Million Dollar Baby
It's on. The race to deliver the first photo of baby Suri, born Tuesday to Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise has begun. The winning paparazzo will probably earn at least $1 million (and possibly much more) for the sale of that first picture to the highest bidding celeb-centric publication.
Cruise's Los Angeles compound has been surrounded for weeks and the furor isn't likely to die down until baby Suri is thoroughly snapped. Why the high price? An insatiable public appetite. From tabloids to blogs devoted to celebrity babies, megastar baby shots are where the money (and the interest) is at.
Photographers rush a car arriving at Tom Cruise's house on Tuesday. (AP)
Not so surprising, considering the frenzy, that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have chosen to de-camp to Namibia for the arrival of their soon-to-be-born child. One overzealous photog was recently pepper-sprayed after getting too close to Pitt and Jolie's son Maddox and New York magazine recently ran a PhotoShopped faker of a Pitt-lookalike and a computer composite of Jolie holding a well-swaddled newborn (the photo was used to illustrate an article about the celebrity photo business).
According to a recent Toronto Star report, People magazine paid $500,000 for photos of Britney Spears' baby and photos of Gwyneth Paltrow's first child, Apple, earned one photographer $100,000.
Which pix -- TomKat's or Brangelina's -- will bring the highest payoff? Hard to say. I'd tend to err on the side of Tom and Katie given the mystique surrounding their Scientology beliefs and sneaking suspicions many have that baby Suri might be green or have other signs of extra-terrestrial lineage. But then Brad and Angelina's choice of lions as added security probably ups the ante a bit and one recent report priced the value of their potential baby pics at $4 million.
A couple options do remain, though, for new celeb parents hoping to devalue, and thereby ease the demand, for photos of their children: Release official photos themselves (Julia Roberts and husband Danny Moder sold photos of their newborn twins themselves last year, donating the proceeds to charity) or make the baby available for a five-minute shoot upon leaving the hospital (Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick did this when first child James Wilke was born in 2002).
By
Liz Kelly
| April 20, 2006; 10:43 AM ET
Categories:
Miscellaneous
Save & Share:
Previous: Morning Mix: Nick Dishes on Split with Jessica
Next: Morning Mix: We're Suri, So Suri
Posted by: sndmaven | April 20, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse
sndmaven - then what are you doing reading this posting? Clearly you care somewhat. And obviously you care enough to post a comment about how you "don't care." Don't worry, I won't tell your little secret, though. :)
Posted by: Cynic | April 20, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse
I like the idea of the parents selling a home photo and donating the procedes. I really like when celebs use their power for good. Once photos are out...they'll have a little bit more peace.
Posted by: Duke | April 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse
WHO CARES !!!!!!! I thought there was a never-ending war going on, bird flu, AIDS and few other less-important issues in this world. If anyone cares, my wife is due, too !!!
Posted by: Andy Ginsburg | April 20, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse
If the public gives you millions for your movies then the public owns you; you must then provide access. I hate the media and the stalkarazzi but I understand their motivation.
Some Weather Channel reporters were arrested in Tennessee last week for not leaving the property because they had to get some more comments out of a family whose mother had been killed by the tornado. "So, how do you feel since she's dead?"
Posted by: Michael | April 20, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse
a big STFU to all the people with conspiracy theories about the birth being fake
Posted by: iamgladtheyhadthebaby | April 21, 2006 9:44 AM | Report abuse
Great comments sndmaven. The idea that the media creates its own hype about celebrities to ensure its own existence is valid. Like you, I haven't meet recently or lately anyone who has an insatiable appetite for pictures of Tom Cruise's kid. Although, I don't dismiss that there are those people who live and die to read these publications for the juicy morsels that clog their daily lives.
But, the point remains that there is definitely a movement afoot whereby the media creates scenarios in its own interests to promote its place in society. Basically, where there is only some interest or muted interest, the media can seem to project that there is some grand about revealing Tom's kid, when in fact their motive is only to produce record sales on the news stands. With the bevy of reality shows and programs, TV has resurected itself from the bottom of the pile under cable and the internet--to becoming again competitive for the dwindling viewer.
It's not Tom Cruise's brat that's the story its money, ratings and power.
Posted by: Vince | April 24, 2006 12:46 PM | Report abuse
Great article, that was interesting
Posted by: want to be rich? | May 3, 2006 7:38 AM | Report abuse
Personally I don't really see what makes a celebrity's child so very different than an ordinary baby off Stratford Road. Their parents, they can barely speak, the majority cannot walk and yet being the offspring of famous celebrities suddenly raises their status in the world. Some may be beautiful, as Baby Suri of Tom Cruise is, but if that little girl was the kid of a green-grocer the papparazi wouldn't give her a second glance.
Posted by: Brodie Lee | September 7, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Seriously-insatiable public appetite? How does the media know this 'appetite' exists?
I honestly could not care any less about celebrity kids. And I don't know anyone who does. I love kids as much as anyone, but I don't care about kids I'll never meet.
It seems to me that the media is just believing their own hype about celebrities. After all, they are just people like the rest of us. Not to mention the pressure on the poor kids. Their parents are extraordinary (or perhaps just lucky) so therefore we are all supposed to think the kids are something special too? Give them a chance to be people on their own first, I say... and let's leave them alone.