|
|
Post by Lissa on Oct 31, 2003 8:47:08 GMT -5
On my morning read to IMDb, I came across two alarming rumors:
1.) Weight Watchers wants to pay Rene Zellweger $110,000 per pound she loses after Bridget Jones wraps up. First of all, they didn't pay ME that much. (Which is too bad, because I'd be up $7,700,000.00 and I could really handle that.) They're talking 30 pounds. Secondly, I honestly think the chick looks BETTER with those 30 pounds on. I'm very disappointed in Weight Watchers for promoting this, because she looked downright anorexic in Chicago and it was really pretty gross. Okay, so maybe I'm just a little jealous that she's getting paid so much freaking money to lose weight and be a spokesman for them, but I really wish they'd go after someone who's under much more of a health threat and interested in losing weight and famous. Pet peeve, but yeah.
2.) According to IMDb, John Cusack's new fling might be (Clare, cover your eyes).... Brittney Spears.
There is just something fundamentally WRONG with that.
Lissa
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Oct 31, 2003 12:19:47 GMT -5
My, my, does the MRFH Forum have a new Gossip Queen? (Justin will be disappointed to lose the title!)
|
|
|
|
Post by mutantclare on Oct 31, 2003 12:51:48 GMT -5
1) If that's true, Weight Watchers owes me $6,050,000.00 I'll take that in one lump sum please.
2) I stopped paying attention to who John Cusack is cavorting with years ago. I figure, unless he's cavorting with me, it's none of my business. That and Britney is turning into the new Winona. She's passing herself around to apparently anyone who wants a scoop. So whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Oct 31, 2003 14:22:00 GMT -5
12) I stopped paying attention to who John Cusack is cavorting with years ago. I figure, unless he's cavorting with me, it's none of my business. Normally, I totally agree with that. But that was just such a bizarre combination it caught my eye. I have a problem with the Renee thing for several reasons: 1.) Like I said, pay ME. I lost more than she did! 2.) She put on that weight totally voluntarily, and got paid to do it. There are tons of people- some of whom are celebrities!- that honestly struggle with their weight. 3.) One of the draws of WW is that it's a completely healthy way to lose weight. Why pick someone who's yo-yo-ing like that?  ?? 4.) If I could afford a personal trainer, I might look closer to that too. 5.) My husband has a thing for her, but that's more on a personal level and me being silly  6.) She's apparently normally 5'5" and 105 pounds. Let's add 10 pounds to say the person who I got that stat from is wrong, and then add 30 for Bridget. That puts her at 145. I am 5'5". At my lowest I was 146. The healthy range cited by WW for someone who is 5'5" is 119-141. Losing 30 pounds puts her at 115, below the range. Most of us have to get doctor's notes to have a goal outside of the weight range. 7.) She put on weight before and lost it no problem, alone. HELLO! That's not a great spokesperson for an organization designed to help people who have trouble losing weight lose weight! 8.) I still think she looked far better in Bridget Jones. 9.) The current spokesperson is Fergie. If you've seen her, she's thin, but she's "normal" thin. Her shape is attainable. She's always struggled with her weight. She might have married into royalty, but she's much more real than some of these movie stars. As a non-movie star type, I can relate far more to Fergie than to Renee. Her struggles are real, and therefore far more inspiring to me than a moviestar wanting to get super skinny. I can totally understand they're using this as a marketing ploy- I'm saying I don't think it's going to work that well. 10.) I would actually like to see more movie stars on the realistic side. Not necessarily 300 pounds, but women who are in the 10-16 range. I've always felt that way, but now that I'm working with junior high girls and listening to these very beautiful girls wish they looked like someone else and could be that skinny (when not a single one of them is remotely overweight!), it bugs me even more. Sorry for my long rant, but the more I think about this, the more irritated I get. Lissa Ranting queen of the day |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 31, 2003 19:03:33 GMT -5
As a point of reference (since I know nothing of women's dress sizes) what famous person is a size 10-16?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Nov 1, 2003 10:09:15 GMT -5
A really good one would be the chick in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Actually, I really liked her. She was pretty, but not outlandishly so, and she got the guy. I'm not sure of her actual dress size, but how she looked in relation to everyone else.... ummm.... Hmmm. Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones... it's hard to be sure because everyone on screen is so skinny.
The average woman wears between a 10-14. If you're not in college or high school, look at the real women you know. A lot of them are probably in that range.
Liss
|
|
?? 
