Good thing he didn't run into Rose Castorini.
What the hell happened to your hair?
You... you got a love bite on your neck..... what's the matter with you? You're life's going down the toilet! Cover up that damn thing! Come on, put some make-up on it!
Nip of wild turkey perhaps?
Yuck. So now you're highlighting blemishes and trying to pass them off as lovebites? That's sick.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on, you know that's not a "lovebite"! lol. Sometimes I think you're screwing with everyone just to see how far you can go with this stuff.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he can't ever be seen with these BTs what's the point of a "Family Truckster"?
Covering all the basis. Let's eliminate all the other things you are going to claim is:
ReplyDeleteNicked himself shaving - oops has a beard
Mosquito bite - do they have mosquitoes in LA right now?
Spider bite - because they always go for the neck.
Vampire Bite - they do go for the neck but wait those are only in books or on screen
Ran into a flat iron - ahh not enough hair
Tranquilizer Dart
His necklace cut his neck
Tsetse fly attack
Bee Sting
Allergic reaction to the strawberry candy with just one hive
Blow Dart
They threw in a free Carotid artery test at the Dr's
Ran with Scissors
Attack by a runaway remote control helicopter
Atticus mistook his head for a giant tennis ball
and
That's what happens when your team mixes up figuratively vs. literally when they say they're going for the jugular.
Spesh, it looks like nothing more than an angry zit. Thanks for covering all the bases that nobody except you would have thought of. I.e., everyone else will recognize it for what it is. Geez. Bad enough he gets them without you shining a spotlight on it.
ReplyDeleteJake! Call us!
ReplyDeleteSorry for my absence. I am writing a script for all of you. I hope you will like it.
ReplyDelete5 minutes ago
I think Ted put out that letter today just to smooth over the waters a little bit. It hasn't worked for me. I am not feeling all warm and fuzzy. Jake has went way to far. He should be ashamed of himself.
ReplyDeleteBomer is awesome Destiny.
Have fun PG, M and M and the real m.
It made me feel better to read Ted's letter tho. Cute post today. One of my favorite movies ever.
ReplyDelete^^^ I love that line in that movie (Ma, I love 'im somethin' awful). There are so many favorite lines from that movie, I cannot begin to count them.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. I need to watch it again. :)
ReplyDelete@dr_bombay
ReplyDeletesending out happy birthday wishes to Pete Townshend (http://bit.ly/irGOGA) & Grace Jones (http://bit.ly/iWINvg) today. PS- thx J. Gyllenhall
I was happy to see Ted reaffirm things. Not that I was doubting, but it just makes me feel better.
ReplyDeleteI am still seeing the latest pic on line, most recently at ONTD where Jake is being called a prude for even caring about the picture. Their take on the damages - "As for the publicity and Lanham Act claims, Gyllenhaal might have to trot out experts testifying to the value of a market in Gyllenhaal underwear photos being damaged by the appearance of this image. Who knows? Maybe Gyllenhaal really could be the paid spokesperson for Fruit of the Loom."
Some celebs love their privacy whilst others let their 'friends' take pictures of them in various stages of undress.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is Jake Gyllenhaal, our new favourite terrorist-busting actor, star of Source Code.
A picture of the actor has surfaced showing him doing a ballet pose wearing just white briefs and a pair of rather unflattering socks, or is it?
The fresh white briefs appear to hug the Hollywood actor's torso whilst he pretends to be a flamingo.
One can only imagine it was taken as a laugh or perhaps Jake was auditioning for a role in Black Swan II.
It's not the first time the actor has been snapped wearing less/more than you'd expect. Appearing nude alongside Anne Hathaway in 'Love and Other Drugs', the star has also been papped by a fan in a bathroom. Getting the picture anyone?
What we want to know is who took it and are there anymore?
Seriously hit us up on Facebook or contact The Dirt team directly on paparazzi@austereo.com.au.
Tell us do you think this is Jake or a doppelganger?
Jake Gyllenhaal sues over underwear photo
ReplyDeleteJake Gyllenhaal's lawyers are scouring the internet in an attempt to eradicate a picture of the actor that purportedly shows him stretching in his underwear.
