si, pure torturesf2la wrote: It would be GREAT for us but for him
DC and RW news and tidbits
Moderator: Germangirl
I can totally imagine her jokingly saying that but then it is the truth after all! I think it is cute if she really says it.calypso wrote: “It funny because Rachel once liked the idea of being involved with the new Bond but that’s hardly likely to happen now,” says a source close to the actress.
“She wouldn’t consider appearing with Dan now they are together. She often says how she’s his real life Bond girl anyway!”
I am thinking someone will ask her somewhere if she likes Cowboys better or James Bond better! B*tch has them both
This one is a true insider looks like!!calypso wrote:and remmebr this?
dec 29th 2010
“Rachel is like a schoolgirl when she’s with Daniel,” said one insider. “She thinks she’s found the man of her dreams.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up getting married.”
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47072
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
In my book, Sats doesn't come out of this as a strong woman, but as someone, who has been dumped, is miserable now and finally decides, he ain't the man for me, when its obvious, she would jump on the opportunity to have him back.
If its not allowed to speak his name in the household, its not very likely IMO, that she goes and tells her dad to give interviews about her feelings. I think, she is pretty mad ab out this, I know, I would be...we do know, she got some riches from Daniel and now saying, he did not enough..based on what? On hurt feelings? Sure she is, who wouldn't be? Anything he could have done better? Nobody knows...
end of my rant. I think, Dad did this on his own, because he is really mad his daughter isn't the lucky one. Also - au contraire to what sf said - being dumped for someone less beautiful would hurt ME even more. But that's just me...
Again - good discussion
If its not allowed to speak his name in the household, its not very likely IMO, that she goes and tells her dad to give interviews about her feelings. I think, she is pretty mad ab out this, I know, I would be...we do know, she got some riches from Daniel and now saying, he did not enough..based on what? On hurt feelings? Sure she is, who wouldn't be? Anything he could have done better? Nobody knows...
end of my rant. I think, Dad did this on his own, because he is really mad his daughter isn't the lucky one. Also - au contraire to what sf said - being dumped for someone less beautiful would hurt ME even more. But that's just me...Again - good discussion
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47072
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
Think, THAT is the point. Dad didn't do her a favour and I see her as a proud girl, who wouldn't go down the road of lashing back. We will never know, whether or not Daniel acted it out all well or not.sf2la wrote: ^ I think we're in agreement about the dad speaking. Either she gave the okay or she's done with him (for a while, anyway.) I don't see how what he said could hurt Golden Boy Daniel, but it could hurt Sat's professional opportunities. I'd be humiliated if I were her.
I think, he tried to the best of his abilities, with securing her financially etc, but nothing will take away the pain of loosing someone, you love.
Last edited by Germangirl on Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
Journalist Suzanne Moore has a short paragraph in the Mail comparing Daniel’s wedding to that of Kate Moss.
Rachel and Daniel show Kate how it's done
I know everyone will be going on about 'Mosstonbury' but my idea of a stylish wedding certainly does not involve dressing up children in couture. Rachel Weisz's marriage to Daniel Craig in a low-key ceremony in New York was more like it. His daughter and her son and two family friends attended. We know no other details. Nor do we need to. Perfect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml
Rachel and Daniel show Kate how it's done
I know everyone will be going on about 'Mosstonbury' but my idea of a stylish wedding certainly does not involve dressing up children in couture. Rachel Weisz's marriage to Daniel Craig in a low-key ceremony in New York was more like it. His daughter and her son and two family friends attended. We know no other details. Nor do we need to. Perfect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml
Wow I can't agree with you more. And I too agree that being dumped for someone less beautiful hurts more. It makes you question your own personality and inner beauty. Anyway good luck on the new couple, but I won't fault the ex or her family for venting. You probably won't ever hear about her again, unless she becomes a real producer ...Germangirl wrote:In my book, Sats doesn't come out of this as a strong woman, but as someone, who has been dumped, is miserable now and finally decides, he ain't the man for me, when its obvious, she would jump on the opportunity to have him back.
