For your central Jersey real estate needs: JudyNJHomes.com
Catch Kat in The House Bunny in theaters nationwide NOW! fandango.com
Thanks to aseriusobsession at IDF:
And the Monday treats continue - some I haven't seen before from 444 magazine, still evaluating this. Now these we need to get HQ, ASAP. http://www.katharinemcphee.com/node/1963 Can you say "edgy"? What is she holding? Kind of S & M/B & D (Well, the whole shoot is) Hmmm - kind of masculine - not liking this one Avril McPhee anyone? Biker McPhee A very different Katharine McPhee, she pulls of this dark persona very well.
Looks like it comes with an interview, those are Q & A on each page. Never heard of this mag before. No luck with the google. Anyone know anything about it?
Edit: This is a San Diego Entertainment type magazine.
Katharine made the header of the website http://www.944.com/sandiego/ :
Yeah, I was just going to post them. I don't know how she did that? Is there an alternat directory at katharinemcphee.com with larger pics in it? Jenn will never share her secrets.
Edit - I figured it out
aiextremist at IDF said "why didn't anyone post this one?" I have no idea where he/she found it because it isn't on the official site with the others and I couldn't find anything at the magazine website. Anyway, it is called: katcoverpw9.jpg So maybe she gets the cover of this magazine? That would make sense as her pic also appears to be with the table of contents.
Now that you mention it Greg, I think a part in a Quentin Tarentino movie sounds better than anything else I've heard over the last year on this subject.
She would be the dark, evil, sadistic killer. Nothing like playing against type.
I didn't like this photoshoot that much, but I don't find it that offensive, either. Kat's not showing that much skin. And if/when she does, it's because of the system:
film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2163280,00.html
One of the most blatant demonstrations of this came last year, when Vanity Fair (them again) published their Hollywood issue. Put together by the fashion designer, Tom Ford, the cover featured Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, two talented young actors, completely naked. Rather bizarrely, Knightley was being sniffed by a fully-clad Ford. Inside, it was explained that Ford's appearance had been a last-minute addition and that a "certain young actress" had been slated to appear as part of a "gorgeous female threesome", but hadn't understood the nudity requirement and "bowed out when the clothes started coming off". Said actor was Rachel McAdams, who, at that junction last spring seemed on the brink of stratospheric fame. She had appeared in three successful films in 2005 - Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, The Family Stone - and, some might have argued, was worthy of a fully clad Vanity Fair cover. Since declining to bare all, McAdams' career has gone strangely quiet (she has apparently turned down some offers of sidekick roles), while the fame of Knightley and Johansson has soared. Coincidence? Well, maybe.
"...degrading oneself to look like a stripper as a means of gaining fans..."
I must have missed this, got a link???
This is that cover, I don't see anything wrong with it, I think it is a beautiful picture. It doesn't in anyway degrade these two women, it celebrates them. To say that Rachel McAdams career ended because she declined to appear in this picture is absurd.
Katharine isn't gettting desperate, she is furthering different aspects of her career. The modelling ties in with the acting and the music. I guess she won't be able to please everyone and she will lose some of her old fans along the way but she will pick up a lot more new ones. The old ones can continue to watch American Idol and perhaps they can find someone more to their taste there.
How in the world can you possibly know Kat's reason for accepting this photo shoot? Yours is a HUGE assumption that Kat did this "as a means of gaining fans". I could speculate that she did this shoot for an opportunity to take on the challenge of a top model looking SAVAGE. Or that she is running out of money because she gave it all to charities...see what I mean? Only Kat knows and I think she'd go crazy if she tried to explain herself to thousands of fans with varying life experiences and opinions. I say relax and don't try to read her mind.
Try to catch America's Next Top Model and see these shoots for the drama and artistry they are intended to be. As I mentioned in another thread...I will jump on a different bandwagon if Kat does Playboy. I'll also admit here that I am a fairly conservative person of faith and I can set that aside to see the art of the facial expressions. I'm not crazy about the S&M type pose for personal reasons but I'm sure Nick doesn't have any bruises... and it's HIS opinion that really matters the most.
OK...one more thing then I'll shut up.
The thought just occured to me after reflecting on watching ANTM. The ability to create the vast range of expressions is really a talent! There have been many girls on the ANTM show who couldn't cut it because they weren't able to create moods with their eyes and facial expressions. With this is mind I am actually really in AWE of Kat's talent in this area, I swear she could be a supermodel on top of everything else she does. I do pencil sketches and I really am taken by the closeup black and white, I think it is "SAVAGE" and she is completely awesome to be able to create this mood with her eyes...I am just more amazed every day with her talent and verstility. She is definately jaw-dropping awesome!!!
I see absolutely nothing wrong with these pics. Nothing at all. The Stuff pics were a LOT more risque than that, I don't see why people are worrying about these. They are fine.
Does anyone have any bigger pics? Id like to be able to read them.
One of the most blatant demonstrations of this came last year, when Vanity Fair (them again) published their Hollywood issue. Put together by the fashion designer, Tom Ford, the cover featured Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, two talented young actors, completely naked. Rather bizarrely, Knightley was being sniffed by a fully-clad Ford. Inside, it was explained that Ford's appearance had been a last-minute addition and that a "certain young actress" had been slated to appear as part of a "gorgeous female threesome", but hadn't understood the nudity requirement and "bowed out when the clothes started coming off". Said actor was Rachel McAdams, who, at that junction last spring seemed on the brink of stratospheric fame. She had appeared in three successful films in 2005 - Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, The Family Stone - and, some might have argued, was worthy of a fully clad Vanity Fair cover. Since declining to bare all, McAdams' career has