GASP! Suri pictures seen!

[irishgrl]

this from TMZ:

Suri Pictures Seen!

The National Enquirer reports that it has seen the first pictures of Suri Cruise, and that the baby has a remarkably lush head of hair, so much so that, even just a few months old, she has it combed behind her ears and down her neck. And the tabloid's analysis suggests that Suri looks significantly more like Katie than Tom both feature and skin-tone wise -- in fact, the Enquirer says that no resemblance to Tom is immediately apparent. The pictures, which will reportedly be published in Vanity Fair, show Tom nestling his little girl against his neck and Suri laying on a bed while Tom plays with her and Katie sits by, grinning.

[jannieC]

Hm. Okay so there IS a baby and it appears to be at least Katie's. Now we can all continue speculating that it's NOT Tom's as she bears zero resemblance to him.

But seriously- I hate these two and I hate that I even want to see a picture of their baby.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by jannieC

Hm. Okay so there IS a baby and it appears to be at least Katie's. Now we can all continue speculating that it's NOT Tom's as she bears zero resemblance to him.

But seriously- I hate these two and I hate that I even want to see a picture of their baby.

Yeah, I know what ya mean, but I keep feeding that particular fire dont I?

[Kelly]

I do not have a problem with Katie and Tom wanting to keep their family life private. His two older children were not publically photographed until they were a few years old. Seems like a pretty responsible thing to do actually. He def. hyped up his romance with Kate but if he doesn't want to do that with their child....I really respect that. He is doing the same thing with Suri as he did with Bella and Connor...keeping them out of the spotlight.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by jannieC

Hm. Okay so there IS a baby and it appears to be at least Katie's. Now we can all continue speculating that it's NOT Tom's as she bears zero resemblance to him.

But seriously- I hate these two and I hate that I even want to see a picture of their baby.

I know!! I feel the same way...and I love how the article emphasizes that the baby bears no resemblance to Tom I find that brand of stretching annoying. Just because my nephew didn't look like my brother in law at birth and a few months after does not mean it's not his kid.

Ok - now I want to see the pictures.

I hate myself

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I do not have a problem with Katie and Tom wanting to keep their family life private. His two older children were not publically photographed until they were a few years old. Seems like a pretty responsible thing to do actually. He def. hyped up his romance with Kate but if he doesn't want to do that with their child....I really respect that. He is doing the same thing with Suri as he did with Bella and Connor...keeping them out of the spotlight.

I dont remember that it took several years to see pictures of Bella or Connor...but in any event, their circumstances were quite different. And I find it quite hypocritical to promote the pregnancy and then hide the baby. Besides, many stars quietly keep their kids out of the public eye. Key word? quietly.

Tom is a hypocrite, and this whole thing stinks.

[irishgrl]

Let the bidding wars begin!!

EXCLUSIVE: What Mags Will Pay For Suri Pics

Posted Jul 13th 2006 1:59PM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Wacky and Weird, Baby Watch, Tom and Katie

TMZ has contacted the big players in the bidding wars over celebrity baby photos, and you may be surprised at what a picture of Suri Cruise can fetch.

Editorial staffers from People, Us Weekly, In Touch, Life and Style and OK! spoke candidly with TMZ, on condition that no names be used.

A source at OK! magazine tells TMZ that a set of exclusive, posed photos of the nearly three-month-old Suri would go for anywhere between 4 and $5 million -- People reportedly paid $4.1 million for pictures of Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. The OK! source believes the high price tag is justified, partly because there would be a huge spike in circulation but also because of "the cred" that a glossy would get by having the photos plastered all over the world.

But sources at In Touch and Life & Style magazines beg to differ. The feeling there -- that Suri's first pics would garner a relatively paltry $2 million - $3 million. One source said the concealment of Suri "stinks" of Tom trying to manipulate the situation by creating mystery and thereby driving the price up.

Over at People, a source tells TMZ that the photos would fetch less than Shiloh's. The source says the main draw is not the baby or Tom but Suri's mom -- "People are fascinated by Katie Holmes, who's leading such a weird life now," transforming from an apple-cheeked All-American girl into the Bride of Scientology.
An Us Weekly source also believes that Suri photos would be a less valuable commodity than Shiloh pics. The thinking -- Brad and Angelina were "beautiful and romantic" after their baby was born. The source says the value in Suri pics have more to do with the "freak factor" of her parents.

And there's this -- One editor told TMZ that the price of the photographs would depend in no small part on where the proceeds from the sale end up, implying that it would be a very different matter if the millions went to African orphans than straight into the coffers of the Church of Scientology.

But what if the first Suri pics were not posed but captured by a paparazzo? A source at Splash News, a photo agency, thinks the shot would be "the biggest picture by a long mile in the world, and that as time goes on, it will only get more valuable. " The source says one good shot could fetch up to $2 million.

[BlackWidow]

they had a baby...?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

they had a baby...?

allegedly (yes, fanning the fire here I know...)

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I dont remember that it took several years to see pictures of Bella or Connor...but in any event, their circumstances were quite different. And I find it quite hypocritical to promote the pregnancy and then hide the baby. Besides, many stars quietly keep their kids out of the public eye. Key word? quietly.

Tom is a hypocrite, and this whole thing stinks.

