Posted by Cuzzin Walter at spider-tj031.proxy.aol.com on October 02, 2000 at 23:29:31:
In Reply to: On the cover ofthe RollingStone(another AF comment posted by courtlyn on October 02, 2000 at 23:21:59:
: Damn subject box isn't big enough. Anyways, this is a little out of date, but I haven't seen it discussed here yet and I saw Mr. Lee milling around so I thought it might be appropriate to bring up now.
: Okay. The cover story for this month's RS is about almost famous. The head story is about Crowe himself and there's a little piece about Kate Hudson. Now, don't get me wrong, I am quite impressed by Ms. Hudson, but why the hell did they put just her acting all sexy on the cover? That wasn't even the point of her role in the film, so that is no excuse. Shouldn't they have let Cameron himself be on the cover, since he is one of (or THE)most popular and celebrated journalist/writer/flat-out talent to come from the mag? (at least that I can think of) It seems horribly unfair to just slap a sexy woman on the cover to sell magazines (which is all they seem to do anymore. Practically the only thing really worth reading these days is the political commentary and essays, but I digress) Ever since goddamn Britney Spears and her tits, talent or music does not seem to matter. Couldn't they at least have put a shot of Stillwater on the cover. I think that would have made more sense. It would have been a nice thank you for all the publicity they're getting from Crowe's film.
: 'Kay. I'm done bitching now. Is this at least a little on topic? Do I sound like a raving feminist? Or does anyone else agree with me?
: xoxo-courtlyn
no, you dont really sound like a raving feminist...and i do think it would've been better to have stillwater on the cover...and i like goddamn britney spears' tits......haha
jim "i'm incendiary, too" davis