Reality TV star is unrecognizable in rare throwback photo at age 12... can you guess who this superstar is?
Today, he's a reality TV star and podcast host that has conquered his demons and found his place in the world.
But back when he was 12, he didn't feel as though he belonged and feared he would be misunderstood if he were to be his true self.
This star is now known for their hairstyling prowess and stars on one of the biggest shows where he helps conduct life-changing makeovers.
However he got candid about his childhood fears as he shared a throwback photo of himself at age 12.
In the photo, the future star wore a blue T-shirt, jeans, and several necklaces as he posed by a bike.
Can you guess who it is?
It's Jonathan Van Ness of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
Van Ness is now releasing a book entitled Let Them Star, and on Thursday shared the throwback photo along with a meaningful message about the page-turner and the limitations he perceived about his hometown as a child.
'This is 12 year old Jonathan. He didn't see a possibility of staying in his hometown after high school.
'He didn't see a place where he could build a community that would see and accept him for who we was,' he continued.
'He wasn't able to see a world where small towns celebrated and lifted queer people.
'This 12-year-old Jonathan would escape in the fantasies of Casper, Harriet the Spy and Now & Then.
'I wrote Let Them State for not just this Jonathan, but for the millions of other people who have felt like they don't belong or can't see a future for themselves where they are.'
He continued: 'I want this Jonathan and all people (young and of all ages) to see themselves in Sully, and in this book.
'I want them to not only see but believe that no matter where they are, there can not only survive, but thrive.
He concluded: 'That Quincy, Illinois is home for this 12-year-old Jonathan and always will be. And he doesn't have to run away to feel accepted for who he is.'
The book Van Ness wrote is called Let Them Stare and it hits bookstore shelves on May 20.
Previously, Van Ness, 38, who is nonbinary but uses all pronouns, blasted a bombshell Rolling Stone report which had claimed that they were emotionally 'abusive' on set of the reality series as not being 'based in reality.'
They appeared on the Table Manners With Jessie And Lennie Ware podcast last summer and said: 'I think a lot of people were like looking for a reason to hate me or like looking for a reason to be like, "See, I always knew that they were a fake c*** and this is the proof."'
'He didn't see a place where he could build a community that would see and accept him for who we was,' he continued
Jonathan thanked the support system they had while saying they tried to keep off of social media during that period.
The reality star explained: 'My family was so supportive of my husband and my team, but I didn't even get on social media or, like, look at my phone for three weeks.'
Jonathan said their castmates first learned of the expose back in December 2023 and they claimed that a lot of the information that had been gathered was 'taken out of context' in order to make them look 'as bad as possible.'
They said: 'I think people forget no matter how famous you are you're still a person.
'That article came at like an incredibly vulnerable time, like for my hair care company, for like my whole career. It just was really rough.'
Jonathan went on to completely the article as being 'completely untrue' and alleged that it was done 'in bad faith.'
However they did admit that there may have been some times when they had snapped at people or 'could have done better.'
The bombshell report Jonathan was responding to was published by Rolling Stone in March 2024.
According to multiple production sources, who all spoke to the publication anonymously, Van Ness made the show increasingly difficult to produce due to his behind-the-scenes behavior.
They were accused of being 'emotionally abusive', having 'rage issues', and being a 'nightmare.'
'There's a real emotion of fear around them when they get angry. It's almost like a cartoon where it oozes out of them,' claimed one source.
'It's intense and scary,' they added, further claiming that Van Ness was a 'yeller' who would 'explode once a week'.
One source said that Van Ness has a 'very warm, very charismatic' side to their personality which is what the public sees, but there's another side that comes out behind the scenes.
'At least once a day, they would need to yell at somebody. It might be something small, but there's always going to be somebody to point out and blame and make the villain of the day,' they alleged.
Rolling Stone also claimed that the Queer Eye cast were engaged in 'petty disputes and competition' with each other over screen time and who was the 'top star' on the show.
Queer Eye, starring Antoni Porowski, Tan France, Karamo Brown, Bobby Berk, and Van Ness, premiered on Netflix in 2018 and immediately became a pop culture phenomenon.
