Today in celebrity news: Bravo's biggest star to date is ignoring her creators, Heidi Montag spent a lot of money, and Daniel Radcliffe is on the market.
Now that she's going to be a talk show star, Bravolebrity (haha oh god) Bethenny Frankel may have gotten too big for the little people. There's a rumor that Frankel, who rose to fame on Bravo's Real Housewives of New York City and Bethenny Ever After, has hurt Bravo cheerleading mascot Andy Cohen's feelings by refusing to appear on his cable access late-night talk show Gay Uncle Andy's Basement Nighttime Hour and, even more heinously, is refusing to have him on her upcoming talk show. Cohen supposedly feels totally snubbed, as he helped build the brand of Bethenny and assumed she would never forget her roots. Which, ha, when ever in showbiz history has anyone remembered their roots? Come on, no one remembers their roots. Especially in someone like Bethenny Frankel's case. She probably wants to run as far away from and forget Real Housewives as much as she can. And who can blame her! Those are roots worth not remembering. Sure it could all come crashing down and her talk show could be a bust (like Rikki Lake's, like Jeff Probst's, like even Katie Couric's) and she'll be lucky to get a guest spot on Sweet Sassy Andy's Yuk-Yuk Glug-a-Lug, but that's the risk one takes. You start a mission to the moon, it could be a disaster. But it could also be a glorious golden success. And Bethenny is going for it. She's betting she'll soar all the way to a perfect landing, instead of burning up, on her way back down, in Andy Cohen's atmosphere. [Radar]
While on the topic of people breaking up into pieces, and reality stars, former The Hills villain Heidi Montag says that she and her husband Spencer Pratt, whom she exhumed from the cursed earth surrounding the ruins of an old Silly Putty factory, are broke and living with Pratt's parents. Yup, all that Hills money, gone. Montag says "I've never really counted, so I'm not sure [how much we lost]. Over a million or so." Hm. OK. What's weird there is that Us Weekly added the "how much we lost." To which I say, lost? You mean spent? I mean, what, did they leave it at a restaurant and then when they went back the hostess was like "No, sorry, didn't find a million dollars, but you can check the lost and found bin..." so they rummaged through discarded old Nokia cellphones and kids' toys and a retainer case or two, but nope, no million dollars? Did they swear they put the million dollars in this box during the move but now it's not in any of the boxes and, shit, sometimes things just get lost in the shuffle? No, they spent it. They spent over a million dollars on stupid things because, quite frankly, they are stupid people. So, whatever, who really cares, this is the biggest non-story of many a non-story this morning, but I just think that was a strange use of editorial quoting. Choosing that word "lost." Seems so passive. When it wasn't. I really can't imagine it was. [Us Weekly]