If its not allowed to speak his name in the household, its not very likely IMO, that she goes and tells her dad to give interviews about her feelings. I think, she is pretty mad ab out this, I know, I would be...we do know, she got some riches from Daniel and now saying, he did not enough..based on what? On hurt feelings? Sure she is, who wouldn't be? Anything he could have done better? Nobody knows...
Again - good discussion
I think between the two of them, Daniel and Rachel, it will be Rachel that will be doing more of the talking. She is so sexy and cool when she speaks. So looking forward to the interviews.
What I've written below is done with making an assumption that there is a grain of truth in the DM article, but also making an assumption that the source being the DM, they have twisted it and embellished it. However, now the subject has been raised in print in a more pointed way (quoting her father) than the gossip press just wondering what happened to Sats, then maybe there will be something else down the line to either confirm or deny what the DM has said.
What I find interesting is that when previously the DM has flown close to the wind with an article about Daniel, it lives for a few hours on the web site and then is removed very quickly. The DM is very leery of Daniel, he has hauled them into court before and won. This time the article is still there, which means they are sticking by it and are therefore sure of the quotes they have made, even if their research into the surrounding padding is wrong, the NY penthouse for example.
So, going with the "grain of truth" theory, I think Sats' dad is angry that his daughter is hurt and has been humiliated. Any father would be angry at that. I don't think it's done her any damage, it only confirms what a lot of people thought anyway - she was dumped for another woman and had her heart broken, for all that she put a brave face on it for things like the Met Ball. For me that appearance said "You can take my man, but you can't take my pride". Most women can identify with those feelings, I think.
The fact that she went through with the Met Ball says something about her loyalty to Daniel. Of course she too may have been under contract to do it. But if she was not, then it says a great deal about her integrity to go through an evening by the side of the man who has broken her heart. I don't think I could have done it, even under contract. I would have got myself a broken foot or a dose of the flu or something to avoid it.
Her father's cited comment that "he was not the man she wanted him to be and there was something wrong in the relationship", could well be about the period during the filiming of DH when she saw something was wrong and was therefore a comment on how it was all handled. Looking at it from her (likely) perspective, to find out that one's knight in shining armour has feet of clay might well produce a comment like that.
If what her father says is true about Sats only finding out about the wedding through the press reports (and please note I did use the word "if") then it casts a shadow over the idea that Daniel is "kindness itself". Kindness itself would be to make sure she was forewarned so she knew that she could expect sympathetic looks, and maybe even questions.
In boring everyday life it would not be usual, perhaps, to warn an ex-partner a year or more after a split, that one was about to get married, but this is not boring everyday life. Sats was dumped by Daniel Craig and the whole world is looking on. If he did not warn her (at least through a 3rd party or mutual friend), then IMO that was at best unthinking and at worst, cruel.
Unfortunately history does suggest Daniel may not have a good track record in this area. One of the few public comments attributed to Heike after her split with Daniel was that she was "heartbroken" that he had moved on so quickly with Kate Moss and had not warned her. She had hoped they might reunite, but found out about Moss through the British press. Of course, just because it (apparently) happened back then does not mean it will happen again, but the scenerios do correlate ("if" there is truth in them).
The fact (if it is anywhere close to a fact) that nobody warned Sats is symptomatic of the strangle-hold Daniel has over people around him with regard to leaks - - although obviously there is a hole in the strangle-hold - he forgot to silence his housekeeper's daughter who spilled the news about his housing plans!
(Again, the grain of salt theory applies......) Did Daniel think perhaps an angry father would spill the beans about the wedding if Sats was told ahead of time? Maybe. But maybe if Daniel had trusted Sats with the information (as he had trusted her with everything for 6 years, right through the most turbulent period of his life) then Mr Mitchell might not have felt the need to strike out in the press the way he has done. Or maybe send a message via someone right after the wedding and before it hit the press. If Sats truly did find out about it from the press, then that is just plain not right. IMO, she deserved better. (Again, the "if"s and the grain of salt theory applies)
However, (and again "if") this was the case, that Sats didn't know and Daniel chose to not tell her for "privacy" reasons, then it has back-fired a little bit because it has raised again the public's attention towards the speculation of fickle hanky-panky on the set of DH, a point in time when Daniel was still engaged to Sats. It has also made him look less than the universal gentleman he is often held up to be.