I am not a Tom fan but he definately kept his other children out of the spotlight, for YEARS. The first photo of them was when Bella was four or five years old and Connor was a toddler. I think it was not long after they adopted him. Its a family photo of Tom, Nicole, Isabella holding Tom's hand and one of the parents holding the toddler boy. I will try to post it later. It was a big deal as the kids were not photographed up until that point. So, it seems like he is doing the same thing with the new one. I feel sorry for Kate, I think she definately got herself into a mess with him. I hope she had no post partum issues...Daddy would be feeding her vitamins for a cure.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I am not a Tom fan but he definately kept his other children out of the spotlight, for YEARS. The first photo of them was when Bella was four or five years old and Connor was a toddler. I think it was not long after they adopted him. Its a family photo of Tom, Nicole, Isabella holding Tom's hand and one of the parents holding the toddler boy. I will try to post it later. It was a big deal as the kids were not photographed up until that point. So, it seems like he is doing the same thing with the new one. I feel sorry for Kate, I think she definately got herself into a mess with him. I hope she had no post partum issues...Daddy would be feeding her vitamins for a cure.

Wait a minute here, it sounds like you are confusing their ages with when the public got to meet them. If we got to see them soon after Connor was adopted, then I hardly think its accurate to say Tom kept them secret most of their young lives when he didnt even adopt them as infants. Thus, if we get to see a family portrait soon after Connor was adopted, then it doesnt strike me as though Tom is approaching this in the same way.

btw, I just dont recall there being quite this much hoopla over Tom shrouding his other kids. If you can provide an article or some other proof, I'd like to see it...

[jannieC]

I really could care less about seeing this baby. He has every right to protect his child's privacy- I've said that from the beginning. However, he's a crazy lunatic who LOVES the spotlight and attention. The HIDING of the baby is a way to get MORE attention! I don't feel sorry Katie. She knew what the hell she was getting into when she married his crazy ass!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I really could care less about seeing this baby. He has every right to protect his child's privacy- I've said that from the beginning. However, he's a crazy lunatic who LOVES the spotlight and attention. The HIDING of the baby is a way to get MORE attention! I don't feel sorry Katie. She knew what the hell she was getting into when she married his crazy ass!

in the interest of fairness I went looking for any corroboration of Tom's behavior with Bella and Connor, and found a quote by Katrina Szish, a contributing editor for Us Weekly magazine:

E-Mail This StoryPrint This StoryTag With del.icio.us

In Search Of Suri
As Shiloh Debuts In Wax, TomKat Keeps Baby Under Wraps

July 27, 2006
Enlarge
Katie and Tom at the Hollywood premiere of "Mission: Impossible III" on May 4, 2006. (GETTY IMAGES/Kevin Winter)
(CBS) It seems people will do anything for a look at today's celebrity babies. At Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in New York, a statue of baby Shiloh, the baby daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, made its debut.

But when it comes to Suri, the daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, the public is being kept in the dark.

Katrina Szish, a contributing editor for Us Weekly magazine, joined The Early Show co-anchor Rene Syler for a little "TomKat Chat."

ShowBuzz is offering a "Build Your Own Suri" feature, and Us Weekly is keeping such a close eye on news of the baby that it is maintaining a countdown clock on its Web site, calculating how many days, hours, minutes and seconds it has been since Suri was born and the public has not seen her.

"I don't think we're going to be seeing her any time soon," said Szish. "I think the clock is going to keep ticking away. I don't guess we'll see her before she is 1 year old."

That would be in line with Cruise's Scientology beliefs, which call for keeping children safely removed from outside influences. And it was several years before photos were made available of Bella and Connor, the two children who were adopted by Cruise and his former wife, Nicole Kidman.

"It's not out of character for Tom to be very protective of his children," Szish pointed out, while acknowledging that there is a public hunger to see Suri.

she then goes on to say:

"Especially with the TomKat situation," she added. "His courtship of Katie Holmes was so public, engagement so public, pregnancy so public. They really did make us hungry, and now they're not … following through on that. That's what makes this one extra delicious. We're just waiting to see that baby."

But then, what about the concept of pulling back? Why must Cruise and Holmes show their baby to the world? After all, their courtship was so public that they were criticized and some people even accused them of pulling a publicity stunt.

"It seems so out of character, based on the fanfare we all went through, the infamous couch jumping, which we've all talked about," Szish explained. "The fact that someone who was that public and that over the top would suddenly decide to withdraw and be very reserved does seem a little bit strange."

Many of TomKat's friends haven't even seen Suri, although actress Leah Remini of "King of Queens," also a Scientologist, recently told the press she has seen and held the baby.

As for rumors of an imminent TomKat wedding, Szish said, "I don't think it's true. We've heard from sources that they're not going to get married until Katie gets her pre-pregnancy body back, because she wants to look gorgeous on her big day. Who doesn't?"

I still say a lot of this stinks...

[desertangel]

Hhmm... makes me wonder if some of these celebs aren't exploiting their own children just a bit. I seem to recall Madonna didn't want photos taken of Lourdes for quite a long time and when she was ready to "let the public see her" - Vanity Fair was the chosen publication. It could be worse, for example... running around with a blanket over their heads.

[hayley]

http://community.livejournal.com/ohn...t/8545855.html