkson is so good at playing Northern WASPs, I always forget that she’s actually a Southerner. She’s from Louisiana, but she’s lived in New York for years. She apparently lives alone – she’s famously unmarried and childfree. She recently spoke to the Table for Two podcast about her personal choices to focus on her career and her fabulous single, childfree life. At the age of 63, she has no regrets. Goals.

She never wanted to be saddled with a husband or kids: She called herself a “single, straight Southern woman who never married and never had children” while explaining why she decided becoming a mom wasn’t right for her. “I have so many sisters who have beautiful children, and they now have beautiful children. I love being an aunt, I love it more than— probably more than acting, which is odd. They’re on par. But I’m telling you, these are gorgeous children, but that doesn’t have to define every woman. I made a big choice, but I knew it when I was young.”

She did have a chance: Clarkson noted that she considered the possibility of having kids and getting married “with this one artist I dated when I was like 38…I had a window to have a child, but [at] the end of the day I loved working, and I grew up with great parents who sacrificed everything for me. And you have to really be committed to having children. You have to be a great parent, and I was afraid I couldn’t be.”

Fear of failure: She did not “want to fail at being a parent… I’m fine failing as an actor. I didn’t want to fail at being a parent.”

Her fab life: “My mother said, ‘Patty, I just don’t want you to wake up at 50 and be unhappy.’ I woke up at 50 in stilettos and a thong. I’ve had a great sexy-ass life. And it’s not that my whole life is that. I love being an aunt, I love being a sister, I love being a daughter, I love being a great best friend. I’m a very good friend, I think. It’s not what I wanted to define me because I didn’t want to fail.”

[From People]

She said, a decade ago, that she believed she was missing that gene which makes people want to settle down and procreate, and I feel that. I think there are a lot of women missing that gene, and they just go along with the marriage-and-baby life because they were told that’s what “every woman” wants or should want. I relate to all of this, just like I relate to Mary J. Blige’s statement of “I like my freedom. I like being able to get up and go and move and do what I wanna do. I don’t want to have to tend to someone all the time.” Protect your peace, childfree peeps!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaley Cuoco (@kaleycuoco)

Who needs a little shot of love heading into the weekend? I do, so I give you baby, dogs, and star signs courtesy of Tom Pelphrey. Tom and his wife Kaley Cuoco welcomed Matilda on March 30, and both parents seem absolutely besotted. As they should be! W Magazine did a little profile on him to promote his role in HBO’s Love & Death. The interview was conducted before the actors’ strike, and Love & Death aired in the spring, so I’m not sure why W Mag has the story out now. (If it was meant to be an Emmys push, the series only received one nomination–for Jesse Plemmons.) But no matter, because Tom is adorable talking about all of the above, and also not knowing his wife’s most famous role:

Did you ever watch The Big Bang Theory?
Never. Matter of fact, when I first brought Kaley to New Jersey to meet my family and friends, my mom’s partner—who apparently was a Big Bang Theory fan—was there, and he kept calling her Penny. I had no clue what was going on. So I pulled Kaley aside, like, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what’s happening. Why does he keep calling you Penny?” She’s like, “That’s my character in The Big Bang Theory.” I was completely unaware. I’ve watched a few episodes with her since, and, obviously, she’s fantastic.

So you hadn’t seen her in anything?
I hadn’t seen Kaley in anything. Look, I live in a cave. Before I met Kaley, I was living in upstate New York, on a dirt road, in the middle of the woods, without much Wi-Fi. She’s brought me into modern times.

Well, you still kind of live a wild life, since you have so many animals? How many now?
We’re up to six dogs, all rescues. And now we have a beautiful little girl. A human to add to the mix.

Do the dogs accept the human?
The dogs all accept the human. Five of the dogs are over 10 years old. And then, about four weeks before Matilda was going to be born, Kaley said, “I saw another dog that needs to be rescued. Is it crazy to rescue another dog right now?” I said, “It’s absolutely crazy, but let’s do it.”

What is your zodiac sign?
My birthday is July 28. I’m a Leo. I am a Libra rising and a Scorpio moon. My daughter shares two of my three signs. She’s not a Leo. She’s an Aries sun, but she is Leo moon and Libra rising, just like me.

Do you see yourself in her?
I see myself a little bit in her. She’s got one dimple on her left cheek, like I do. Other than that, though, I see Kaley. Kaley says she sees me, but when Matilda’s kind of confused or frustrated about something, she makes these faces and I’m like, “Oh my god, there’s your mom.”

