DC and RW news and tidbits

Visit here to read and post all the latest Daniel Craig-related news, TV/VCR(DVD) alerts, etc.

Moderator: Germangirl

Germangirl
Moderator
Posts: 46405
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Germangirl » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:38 pm

sf2la wrote: :rotfl: Call me resentful, but women have to have periods for approximately 40 years, so I think every man should have to have a thick gauge syringe needle stuck into his balls at least once in his lifetime :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not HIM [-X
The top notch acting in the Weisz/Craig/Spall 'Betrayal' is emotionally true, often v funny and its beautifully staged with filmic qualities..

Image

User avatar
sf2la
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: CA

Post by sf2la » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:46 pm

Germangirl wrote:
sf2la wrote: :rotfl: Call me resentful, but women have to have periods for approximately 40 years, so I think every man should have to have a thick gauge syringe needle stuck into his balls at least once in his lifetime :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not HIM [-X
I do stand corrected absolutely - he gets a pass. He's been through enough. Oh, all soldiers who have been in battle, too. They get passes :wink: the good soldiers, that is.

User avatar
cheryl1700
Posts: 9682
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:25 pm

Post by cheryl1700 » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:47 pm

We can kiss the sore part better for him and give him lots of cuddles:wink:
(shame..... I keep forgetting he's got a wife to do that for him now)
Image

User avatar
Lu
Posts: 3415
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:31 am

Post by Lu » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:32 pm

Germangirl wrote:
sf2la wrote: :rotfl: Call me resentful, but women have to have periods for approximately 40 years, so I think every man should have to have a thick gauge syringe needle stuck into his balls at least once in his lifetime :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not HIM [-X
OMG, rofl!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's fun to speculate about a baby but I just can't see it. I just think they are "past that." I know my youngest is only four but nothing sounds LESS appealing to me than starting over in the baby stage. Daniel has already raised and pretty much launched a daughter (she is in college?), I can't see him wanting to start over raising an infant.

But then I didn't expect an abrupt wedding to RW either, so what do I know? :lol: :lol:
My books!
Image

Image

User avatar
Maybelline
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 11:19 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Maybelline » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:05 am

I think it's a new text. :wink:




Rachel Weisz Wants ‘Baby James Bonds’ With 007 Star Husband, Daniel Craig!

The couple married this summer in a whirlwind ceremony — and now babies are at the TOP of their agenda!

We’d better put Rachel Weisz on bump watch! Sources say the Oscar winner is desperate to start a family with new husband Daniel Craig!



“They really want to make their own family,” an insider tells Star magazine. “It’s very important for them to have a child together — and soon.”

The couple both have kids from previous relationships. Rachel, 41, is mommy to five-year-old son Henry with ex-partner Darren Aronofsky, and 007 star Daniel, 43, has a 19- year-old daughter Ella with ex-wife Fiona Loudon.

But Rachel wants more babies and is even prepared to put her career on the backburner so she can be a full-time mom.

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

They’d make beautiful babies together — don’t you think, HollyMoms?

– Ian Garland


http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/

User avatar
caramel
Posts: 4748
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:30 pm
Location: California

Post by caramel » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:28 am

Maybelline wrote:I think it's a new text. :wink:

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
Whether all this speculation has some truth to it or not, what is not to love about this! :sigh: "Baby Bond" - love it :lol:
Image

User avatar
tampa
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:14 am

Post by tampa » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:35 am

Lu wrote:
Germangirl wrote:
sf2la wrote: :rotfl: Call me resentful, but women have to have periods for approximately 40 years, so I think every man should have to have a thick gauge syringe needle stuck into his balls at least once in his lifetime :lol: :lol: :lol:
Not HIM [-X
OMG, rofl!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's fun to speculate about a baby but I just can't see it. I just think they are "past that." I know my youngest is only four but nothing sounds LESS appealing to me than starting over in the baby stage. Daniel has already raised and pretty much launched a daughter (she is in college?), I can't see him wanting to start over raising an infant.

But then I didn't expect an abrupt wedding to RW either, so what do I know? :lol: :lol:
The quick wedding makes me think it might be true. Not the gossip stories, just the idea of a baby. I think they might want a child because of the quick marriage. The many divorces in their parents backgrounds made both of them seem very negative about marriage for 2 decades. Why the major quick change? They are obviously crazy in love, but they can be crazy in love without marriage. Why suddenly marry so quickly. They have everything: looks, money, fame, talent, everything except maybe a child together. Time will tell.

User avatar
Maybelline
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 11:19 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Maybelline » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:53 am

caramel wrote:
Maybelline wrote:I think it's a new text. :wink:

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
Whether all this speculation has some truth to it or not, what is not to love about this! :sigh: "Baby Bond" - love it :lol:
That Rachel will give up her profession. She is in a difficult age for Hollywood terms and a comeback could be hard after a longer break. Look at Jodie Foster her comeback after her very long baby break was IMO lukewarm and she is much more famous and bankable than Rachel. :wink:

Maybe Rachel did two blockbuster (OZ and Bourne) which is very exceptional for her to compensate a longer break.