I know people have cited the fact that Ella was at the wedding as meaning everything was okay, she would not be there if she was unhappy. I question that - I can think of any number of times I have done things for people I love and care about just to support them, but not the decisions they have made. A case of "I love you and I will be there for you, but I think you are a complete prat". Of course, she could be happy, but I think it's simplistic to assume that just because she was there, she therefore was happy with things. There is another way to look at that.
Anyway, it's all speculation. What is not speculation however is that this subject is not going to go away with gossip columnists. It will resurface like a bad-smelling fart in a bath-tub, the way it has for Brangelina.
The gossip rags will have their noses out for scandal, it's their job, and everytime it's mentioned in passing, there will be more nods and winks about how this marriage came about. Sats is going to be ( as the old saying goes) the elephant in the corner of the room - in much the same way Aniston is for Brangelina.
What I find interesting is that when previously the DM has flown close to the wind with an article about Daniel, it lives for a few hours on the web site and then is removed very quickly. The DM is very leery of Daniel, he has hauled them into court before and won. This time the article is still there, which means they are sticking by it and are therefore sure of the quotes they have made, even if their research into the surrounding padding is wrong, the NY penthouse for example.
So, going with the "grain of truth" theory, I think Sats' dad is angry that his daughter is hurt and has been humiliated. Any father would be angry at that. I don't think it's done her any damage, it only confirms what a lot of people thought anyway - she was dumped for another woman and had her heart broken, for all that she put a brave face on it for things like the Met Ball. For me that appearance said "You can take my man, but you can't take my pride". Most women can identify with those feelings, I think.
The fact that she went through with the Met Ball says something about her loyalty to Daniel. Of course she too may have been under contract to do it. But if she was not, then it says a great deal about her integrity to go through an evening by the side of the man who has broken her heart. I don't think I could have done it, even under contract. I would have got myself a broken foot or a dose of the flu or something to avoid it.
Her father's cited comment that "he was not the man she wanted him to be and there was something wrong in the relationship", could well be about the period during the filiming of DH when she saw something was wrong and was therefore a comment on how it was all handled. Looking at it from her (likely) perspective, to find out that one's knight in shining armour has feet of clay might well produce a comment like that.
If what her father says is true about Sats only finding out about the wedding through the press reports (and please note I did use the word "if") then it casts a shadow over the idea that Daniel is "kindness itself". Kindness itself would be to make sure she was forewarned so she knew that she could expect sympathetic looks, and maybe even questions.
In boring everyday life it would not be usual, perhaps, to warn an ex-partner a year or more after a split, that one was about to get married, but this is not boring everyday life. Sats was dumped by Daniel Craig and the whole world is looking on. If he did not warn her (at least through a 3rd party or mutual friend), then IMO that was at best unthinking and at worst, cruel.
Unfortunately history does suggest Daniel may not have a good track record in this area. One of the few public comments attributed to Heike after her split with Daniel was that she was "heartbroken" that he had moved on so quickly with Kate Moss and had not warned her. She had hoped they might reunite, but found out about Moss through the British press. Of course, just because it (apparently) happened back then does not mean it will happen again, but the scenerios do correlate ("if" there is truth in them).
The fact (if it is anywhere close to a fact) that nobody warned Sats is symptomatic of the strangle-hold Daniel has over people around him with regard to leaks - - although obviously there is a hole in the strangle-hold - he forgot to silence his housekeeper's daughter who spilled the news about his housing plans!
(Again, the grain of salt theory applies......) Did Daniel think perhaps an angry father would spill the beans about the wedding if Sats was told ahead of time? Maybe. But maybe if Daniel had trusted Sats with the information (as he had trusted her with everything for 6 years, right through the most turbulent period of his life) then Mr Mitchell might not have felt the need to strike out in the press the way he has done. Or maybe send a message via someone right after the wedding and before it hit the press. If Sats truly did find out about it from the press, then that is just plain not right. IMO, she deserved better. (Again, the "if"s and the grain of salt theory applies)
However, (and again "if") this was the case, that Sats didn't know and Daniel chose to not tell her for "privacy" reasons, then it has back-fired a little bit because it has raised again the public's attention towards the speculation of fickle hanky-panky on the set of DH, a point in time when Daniel was still engaged to Sats. It has also made him look less than the universal gentleman he is often held up to be.
