The Reverse Mullet Has Left the Building

Thank you, Ted Gibson. Major improvement from the rooster.

(Although, do the extensions need to be THAT long? I’m not sure.)

photo credit: People

  • Heather B.

    January 7, 2010 at 8:08 am

    They also look so totally fake and yet a vast improvement for whatever the hell it was she had going on before.
    .-= Heather B.´s last blog ..Let’s call this a comeback =-.

  • Jackie W.

    January 7, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Please tell me she is NOT going to be given a talk show.

  • amie

    January 7, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Good idea but I think the execution could be better. In that photo they kind of look like the clip on kind you get at the drugstore. But good for her. She is moving on and leaving that awful hot mess of a hairstyle behind. Now what are all those ladies who mutilated their hair to be like her style going to do?

  • Rhi

    January 7, 2010 at 8:30 am

    I almost think she looks more ridiculous with the extensions.

  • ClassyFabSarah

    January 7, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Not gonna lie – I hate the extensions. Seeing as though she is her brand and her image… these hair extensions basically wiped that out.

    I think it’s a huge mistake… and what was wrong with the wavy hair she had on the View? She was adorable then and looked like herself.

    Now she looks like a Britney Spears backup dancer or something similarly… trashy.
    .-= ClassyFabSarah´s last blog ..Snowpocalypse 2010 =-.

  • Sarah

    January 7, 2010 at 9:03 am

    I think no matter what, Kate will always look a little ridiculous. It’s just in her DNA. However, I’m THRILLED to finally be spared from the rooster.

  • Jenibee

    January 7, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Really, wasn’t her 15 minutes up LONG ago? To keep my comment hair-centric – yeah, the extensions are *slightly* better than the rooster. But she still just needs to slide on into obscurity now. Buh-bye.

  • Amy in StL

    January 7, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    I agree that I hated her weird reverse mullet. But those extensions do look like the clip on kind you buy at the mall. How weird. She couldn’t afford better? Or is it that she couldn’t get better because she has NO HAIR BEHIND HER EARS.

  • KH

    January 7, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    It better….. But it’s still not “good.”

  • KH

    January 7, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    It’s better….. But it’s still not “good.”

  • KH

    January 7, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    Darn, I thought I caught it before my grammatical blunder was published… *Sigh*

  • Lauren

    January 8, 2010 at 8:16 am

    I actually think she would have looked better with Elin’s (Tiger’s wife’s) hair to the right of Kate’s photo! :)

  • Rachel Shingleton

    January 8, 2010 at 8:46 am

    UGH. Yeah, at least she’s gotten rid of that awful ‘do, but these extensions need some serious help, too. Better blending or SOMETHING around her face.
    .-= Rachel Shingleton´s last blog ..Re: Built-In Shelves =-.

  • Athenista

    January 8, 2010 at 10:03 am

    I can’t figure out which line my thoughts are in…

    On one hand, I am jumping for joy that I’m not looking at that rooster-esque … *thing* she had going on before.

    On the other… the actual extensions look ridiculous. If they’d left them at about chin length, I might’ve bought it.

    Regardless… it’s a step up.
    .-= Athenista´s last blog ..shopping my closet =-.

  • TheHaiRazor Link Love Fridays

    January 8, 2010 at 11:17 am

    […] The Reverse Mullet Has Left The Building <<< LOL… Hair Thursday […]

  • Mia

    January 9, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    I just read on dlisted.com that those extensions cost $6,450. I could think of about a million better ways to spend that much money…

  • Charlotte

    January 9, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Ted Gibson is some sort of demigod, I’m sure of it, but I have to wonder how he came up with that after 16 hours. Maybe he dislikes her as much as the general public does or perhaps she’ll look fresh off of the Jerry Springer set no matter which hair god anoints her.

  • Jackie W.

    January 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Does she look younger or is the pic photoshopped ?

  • Dana

    January 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    I don’t know what it is about Kate… it looks kind of like she found Britney’s weave floating in a pool drain and recycled it. My twelve year old has clip-on’s from Claire’s that look more natural than this… and I don’t get it, because Kate isn’t a bad looking woman…

  • Sarah

    January 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    I saw a picture of her rocking the short hair, with some cute waves. no mullety-spikey awfulness. I she rocked the waves when she was guesting-hosting on The View. I thought that looked cute and trendy, but appropriate. (I like extensions that I don’t notice, I guess. Maybe that’s bitchy of me? Oh, dear. Sorry.)

  • j

    January 11, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    the new look has to go. it looks horrible, fake!! i think she’s a good looking woman. she doesn’t have to try so hard. a regular length cut and she’ll probably look the best she has in a long time!!

  • Heather

    January 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Why do you insist on calling her previous hair “the reverse mullet”? Yes it would be the reverse of a mullet, but it’s actually a very short inverted bob! So you are really calling every single hairdo out there that is graduated and has layers a “reverse mullet”, because that is exactly what they are! I suppose there is something wrong with that?

    Honestly, she looks horrible with long hair. She has a feminine face…she needs a shorter look that isn’t blunt. And that my dear would be what you LOVE to call a “reverse mullet”. She needs whispy hair to frame around her face to soften the angles, because the long hair just drags her face out. You don’t know very much about hair and face shapes…