[From W Magazine]

To be fair to Tom, Kaley has said she’d never seen him on Ozark, either. Anyway, it’s all super cute and I’m rooting for them. Generally I am skeptical about relationships that move so quickly, or when the gush level gets out of control (case in point: Tom Cruise circa 2005). But so was my mama, and then she said she had a full on thunderbolt moment the first time she saw my father — does it get any sexier? My mama also happens to be an Aries, one of many dynamic Aries women my life has been blessed with. Matilda is in good company.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)

You know what they say: Go big or go [dojo mojo casa] home. A full two months after its release, Barbie will finally hit that big, big IMAX screen. Beginning on September 22, Barbie will be released in IMAX theaters for a one-week limited engagement. (Somewhere, Tom Cruise just woke up in a sweat after hearing “only one week in IMAX.”) Why should you consider seeing it? Because there will also be new footage! Let’s call this Barbie: Image Maximum (Greta’s Version).

Warner Bros. Pictures announced Wednesday that the blockbuster, starring Margot Robbie, will be released in IMAX theaters for a one-week limited engagement beginning Sept. 22. This version of the film will include brand-new footage chosen by director Greta Gerwig.

In a statement, Gerwig, 40, said that audience enthusiasm for Barbie around the globe since its release in July “has been overwhelming, humbling, and deeply moving.”

“So many Barbie fans went on this journey with us, and we can’t thank them enough for supporting the film and sharing their Barbie experience in theaters, across social media, and out in the world,” she said.

“We made Barbie for the big screen, so it’s an even bigger thrill to be able to bring it to IMAX, the biggest screen of all,” said Gerwig. “And as a special thanks to Barbie fans, we’re excited to share a little bit more of our cast and crew’s incredible work by adding special new footage we hope audiences will enjoy.”

Barbie did not initially play in most IMAX theaters across the U.S. after it opened the same day as Christopher Nolan’s film Oppenheimer, creating the fan-driven ‘Barbenheimer’ phenomenon. Oppenheimer shattered several records for IMAX attendance.

[From People]

I have been wanting to see Barbie a second time and it’s been quite a while since I saw a movie in IMAX, so I’m thinking about maybe getting some girlfriends together and making an evening out of it. Is IMAX worth the hype? I’m a simple creature when it comes to watching movies. I am intrigued about the bonus footage, though. Apparently, it’s going to be post-credits footage, which can be anything from outtakes to deleted scenes. It could even be something that explains this picture of Patriarchy Ken and Weird Barbie. Are new bonus post-credit scenes enough to entice people to buy a movie ticket? Hopefully, whatever it is will also be included in the digital or DVD editions (yup, I’m an elder millennial and still reference DVDs as a thing) so everyone gets to eventually see it. Well, as long as it’s not the fart opera. I think we’re all in agreement that that one can stay in the vault.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BARBIE (@barbiethemovie)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BARBIE (@barbiethemovie)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BARBIE (@barbiethemovie)

I came to The Gilded Age late but I love that stupid show now. Season 2 will premiere October 29th! We got a new image of Bertha and George Russell too! [GFY]
Lainey doesn’t know what’s going on with Scooter Braun either. [LaineyGossip]
One writer describes how the Friends sausage was made. [Pajiba]
God, remember when everyone was obsessed with Pink Sauce? [Starcasm]
Gemma Chan wore a prim Louis Vuitton. [Tom & Lorenzo]
There’s a Covid surge in New York. [JustJared]
Republicans have turned on Oliver Anthony, yay. [Jezebel]
Doutzen Kroes looks amazing here, but I’m still not over her anti-vaxx views. [Egotastic]
Khloe Kardashian loves her new face. [Seriously OMG]
Which big-ticket purchases are worth every penny? [Buzzfeed]

One of the first and funniest stories about Kevin Costner and Christine Baumgartner’s divorce was the report about Christine charging a forensic accountant to Costner’s credit card just weeks before she filed for divorce. While the divorce battle has not been going in Christine’s favor for weeks now, she was so real for that one thing. It was badass. So, Christine has a good idea of Costner’s financials, but there’s one thing on which she needs some clarity: Costner’s next planned project, Horizon. Costner essentially mortgaged their Carpinteria home to finance Horizon, and Christine and her lawyers want a lot more information about that. Costner doesn’t want Christine or her lawyers to know anything about it.

Kevin Costner’s estranged wife Christine claims the Yellowstone actor is “withholding” evidence of his finances as their divorce battle drags on. In a request for order filed in California Superior Court Aug. 21 and obtained by PEOPLE, an attorney for Christine, 49, has asked the court to compel Kevin, 68, to produce documents related to his business dealings.

