Forbes Magazine just released its pedophelically-titled list of the 10 Hottest Hollywood Tots, with Suri Cruise topping the list of "hot" movie star kids.
Now that you've done the same "this can't be right" double take that I did, realize that by "Hottest Tots," Forbes is actually ranking the stars' kids in terms of their buzzworthiness and earnings potential, not by anything that would cause Chris Hansen to pay a visit to the entire Forbes editorial staff. It's still sleazy, it's just not criminally sleazy.
That's what I thought, at least, until I saw which kid was #7 on Forbes' list and the magazine's alarmingly inconsiderate rationale behind the inclusion:
No. 7 Matilda Rose Ledger
Age: 3 years
Parents: Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger
The hardship of Matilda was well covered by the media, as evidenced by her entry on this list. With a short life story that reads like a soap opera script, her life has already been filled with the tragic death of her father and a legal battle over his estate.
So basically, Forbes, what you're saying is --
This kid's HOT, ya see? Her dad totally kicked off early from a depression-induced drug overdose leaving her fatherless at age 3 which got tons of ethically-questionable paparazzi attention and bolstered her late dad's blockbuster pic. That could mean MONDO box office bucks if we get this tot into a talking picture! Ya hear me? This kid's dead father and subsequent legal battle over his estate has made her a CASH COW!!! She'll be bigger than Bindi Irwin, I tells ya!
Forbes, I realize you're as amoral and bottom-line-driven as a publication could possibly be, but this seems a tad on the disingenuous side, don't you think? In the future, please just stick to giving your lists titles that make us believe you're ranking toddlers by their sex appeal.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
Forbes Magazine just released its pedophelically-titled list of the 10 Hottest Hollywood Tots, with Suri Cruise topping the list of "hot" movie star kids.
Now that you've done the same "this can't be right" double take that I did, realize that by "Hottest Tots," Forbes is actually ranking the stars' kids in terms of their buzzworthiness and earnings potential, not by anything that would cause Chris Hansen to pay a visit to the entire Forbes editorial staff. It's still sleazy, it's just not criminally sleazy.
That's what I thought, at least, until I saw which kid was #7 on Forbes' list and the magazine's alarmingly inconsiderate rationale behind the inclusion:
No. 7 Matilda Rose Ledger
Age: 3 years
Parents: Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger
The hardship of Matilda was well covered by the media, as evidenced by her entry on this list. With a short life story that reads like a soap opera script, her life has already been filled with the tragic death of her father and a legal battle over his estate.
So basically, Forbes, what you're saying is --
This kid's HOT, ya see? Her dad totally kicked off early from a depression-induced drug overdose leaving her fatherless at age 3 which got tons of ethically-questionable paparazzi attention and bolstered her late dad's blockbuster pic. That could mean MONDO box office bucks if we get this tot into a talking picture! Ya hear me? This kid's dead father and subsequent legal battle over his estate has made her a CASH COW!!! She'll be bigger than Bindi Irwin, I tells ya!
Forbes, I realize you're as amoral and bottom-line-driven as a publication could possibly be, but this seems a tad on the disingenuous side, don't you think? In the future, please just stick to giving your lists titles that make us believe you're ranking toddlers by their sex appeal.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
ValleyPop [Beta] is a social bookmarking site for everything entertainment. We invite you to submit some great gossip, movies, paparazzi pics or whatever your little heart desires. Enjoy!
Comments