A letter was sent to a few websites, including Queerty.com and Buzzfeed.com, in which Gyllenhaal's lawyers claim that "as anybody could tell from a cursory examination, this is a fake picture, in which our client's head has been pasted on the body of another person."
Gyllenhaal's pose in the photo is said to resemble an album cover pose of singer Grace Jones.
The photo might be a nuisance to Gyllenhaal, but the legal campaign seems to have backfired.
"We're keeping the photo up, since it hasn't been proven fake and because their letter bumped it from 'funny and cute' to 'actually newsworthy,"' reports Queerty.com.
Gyllenhaal's lawyers allege the photo violates the actor's legal rights by "portraying him in a false light, violating his right of publicity and constituting a false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act."
- Reuters
Jake Gyllenhaal Claims Underwear Pic is Defamatory
ReplyDeleteWe haven't done a WTF of the day in quite a while, but this would definitely be one of those stories. Jake Gyllenhaal and his band of lawyers are trying to prove that a photo circulating around the internet depicting what appears to be him in his underwear, striking a Grace Jones pose, and looking pretty good doing it is defamatory. I'm sorry, but WTF?
The lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Qweerty.com and Buzzfeed.com after both sites posted the photo as something irrelevant and funny. While Buzzfeed caved to their demands, Queerty says they'll keep it up because no one has actually proved it's not legitimate and because the fact that they received a letter makes it "newsworthy."
Okay, I get that Gyllenhaal says it's not him and if you've seen the photo (here), you'll agree it's certainly possible that it was photoshopped. So, alright, it's potentially not really him and if that's so, it technically portrays him in a false light. Yes, it falsely accuses him of having strong enough abdominal muscles to stand in that pose, and it false portrays him as light-hearted enough to let someone take a picture of him doing it. We get that. But this is bad why?
First of all, if it is photoshopped, welcome to the internet, Mr Gyllenhaal. Second of all, either way, does he really think that this photo would affect his ability to be cast in films? He's a decent, very attractive actor with beautiful blue eyes and chiseled features. That's why he gets cast in films. Did anything bad happen to Matthew McConaughey's career when he was found high as a kite, playing the bongos in his birthday suit? Nope. Because he's an alright, very attractive actor with a Southern drawl that attracts women faster than a Diane Von Furstenberg sample sale. Basically, while the lawyers could technically be right, and they may be able to rustle up a few folks who'll testify that this could hurt his future paycheck-garnering ability, but you know what? All this hullabaloo over a stupid internet photo is ten-times worse for his reputation than the photo itself. If he keeps this up, he'll end up looking like a bratty, self-important actor and even if that's who he really is, your average movie-goer just may not be that into buying what he's selling any more.
Source: THR
Jake Gyllenhaal sues over underwear photo
ReplyDeleteJake Gyllenhaal's lawyers are scouring the internet in an attempt to eradicate a picture of the actor that purportedly shows him stretching in his underwear.
A letter was sent to a few websites, including Queerty.com and Buzzfeed.com, in which Gyllenhaal's lawyers claim that "as anybody could tell from a cursory examination, this is a fake picture, in which our client's head has been pasted on the body of another person."
Gyllenhaal's pose in the photo is said to resemble an album cover pose of singer Grace Jones.
The photo might be a nuisance to Gyllenhaal, but the legal campaign seems to have backfired.
"We're keeping the photo up, since it hasn't been proven fake and because their letter bumped it from 'funny and cute' to 'actually newsworthy,"' reports Queerty.com.
Gyllenhaal's lawyers allege the photo violates the actor's legal rights by "portraying him in a false light, violating his right of publicity and constituting a false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act."
- Reuters
I'm kind of amazed at how many places are weighing in on what a bad move this was--and of course the letter just drew more attention to the whole things.
ReplyDeleteBomer is awesome Destiny.
ReplyDeleteYes he is Tom. Counting down the days until the 23rd when he's on JImmy Kimmel, and until the June 7 return of White Collar and hopefully more interviews.