I know people have cited the fact that Ella was at the wedding as meaning everything was okay, she would not be there if she was unhappy. I question that - I can think of any number of times I have done things for people I love and care about just to support them, but not the decisions they have made. A case of "I love you and I will be there for you, but I think you are a complete prat". Of course, she could be happy, but I think it's simplistic to assume that just because she was there, she therefore was happy with things. There is another way to look at that.
Anyway, it's all speculation. What is not speculation however is that this subject is not going to go away with gossip columnists. It will resurface like a bad-smelling fart in a bath-tub, the way it has for Brangelina.
The gossip rags will have their noses out for scandal, it's their job, and everytime it's mentioned in passing, there will be more nods and winks about how this marriage came about. Sats is going to be ( as the old saying goes) the elephant in the corner of the room - in much the same way Aniston is for Brangelina.
Last edited by JEC57 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hey JEC57 I really enjoyed reading your post 
and I feel you wrote it very well. We and the newspapers (doesn't sensationalism & gossip sell papers) speculate about the situations and the people involved, but do any of us really know the truth 
? I mean Prince Albert's new wife Charlene was supposed to want out of the marriage and wanted to run away on learning he had a 3rd child of a relationship (my goodness he has been busy) , and now I hear she wanted to go shopping in Paris - so what's the story? Makes for great headlines and selling power!!! Always some anonymous so-called friend or contact (for money of course) sells the inside story or exaggerates it to make it more risque, salicious so it's saleable.
I know I envisaged Daniel as a knight in shining armour kind of man, rugged, sexy, romantic, honest, faithful, integrity when I first really fell head over heels for him in Casino Royale but in truth he has flaws like all of us, and emotions, etc which can trip all humans over. Love does strange things to people!
I used to idolise lots of movie and pop stars when younger and felt really let down when I head they were on drugs, cheated on their partner, etc and had to realize they were human and not perfect like the image I had of them on a pedestal.
None of us probably know the whole truth of Daniel, Satsuki's and Rachel's (does sound a bit like Jennifer, Brad & Angelina) situation but I guess it makes for good discussion on the Forum and great News
to sell magazines and papers!!! Or is there someone on this Forum who is actually in the know? Just joking.
Do Rachel and Daniel have a combined name yet e.g. Brangeina, Tomkat? I wish Rachel and Daniel all the best for their marriage and love for each other.
Going to watch the Men's Final Wimbledon soon.
Suexxx
and I feel you wrote it very well. We and the newspapers (doesn't sensationalism & gossip sell papers) speculate about the situations and the people involved, but do any of us really know the truth ? I mean Prince Albert's new wife Charlene was supposed to want out of the marriage and wanted to run away on learning he had a 3rd child of a relationship (my goodness he has been busy) , and now I hear she wanted to go shopping in Paris - so what's the story? Makes for great headlines and selling power!!! Always some anonymous so-called friend or contact (for money of course) sells the inside story or exaggerates it to make it more risque, salicious so it's saleable.I know I envisaged Daniel as a knight in shining armour kind of man, rugged, sexy, romantic, honest, faithful, integrity when I first really fell head over heels for him in Casino Royale but in truth he has flaws like all of us, and emotions, etc which can trip all humans over. Love does strange things to people!
I used to idolise lots of movie and pop stars when younger and felt really let down when I head they were on drugs, cheated on their partner, etc and had to realize they were human and not perfect like the image I had of them on a pedestal.
None of us probably know the whole truth of Daniel, Satsuki's and Rachel's (does sound a bit like Jennifer, Brad & Angelina) situation but I guess it makes for good discussion on the Forum and great News
to sell magazines and papers!!! Or is there someone on this Forum who is actually in the know? Just joking.Do Rachel and Daniel have a combined name yet e.g. Brangeina, Tomkat? I wish Rachel and Daniel all the best for their marriage and love for each other.