User avatar
sf2la
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: CA

Post by sf2la » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:13 am

Maybelline wrote:
caramel wrote:
Maybelline wrote:I think it's a new text. :wink:

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
Whether all this speculation has some truth to it or not, what is not to love about this! :sigh: "Baby Bond" - love it :lol:
That Rachel will give up her profession. She is in a difficult age for Hollywood terms and a comeback could be hard after a longer break. Look at Jodie Foster her comeback after her very long baby break was IMO lukewarm and she is much more famous and bankable than Rachel. :wink:

Maybe Rachel did two blockbuster (OZ and Bourne) which is very exceptional for her to compensate a longer break.
Rachel is at a difficult age in her profession. Period. She knows that. There aren't many working actresses in their mid-40s, certainly not 50s. Her career is having a resurgence right now, for sure, but it will be on the downslide. If she looks ahead at her life, what is going to give her pleasure? It won't be full-time acting; she'll be losing good roles to younger actresses; it will be her family. Maybe that family will just be Henry and Daniel, none of us know what their plans are. BUT, she is very close to her sister (I think she does want to give Henry a sibling of her own), she ADORES her son, she LOVED being pregnant, she LOVES Daniel, she is WEALTHY enough to afford all the nannies, private schools, flights, etc., that her kid(s) will need. As for Daniel, he didn't raise Ella. Her mother did. She had sole custody. He was young, not into it (he's admitted that), and he traveled a lot. He became what appears to be a wonderful father. I don't think I ever profess to proclaim anything that he ALWAYS does or ALWAYS is because I don't know him, but there is one thing I've never felt more confident about, and that is he will do whatever Rachel wants. If she wants a baby, he will not deny her that. And I DO think that he would like a child with her. I also think he would like a 'do-over' from his first marriage and do it right. I'm sticking to the bet that she will be pregnant within two years of marriage.

User avatar
tampa
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:14 am

Post by tampa » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:51 am

sf2la wrote:
Maybelline wrote:
caramel wrote:
Maybelline wrote:I think it's a new text. :wink:

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
Whether all this speculation has some truth to it or not, what is not to love about this! :sigh: "Baby Bond" - love it :lol:
That Rachel will give up her profession. She is in a difficult age for Hollywood terms and a comeback could be hard after a longer break. Look at Jodie Foster her comeback after her very long baby break was IMO lukewarm and she is much more famous and bankable than Rachel. :wink:

Maybe Rachel did two blockbuster (OZ and Bourne) which is very exceptional for her to compensate a longer break.
Rachel is at a difficult age in her profession. Period. She knows that. There aren't many working actresses in their mid-40s, certainly not 50s. Her career is having a resurgence right now, for sure, but it will be on the downslide. If she looks ahead at her life, what is going to give her pleasure? It won't be full-time acting; she'll be losing good roles to younger actresses; it will be her family. Maybe that family will just be Henry and Daniel, none of us know what their plans are. BUT, she is very close to her sister (I think she does want to give Henry a sibling of her own), she ADORES her son, she LOVED being pregnant, she LOVES Daniel, she is WEALTHY enough to afford all the nannies, private schools, flights, etc., that her kid(s) will need. As for Daniel, he didn't raise Ella. Her mother did. She had sole custody. He was young, not into it (he's admitted that), and he traveled a lot. He became what appears to be a wonderful father. I don't think I ever profess to proclaim anything that he ALWAYS does or ALWAYS is because I don't know him, but there is one thing I've never felt more confident about, and that is he will do whatever Rachel wants. If she wants a baby, he will not deny her that. And I DO think that he would like a child with her. I also think he would like a 'do-over' from his first marriage and do it right. I'm sticking to the bet that she will be pregnant within two years of marriage.
Totally agree with all of your points. I think because of her age, if she is going to have another baby, it will be in a year. Getting pregnant in your 40s is harder, and there are health issues for a baby with older mothers. She has made a ton of movies in the past year. Now would be a good time to take a break after she's done with OZ. Still wish she'd dump Bourne. I think it will bomb. Maybe C&A will give her second thoughts. Recent press keeps mentioning how much she works. Wonder if she takes it as criticism.

User avatar
caramel
Posts: 4748
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:30 pm
Location: California

Post by caramel » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:10 am

I think May brought up a good point that RW is probably satisfying herself by doing 2 high profile movies now which will be releasing in late 2012 and early 2013 and this way her long break next year actually wouldn't look like a break. She can afford to take it easy and still have movies in the pipeline.
tampa wrote: Recent press keeps mentioning how much she works. Wonder if she takes it as criticism.
To me that observation seemed like a compliment. Like she manages to juggle so much (with some help no doubt) :lol:
Image

User avatar
cheryl1700
Posts: 9682
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:25 pm

Post by cheryl1700 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:19 am

Well if they do have a baby it would be great!!!
Image

User avatar
JEC57
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: 15/01/96

Post by JEC57 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:47 am

Rachel Weisz Wants ‘Baby James Bonds’ With 007 Star Husband, Daniel Craig!

