As the country plods along to what seems like inevitable recession, not all trends suggest our economy is necessarily swirling clockwise down the shitter. Take the celebrity-baby-photo market, a financial spit-up bubble seemingly incapable of bursting. Leading the way is People magazine, who apparently have a budget surplus in the trillions to lavish on Hollywood's most recognizable faces and the powerblobs they spawn. They rocked the status quo back in 2006 by shelling out $4.1 million for a glimpse of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, and more recently paid $6 million to Jennifer Lopez for a stunning photoset in which her adorable newborns were woven into a plexus of mother's hair extensions, like nested baby sparrows awaiting their next grub feeding.

Now Page Six reports all records will likely be shattered by Angelina Jolie's next litter, with industry watchers suggesting they could command the first-ever eight-figure asking price. It's a dangerous precedent: One, because it could jack up the prices of lesser hatchlings, effectively pricing out In Touch Weekly from the next Tori Spelling exclusive, who will no longer whore out her newborns for a cover and a Chipotle lunch. And two, because it threatens to become the single easiest and most lucrative celebrity payout scheme, far less arduous and involving than, say, starring in a movie. With a $10 million payday exceeding the gross domestic product of most countries she seeks to help, it won't be long before we lose Jolie and her uterus to a puppy-mill type breeding operation, in which an exhausted Brad Pitt's studding services would be employed three months out of the year, while the other nine were spent producing little bundles of Third World-suffering-alleviating joy.

JOLIE BABY PIX 'WORTH $10M' [NY Post]

10:28 AM on Thu Mar 27 2008
By Seth
6,205 views
19 comments

Comments

Crazy Broad at 10:54 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

As disgusting as the celebuspawn payouts are, at least the Jolie-Pitts give the $$$ to charity.
JudgeFudge at 10:56 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

At these rates, Angelina could easily forgoe the rest of her film career and just keep having babies for People Magazine to take pictuers of.
Seth at 11:04 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@JudgeFudge: Isn't that the basic premise of the last sentence of this post? Or didn't you read it? No star for you!
JudgeFudge at 11:17 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@Seth: OH! Seth, guilty as charged. My sincere appologies, I was too quick on the draw. Terrible, form, I know. Thanks for all the great lines...
TheStarterWife at 11:18 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 409

But who's left of that star magnitude to have a baby that would command that type of dough? Kidman? Too private. Julia Roberts? She's already had kids. Team Aniston? Too obvious.

(Thanks for the * Seth. I assume it came from you.)
nojo at 11:24 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 62

Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars.
The stars weren't so big; they were really quite small.
You would think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.
But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches
would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
TheStarterWife at 11:36 AM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 409

@nojo: That totally deserves like four stars. (Which has to be the natural progression of these things, right?)
nojo at 12:26 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 62

@TheStarterWife: You might call that Star Creep, but I fear it applies to just about every post on this site.
Seth at 12:34 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@nojo: What does that even mean?
nojo at 12:43 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 62

@Seth: Like grade inflation or feature creep (geek term for bloated software), Star Creep indicates the need to add additional stars to comments because a single star is no longer sufficient. The confusion arises because the term can also apply to misbehaving celebrities.

In other words: If I have to explain it, I've missed the target...
Seth at 12:49 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@nojo: No, I get it now! It's a Gizmodo/Defamer gateway joke! Thanks.
nojo at 01:09 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 62

@Seth: That's very kind of you. For a moment I thought I had overdosed on cat urine.
Scout at 01:43 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@TheStarterWife: Prince William and the brunette girl?...not screen stars, but still famous.
Scout at 01:48 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

Joe and Jessica Simpson.
Sweet Panda Love at 01:56 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 253

I don't even know what these stars mean, but now I completely resent not having one. And not having a sneech. I could probably use one of those, too.
Pomalina at 02:21 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

I always wanted a Lorax. And a pony. And I fear these new stars may be as elusive as a nice 3BR 2Bath in a good neighborhood.

Shit.
BigBoobsMagee at 03:08 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@Scout: I just threw up in my mouth a little
Scout at 03:12 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

@BigBoobsMagee: But you'd look at the photos, wouldn't you?
dutchtreat at 03:20 PM on 03/27/08
Reply by Email
*

Getting bored with the Brange even before they've whelped. I hear Tom and Katie are busy building triplets though!