The lawyer claims the two-time Oscar winner — who shares children Cayden, 16, Hayes, 14, and Grace, 13, with Christine — has been “stonewalling” by not sharing the information ahead of their scheduled child support hearing next week and the November trial to determine the validity of their premarital agreement. Christine — who is entitled to a $1.5 million payout under the terms of the agreement, which she previously claimed she felt “pressured” to sign — was also temporarily awarded $129,755 per month in child support last month.

“[Kevin] has requested a multi-day evidentiary hearing on [Christine’s] request for child support, at which time the Court will receive evidence regarding [Kevin’s] gross cash flow available for support and anticipated future income. [Kevin] has also requested a trial to determine the validity of the parties’ Premarital Agreement, the unconscionability of which will depend on an analysis of how the terms of that agreement compare to the parties’ present financial realities,” Christine’s lawyer wrote in the request for order.“The Court will need to receive evidence regarding those circumstances to make its determination. However, [Christine] will be unable to present any evidence that [Kevin] has chosen to withhold from discovery.”

Christine had initially asked for $248,000 per month in child support. Kevin, whose 2022 income was around $20 million according to court documents, strongly objected in a June 30 filing. He said he could not afford that amount because he expects to earn “substantially less” in 2023 now that he is no longer under contract for Yellowstone, which he said was the principal source of his income.

Noting Kevin’s statement in their new filing, Christine’s lawyers have said they are also seeking information related to his upcoming film series Horizon “as such documents evidence his future endeavors and anticipated income.” Kevin, they claim, is “withholding” those documents.

As an exhibit included in the request for order, Christine’s attorneys included Kevin’s response to their Request for the Production of Documents, dated June 30, in which he objected to providing the information.

“This Request seeks documents that are not relevant given the parties entered into a Premarital Agreement containing a limitation on spousal support and providing that all income earned during marriage would be the separate property of the spouse earning the income and providing for no community property,” an attorney for Kevin wrote.

Kevin’s lawyer called several specific requests for information — including those related to his businesses — “burdensome, oppressive and harassing.” In the request for order, Christine’s lawyer called those responses in the June 30 “deficient,” and sought to obtain more information. According to the request for order and attached exhibits, Kevin did provide further financial information over the following weeks but has resisted providing information related to Horizon.

[From People]

It’s interesting, I guess. The lawyers will hopefully figure it out. I mean, I understand Costner’s argument that in the coming years, he won’t have Yellowstone money coming in and that will be a factor in how they calculate child support. But it’s worth noting that Christine filed for divorce right after Costner put up his biggest asset (the Carpinteria mansion) as collateral for Horizon, and Christine is well within her rights to want more information about that. It does affect her and their children, because what if Horizon bombs? What if Costner goes through another Waterworld-esue lull in his career and the bank forecloses on the mansion?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

This summer, the economy has been fueled by two women: Barbie and Taylor Swift. Barbie is crushing all of her box office competition, and Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is a $2.2 billion juggernaut, spreading economic boosts to every city on the tour schedule. I would also argue that Beyonce’s Renaissance Tour has been a huge economic boost, but this post is about Tay-tay. Time Magazine did an interesting analysis of why the Eras Tour has been Taylor’s most successful tours yet, and she already had a great touring history.

While there’s much to say about the music, costumes, and production, the impact of the Eras Tour is starkly reflected in the numbers: a projected gross of $2.2 billion in North American ticket sales alone, and hundreds of millions of streams, reaching a nearly 80% spike in those listening to her music catalog in the weeks after the tour kicked off.

Swift’s tour is in a league of its own, even among legendary groups like the Rolling Stones who have been touring for decades, other major touring artists like Harry Styles and Beyoncé and contemporaries like Adele with sold-out Las Vegas residencies, as the singer-songwriter brings her mega tour directly to her dedicated fans in various cities for multiple nights.

The reasons behind the Eras Tour’s unmatched success are many. Nora Princiotti, staff writer at The Ringer and co-host of the podcast of Every Single Album: Taylor Swift, attributes part of the tour’s success to the sheer depth and popularity of Swift’s music catalog. “I don’t know that anybody envisioned a tour of this scale ever happening. She can go three and a half hours and just hit after hit after hit,” says Princiotti.

There’s also the timing: The tour has become the perfect outing for concert-goers itching for a post-pandemic live music immersive experience. “We are in an experience economy where people crave going out and participating in social events,” says Alice Enders, a music industry analyst at Enders Analysis and a former senior economist at the World Trade Organization. “It’s no surprise that people are flocking to this Eras Tour experience in what is increasingly an otherwise digital environment we live in.”