While each cast member has gone on to find success on their own terms, Van Ness was arguably the breakout star of the series.
Not only does Van Ness have the most social media followers of the group, they have published three books -including a New York Times bestseller- and launched the hit podcast Getting Curious with Jonathan Van Ness.
The podcast was turned into its own standalone Netflix series in 2022.
Van Ness also has a successful haircare line called JVN, which is stocked in Sephora.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Taylor Swift's engagement ring details: Jewelry experts predict how Travis Kelce's 'flashy personality' will influence his choice
Taylor Swift has been singing and fantasizing about this moment since she was a young teenager writing songs on her bedroom floor. Now, two years after meeting the love of her life, Travis Kelce, the pop titan, 35, may be on the brink of the fairy-tale proposal she's always dreamed of. Just weeks after a source told that the couple are 'all in' and her parents are prepared to give their blessing, speculation has reached a fever pitch that wedding bells may soon ring for the NFL star and the music industry powerhouse whose love story has captivated the world. To help paint a picture of what her dream ring might look like, multiple jewelry experts have shared their predictions, combining Swift's signature romanticism with Kelce's bold personality and the couple's larger-than-life love. Amid the buzz, Nilesh Rakholia, jewelry expert and founder of distinguished jeweler Abelini, offered insight into what Swift's future engagement ring might look like—and just how much it could cost. 'While specific details remain unconfirmed, a ring of this caliber would typically range from $1 million to $4 million,' Rakholia speculated to He also noted that the piece will be 'both personally meaningful and elegantly stylish, potentially with a vintage-inspired or classic feel, adorned with diamonds or other significant gemstones.' And as any Swiftie might hope, there could be more than meets the eye. Rakholia added: 'Knowing Taylor, the ring itself, or the way it's revealed, might contain subtle nods or 'Easter eggs' for her fans, perhaps relating to a significant date, a song lyric, or a shared symbol in her relationship.' Taking inspiration from her jewelry box, Rakholia highlighted her affinity for one timeless detail: 'Her collection prominently features yellow gold, a classic metal choice that could easily translate to an engagement ring.' 'While she embraces diamonds, often seen in pieces by high-end designers, she also shows a fondness for colored gemstones with personal significance, such as opals, rubies, and sapphires,' he emphasized. Over the years, the Love Story songstress has frequently worn stones with sentimental meaning, each one a possible clue to what could sparkle on that finger. Jaume Labro, CEO and goldsmith at Jaume Labro Godo Kaisha, believes Kelce's vibrant personality will help shape his ring choice. 'Travis's flashy personality and high-profile status as a singleton [may influence his decision],' he said. 'I would imagine the ring being big but good taste. That would place the cost in the $500,000 to $1 million bracket, depending on the quality of the diamond.' As for what he'd personally design? Labro imagines a stunner straight out of a fairy tale: 'If I were to design Taylor Swift's Travis Kelce engagement ring, I would have an antique cushion-cut diamond preferably 5 to 7 carats set in a rose gold or platinum setting. The cushion cut is an eternity, romantic diamond with soft, subtle edges that are so 'Taylor.' He continued: 'I can envision the center diamond surrounded by a halo of micro-pavé diamonds for extra sparkle without being too much, and maybe a hidden diamond or initials underneath the gallery—a secret she'd have all to herself.' To reflect her ultra-romantic style, Labro also imagines 'delicate details like filigree work, tiny star-set accent diamonds, or even floral motifs incorporated into the setting.' 'Taylor's style is consistently rooted in romanticism and vintage flair, whether she's on the red carpet or walking the streets of NYC,' he said. 'She gravitates toward ethereal, feminine looks—think lace, pearls, florals, and soft colors—which would lend themselves to an Edwardian or Art Deco-inspired ring.' Ashley Taylor, co-founder and head designer of Taylor Custom Rings, agreed that Swift's future sparkler will likely include 'subtle symbols, personal details, and artistic nuance.' 'A hidden halo could contain thirteen accent diamonds, or simple lyrics could be engraved inside the band of the ring,' she mused. 