Entertainment
Rachel Zoe’s Oscar Fee For Anne Hathaway Is “Astronomical”
By Leah Chernikoff
Ever since news broke that Anne Hathaway would host the Oscar’s our thoughts turned immediately to her dress changes and what Rachel Zoe, who has been her stylist since she did The Devil Wears Prada, would choose for the actress.
Even though Zoe is nearly eight months pregnant and wasn’t able to travel to Paris to attend the couture shows we’re sure she’ll pull this off with plenty of (possibly altered) couture. But her super star styling skills come at a cost.
It’s no surprise that Zoe commands a hefty fee, but Merle Ginsberg at The Hollywood Reporter has it on good authority from a source inside the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences that what Zoe is charging Hathaway is “astronomical.” She continues, “[Zoe's fee] hovers near the expenditures of what designer and longtime Nicole Kidman stylist L’Wren Scott spent on the show in 2000 as Oscar fashion coordinator. Scott had orchestra trumpeters wearing custom Donna Karan!”
Hey, that baby’s gotta go to college. In Tom Ford.
Tags: Anne Hathaway, Oscars, Rachel Zoe
Most Popular Stories
Comments [17]
Popular Stories
The 10 Best YouTube Hair Tutorials
The 10 Best YouTube Makeup Tutorials 
Fashion's Most Stylish Guys Give Mark Zuckerberg an (Almost!) Hoodie-Free Makeover for Facebook's IPO
Style and Substance: 10 Ladies Who Have Proven You Can Have Both
10 Beauty Boards You Should Be Following on Pinterest
You guys really need to proofread at least once before publishing. It diminishes your credibility to see L’Wren Scott spelled as “L’Wrenn” or the year 2000 as “200.”
You’re right. We do need to be better every day. And we try. But when two people are publishing, editing, reporting, and proofreading 12-20 stories a day on their own, things slip between the cracks. It’s not an excuse, it’s just a fact. I’ve noticed that you comment quite a bit on the site, but every single comment is negative. And the criticism is rarely constructive. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I’m just curious–if you find us so despicable, why do you bother?
BIIIIIIIIIIIITCH!!!!!!!
**scuzzes**
#icant!!!
This is what the FUCK I’ve been talking about!!! Thank you for finally addressing this bullshit, Lauren. I can stand when people come to this (or any other forum that I frequent) and nitpick about grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. Bitch, you know what the hell she’s talking about…! Take that shit and shove it!
*fumes*
I’m a grammar Nazi, at times, I’ll admit…but it usually is directed at people on FB or other social networking sites who try and talk shit, but can’t spell worth a damn.
Would I like everything on Fashionista to be spelled correctly and filled with proper punctuation, grammar, and good use of syntax? Of course…but like lauren said, they try their fucking best. Not to mention, they’re bringing us good content…not snarking around being rude to people…which would THEN, IMO, warrant someone jumping up their asses about punctuation.
Bitch, please….SHOVE IT.
Bravo, Lauren.
I mean, it’s not their personal blog or online diary. They try to be a news site and DO some great reporting and such, and one hallmark of journalism is correct spelling and getting the facts right. If you’re going to try and compete with WWD and the Daily and the Cut and actually scoop them…well it’s not the look to have some easily Google-able errors in your post. Are the editors human? of course. But, to quote Heathers, if you’re going to f**k with the eagles you’d better learn how to fly.
@Matt unlike the other sites you mentioned, we are a start up and we don’t employ copy editors. If you would like to personally invest in the company so that we can afford another full time employee, I can refer you to my CEO. Otherwise, if we’re so terrible, I still don’t understand why you bother reading us.
Speaking of commenting, I miss the lady who used to comment a lot-I believe she was from Florida and she always disliked the street style shots but she was still entertaining in her disapproval.
Do you mean Jamie? I miss her too. Her comments were wacky
Although I’m not in a place to invest financially, I’d love to offer editing/proofreading services free of charge if you like. I can forward a resume if that helps. I enjoy the site and appreciate the thought and effort that goes into it. I would love to contribute in a small way to assuage the fury of Matt and other grammar enthusiasts if needed :)
Send your resume along!
Although I’m sure you hold your personal comments on a website that you do not respect to a different standard than published content, I thought you might want to know that there are 3 grammatical errors in your second comment.
Just 3?
Tut, tut, Matt….
“He who screams the loudest usually has the least to say.” Or some such like that…
Sorry, I was paying attention to the total dramatics this show portrays. Every minute is jam packed with high drama! Had to answer anyway, as I love this show.
http://enhancexl.org
Are we talking millions here??
Yeah, some context would be great: 100k? 1mil? more? Astronomical to me is relative to my bank account balance, ha.
Where is Rashy to join in? He must be busy..
Though I have to agree that the grammatical mistakes are annoying, what concerns me more is the content of the article. It seems very unprofessional and unclassy of the Academy to leak out this information to make Rachel look bad without giving supporting details. How much is everyone else involved in the show getting for their services? I really detest this type of gossip. ON a positive note (don’t want to get “skooled” by the editors), I love your coverage of the fashion shows. Writing about fashion in a fresh and breezy way with a personal perspective is not an easy task but your writers consistantly excel at it. I don’t always agree with your taste, or your choice not to have copy editors but I respect the work that you do. I think that is why Matt and others who leave negative comments come back- they are looking for quality content about fashion.
She may be dumb as a sack of hammers, but she does have a nice arse.