[From Time]

The thing about extremely-online people craving irl experiences is that Taylor gives them BOTH. Taylor gives her online Snake Fam enough content to fuel and engage with a billion internet rumors, memes, videos and conspiracies. Then those same people go to the concerts and make friends and share friendship bracelets. Meanwhile, Taylor is literally too big for the Super Bowl Halftime Show:

Taylor Swift has turned down the chance to perform at the Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show in Las Vegas because she is simply too ‘busy’ with her current Eras world tour. The 33-year-old singer, who will play several shows at Foro Sol in Mexico this week, has been touring the United States since March of this year but is ‘in no rush’ to do the legendary musical performance that usually lasts between 12 and 15 minutes.

Taylor doesn’t believe that performing at the Super Bowl halftime show in Sin City would be ‘a defining moment for her right now’ and is very much focused on other projects.

A source close to the Shake It Off hitmaker exclusively tells DailyMail.com: ‘Taylor is busy with her current tour, she has zero time to prepare a Super Bowl show, she will do it eventually, but she is in no rush at all to do it in Vegas or do it in the next couple of years. She knows she is at her peak in her career and each move from this point on is as important as the next. Working on her current tour and recording her old music and working on new music and living life are taking up the majority of her time.’

The insider continued: ‘The Super Bowl will be a nice thing to do someday but it is not a defining moment for her right now. She knows she has all the time in the world, and she always reminds her team that Madonna was 53 when she finally did the show herself, so timing is everything. Taylor is well aware of how she wants her career to develop and will do things her way and her way only and will not rush into something she doesn’t want to do just to do it and that includes the Super Bowl.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Real talk: for years, Taylor Swift avoided the Halftime discussions because she’s sponsored by Coke, and the Halftime show’s longtime sponsor was Pepsi. Now Pepsi is out and Apple is sponsoring the Halftime show… so that’s why there’s speculation that there’s new interest in Taylor. But I think the rest of it is correct, Taylor’s simply too busy right now and she knows that she’ll be asked again.

Here are some pics of Taylor at Jack Antonoff’s wedding last weekend:

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Angelina Murphy and her husband Skyler Johnson are a newlywed couple in Los Angeles who have documented their home renovation, gardening and lifestyle on TikTok and Instagram. They renovated their mid century modern LA home for under $50,000 and have been featured on Insider, the NY Times and even National Geographic. Nothing prepared them for going viral for their most controversial TikTok post, a seemingly low stakes admission that they randomly choose a side of the bed and that neither of them have a preference. Angelina and Skyler have since been profiled in several outlets and interviewed by ABC News, where they said that less than 1% of the thousands of commenters on their post agreed with them.

A California couple is getting plenty of feedback about one of their bedtime habits.

“We do not have a regular side of the bed that we sleep on,” Angelina Murphy recently shared in a TikTok post. “Last night I slept on [one] side, and then the night before for about two or three nights in a row I slept on [the other] side.”

“It’s never discussed, we just randomly pick a side where we sleep,” added Angelina, who got married to husband Skyler earlier this year. “And whenever this has come up in conversation people act like that is the craziest thing they’ve ever heard.”

“But I don’t know, we just never picked a side of the bed,” she shared. “So I am bringing it to TikTok to see if it is actually as crazy as everybody says it is.”

Since sharing the post earlier this month, the video has already gotten over 1 million views as well as thousands of comments, where most users shared that the found the couple’s routine strange.

[From People]

Angelina also showed the contents of their very organized bedside tables, and they are just general items that both of them can use. In ABC News’s segment they interviewed a couples counselor and a sleep expert, and both said, essentially “if it works for them that’s cool.” I have never not had a side of the bed I sleep on and I always sleep on one side of the bed even when I’m alone. I’ve had a specific side at every boyfriend’s house too. The sleep expert on ABC, Wendy Troxel, said that it must keep Angelina and Skyler on their toes as it can be disorienting to wake up on a random side of the bed. Most of us have woken up in a different house or at a hotel and had those first few seconds where we don’t realize where we are. That happened to me earlier this week! I can’t imagine living like this and waking up on a random side, but I wouldn’t take the time to tell this sweet couple that they’re wrong. It cracks me up to see people go viral and to marvel at how harsh and judgmental the Internet can be. It’s not that I wish it on anyone, I just have been dealing with it daily for so long that I find comfort in other people discovering it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Angelina Murphy (@_renovatingourhome)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Angelina Murphy (@_renovatingourhome)

Photos via Instagram and YouTube