The couple married this summer in a whirlwind ceremony — and now babies are at the TOP of their agenda!

We’d better put Rachel Weisz on bump watch! Sources say the Oscar winner is desperate to start a family with new husband Daniel Craig!

“They really want to make their own family,” an insider tells Star magazine. “It’s very important for them to have a child together — and soon.”

The couple both have kids from previous relationships. Rachel, 41, is mommy to five-year-old son Henry with ex-partner Darren Aronofsky, and 007 star Daniel, 43, has a 19- year-old daughter Ella with ex-wife Fiona Loudon.

But Rachel wants more babies and is even prepared to put her career on the backburner so she can be a full-time mom.

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

They’d make beautiful babies together — don’t you think, HollyMoms?

– Ian Garland[/i]

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
I'd love to know who these "sources" are. :roll:

One thing we have consistently known since OFITN is that Daniel will not tolerate people around him leaking information about his private life.

But if RW has previously and separately commented in private on the reasons why her relationship with Darren failed, then I wonder how she feels about seeing it splattered across the gossip columns.

I cannot for one minute believe that either Daniel or RW sanctioned this cr*ap "insider leak" information. It's just more of the same - speculation and guesswork based on one comment in one interview.

As I keep saying....when we see RW waddling towards maternity, then we will know a baby is on the way.

Unless things have dramatically changed, then no "insider sources" will be given that kind of information imo. Daniel has never given that kind of intimate information out, and based on the "shooting family and friends in the back" comment in his own interview, I cannot see him changing now.
Image
Image

User avatar
sf2la
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: CA

Post by sf2la » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:49 am

If it were me, I would probably be done or let 'biology' take over; i.e., stop using birth control and if it happened it happened. BUT if it were me with DC, I'd be buying hormone syringes in bulk (Costco?) to increase egg production, and withholding food, water, and the internet from him until he had sex with me 3-5 times a day, everyday. No swallowing either. Waste not, want not.

User avatar
sf2la
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: CA

Post by sf2la » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:56 am

JEC57 wrote:
Rachel Weisz Wants ‘Baby James Bonds’ With 007 Star Husband, Daniel Craig!

The couple married this summer in a whirlwind ceremony — and now babies are at the TOP of their agenda!

We’d better put Rachel Weisz on bump watch! Sources say the Oscar winner is desperate to start a family with new husband Daniel Craig!

“They really want to make their own family,” an insider tells Star magazine. “It’s very important for them to have a child together — and soon.”

The couple both have kids from previous relationships. Rachel, 41, is mommy to five-year-old son Henry with ex-partner Darren Aronofsky, and 007 star Daniel, 43, has a 19- year-old daughter Ella with ex-wife Fiona Loudon.

But Rachel wants more babies and is even prepared to put her career on the backburner so she can be a full-time mom.

The source adds, “Rachel and Daniel fell hard for each other. He’d give her the moon and stars if she wanted, and what she really wants is a baby. He’s completely happy to have a child with her.

“Rachel was pretty much a workaholic throughout her 30s and privately has said that her relationship with Darren failed because she didn’t have a healthier work-home balance. She doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice – and she thinks Daniel is amazing. She already jokes that their child will be Baby Bond!”

They’d make beautiful babies together — don’t you think, HollyMoms?

– Ian Garland[/i]

http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/09/18/rac ... nant-baby/
I'd love to know who these "sources" are. :roll:

One thing we have consistently known since OFITN is that Daniel will not tolerate people around him leaking information about his private life.

But if RW has previously and separately commented in private on the reasons why her relationship with Darren failed, then I wonder how she feels about seeing it splattered across the gossip columns.

I cannot for one minute believe that either Daniel or RW sanctioned this cr*ap "insider leak" information. It's just more of the same - speculation and guesswork based on one comment in one interview.

As I keep saying....when we see RW waddling towards maternity, then we will know a baby is on the way.

Unless things have dramatically changed, then no "insider sources" will be given that kind of information imo. Daniel has never given that kind of intimate information out, and based on the "shooting family and friends in the back" comment in his own interview, I cannot see him changing now.
I think everyone agrees that this is just gossip fodder as is expected. No one believes she is pregnant at the moment. If he had married someone else, there still would be Baby Bond tabloid talk. Didn't you know that William and Kate are expecting twins??? A boy AND a girl! It's true! It must be true because it's on the cover of this week's Star magazine!!! :lol:

Post Reply