'I wonder if she might choose a private phrase or initials to engrave that stays just between them.' And because Taylor is never one to follow the crowd, she might even skip the classic diamond. 'With Taylor's creative personality, I wouldn't be surprised if her ring were surprisingly different from other celebrities' rings. A colored gemstone would definitely be an impactful way to depart from tradition and make a splash,' she said. Jason Arasheben, CEO of Jason of Beverly Hills, also expects something bold, noting the 14-time Grammy winner is 'going to want to stand out' and may even embrace the 'two stone trend.' Several other experts, including Julia Teachy Lemle, founder of Julieri Jewelry, agreed on one detail: 'Whatever stone she goes with, it is going to be big—very big.' Austin Willard, founder and CEO of Faithful Platform Fine Jewelry & Engagement Rings, offered his own vision of a perfect match. 'I could see her loving a 7–8 carat radiant or emerald cut diamond,' he said. 'I wouldn't try to bring in any colored gemstones or metal details that could make the ring design look too busy. A classic solitaire with some hidden details like a burnished gemstone or secret engraving on the inside of the band would be perfect for Taylor.' And while the rest of the world may be watching, Willard believes Swift might opt for something far more private than performative. 'Something more intimate and personal and understated,' he predicted. 'I could even see her wanting to use a diamond that had been passed down through their families for the sentimentality of it!' He also encouraged Kelce to 'lean into the details that can be personal to just the two of them and not visible on the outside of the band.' Because for Swift, her ring will most likely be a secret message that only her and Kelce will ever truly understand.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Baywatch actress Erika Eleniak, 55, began as a child star in E.T. and later modeled for Playboy... see her now
The actress Erika Eleniak looked unrecognizable when she was spotted in Los Angeles this week. The 55-year-old film and television star is best known for starring on Baywatch for three years, from 1989 to 1992. She played Shauni McLain, the original female lead in the show's first two seasons. Although Baywatch — which suffered the tragic loss of one of its stars earlier this year — was unloved by critics and was even canceled by its original network NBC after just one season, the David Hasselhoff–starring series managed to live on in syndication for ten more seasons. Before her stint on Baywatch, Erika made her film debut in Steven Spielberg 's E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial in 1982, and she later changed up her image as a Playboy Playmate later that decade. Now, more than four decades after she got her big break in Hollywood, takes a look at what Erika looks like now. The actress and one-time model was pictured out in Los Angeles this week as she took her adorable black-and-white dog for a walk. Erika looked worlds apart from the clean-cut blonde who previously graced television screens across the nation. The most obvious changes was the sleeves of tattoos on her arms running from under her T-shirt sleeves all the way to her hands. The ink was a striking departure from her Baywatch days, when she showed off plenty of unmarked skin. Erika's tattoos suited her casual outfit, which included a black graphic T-shirt featuring the fairy Tinker Bell from Disney's 1953 animated film Peter Pan. 'Faith, Trust and Pixie Dust,' it read, referencing a line from the movie. She kept the low-key vibe going with black cargo shorts that had a rainbow with pink, white and gray stripes running down one leg, and she matched the stripes with her pink slide sandals. The actress accessorized with a black leather hip bag and wore her shoulder-length blond hair parted down the middle and turned up at the ends. The actress and one-time model was pictured out in Los Angeles this week as she took her adorable black-and-white dog for a walk Erika explained how she changed up her appearance with tattoos during the most recent episode of the Still Here Hollywood podcast with Steve Kmetko. She revealed that she started her tattoos on her back sometime in her 'late 20s,' which would have been after her stint on Baywatch ended at the start of the third season. 'Every tattoo that I have is significant of something,' she said, citing on that had her mother's name for example. 