Going to watch the Men's Final Wimbledon soon.
Suexxx
Hi there Daniel fans. Please feel free to e-mail me as I love to hear from others to keep me in touch with what's going on with Daniel!!! He is such an amazing actor, has amazing looks, those blue eyes and a sexy voice!!!
-
cheryl1700
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:25 pm
I think he could of told her too about the marriage, even if he was told to go boil his head over the phone he could have told her, didnt have to tell, when or where. But then if it is anything like, the men i have known they wont, they would rather bury there head in the sand, like an overgrown ostrich, hoping it will just all blow over, without that having to say very much. Because they know its akward and hurtful what they are going to say and will probably get nasty or hurt the person further.
Personally if i was sats, i would have to get in touch with him privately by phone and give him a piece of my mind, just the once, something he wont like to hear and to ask why he couldnt have just let me know, it would get rid of the bitterness, or anger, it would make me feel whole lot better. I would deffo have to speak to him and get it off my chest. (and maybe she already has)
I wouldnt speak to the press, as it would be my private life. I agree i think her dad is just being a protective dad, any normal father would do it, if pushed and asked by the press. I think it will all just blow over though. I am still very glad he is married at long last.
Personally if i was sats, i would have to get in touch with him privately by phone and give him a piece of my mind, just the once, something he wont like to hear and to ask why he couldnt have just let me know, it would get rid of the bitterness, or anger, it would make me feel whole lot better. I would deffo have to speak to him and get it off my chest. (and maybe she already has)
I wouldnt speak to the press, as it would be my private life. I agree i think her dad is just being a protective dad, any normal father would do it, if pushed and asked by the press. I think it will all just blow over though. I am still very glad he is married at long last.
JEC - all good points. I wonder though that Sats would have known about the wedding via her relationship with Ella. Assuming that they still communicated, and we have pretty good reason to believe that they did, or at least had continued respect for each other, based on Ella's social networking habits and the fact that Sats was ever-present during Ella's formative years.
-
Germangirl
- Moderator
- Posts: 47072
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
- Location: Germany
This is not really meant as an answer to any post here, but my own speculations, that were at the back of my mind for like forever and finally popped out. .
Daytime Met Ball (same day or one after)
The thread link for the ball
http://www.dedicatedtodaniel.com/forum/ ... sc&start=0
Daniel looks like living in hell, whereas Sats had several comments from us on how extra good she looked here, like these and more...
These two are separated???
My vision of the story...
Daniel loves Rachel, Sats knows it, even knows, WHEN he has cheated. But they have agreed to fix it, have agreed to stay together until the madness has passed.
Even if they HAD to go to the Met Ball (which I don't believe), they surely DIDN'T NEED to go to any After Party, unless they wanted to.
The buying of the NY App could have all sorts of reasons - but for me, HERE they are together - either still or again, until Daniel found, he couldn't go through with it.
.Daytime Met Ball (same day or one after)
The thread link for the ball
http://www.dedicatedtodaniel.com/forum/ ... sc&start=0
Daniel looks like living in hell, whereas Sats had several comments from us on how extra good she looked here, like these and more...
Germangirl wrote:Thanks again Blue. Sats seldom has looked better IMO - glowing. Some bad ones from Daniel due to being thin
After partysf2la wrote: And I don't think Sats has ever looked better. I think she was absolutely gorgeous at this event. It's my favorite dress on her, and I love how they coordinated their colors.
These two are separated???
My vision of the story...
Daniel loves Rachel, Sats knows it, even knows, WHEN he has cheated. But they have agreed to fix it, have agreed to stay together until the madness has passed.
Even if they HAD to go to the Met Ball (which I don't believe), they surely DIDN'T NEED to go to any After Party, unless they wanted to.
The buying of the NY App could have all sorts of reasons - but for me, HERE they are together - either still or again, until Daniel found, he couldn't go through with it.
Last edited by Germangirl on Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..
-
cheryl1700
- Posts: 9682
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:25 pm