I cannot even count or remember all of the pregnant celebrities right now. I do know that 95% of them have a much higher celebrity than Kim Zolciak. So, it boggles the mind that out of anyone Life & Style could throw a few bucks at for almost naked pregnancy photos, they chose Kim. I mean seriously? Is your budget that small that all you can afford is Kim? Imagine you are at your checkout stand and this is not even about buying a magazine. This is just about which magazine you are going to pick up and flip through really quickly while you are waiting to check out. Is the one with Kim Zolciak the one you are going to pick up? And buying it? Forget about it. All this does is make the magazine look like they are some kind of third rate almost tabloid who can't land someone everyone knows. I know they are not going to snag Natalie Portman, but you would think they could get somebody besides Kim.
My eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI bet Kim paid THEM! :-D
ReplyDeleteWho is Kim Zolciak?
ReplyDeleteRobert, I am jealous of your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteLOL! What Lauren said. :-) I know who she is, and I don't even watch those shows.
ReplyDeleteNo.. I wouldnt even buy if Natalie Portman was on it. Been there done that twice. Celebrity pregnanies are no more special than mine were.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes @Nanaurbiz she probably paid THEM! LOL!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI still think Kim is a man
ReplyDeleteI have to say she does look good, all things considered.
ReplyDeleteshe's one successful gold-digging woman.
ReplyDelete@Diane, I hadn't really considered it, but I think you're probably right.
ReplyDeleteWho???
ReplyDeleteThere are a million pregnant celebs and semi celebs and that's the best they could do? I know Jessica Alba wouldn't do it, but at least give us someone we would like to look at. Selma Blair, Ivanka Trump, etc.
ReplyDeleteI am so glad I have not lost any brain cells watching any of the Real Housewives of _____ shows. The reason they got her is no other big time celebrity would do it. This is not Demi and Vanity Fair or whatever she was on.
ReplyDeleteI just can't with that "hair".
ReplyDeleteBlecccchhh!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's a man, baby, but it looks like it used to be a man, baby!
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail square on the head with the no budget for real stars theory. Seriously? Kim...a "celebrity"? Puhleeze...
ReplyDeleteThank you Rocket Queen! My goodness, I've known so many women who had fantastic hair during their pregnancy and this woman gets photographed with that horrid looking 'thing' on her head. I am completely over Christina, Paris, Britney and every other celeb with tacky, horrible, fake hair. Don't any of these people look at photos of themselves and see how silly they look?
ReplyDeleteDoes Life & Style pay the people on the cover for the photos? I doubt they are a first pick publication for most real celebrities.
ReplyDeleteLOL @ Diane
Kim probably did pay THEM.
Natalie is out of place on that cover. They should have used some other reality star.
I would love to know how bad her real hair is because the wigs aren't an improvement by any means! Fake!
ReplyDeleteGo away Kim - you gold-digging wh@re! Shame on any magazine for her putting her on the cover.
Ummm... just exactly *who* is she?
ReplyDeleteI thought to be a "celebrity", people at least had to know who you are...
i want to know who on god's green earth believes she's 32.
ReplyDelete@scrappy. SERIOUSLY. I'm 35 and I swear I'm at least 7 years younger than this trick.
ReplyDelete@FS - THANK YOU. I can't understand how she thinks that shizz looks natural!!
Kourtney Kardashian is pregnant again?
ReplyDelete