'I love tattoos. I love that my body is a canvas to tell my stories,' she added. Erika was born in Glendale, California, to parents of Ukrainian, Estonian and German descent whose family had previously settled in Canada. She made a memorable star turn in feature films in 1982 when she was cast as a girl who kisses the film's child star, Henry Thomas, during a classroom scene in which he's psychically influenced by the eponymous alien. Her next film role was in 1983's Imps*, which only received a belated release in 2009. In 1987, she began appearing on television with guest roles on Silver Spoons, Still the Beaver and Boys Will Be Boys. She said she started her tattoos on her back in her 'late 20s,' after her stint on Baywatch. 'Every tattoo that I have is significant of something,' she said, citing on that had her mother's name for example. 'I love tattoos. I love that my body is a canvas to tell my stories,' she added After a multi-year absence, she returned to film to play one of the victims in 1988's gross-out remake of The Blob, which is now considered a science fiction horror cult classic. She followed it up with roles in bigger budget films, including the Steven Seagal action film Under Siege, the 1993 film adaptation of The Beverly Hillbillies, the 1995 rom-com A Pyromaniac's Love Story and the 1996 Tales From The Crypt spinoff film Bordello Of Blood. Her subsequent films in the late '90s, 2000s and 2020s were less frequent and were small-budget independent productions. Erika's most recently film was 2024's Lolipop Gang, in which she appeared as herself five years after her previous film role. As she was starting to appear in more high-profile films, she also had a three-episode run opposite Scott Baio on Charles In Charge in 1989 before beginning her stint on Baywatch. She appeared in the show's TV movie pilot Panic At Malibu Pier as Shauni McClain before joining the main cast for the first two seasons. Her character started up a relationship with Billy Warlock's character Eddie Kramer, and they married at the beginning of the third season and moved to Australia, ending her time on the series. The actors were also engaged in real life at one point. The beginning of her Baywatch career in 1989 coincided with her appearing on the cover of the July 1989 issue of Playboy Magazine Just before her stint on Baywatch, Erika appeared as a Playmate on the July 1989 cover of Playboy Magazine when her roommate, a model for the magazine, introduced her to its photo editor, who encouraged her to model 'I viewed it as a modeling job,' she clarified on Still Here Hollywood, and she stressed that she always considered herself 'an actress who did Playboy,' rather than a real Playmate The beginning of her Baywatch career in 1989 coincided with her appearing on the cover of the July 1989 issue of Playboy Magazine. Just before her stint on Baywatch, Erika appeared as a Playmate on the July 1989 cover of Playboy Magazine when her roommate, a model for the magazine, introduced her to its photo editor, who encouraged her to model. Erika said she became known as 'the difficult' Playmate in the late '80s because she found shooting for the magazine uncomfortable and bristled at ideas from photographers. 'I viewed it as a modeling job,' she clarified on Still Here Hollywood, and she stressed that she always considered herself 'an actress who did Playboy,' rather than a real Playmate. Erika later married the bodybuilder Philip Golgia in 1998, but they divorced after just six months. In the early 2000s she began dating the film worker Roch Daigle, and they moved to Calgary, Canada, before tying the knot in 2005 and later welcoming a daughter together. Erika's most recent project was narrating an eight-episode podcast series, The Murder Years, from last year, according to IMDb.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Less death, more social media: Formula One films decades apart reveal a changed world
'Let's try to get the season off to a good start, shall we? Drive the car. Don't try to stand it on its bloody ear.' Have you watched the movie? It's about a rule-breaking American Formula One driver, the kind who blows past blue flags and crashes into his own teammate. You must have heard of it. They shot it in real race cars, across some of the most prestigious circuits in the world. It even had contemporary world championship drivers making notable cameos on the track. If you've never watched 1966's Grand Prix, now is the time to do it. This summer's blockbuster slot may belong to F1; and its director, Joseph Kosinski, may have gone to extraordinary lengths to capture the visceral speed of the fastest class in motor sport. But John Frankenheimer got there first. The close parallels between the two films have gone largely unremarked in the reviews. Six decades ago, when the glamour of the sport was peaking, Frankenheimer set out to capture its thrill, daring and inescapable danger. He fixed cameras to the chassis of Formula Two cars – the same substitute Kosinski has used – that hared round Brands Hatch, Spa, Monaco. Like Kosinski, he spliced real race footage into his own. His American lead, James Garner, did his own driving, just like Brad Pitt. There are even occasional shots in Kosinski's film that seem to pay tribute, intentional or not, to its predecessor – the moment that recalls Frankenheimer's stylistic use of split-screen, or when Pitt jogs around the old Monza banking. F1 the Movie, to be clear, is a billion-dollar industry giving itself a full valet – shampooed squeaky clean and buffed to an impossible sheen. But it's also the kind of sports-washing I'm prepared to indulge for the sake of the pure adrenaline thrill. After watching Top Gun: Maverick at the cinema, I walked straight back in for the next screening and sat in the front row so I could pretend to be in the cockpit. At the Imax this week I was practically climbing into the screen. I was definitely the only woman my age leaning into the turns, and wishing they would stop cutting back to Pitt's face so that I got more track time. For a bit of perspective, I had gone with my father, a man with a decades-long following of motor sport and a habit of nitpicking at movie details. Ten minutes into F1's opening track sequence he leaned over, and I braced for a critique of the pit crew's refuelling technique. 'We can go home now,' he whispered. 'It's good enough already.' A movie that can impress my father with its motor racing action deserves all the hype it gets. But neither he nor I had anticipated just how much it would remind us of Grand Prix – or how well that 59-year-old work would stand up in comparison. The Silverstone marching band, paraded past the clubhouse by a moustachioed sergeant-major, has given way to night-race fireworks in Las Vegas, and the ruinous cost of running an F1 team has jumped from a few hundred thousand to £100m. The stomach-buzz as the asphalt whizzes beneath you remains the same. Putting the two stories side by side does, however, show you interesting ways the sport has changed. Grand Prix's opening lingers, fetishistically, over images of working pistons and twisting wrenches. Such lowly mechanical details are almost entirely absent in F1, where the team headquarters looks like a space station and every element of the engineering process is rendered in gleaming sci-fi. There's also a lot less death. Frankenheimer's crashes are genuinely shocking – not because the stunts are realistic (and they are) but because of the bluntness of their outcome. Drivers are catapulted from their seats to fall on whatever part of the landscape they meet first. Spectators aren't safe either. The fact that horrifying incidents are a part of the public's fascination with Formula One is a recurring theme. F1 still plays on the life-or-death stakes, but does it in a very different way, as you'd expect from a film licensed by the governing body as a big-screen advert for the sport. It's also pretty keen that everyone you meet on screen shows motor racing in a good light. Team principals are loving family men! Drivers' managers are cuddly BFFs! People cycle eco-consciously to work! Everyone is so empathic and good at giving advice! It was the latter that had me balking at the chutzpah. There's a point where our hero tells the rookie to stop thinking about his social media. The hype, the fan engagement – 'it's all just noise,' he says. This in a movie that was produced, at phenomenal cost, as a method of growing hype and fan engagement. The film's only baddy, meanwhile, is a corporate investor, who we know must be a bad 'un because he spends his time schmoozing The Money in hospitality. Here's a game for you when you're watching F1: try to go two minutes without seeing or hearing the name of a brand that's paid to be there. I left the auditorium still blinking the name of accountancy software. By contrast, Frankenheimer's film seems bracingly honest. In Grand Prix, the drivers may have moments of self-reflection but they're also uncompromisingly selfish in their pursuit. The philosophical Frenchman Jean-Pierre Sarti suggests they live in denial: 'To do something very dangerous requires a certain absence of imagination.' 'Why do we do it? Why not tennis, or golf?' It's the question at the centre of every motor-racing film. In Le Mans, Steve McQueen answered by stripping out everything but the sound and feel of the track. F1's hero describes the feeling when he's 'flying' (not for nothing does he arrive walking down the tarmac, carrying a duffel like a certain fighter pilot). Perhaps that's what makes motor racing ripe for big-screen treatment – it's the most literally escapist form of sport there is. If F1 gives it the glossy treatment, Grand Prix sees beneath the sheen.