There's something either about the photo itself or maybe the person who took it that is bothering Jake's people. As I've said before the picture of him with that sultry stare, taking off black nylons is far more "compromising." Several posters are now wondering if the only reason he reacted like this is because the pic is real. Way to go Jake. Don't your people know anything about damage control and laughing stuff off. This pic doesn't damage your image, your handlers do.
ReplyDeleteNot only are people calling Jake a prude, but they are disappointed by the reaction because the photo made him interesting and fun again.
Have fun PG, M and M and the real m.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tom. I'm really looking forward to hanging out with PG and meeting the real m. Weather should be great after an extended period of rain and thunderstorms. We will be exploring the age old question, "Will lobster taste better from the Pacific or the Atlantic?"
Special: This is a Seafood Throwdown
I remember several posters from the old WFT discussing how Jake enjoyed giving and receiving lovebites.
ReplyDeleteYep, that's a hickey alright. I believe it's already turning purplish. Nice to know that Jake's gettin some lovin' from Goose. I'm sure he needs the consolation given the Internet backlash from that defamation nonsense.
You're crazy. It's a zit. Anyone with eyes can see that.
ReplyDeleteYou people are a hoot! Now I know you're just yanking everyone's chain. A hickey "already turning purplish." Too funny!
ReplyDeletePoor loons...the newest pics on IHJ just confirm that it was a zit. LOL talk about making sh!t up
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iheartjakemedia.com/albums/1946/004.jpg
Actually the mark is still there just smaller as they tend to shrink and not fade all away.
ReplyDeleteAnd a blemish is usually is raised because the skin and pore is inflamed.
Funny how you didn't see that with Jake.
Jake's very fastidious about his grooming, don't think he would be getting zits on his neck.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jake's complexion has changed in the last few years, he has outgrown the zit thing.
SK, do you hide behind the shower curtain while Jake "grooms" himself. LOL!
ReplyDeleteNo it's that I actually remember interviews he's done where he's talked about taking 3 showers a day.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't look like a blemish to me and it's not a subaceous cyst, which is what would be more common in that area of the skin. A hickey seems like a reasonable conclusion because that is a common place for one and the skin is not raised or inflamed.
ReplyDeleteOf course, trolls can't stand Jake getting some from his man. Guess they would rather have him be celibate. I prefer for him to be loved-up myself.
LOL! The loons latest 'evidence' of J&A being married - a spot/blemish/bruise on his neck. Thanks for the laugh LMAO!!
ReplyDeleteHow would SK/MM know about hickeys? Wouldn't one have to be in a relationship even casual to get one?
ReplyDeleteNo one out grows zits, people get them for various reasons all their lives.
Just because Jake says he showers 3 times a day doesn't mean he does, he lies remember? He sure the hell didn't look like he shpwered even once a day when he was on tour.
He doesn't lie about how many showers he has, just who he is having them with!
ReplyDeleteLOL the two spinsters getting moist about a fake hickey
ReplyDeleteJake's very fastidious about his grooming, don't think he would be getting zits on his neck.
ReplyDeleteOh good gravy! One has NOTHING to do with the other or didn't you ever learn the basics of dermatology growing up?
No it's that I actually remember interviews he's done where he's talked about taking 3 showers a day.
ReplyDeleteCleansing has absolutely nothing to do with zits.
Ah, the old -- I don't have an argument so let's make up stuff about posters -- again. Tsk, tsk. I'm truly devastated. Not at the lame mudslinging, but at how thoroughly counterfactual such grasping-at-straws speculations really are.
ReplyDeleteAnd, by the way, how did one go from disucssing zits to Jake and Austin being married? No one brought that topic up. But, if you want to know what is the likely scenario, Jake and Austin were engaged in 2005 and married in 2008. You're welcome.
I just wanted to state that I have not posted any comments but the one last night about Moonstruck.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone was trying to hijack my blogger id. Not trying to say anyone cared if I posted or not, LOL.
ReplyDeleteHey, I care, PG! Love you new avatar.
ReplyDeleteTrolly attacking regular posters instead of making any kind of rational argument. Worked up much over Ted's latest about J&A I guess.
ReplyDelete